National Security Archives - Page 346 of 505

Radical Muslim Organization attacks Trump and Carson as ‘Islamophobes’

November 20, 2015/in Featured, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Dr. Rich Swier

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim advocacy organization and an unindicted supporter of terrorism today condemned both leading Republican presidential candidates for “Islamophobic and unconstitutional” comments targeting American Muslims and Syrian refugees.

According to Discover the Networks:

CAIR was co-founded in 1994 by Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jaber, all of whom had close ties to the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was established by senior Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook and functioned as Hamas’ public relations and recruitment arm in the United States. Awad and Ahmad previously had served, respectively, as IAP’s Public Relations Director and President. Thus it can be said that CAIR was an outgrowth of IAP.

CAIR opened its first office in Washington, DC, with the help of a $5,000 donation from the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a self-described charity founded by Mousa Abu Marzook. In May 1996, CAIR coordinated a press conference to protest the decision of the U.S. government to extradite Marzook for his connection to terrorist acts performed by Hamas. CAIR characterized the extradition as “anti-Islamic” and “anti-American.” When President Bush closed HLF in December 2001 for collecting money “to support the Hamas terror organization,” CAIR decried his action as “unjust” and “disturbing.”

Notable facts about CAIR’s pas de deux with Islamic extremism and terrorism include the following:

Co-founder Nihad Awad asserted at a 1994 meeting at Barry University, “I am a supporter of the Hamas movement.” Awad wrote in the Muslim World Monitor that the 1994 trial which had resulted in the conviction of four Islamic fundamentalist terrorists who had perpetrated the previous year’s World Trade Center bombing was “a travesty of justice.”

On February 2, 1995, U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White named CAIR Advisory Board member and New York imam Siraj Wahhaj as one of the “unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators” in Islamic Group leader Omar Abdel Rahman‘s foiled plot to blow up numerous New York City monuments.

On June 6, 2006, CAIR’s Ohio affiliate held a large fundraiser in honor of Siraj Wahhaj. Following the event, CAIR-Ohio issued a press release heralding the more than $100,000 that Wahhaj had helped raise that evening for the organization’s “civil liberties work.”

In October 1998, CAIR demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as “the sworn enemy.” According to CAIR, this depiction was “offensive to Muslims.”

In 1998, CAIR denied bin Laden’s responsibility for the two al Qaeda bombings of American embassies in Africa. According to Ibrahim Hooper, the bombings resulted from “misunderstandings of both sides.”

In September 2003, CAIR’s former Community Affairs Director, Bassem Khafagi, pled guilty to three federal counts of bank and visa fraud and agreed to be deported to Egypt. Federal investigators said that a group Khafagi founded, the Islamic Assembly of North America, had funneled money to activities supporting terrorism and had published material advocating suicide attacks against the United States. Khafagi’s illegal activities took place while he was employed by CAIR.

In July 2004, Ghassan Elashi, a founding Board member of CAIR’s Texas chapter, was convicted along with his four brothers of having illegally shipped computers from their Dallas-area business, InfoCom Corporation, to Libya and Syria, two designated state sponsors of terrorism. That same month, Elashi was charged with having provided more than $12.4 million to Hamas while he was running HLF. In April 2005, Elashi and two of his brothers were also convicted of knowingly doing business with Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook, who was Elashi’s brother-in-law. Elashi’s illegal activities took place while he was employed by CAIR, whose Dallas-Fort Worth chapter depicted the Elashis’ indictment as “a war on Islam and Muslims.”

On September 6, 2001, the day that federal agents first raided Infocom’s headquarters, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad denounced the U.S. government for “tak[ing] us back to the McCarthy era.”

FBI wiretap evidence which was introduced during the 2007 trial of the Holy Land Foundation (a trial that explored HLF’s financial ties to Hamas), proved that Nihad Awad had attended a 1993 Philadelphia meeting of Hamas leaders and operatives who collaborated on a plan to disguise funding for Hamas as charitable donations.

CAIR co-founder and Chairman Emeritus Omar Ahmad was named, in the same 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial, as an unindicted co-conspirator with HLF. During the trial, evidence was supplied proving that Ahmad had attended, along with Nihad Awad, the aforementioned 1993 Philadelphia meeting of Hamas leaders and operatives. Moreover, prosecutors described Ahmad as a member of theMuslim Brotherhood‘s “Palestine Committee” in America.

The home of Muthanna al-Hanooti, one of CAIR’s directors, was raided in 2006 by FBI agents in connection with an active terrorism investigation. FBI agents also searched the offices of Focus on Advocacy and Advancement of International Relations, al-Hanooti’s Michigan- and Washington DC-based consulting firm that investigators suspect to be a front supporting the Sunni-led insurgency in Iraq.

CAIR condemned Donald Trump for refusing to rule out special IDs and a surveillance database for American Muslims and the civil rights group similarly condemned Ben Carson for comparing Syrian refugees to “rabid dogs.”

Yahoo News asked Trump whether increased surveillance of American Muslims could include warrantless searches. “We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule,” Trump said. “And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.”

When asked whether tracking American Muslims might require registering them in a database or giving them a form of “special identification that noted their religion,” he refused to rule it out.

“We’re going to have to — we’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely,” said Trump. “We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.”

SEE: Donald Trump Has Big Plans for ‘Radical Islamic’ Terrorists, 2016 and ‘That Communist’ Bernie Sanders
http://tinyurl.com/nm525n9

While talking about Syrian refugees Thursday in Alabama, Ben Carson compared them to “rabid dogs.”

Carson said: “If there is a rabid dog running around your neighborhood, you’re probably not going to assume something good about that dog. And you’re probably going to put your children out of the way.”

SEE: Ben Carson Compares Syrian Refugees to Rabid, ‘Mad’ Dogs
http://tinyurl.com/pesawxc

“By mainstreaming Islamophobic and unconstitutional policies, Donald Trump and Ben Carson are contributing to an already toxic environment that may be difficult to correct once their political ambitions have been satisfied,” said CAIR Government Affairs Manager Robert McCaw. “Such extremist rhetoric is unbecoming of anyone who seeks our nation’s highest office and must be strongly repudiated by leaders from across the political spectrum.”

In October, CAIR condemned similar remarks Trump made about his apparent willingness to close down American mosques.

SEE: CAIR Condemns Donald Trump’s Statement on Closing U.S. Mosques
http://tinyurl.com/okz43so

In September, CAIR called on Trump to also clarify what he meant when stating that he was “going to be looking at that” to a question about the Muslim “problem in this country” and “When can we get rid of them?”

SEE: CAIR Calls on Donald Trump to Clarify ‘Looking At’ Getting Rid of Muslims
http://tinyurl.com/o67lzm7

Also in September, CAIR announced the renewal of its “Share the Quran” campaign in response to Ben Carson’s false claim that Islam is “inconsistent” with the Constitution and his bigoted belief that a Muslim should not be elected president.

SEE: CAIR Announces Quran Giveaway in Response to Ben Carson’s Anti-Muslim Remarks
http://tinyurl.com/okvrcgn

CAIR is America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Radisson hotel in Mali attacked; 170 hostages taken; men shout ‘Allahu Akbar’

Islamic State Tactics Shift, Borrowing From al Qaeda

U.S. Pilots Confirm: Obama Admin Blocks 75 Percent of Islamic State Strikes

Muslims from Pakistan, Afghanistan Illegally Entering Arizona via Mexico

November 20, 2015/in Must Read, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D.

The Southern Arizona Border remains an attractive route for smugglers, drugs, Syrian, and other Middle Eastern illegals coming into America. Mentioned below are the latest interdiction of highly questionable and concerning illegals.

FBI CONFIRMS: 6 Men from Pakistan, Afghanistan Busted Illegally Entering Arizona from Mexico

by Bob Price and Brandon Darby

UPDATE: After the publication of this article, a local NBC affiliate contacted the FBI for confirmation. The FBI confirmed that the six men were apprehended after illegally entering the United States in Arizona.

Original article:

A highly trusted federal agent working under the umbrella of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has confirmed to Breitbart Texas that a group composed of 5 Pakistani men and 1 man from Afghanistan was captured by U.S. Border Patrol agents after having illegally crossed the porous U.S.-Mexico border in the Tucson Sector of Arizona.

The six men were traveling in a group and were captured roughly 16 miles into the state of Arizona, specifically, near the small picturesque town of Patagonia, Arizona.

The apprehension of the group occurred late on Monday night, November 16, 2015.

Border Patrol agents were unable to do extensive interviews with the six Middle Eastern men because the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) took over the matter. The aliens were immediately transferred to Tucson where the FBI took custody.

Read more.

66 Muslims charged with Islamic State plots in U.S. over last 18 months

November 20, 2015/in Immigration, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Dr. Rich Swier

The Islamic State can call upon Muslims in the U.S. who accept its claim to the caliphate, as well as refugees loyal to it, to carry out attacks inside the country.

“America’s enemies within: How nearly SEVENTY have been arrested in America over ISIS plots in the last 18 months – including refugees who had been given safe haven but ‘turned to terror,’” by Ben Ashford, Dailymail.com, November 18, 2015 (thanks to Bulldog):

US authorities have charged at least 66 men and women with ISIS-related terror plots on American soil – including a handful of refugees, Daily Mail Online can reveal.

The terror group has set its sights on Washington, D.C. as it vows to further infiltrate the West and ramp up its blood-soaked offensive.

President Obama insists that ‘slamming the door’ on Syrian refugees fleeing ISIS would be a betrayal of American values.

But 34 governors are refusing to take in any more, in case jihadi fighters slip into their states and repeat the carnage of Paris.

Analysis by Daily Mail Online reveals that a handful of foiled plots have already involved immigrants accused of harboring sympathy for ISIS.

The threat also comes from within, with American teenagers and Islamic converts among those seduced by the group’s torrent of chilling online propaganda.

They include a U.S. Air Force veteran accused of waging war on the country he once served and a National Guard soldier who allegedly plotted to gun down his own colleagues.

Others are seemingly ordinary American citizens, including a young nurse, a pizza parlor boss and schoolgirls tricked into becoming shrouded ISIS brides.

Some have conspired to travel or send friends abroad to link up with fundamentalist fighters while others have planned for jihad closer to home – with Capitol Hill among the targets for a foiled bombing raid.

The incidents detailed here are among dozens of alleged disrupted by police and federal agents since ISIS began to rise from the flames of the Syrian civil war. The earliest arrest was 18 months ago.

They include:

BOSNIAN REFUGEES WHO ‘AIDED AMERICA’S ENEMIES WITH CASH FOR EQUIPMENT’

Ramiz Hodzic, of St. Louis County, was charged in a case that accuses him, his wife and others of supporting ISIS terrorism.

Sedina Hodzic of St. Louis County, was charged in a case that accuses her, her husband and others of supporting ISIS terrorism.

They fled the war in Yugoslavia to enjoy new lives in the US – but are now accused of conspiring to help its deadliest enemies.

Six Bosnian immigrants, three from Missouri, two from Illinois and one from New York, were charged in February with sending money and military equipment to extremist groups in Syria including ISIS and the Al Qaeda-affiliated Al-Nusra Front.

Among the accused are Ramiz Zjad Hodzic, 40 and his wife Sedina, 35, who allegedly gathered money to purchase military uniforms and tactical gear so they could send it to fighters in Syria.

Also facing trial are Armin Harcevic, 37, Nihad Rosic, 26, and Mediha Medy Salkicevic, 34. Jasminka Ramic, 42, pleaded guilty last month.

According to court documents the group conspired via phone, Facebook and email using innocuous code words such as ‘beach’ for places like Iraq and Syria while using PayPal and Western Union to send funds to fanatics.

‘All six individuals are natives of Bosnia who immigrated to the United States,’ the US attorney’s office said in a statement announcing the charges.

‘Three have become naturalized citizens of the United States and the remaining three have either refugee or legal resident status.’…

Refugees.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Video: Robert Spencer on Hannity on Obama’s disastrous refugee policy

Bosnia: Muslim murders two soldiers

Al Qaeda operatives entered U.S. via refugee program

November 20, 2015/in Immigration, National Security, Policy, Politics, Regulation/by Jihad Watch

But relax: Obama says the refugees are no more threatening than tourists.

“Report: al Qaeda Terrorists Entered United States Through Refugee Program,” by Ali Meyer, Washington Free Beacon, November 18, 2015:

Two al Qaeda terrorists who had killed American soldiers were able to enter the country as refugees, according to a report released Wednesday from the House Homeland Security committee.

Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, two Iraqi refugees settled in Bowling Green, Kentucky, after killing American soldiers, whom they bragged about having “for lunch and dinner.” In 2010, they were caught handling weapons, including included a machine gun and a missile launcher, that they planned to smuggle to insurgents in Iraq.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if there were many more than that,” said Rep. Michael McCaul (R., Texas), the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. “And these are trained terrorists in the art of bombmaking that are inside the United States; and quite frankly, from a homeland security perspective, that really concerns me.”

The committee’s report found that the administration’s refugee resettlement program proposal will have “a limited impact on alleviating the overall crisis but could have serious ramifications for U.S. homeland security.”

Jeh Johnson, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, admitted in October at a hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee that organizations such as the Islamic State might attempt to exploit the Syrian refugee resettlement program.

“It is true that we are not going to know a whole lot about the Syrians that come forth in this process,” he said.

President Obama’s refugee resettlement program is now under scrutiny after deadly terrorist attacks in Paris killed more than 120 people and left more than 300 injured on Friday. It is suspected that one of the terrorists entered the country as a refugee.

In addition to these attacks, men in Minnesota were apprehended by the feds for trying to join the Islamic State. There is growing concern that the state would be a recruiting ground for the Islamic State because of its large community of Somali refugees.

The report was released after a nearly year-long investigation evaluating challenges with allowing Syrian refugee flows into the United States.

Governors from many states are now refusing to allow Syrian refugees to resettle in their states.

“Given the tragic attacks in Paris and the threats we have already seen, Texas cannot participate in any program that will result in Syrian refugees—any one of whom could be connected to terrorism—being resettled in Texas,” said Gov. Greg Abbott.

“There is an undeniable connection between our refugee resettlement program and the increased risk of a terror attack within the United States,” said Jessica Vaughan, an immigration expert at the Center for Immigration Studies.

“There have been roughly 70 terrorist plots in the United States since 9/11 and scores of young people who are first or second generation refugees and immigrants who have become involved in some way with Islamist jihadists, either by undertaking attacks here or traveling overseas to join a terrorist group, or both,” she said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Italy: Muslim pupils refuse to observe minute of silence for Paris victims

Rome’s Prefect: Muslims “first victims” of Paris jihad attacks

Vetting Needed to Separate Friend from Foe Among Refugees

November 19, 2015/in National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Clarion Project

The Obama Administration is adamant the 10,000 Syrian refugees it plans to resettle in the U.S. are subject to a tough vetting process. The process is tough and long, but a poll in 2014 found that 13 percent have positive feelings towards ISIS. An ideological vetting process that can separate Islamist from non-Islamist is needed to separate valuable friends from deadly foes.

The vetting process should not just rely on criminal records and databases used to detect terrorists and their associates. Because the threat is ideological in nature, it is very possible we could allow in someone with a radical outlook but has yet to establish the kind of operational connections that would show up in a database.

A new bipartisan congressional terrorism report found there isn’t a global comprehensive database of foreign jihadists who have gone to Syria to fight. It says the U.S. doesn’t even have a national strategy against terrorist travel and “information about foreign fighters is crossing borders less quickly than the extremists themselves.” There’s also the serious problem that there is a more general lack of intelligence about Syria.

Watch Clarion Project National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro and retired INS agent Michael Cutler, who gave testimony to the 9/11 Commission, discuss the vetting process for Syrian refugees:

The U.S. has a vetting process of 18 to 24 months. About 1,800 have come to the U.S. in the past two years and a little bit more than half passed the vetting. Names are checked against databases and there’s an interviewing process to make sure there isn’t information linking them to terrorist or criminal activity and that the biography they provided is truthful.

No news reports or explanations by the administration indicate the process includes evaluating the outlook of the applicant to find signs of Islamist sympathies, anti-American views or other forms of extremism like anti-Semitism.

An ideology-based screening process separating Islamists from non-Islamists (as opposed to simply terrorist from non-terrorist) minimizes the chances of a radical getting through and maximizes the chances of identifying an ally to work with. It is not in our interest or in the Syrians’ interest for an Islamist to take a moderate’s place in line.

By failing to identify anti-Islamist friends among the Syrian refugees, we are hurting our cause and losing a chance to undermine the Islamist extremist cause. For example, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy, is a powerful voice against Islamism. He is in the U.S. doing his work because his parents sought refuge in America from the Assad regime.

The U.S. needs Muslim activists like Jasser. We need fluent Arabic speakers and those who understand that part of the world. We need voices who can speak first-hand about the horrors of ISIS, other Syrian Islamists and the Iran-backed Assad dictatorship. We need Muslims who are on the lookout for extremism and will not hesitate to report it and even keep tabs on it. These are roles that Syrian refugees who oppose Islamism can help fill.

The debate over the administration’s desire to bring 10,000 refugees into America is fierce and contentious, but a middle ground exists between an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees and trusting the current plan.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Three Reactions ISIS is Hoping We Will Have

32 Killed in Nigeria in Suspected Boko Haram Attack

Europe on High Alert as Police Kill Terror Suspects in Paris

Paris: Radicalizing the Next Generation of Muslim Youth

Governors’ Revolt Continues: No Syrian Refugees

November 19, 2015/in Culture War, Immigration, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Jihad Watch

Over at PJ Media I discuss the growing defiance of Obama’s suicidal refugee policy:

As of Monday evening, the governors of twenty-four states have declared that they are not going to allow any Syrian refugees to be settled in their states. Barack Obama, predictably enough, is livid.

The governors have all cited, quite reasonably, the security risks involved in taking the refugees. The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, noted that “a Syrian ‘refugee’ appears to have been part of the Paris terror attack. American humanitarian compassion could be exploited to expose Americans to similar deadly danger.” Robert Bentley, the governor of Alabama, agreed, explaining that he did not want any of the refugees in Alabama because “I will not stand complicit to a policy that places the citizens of Alabama in harm’s way.”

The governor of Massachusetts, Charlie Baker, was similarly security-minded: “No, I’m not interested in accepting refugees from Syria,” he said. “My view on this is the safety and security of the people of the Commonwealth of Mass. is my highest priority. So I would set the bar very high on this.” Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson stated simply that taking Syrian refugees at this time “is not the right strategy.”

Barack Obama remains convinced that it is exactly the right strategy.

He said that the Paris jihad massacre, which were perpetrated by, among others, at least two “refugees” who had just recently arrived in Europe, was just a “setback” that wouldn’t deter him in the slightest from pursuing his scheme to flood the U.S. with at least 10,000 refugees from Syria. He termed opposition to his plan “shameful,” casting American acceptance of the refugees as a moral imperative and saying: “We have to, each of us, do our part, and the United States has to step up and do its part.”

The United States has to do its part, in Obama’s view, but he didn’t explain, and of course was not challenged by his lapdog media, why Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar don’t have to do their part. Those countries, even though they have a linguistic, cultural and religious bond with the refugees, have accepted none of them at all all, citing the risk of terrorism. Why can’t Americans cite the same risk, and likewise refuse to take in these refugees?

Obama didn’t answer that question, but he did imply that objection to the refugees was really all about religious bigotry:

When I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims. When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted. When some of those folks themselves come from families who benefitted from protection when they were fleeing political persecution — That’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.

Fair enough. But do we have common sense limits to our compassion? If the “right-wing extremists” of the administration’s imagining were really as lethal as Islamic jihadis, Obama might have a point about not applying religious tests to our compassion. But unfortunately for Obama’s presentation of the issues involved in the refugee crisis, Christians are not waging jihad around the world. Christian terrorists did not boast last February that they would soon inundate Europe with 500,000 refugees – Muslim terrorists did. The Lebanese education minister did not recently warn that there were 20,000 Christian terrorists among the Syrian refugees in camps in his country – he said there were 20,000 active jihadis. It was not a Christian terrorist, but an Islamic State operative who boasted in September, shortly after the migrant influx into Europe began, that among the flood of refugees, 4,000 terrorists had already entered Europe.

Obama didn’t address those facts. Instead, he portrayed the refugees — all of them — as victims:

The people who are fleeing Syria are the most harmed by terrorism … It is very important … that we do not close our hearts to these victims of such violence and somehow start equating the issue of refugees with the issue of terrorism.

Meanwhile, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes tried to address some of the real concerns, asserting that American officials had “very extensive screening procedures” that they would employ among the refugees. Former NATO supreme commander James Stavridis added his own claim that U.S. officials would be able to vet the refugees “safely and appropriately,” and declared:

We should continue to take a substantial number of Syrian refugees because it is the right thing to do for the international community and because over time they will prove to be citizens of real capability and true grit, like many who immigrated before them in troubled times. The key is serious vetting using all the tools at our disposal.

How he knew that the refugees would “prove to be citizens of real capability and true grit,” he didn’t say.

At the same time, there were discordant voices. FBI Director James Comey doubted that the refugees could be easily vetted: “If we have no information on someone, they’ve never crossed our radar screen … it will be challenging,” he said — and most jihadis from Syria have not crossed the U.S. radar screen, as the U.S. fought for ten years in Iraq, not Syria….

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Canada: Police shoot Muslim wearing apparent suicide vest and holding triggering device

Video: Muslims in Turkey celebrate Islamic State jihad massacre in Paris

Eight Syrian Muslims caught illegally crossing Texas border

November 19, 2015/in Immigration, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Jihad Watch

Why would Syrians be trying to enter illegally when Obama is breaking down every restraint in order to get them in legally? Only if they’re up to some nefarious purpose.

“EXCLUSIVE — REPORT: 8 Syrians Caught at Texas Border in Laredo,” by Brandon Darby and Ildefonso Ortiz, Breitbart, November 18, 2015:

Two federal agents operating under the umbrella of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are claiming that eight Syrian illegal aliens attempted to enter Texas from Mexico in the Laredo Sector. The federal agents spoke with Breitbart Texas on the condition of anonymity, however, a local president of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) confirmed that Laredo Border Patrol agents have been officially contacting the organization with concerns over reports from other federal agents about Syrians illegally entering the country in the Laredo Sector. The reports have caused a stir among the sector’s Border Patrol agents.

The sources claimed that eight Syrians were apprehended on Monday, November 16, 2015. According to the sources, the Syrians were in two separate “family units” and were apprehended at the Juarez Lincoln Bridge in Laredo, Texas, also known officially as Port of Entry 1.

Border Patrol agent and NBPC Local 2455 President Hector Garza told Breitbart Texas, “Border Patrol agents who we represent have been contacting our organization to voice concerns about reports from other agents that Syrians crossed the U.S. border from Mexico in the Laredo Sector. Our agents have heard about Syrians being apprehended in the area from other federal agents.” Agent Garza added, “At this time, I cannot confirm or deny that Syrians have crossed, for security reasons.”

Agent Garza further stated that in matters as sensitive as Syrians crossing the border from Mexico, it would be highly unlikely that federal agencies would publicize it or inform a broad group of law enforcement. He did say that Local 2455 is taking the reports seriously and that they “will be issuing an officer safety bulletin advising Border Patrol agents to exercise extra precautions as they patrol the border.”

Breitbart Texas can confirm that a Syrian did attempt to enter the U.S. illegally through Texas in late September. The Syrian was caught using a passport that belonged to someone else and U.S. authorities decided against prosecuting anyone involved due to “circumstances.”

What circumstances?

VIDEO: The ‘Country Un-Safe Refugee Theory’

November 19, 2015/in Culture War, Must Read, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Defend The Border

Yoella Wells, who studied at the University of Oxford, is a war trauma specialist, clinical psychologist and neuropsychologist working for many years with refugees from all over the world. The United West‘s Damon Rosen in this exclusive interview with Yoella Wells explains the theory of the “Country Un-safe” in creating refugees worldwide.

Governments or a governmental lack of the ability to protect its citizens creates refugees.

What we experiencing today is a clear example of that.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Here’s How the U.S. Refugee Program Works

French President Hollande: Saint-Denis Raid Proves We Are at War With ISIS

VIDEO: The French-Gaza Connection

November 19, 2015/in National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion, Video/by Defend The Border

Captain Dan Gordon, a reserve Officer with the Israel Defensive Force explains how the Paris jihadis are using the HAMAS operational battle tactics to launch terror attacks in France and other countries soon to come. Dan has served in Israel for over 40 years and in combat in many wars against Islamic jihad.

Don’t miss this fascinating interview with Dan Gordon, a veritable Renaissance Man, who holds duel citizenship in America and Israel and is a highly acclaimed Hollywood Producer, Screenwriter and Author.

His latest thriller, Day of the Dead: GAZA, predicted these exact type attacks on Western cities, with the United States clearly on the imminent targeting list of ISIS.

Shut-down the Mosques to shut-down Islamocrimes

November 19, 2015/in National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion, Video/by Bill Finlay

The mosque is the heart of Islam, shut down the mosque to shut down Islamocrimes.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump: ‘Absolutely no choice’ but to close mosques

Closing Mosques: Dishonest DC Media Blasts Trump For … Agreeing with European Socialists

Dutch Parliament Member: We Must Close All Mosques

Churchill’s ‘The River War’ and the War against the Islamic State

November 19, 2015/in Must Read, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Jerry Gordon

winston churchill river war book cover Manhattanite Dan Friedman sent an email to his list today with a famous quote on Islamic fanaticism from Sir Winston Churchill’s engrossing chronicle, The River War: an account of the Reconquest of the Sudan. It prompted me to do something I had wanted to do after reading the book this summer, given the shambles of the U.S. war strategy against the Islamic State. A strategy now upended by the Islamic State massacre in Paris on November 13, 2015 that took the lives of 129 innocent civilians, injuring more than 352, 99 critically.

Today’s battle between French riot police and military against Islamic State holdouts in the predominately Muslim suburb of St. Denis, with 2 killed, 8 detained, four police wounded and the destruction of an apartment building followed a virtual declaration of War by French President Hollande. What followed was swift retaliation in Russian and French air raids against targets in Raqqa, Syria, the alleged capital of the self-declared Caliphate, the Islamic State.

I sent out to my email list a comment on the relevance of Churchill’s chronicle of the long battle to reclaim the Sudan from the Mahdi, and his followers, the Islamic State of fin de siècle 19th Century. Brig. Gen. (ret.) Ernie Audino, former U.S. Army Combat Adviser to the Kurdish Peshmerga in Iraq said it was, “well put”. American Israeli, Dan Diker wrote from Jerusalem, “this is so relevant”. Diker is Fellow and Project Director, Political Warfare, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Research Fellow, International Institute for Counter Terrorism. Then there was this from former Canadian Forces member, who spent time in the Middle East and Latin America, counterterrorism expert, Royce de Melo:

We just need the same resolve like they had in the 19th century to do the job we need to do today. We in the West have been neutered in every aspect of our society, politics, foreign policy, work, behavior, attitudes, empathies, sentiments, way of thinking, etc. has resulted in the situation we have today.

There’s something I wrote to some friends today and my closing line has now become a favorite quote for some of these friends, “…appeasement, denial and complacency are the allies of evil.”

“We can keep ignoring the warnings of great people, but at some point it doesn’t matter because history won’t bend to the will of the fools who deny it.” – Dan Friedman

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” – Sir Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol II, pages 248-250 London).

Dan: Have you read Churchill’s The River War: An Account of The Re-conquest of the Sudan? You should. It illustrates what the British with assistance of the Egyptian Khedive did to eliminate the Mahdi (Ahmed Mohammed) and his 19th century version of ISIS in the Sudan. It is a fascinating tribute to the herculean tasks overcoming logistical hurdles that included shipping for Britain armored river steamers, railway engines, rails and ties and railway engineering troops down the lower to build a railroad skirting the Upper Nile to supply British, Egyptian and Sudanese units with arms, food, water to crush the Mahdi’s forces at the keystone battle of Omdurman on September 2, 1898. Churchill, as a journalist participated in that critical battle armed with his trusty German Luger pistol. The River War victory against the Mahdi fanatics also settled the spheres of influence between the French, Belgians and British in equatorial Africa. However, it took the British almost 13 years following the collapse of the year long siege at Khartoum on January 26, 1885 and the unfortunate death and beheading of my last name sharer, Maj. Gen. Sir Charles Gordon aka “Chinese” Gordon, the Governor General of Sudan appointed by the Khedive. Gordon had earlier achieved fame when he and British officers put down the Taipeng Rebellion in Imperial China in 1862 with nothing more than his fabled walking stick and a host of Chinese warriors. The wildly popular Gordon among the British polity was sent to put down a rebellion and free Sudanese slaves, only to be virtually abandoned by British Prime Minister William Gladstone. Think of Obama as the equivalent of Gladstone.

Go watch the 1966 epic film, Khartoum, on-line starring the late Charleton Heston as Gordon and Sir Laurence Olivier as the Mahdi, Ahmed Mohammed. Or better yet, pick up Churchill’s River War for his view of the long tough slog to victory and the vanquishing of the 19th Century version of the Islamic State. Proves that with resolve, discipline and splendid field generalship of Field Marshal H.Herbert Kitchener, abetted by modern technology, in that case ,Maxim machine guns, Sunni Salafists were defeated. It is a different time now, with different war making technology. However, the lesson from re-reading of Churchill’s River War, is if you don’t resolve to lead a war against jihadists, whether the Mahdi at Khartoum or ISIS at Raqqa,, you will fail as a world power.

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

After Paris, National Security Issues Lead Democratic Debate

November 18, 2015/in Elections, Must Read, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Clarion Project

The format of the Democratic debate was altered at the last minute to give each candidate time to give a statement about the Paris terror attacks at the beginning of the debate.

Speaking first, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said that, “Together, leading the world, this country will rid our planet of this barbarous organization called ISIS.” However, it remains to be seen how Sanders would lead this fight since he advocates a non-interventionist approach and says that theU.S. should only have a very limited supporting role in the fight in Syria. Sanders believes that the fight against the Islamic State can only be effectively waged by Muslims.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly identified the enemy as jihadists, rejecting the non-descript terminology used by the Obama Administration who calls them “violent extremists.” Clinton made no sweeping promises as Sanders. Rather she said she would be laying out “in detail what I think we need to do to with our friends and allies — in Europe and elsewhere — to do a better job of coordinating efforts against the scourge of terrorisim.” She stressed that “all the other issues we want to deal with depend on us being secure and strong.”

In his opening statement, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley said that the events in Paris spoke to the new face of “conflict and warfare” in the 21st century, and as such, required “new thinking, fresh approaches.” O’Malley remarked that “we have a lot of work to do to better prepare out nation and to better lead this world into this new century.”

Polling shows that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dominated last night’s Democratic presidential debate, particularly on national security.

Public Policy Polling came out with the first post-debate poll that showed 67% of Democratic primary voters declaring Clinton the overall winner of the second presidential primary debate and 75% saying they most trust her on national security of the three candidates. The following is a summary of the national security positions taken by each candidate during the debate:

Hillary Clinton

She aligned herself closely with President Obama throughout the debate but presented three areas of difference on Islamist extremism: Identification of the enemy; support for Syrian rebels and an implicit criticism of President Obama for suggesting that “containment” of the Islamic State is a sign of success.

Right off the bat, Clinton repeatedly used Islamic terminology to define the enemy as “jihadist.” She also seemed to understand that the root of violent jihad is in the Islamist ideology, which she emphasized is not subscribed to by most Muslims. She described the adversary as “Islamists who are jihadists,” but she did not discuss whether she believes that “moderate Islamists” like the Muslim Brotherhood should be embraced as allies against “jihadists” like the Islamic State.

The second point of difference came when she was asked about President Obama’s claim that the Islamic State is “contained” shortly before the Paris attacks. While Clinton avoided criticizing the president directly, she rejected containment as a measure of success, saying it is impossible to contain a group like the Islamic State and only its defeat is acceptable.

The third point of difference was on Syria. She explained that she urged President Obama to equip moderate Syrian rebels in the beginning of the civil war to prevent jihadists from creating a safe haven. Clinton believes that developing allies on the ground in Syria would have given us a valuable ally today.

Clinton also suggested a tougher approach towards the Gulf states and Turkey. She said it is time for them to “make up their mind about where they stand” on the fight against jihadism.

On the topic of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq that preceded the rise of the Islamic State and the collapse of Iraqi security forces, Clinton said that the withdrawal was in compliance with a U.S.-Iraqi agreement signed by the Bush Administration. After U.S. forces left, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki decimated the Iraqi security forces with his sectarianism and cronyism. This, combined with the civil war in Syria and other regional variables, enabled the Islamic State to seize large parts of Iraq.

She defended the NATO military intervention in Libya to topple Gaddafi by pointing out the large amount of American blood he had on his hands from supporting terrorism. Clinton also mentioned how the Libyans elected moderate leaders after he fell. She addressed the civil war in Libya by saying the U.S. should provide more support to the current moderate Libyan government.

On the topic of Syrian refugees, Clinton said she agrees in principle with bringing 65,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S. (as O’Malley advocates) but only if they are completely vetted. Her tough language on vetting suggested that she envisions overhauling the process to become stricter, but she did not present a specific proposal.

Unlike Sanders, she would not commit to cutting the defense budget but promised to closely review military spending. She cited Chinese moves in the South China Sea and the increased aggressiveness of Russia, such as its broadcasting of a new drone submarine that can be equipped with tactical nuclear weapons.

Clinton is currently the frontrunner by a mile. She leads nationally with 55% in an average of polls; leads Iowa with 54%; is in second behind Sanders in New Hampshire with 43% and leads in South Carolina with 65%. You can read our factsheet on Clinton’s positions related to Islamism here.

Bernie Sanders

As we mentioned in our coverage of the recent Democratic forum, Sanders views the threat as being rooted in an Islamic ideology but—unlike Clinton—advocates a non-interventionist approach. His argument is that the U.S. should only have a very limited supporting role because the fight against the Islamic State can only be effectively waged by Muslims. He again stated that the fight with the Islamic State is part of a “war for the soul of Islam.”

Sanders rejected a strategy of pursuing regime change, apparently referring to the Syrian dictatorship and the removal of the Gaddafi regime in Libya when Clinton was Secretary of State. He cited U.S.-backed regime changes in places like Chile and Guatemala as counterproductive mistakes.

He spoke out in favor of cuts to the defense budget. He argued that U.S. military spending is far too high and that much of the excess costs are not even necessary for fighting terrorism.

Sanders is currently in second place overall. He is the runner-up nationally with 33%; is in second place in Iowa with 30%; leads in New Hampshire with 44% and is in second place in South Carolina with 17%. You can read our factsheet on Sanders’ positions related to Islamism here.

Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley

At the recent Democratic forum, O’Malley embraced the camp that believes Islamic terrorism is a byproduct of political grievances against the U.S. He did not repeat his ludicrous claim that U.S. troops overseas and the operation of Guantanamo Bay are the chief reasons for the strength of the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.

However, during the Saturday night debate, he acknowledged that the threat comes from an Islamic ideology. Unlike Clinton who defined the enemy as “jihadism,” O’Malley defined it as “radical jihadists”—which begs the question: What is a “non-radical jihadist?”

In describing where the Islamic State threat emerged from, O’Malley pointed to the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and especially the disbanding of the Iraqi army. He said that many of ISIS’ current members used to be a part of the Iraqi military until we fired them. There is truth to that statement, but it seems to suggest that O’Malley remains committed to the belief that the “root cause” of the Islamic State and other Islamist terrorists are mistreatment and political grievances, rather than ideology.

O’Malley continued to embrace a non-interventionist strategy, saying that the U.S. should not be trying to overthrow dictators. He then seemed to contradict himself when he said the U.S. should take the lead in fighting “evil.” He said his “new” foreign policy would be one of “engagement” and “identifying threats” as they gather.

On several occasions, O’Malley cited the need for human intelligence sources as part of his strategy—but that’s nothing new and it’s not a strategy. Everyone agrees that more human intelligence is needed.

He reiterated his support for bringing 65,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S., up from the current 10,000 that President Obama plans to bring in. He did not address how they would be vetted and taken care of, especially when a poll of Syrian refugees found that 13% feel positively or somewhat positively towards the Islamic State.

O’Malley is in last place among the three remaining candidates. He is in last with 3% nationally; last in Iowa with 5%; last in New Hampshire with 3% and last in South Carolina with 2%. You can read our factsheet on O’Malley’s positions related to Islamism here.

You can read the Clarion Project‘s comprehensive factsheets on each party’s presidential candidates’ positions related to Islamism by clicking here.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

RELATED ARTICLES:

No-Fly Zones, Military Spending, Confronting Putin: GOP Debate

Democrat Candidates: Wide Differences on Islamist Terror

GOP Debate on Mute About National Security

CAIR Berates Trump for Support of Closing Extremist Mosques

Why France?

November 18, 2015/in Commentary, Immigration, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Clarion Project

In the wake of the terrorist attacks which killed at least 129 in Paris on Friday, people are asking why France in particular was targeted by the Islamic State. The Islamic State detests the entire Western world and seeks to destroy it and replace it with a global Islamist caliphate. Yet it prioritizes which countries to attack and when.

The reasons listed here are by way of explanation from the Islamic State’s point of view, to help our readers understand. They are not to be taken as a justification of the Islamic State’s actions, which ultimately are caused by their hateful extremist ideology.

Here are the top five reasons why the Islamic State attacked France and Paris in particular.

France has been fighting the Islamic State and other Islamists.

French President Francois Hollande led his country into airstrikes against the Islamic State, bombing targets in Syria for the past two months. It was the first country in Europe to join America in bombing ISIS targets in Iraq and has so far been the only European country to join airstrikes against ISIS in Syria.

France also led the fight against Islamists in North Africa, it was French soldiers that liberated Timbuktu from Islamist insurgents belonging to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in Mali.

The Islamic State is therefore fighting those who fight it the most, in an effort to persuade the civilian population of France that the war is about French foreign policy and not about a global Islamist Caliphate and to cow them into submission through terror.

France has specifically named the Islamist ideology as the problem.

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said after the Charlie Hebdo attacks France is at war with radical Islam. The French Ambassador to America clarified afterwards, saying, “We are at war with radical Islam. It means that right now… Islam is breeding radicalism which is quite dangerous for everybody.” Not only has France named the problem but they are taking active steps against the Islamist ideology within France, not just against groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, but also against groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, which promote the ideology of Islamism that leads to violent extremism.

France is standing up for its values and seeking to integrate Muslims

Prime Minister Manuel Valls explicitly stated, “We seek to establish a model of Islam that is fully integrated, fully compatible with the values of the Republic.” This is anathema to ISIS as they cannot countenance an integrated Islam which operates peacefully within a broader society. France is proactively attempting to integrate Muslims, which, if successful, would destroy the “Islam vs the world” narrative peddled by the Islamic State.

Paris represents the Enlightenment values of Western civilization.

The Islamic State decried the city as “the capital of prostitution and vice, the lead carrier of the cross in Europe — Paris.” Paris is at the center of European and Western fashion, culture and literature and one of the great historical cities of European civilization.

France is where much of the enlightenment took place and where modern ideas about citizenship, human rights and the separation between religion and state were first articulated and formed.

For an Islamic State obsessed with symbolism, an attack on Paris is an attack on European/Western enlightenment values.

The Islamic State is obsessed with history and honor.

France is an old country with a long history. The Islamic State has a laundry list of grievances against France going back a thousand years. ISIS also hates Europe in general for its colonial past.

It blames France, in particular, for the break-up of the Ottoman Empire and the abolition of the Caliphate following the First World War. France was one of the leading countries involved in the crusades in the 11th century, and it is where the early Islamic Caliphate’s advance into Europe was halted by French ruler Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732.

The Islamic State is obsessed with seeing itself as the revived Muslim Caliphate. It is therefore essential to its worldview that Europe’s old colonial powers are defeated. For similar reasons, ISIS has long threatened to conquer Rome, which would represent a symbolic victory over the long defunct Roman Empire.

Without that, the Islamic State cannot claim to avenge the centuries old grievances with which it is obsessed and thus cannot fulfil its claims to restore the ‘lost honor’ of the immah.

RELATED ARTICLES:

50,000 Europeans Fighting for ISIS, Says Counter-Terror Chief

Belgian Government Admits It Has Lost Control of No-Go Zone

ISIS Agitprop Video Shows Training of the Next Generation

How the Paris Attacks Increase the Threat to America

Sign the White House Petition Demanding a Moratorium on all Muslim Refugee resettlement to U.S.

November 18, 2015/in Culture War, Immigration, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Ann Corcoran

Gates of Vienna reports that a petition in the wake of the Paris terror attack seeking the halt of all refugee resettlement to the US from Middle Eastern countries has been placed on the White House ‘We the People’ petition site. Please go to GoV, see comments and follow links!

And, don’t forget that a sure fire way to stop the influx is to persuade Congress to use the POWER OF THE PURSE. Go here for our post yesterday on that effort. We must make our voices heard in a big way!

CLICK HERE to Sign the petition!

And, then call your members of Congress and U.S. Senators and tell them to pull the plug on the funding! (Remember that U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy and Lindsey Graham are pushing for $1 billion to be ADDED to a funding package to reach the Senate floor on or before December 11th to increase the Syrian flow to America).

Syrian Muslim migration to the U.S. rests in the hands of Ryan and McConnell

November 18, 2015/in Immigration, National Security, Policy, Politics/by Ann Corcoran

I’m happy to report that our readers are more up on the news than I have been these last few days. Thanks to all of you who are sending me hot-off-the-press news on the roiling controversy about Syrian refugee resettlement AP (After Paris). I just don’t have the time to post it all!

Speaker Ryan and Senate Majority leader McConnell will be the ones who determine the fate of resettlement of Syrian refugees in the US this year (not the governors!). Kentucky is gradually becoming an important resettlement target and it’s been a mystery to me why McConnell has let it happen. I can only assume McConnell gets campaign contributions from industries, including the chicken processing industry, which needs cheap reliable laborers. For ambitious readers, we have a very large archive on Kentucky extending back many years (with many problems) here.

LOL! I did take a break today as Rush Limbaugh held forth for what I assume was much of his show and every time I turned on the TV I heard the “R” word (refugee). Heck, everyone is covering it, I reminded myself.

Here, at Politico, is a story from yesterday I’ve been meaning to get to.

Don’t get me wrong, it is wonderful that governors across the country are speaking up, but even if you wish them to have the power to stop the resettlement (unless there was a Constitutional challenge which does need to get underway, but will take years!) there is really only one place it can be done quickly with any finality (for this year) and that is in Congress where the FUNDING MUST BE CUT OFF.

See our post on Saturday where I said just that—CONGRESS MUST USE ITS POWER OF THE PURSE!

The refugee resettlement contractors know that very well or they wouldn’t have had an emergency press conference call today!

Here is Politico telling us what the stakes are and informing us that what happens next will be the first crisis for new House Speaker Paul Ryan.

A cascade of Republicans on Monday implored the Obama administration to scrap plans to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees in the United States next year, saying they pose an unacceptable security risk in the wake of last week’s terrorist attacks in Paris.

And, in a dramatic twist, the sudden standoff is raising the possibility of a government shutdown next month.

Throughout the day a host of Republican governors around the country, wary that refugees could end up in their home states, blasted President Barack Obama’s plans. But those governors lack real sway over the process, andsome are asking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to insert a provision in the Dec. 11 spending bill that would bar more Syrian settlers.

Did you see this? Lindsey Graham has backed off his earlier proposal to ADD funding for Syrian resettlement!

The politics are moving fast: The Democratic governor of New Hampshire, a Senate candidate, is siding with conservatives, and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is reversing his support for a $1 billion spending bill intended to allow in more Syrian refugees after touting the measure just weeks ago. GOP leaders are keeping their options open as they mull whether to try to block new Syrian refugees by adding language to the must-pass spending bill.

[….]

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), one of the leading immigration hard-liners in the Capitol, sent a letter to colleagues calling for provisions in the omnibus spending bill that would give Congress more oversight over Syrian refugees.

[….]

Ryan and McConnell will have to decide quickly on a course of action as they confront the first potential legislative crisis since Ryan became speaker.

More here.

Please everyone, starting tomorrow call your Washington elected representatives and call the leadership—Ryan and McConnell—and let them know how you feel. And, keep calling through the Thanksgiving recess.

By the way, the resettlement contractors*** are ginning up their grassroots and the most maddening part of that is that they get to use your tax dollars to do it!

***Nine major federal contractors which like to call themselves VOLAGs (Voluntary agencies) which is such a joke considering how much federal money they receive: