Tag Archive for: DHS

IMMIGRATION: President Trump’s Revised EO is Constitutional, Legal, and Common Sense

/in , , , , , /by

President Trump has signed a revised Executive Order (EO) on immigration and refugee resettlement. Democrats are already calling it a “Muslim ban.” A question that Democrats should ask themselves: What if former President Clinton had banned the 9/11/2001 hijackers from entering the United States, would we be better off today?

Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly released the following statement about the EO:

“The Executive Order signed today by President Trump will make America safer, and address long-overdue concerns about the security of our immigration system. We must undertake a rigorous review of our visa and refugee vetting programs to increase our confidence in the entry decisions we make for visitors and immigrants to the United States. We cannot risk the prospect of malevolent actors using our immigration system to take American lives.

The Executive Order signed today is prospective in nature—applying only to foreign nationals outside of the United States who do not have a valid visa. It is important to note that nothing in this executive order affects current lawful permanent residents or persons with current authorization to enter our country. If you have a current valid visa to travel, we welcome you. But unregulated, unvetted travel is not a universal privilege, especially when national security is at stake.

“The Department of Homeland Security has worked closely with the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and the White House to create an executive order that addresses our information concerns while protecting the homeland and our citizens.”

Hans von Spakovsky in his The Daily Signal article “Why Trump’s Revised Executive Order Is Constitutional, Legal, and Common Sense” writes:

President Donald Trump’s revised executive order restricting travel from terrorist safe havens is just as constitutional and legal as his original order, despite what some courts such as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said about the original order.

But the revisions he has made, which clarify that the executive order does not apply to any foreigners who already hold visas to enter the U.S., will make it tougher for activist judges to justify any injunction orders they might be inclined to issue against it. Yet there is little doubt that progressive groups will seek such orders.

The executive order, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” confirms what the administration had previously announced, which is that the temporary, 90-day suspension of entry into the U.S. from certain designated countries will not apply to:

  • Lawful permanent residents as well as diplomatic, NATO, and U.N. personnel.
  • Foreign nationals admitted after the effective date of the executive order.
  • Individuals with a visa valid on the date of the executive order.
  • Dual nationals travelling on a passport issued by a non-designated country.
  • Individuals already granted asylum or refugee status before the effective date of the executive order.

This is an important revision because it voids the due process concerns that the 9th Circuit expressed—namely, that individuals who had already received approval to enter or reside in the United States might have that right taken away from them without a review and appeal process.

Read more…

Spakovsky concludes, “This executive order is clearly within the president’s authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (f), in which Congress clearly delegated to the president the authority to suspend the entry of any aliens into the U.S. when he believes it would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States’.”

ABOUT HANS VON SPAKOWSKY

Portrait of Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: @HvonSpakovsky

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Tennessee Files Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of the Fed Refugee Resettlement Program

Who’s paying for the DACA program? | TheHill

Trump makes key changes to travel ban

Five takeaways from Trump’s new travel ban

Iraq’s lobbyists mobilized after travel ban, documents reveal

Politico: Fight will now focus on 120-day refugee moratorium

No One Mentions That The Russian Trail Leads To Democratic Lobbyists

VIDEO: DHS Whistle-blower ready to help President Trump ‘Drain the Swamp’

/in , , , /by

In a December 2016 WorldNet Daily column by Leo Hohmann former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agent Philip B. Haney stated:

CVE [Countering Violent Extremism policy] is similar in many ways to the ‘catch and release’ program Obama has implemented at the border. You have a person in custody, you question them, but then you let them go.

Read more…

That’s exactly what German authorities did with 24-year-old Anis Amri, a native of Tunisia who came to Europe as an illegal alien, first arriving in Italy seven years ago as a teenager. He was convicted of arson and spent four years in prison, was released and made his way to Germany in July 2015.

Hohmann notes:

The CVE program is rooted in United Nations Agenda 2030 principles on migrant rights, which are adopted by sanctuary cities throughout the world. The principles of CVE are being implemented in city police departments worldwide through the U.N.’s Strong Cities Network, as well as through the U.N. New Urban Agenda.

[ … ]

Haney said President-elect Donald Trump must do away with the suicidal CVE policies installed by Obama, because these policies are more concerned with violating the civil rights and civil liberties of Islamic radicals than they are with protecting America.

The first step to drain the swamp in the DHS is to eliminate CVE. Please listen to Haney explain how the DHS must be reoriented to a law enforcement model to keep America and Americans safe:

DHS falsely training its agents that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’

/in , , , , , /by

It is becoming clear that the Trump administration will look at the threat of radical Islam much differently than the Obama administration.

One of the first slogans to go is the false notion that Islam is a “religion of peace.”

The Islamic supremacy organization CAIR is upset that Katharine Gorka has been selected to be part of the DHS “landing team” that will meet with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials to manage the transition.

Gorka is the president of the Council on Global Security and president of the Threat Knowledge Group.

In 2014, Gorka wrote, “Presidents Bush and Obama both publicly declared Islam to be a religion of peace,” it “struck a sour chord for many,” and that “American and Western leaders have preemptively shut down any debate within Islam by declaring that Islam is the religion of peace.”

enhancedAdditionally, President-elect Donald Trump named K.T. McFarland as his pick for deputy national security adviser, joining retired Gen. Michael Flynn on Trump’s White House national security team. Kathleen Troia “K.T.” McFarland is an American former government official and national security analyst.

McFarland has called for the use of enhanced interrogation to prevent a catastrophic attacks against the United States and its allies.

In the below video Brian Kilmeade interviews Dr. James Mitchell author of the new book “Enhanced Interrogation.”

At the end of the interview one of the terrorists being interrogated asked Dr. Mitchell to use waterboarding on his fellow Muslim brothers.

Clearly there’s a new sheriff in town and a serious dialogue about Islam and the followers of Mohammed will take place. Words like radical Islam, jihad and the holy war being conducted by Muslims against America and its allies will now be front and center and top of mind with agencies such as DHS, FBI and CIA.

The shackles are coming off.

The DHS, FBI and CIA will go from an Obama civil liberty model to Trump administration law enforcement and national security model to defeat America’s enemies, one of the most pressing being radical Islam.

Let the debate begin within the ummah (the Muslim community), in America and globally about Islam in general and radical Islam in detail.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Getting Inside the Head of the Ohio Attacker

Young, Radicalized Man From North Carolina Planned Mass Casualty Attack

German Intel Agent Arrested for Planning ISIS Terror Attack

Dr. Sebastian Gorka: OSU Attacker a Disciple of Anwar Al-Awlaki, Who Is More Dangerous Today Than Bin Laden

RELATED VIDEO: KiDS: Inside the Terror Factory — Make this film a reality. Expose the incitement of children and youth to extremism, hatred and violence.

U.S. Homeland Security Chief at Muslim Brotherhood-Linked Conference

/in , , , /by

Jeh Johnson spoke at the annual Islamic Society of America event telling participants, ‘Your story is the quintessential American story.’

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson spoke at the annual Islamic Society of America (ISNA) conference over the weekend, in what the Washington Post called an “impassioned speech” to empower ISNA’s participants.

ISNA is a group with Muslim Brotherhood origins and an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror-financing trial. In fact, the Holy Land Foundation was based within the ISNA building. ISNA also deposited checks into its account that were made out to the “Palestinian Mujahadeen [jihadi fighters],” the name used at the time for Hamas’s military wing. The funding was transferred to the Holy Land Foundation.

The ISNA conference that Johnson spoke at included extremist speakers, as it has done in previous years. This year’s speakers included Jamal Badawi, a founder of another Brotherhood entity, theMuslim American Society. Badawi has praised the terrorist organization Hamas, preached in support of “combative jihad” and was personally listed in a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood directory.

Another conference speaker was Nihad Awad, found and executive director of the Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR),another U.S. Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land terror financing case.

Johnson told conference participants, “Your story is the quintessential American story,” and was described by the Post as the “highest-ranking U.S. official to address an ISNA conference.”

However, the Post’s description of Johnson is misleading as President Obama himself addressed the 2013 ISNA convention in which he  praised the group for its partnership with his administration. That convention also featured a roster of speakers including many extremists.

One of Obama’s senior advisers, Valerie Jarrett, also spoke at ISNA’s 2009 convention.

The Obama administration’s close relationship with ISNA is about more than photo ops and press releases. It is about policy formulation. The input of ISNA to the administration is so treasured that government officials coached the organization on how to engage the White House.

Instead of working with anti-Islamist Muslims, the Obama administration continues to embrace Muslim Brotherhood legacy groups.

Interestingly, according to a 2011 Gallup poll, only 4% of Muslim-American males and 7% of females chose ISNA as the organization that most represents their interests. Other Islamist groups like CAIR garnered similar small affiliations in the poll.

A generous interpretation of the Obama administration’s’ outreach to Islamist groups is that the administration feels that, since they represent mainstream Muslim thought, then it’s better to have them on our side rather than against us.

This thinking is flawed on two accounts: First, because the numbers do not support this thesis as shown by the above-cited Gallup Poll, and two, because the raison d’etre of Islamists is the implementation of Islam on a political level – i.e. sharia governance.

Islamists will only work “with” Western governments to use democratic principles to implement their political goals. There is no ultimate “with us” when it comes to Islamism, as sharia is antithetical to democratic principles (free speech, freedom of religion, etc.)

The way to integrate the Muslim community in America and counter radicalization is to discredit the Islamist ideology, not promote and empower it by giving it a platform and sending high-ranking government officials to legitimize it.

For a complete look at the Islamic Society of America (ISNA), see Clarion Project’s profile on the organization by clicking here.

Meira Svirsky is the editor of ClarionProject.org

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic Group Takes Issue With 9/11 Monument

New Iran Music Video: Allah Destroys US Fleet in Persian Gulf

‘Iran Exempted From Nuke Deal Conditions to Meet Deadline’

Wyoming Group Holds Rally Against Islam

Immigration and the Terrorist Threat: How our leaders are spawning catastrophe

/in , , , , , /by

The most recent horrific terror attack, this time in Nice, France on Bastille Day, is the latest of a string of attacks overseas as well as inside the United States.  It has shaken people around the world, causing them to question what their governments need to do to protect them.

Our leaders are forever reacting to the latest attack, placing us on an elevated defensive posture, whenever and wherever it may occur.  Often news reports are aired that show video clips of heavily armed police officers patrolling our airports and other venues in response to the latest attack no matter where the attack was carried out, to create the illusion of protecting us.

This perspective can most generously be called folly.  The terror threats we face do not go up and down like the stock market.  While it makes sense to marshal snow plow drivers and those that drive the trucks that spread salt on highways when a blizzard is forecast for the region, in preparation for the impending storm to quickly clear the roads, terrorism presents a constant threat.

The only questions are how, when, where, and how many will be killed or injured.  We are in this battle for the long haul and failure is not only not an option but would spell the catastrophic demise of our nation.

While some have simplistically said that our military alone, combating ISIS overseas can protect, the reality is that we must fight this war on two fronts- overseas and within our borders.  Domestically this battle must be waged by many elements of the law enforcement apparatus- including, especially, immigration law enforcement authorities.

This was my focus in my recent article, “Fighting The War On Terror Here, There and Everywhere.”

The 9/11 Commission was created to determine how terrorists were able to carry out deadly attacks in the United States to make certain that it would never happen again.  This is comparable to the way that the NTSB and the FAA investigate plane crashes to make the appropriate fixes.

The preface of the official report, “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” begins with this paragraph:

“It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.”

That report was a companion document to the The 9/11 Commission Report which also discussed how failures of border security and the lack of routine immigration law enforcement, including the identification of immigration fraud and visa fraud, enabled terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves in communities throughout the United States.

However, at the behest of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Visa Waiver Program which should have been terminated on September 12, 2001, has been continually expanded.  On September 11, 2001 26 countries participated in this program.  Today their are 38 member countries even though, as I wrote in a recent article, GAO Revelations: Our Open Door For Terrorists –The deadly failures of the visa waiver program, more than one-third of these countries fail to provide us with vital information about terrorists.

It should be clear that our borders and our immigration laws are our first and last lines of defense against international terrorists entering our country- yet our borders have become little more than speed bumps to those who smuggle drugs and illegal aliens.

The massive quantity of heroin and other illegal and dangerous drugs that pour across our borders 24/7 show how porous our borders are.  Those drugs are not only smuggled across the U.S./Mexican border but across our northern border and along our 95,000 miles of coastline and through our international aiports located in states across our nation.

Page 61 contained this passage:

Exploring the Link between Human Smugglers and Terrorists

In July 2001, the CIA warned of a possible link between human smugglers and terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.149   Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that since 1999 human smugglers have facilitated the travel of terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups.150  With their global reach and connections to fraudulent document vendors and corrupt government officials, human smugglers clearly have the “credentials” necessary to aid terrorist travel.

Furthermore most of the terrorists who have thus far been identified, including the 9/11 hijackers, were admitted into the United States through ports of entry.  Some terrorists succeeded in being granted political asylum, lawful immigrant status and even, in several cases, United States citizenship before they carried out terror attacks.

Meanwhile the administration continues to admit thousands of refugees from Syria even though they cannot be screened, an issue made abundantly clear by sworn testimony of James Comey, the Director of the FBI and other high-ranking officials, as I noted in my article, “Syrian ‘Refugees’ and Immigration Roulette .”

Politicians from both the Democratic and Republican parties have insisted that since we cannot deport 11 million illegal aliens- the number they frequently cite, we should simply give them lawful status and somehow this would magically enable us to identify who they are.  They also claim that this would get these heretofore illegal aliens “out of the shadows.”

The only question this raises is are these proponents for such a massive legalization program ignorant or are they so driven to placate their super-wealthy campaign contributors that they are willing to lead our nation down the path to our own destruction?

Here is what you need to consider.  First of all, there are likely two or three times as many illegal aliens as they claim- this means at the very least 30 million illegal aliens would participate in any such massive program.

With numbers that humongous, there would be no way to conduct any face-to-face interviews let alone any field investigations to determine if they provided false information in their applications.  This would include their true identities- including even their actual countries of citizenship, providing terrorists with the opportunity to game this process to acquire lawful status under false identities that would enable them to embed themselves in the United States and travel freely around the United States and even overseas where they could threaten our safety and the safety of our allies.

There would be absolutely no way to determine when they actually arrived in the United States.  Therefore it would be meaningless for politicians to establish a cutoff date of entry for aliens applying for amnesty.  Illegal aliens would simply claim to have been present in the United States prior to that date and there would be no way for our adjudications officer to deny their claims.

Additionally, terrorists and wanted criminals who know that they could be identified by their bio-metrics would simply continue to hide in the “shadows.”  There would be no resources to track them down and arrest them.  The amnesty program would require all of the resources (money and personnel) allocated to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and other immigration-related components of the DHS be devoted to the amnesty program.

If we are to truly harness the immigration system for the best interest of America and Americans we need to have a much larger number of ICE agents to enforce our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.

What is generally not known by most Americans is that while the second largest contingent of law enforcement personnel assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force are ICE agents.  Most international terrorists commit immigration law violations including visa fraud and/or immigration benefit fraud.

Yet we have precious few agents assigned to ICE- no more than 7,000 for our entire country.  More than half of those agents are assigned to pursuing customs investigations that have nothing to do with immigration.  To put this number into perspective, the Border Patrol has well over 20,000 agents, there are more than 20,000 CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors at our 325 ports of entry and roughly 45,000 employees at TSA.  The NYPD has more than 35,000 police officers to protect the City of New York.  We need to have many more ICE agents.

For roughly half of my 30 year career with the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service), the agency that was sliced into several agencies when the DHS was created, I was assigned to the Drug Task Force and to DEA Intelligence.  I frequently assisted other law enforcement agencies including the FBI, DEA and many other federal as well as state and local police agencies in cultivating alien informants who were part of various ethnic immigrant communities who were eager to assist us.

As an INS agent, one of the biggest incentives I could offer to any illegal alien who was able to help us was to provide him/her with temporary employment authorization and, if the assistance was of particular importance and/or long term, we could provide such aliens with lawful immigrant status and even bring their family members to the United States.

In many instances, these informants were central to our ability to perfect criminal cases against major drug trafficking organizations and other such entities.  Such techniques could also be used to great advantage to pierce the veil of secrecy surrounding Middle Eastern communities involving aliens who may be involved in supporting and plotting terror attacks.

Illegal aliens who have no criminal histories should never be ignored. Most terrorists, like most spies, understand that to embed themselves they must keep an extrmely low profile to not call attention to themselves.  Consider what the 9/11 Commission Staff Report noted:

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.

On November 20, 2013 ABC News reported, “Exclusive: US May Have Let ‘Dozens’ of Terrorists Into Country As Refugees.”  This is not a new problem, on July 13, 2011 the Washington Times published a truly disturbing article, “Visas reviewed to find those who overstayed / Aim is to find any would-be terrorists.”

Consider that on September 2, 2014 ABC News reported, “Lost in America: Visa Program Struggles to “Track Missing Foreign Students.”

Here is how this report began:

The Department of Homeland Security has lost track of more than 6,000 foreign nationals who entered the United States on student visas, overstayed their welcome, and essentially vanished — exploiting a security gap that was supposed to be fixed after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

“My greatest concern is that they could be doing anything,” said Peter Edge, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement official who oversees investigations into visa violators. “Some of them could be here to do us harm.”

Homeland Security officials disclosed the breadth of the student visa problem in response to ABC News questions submitted as part of an investigation into persistent complaints about the nation’s entry program for students.

ABC News found that immigration officials have struggled to keep track of the rapidly increasing numbers of foreign students coming to the U.S. — now in excess of one million each year. The immigration agency’s own figures show that 58,000 students overstayed their visas in the past year. Of those, 6,000 were referred to agents for follow-up because they were determined to be of heightened concern.

“They just disappear,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. “They get the visas and they disappear.”

Coburn said since the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, 26 student visa holders have been arrested in the U.S. on terror-related charges.

The failures of the administration to enforce our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States hobbles our efforts to protect America and Americans.

Indeed, page 54 of The 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel contained this excerpt under the title “3.2 Terrorist Travel Tactics by Plot.”

Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries (of terrorists) without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports.

In doing so, they relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents, on aliases, and on government corruption. Because terrorist operations were not suicide missions in the early to mid-1990s, once in the United States terrorists and their supporters tried to get legal immigration status that would permit them to remain here, primarily by committing serial, or repeated, immigration fraud, by claiming political asylum, and by marrying Americans. Many of these tactics would remain largely unchanged and undetected throughout the 1990s and up to the 9/11 attack.

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

The threats America and Americans face are real.  Our government and our leaders must finally take the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 commission seriously.  Our very survival hangs in the balance.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Trump Does The Unthinkable

‘Bribery and Kickback Schemes’ Plague Syrian Relief Program Funded With Tax Dollars

Number of Islamist Terror Plots Against the US Rises to 89: Proactive Approach to Terrorism Needed

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Front Page Magazine.

VIDEO: ‘See Something, Say Nothing’ — connecting the dots from 9/11 to Orlando

/in , , /by

Philip B. Haney Press Conference at the National Press Club titled, “See Something, Say Nothing.”

RELATED:

PODCAST: Former DHS Agent Philip Haney – ‘Words have Meaning

See Something, Say Nothing

Retired DHS Intelligence Officer Blows Whistle on Federal Government’s role in Islamic terror threat

/in , , , , /by

WASHINGTON, D.C. — One day after a prominent U.S. Muslim leader reacted to the November 2015 Paris attacks with a declaration that the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, has nothing to do with Islam, President Obama made the same assertion.

Who exactly is the enemy we face, not only in the Middle East but also within our borders? Is it “murderers without a coherent creed” or “nihilistic killers who want to tear things down,” as some described ISIS after 130 people were brutally slain and another 368 injured in a coordinated attack on Western soil that authorities say was organized with help from inside France’s Muslim communities.

After the Paris attacks, Obama, himself, described ISIS as “simply a network of killers who are brutalizing local populations.”

But how much do words and definitions really matter? According to the legendary military strategist Sun Tzu, if “you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one (battle) and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.”

When the Department of Homeland Security was founded in 2003, its stated purpose was “preventing terrorist attacks within the United States and reducing America’s vulnerability to terrorism.” The Bush administration’s definition of the enemy as a tactic, terrorism, rather than a specific movement, proved consequential amid a culture of political correctness. By the time President Obama took office, Muslim Brotherhood-linked leaders in the United States were forcing changes to national security policy and even being invited into the highest chambers of influence. A policy known as Countering Violent Extremism emerged, downplaying the threat of supremacist Islam as unrelated to the religion and just one among many violent ideological movements.

When recently retired DHS front-line officer and intelligence expert Philip Haney bravely tried to say something about the people and organizations that threatened the nation, his intelligence information was eliminated, and he was investigated by the very agency assigned to protect the country. The national campaign by the DHS to raise public awareness of terrorism and terrorism-related crime known as If You See Something, Say Something effectively has become If You See Something, Say Nothing.

To be released by WND Books on May 24, 2016, in See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad, Haney – a charter member of DHS with previous experience in the Middle East – and co-author Art Moore expose just how deeply the submission, denial and deception run. Haney’s insider, eyewitness account, supported by internal memos and documents, exposes a federal government capitulating to an enemy within and punishing those who reject its narrative.

Haney discloses:

  • How the Bush administration stripped him and other front-line officers of their ability to define the threat;
  • How much the Obama administration knew in advance of the Boston Marathon bombing and how it launched an ongoing cover-up on behalf of a major ally;
  • The administration’s stealth policy to protect Islamic leaders with supremacist beliefs and violent-jihadist ties, allowing them to freely travel between the U.S. and the Middle East;
  • The scope of access to the White House and the classified information the Obama administration gave to members of Muslim Brotherhood front groups;
  • The damning intelligence on Muslim Brotherhood-linked leaders invited to sit at the table and help form national-security policy;
  • The “words matter” memo imposing the demands of radical U.S. Muslim leaders on the DHS, including stripping intelligence and official communications of any mention of Islam in association with terrorism;
  • The purging of training material that casts Islam in a negative light;
  • The erasing and altering of vital intelligence on terrorists and terror threats;
  • The fear-based tactics imposed by the Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the U.S. and their accomplices that paralyze officials, members of Congress and any Department of Homeland Security employee who dares to expose or resist their agenda; and

Much more …

In this well-documented, first-person account of his unique service with DHS, Haney shows why it’s imperative that Americans demand that when they see something and say something, the servants under their charge do something to prevent a cunning, relentless enemy from carrying out its stated aim to “destroy Western Civilization from within.”

ABOUT PHILIP B. HANEY

Philip Haney studied Arabic culture and language while working as a scientist in the Middle East before he was hired as a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003. After becoming an armed Customs and Border Protection officer, he served several tours of duty at the National Targeting Center near Washington, DC, where he quickly was promoted to its Advanced Targeting Team, an unprecedented accomplishment for an agent on temporary duty assignment. Officer Haney won numerous awards and commendations from his superiors for meticulously compiling information and producing actionable reports that led to the identification of hundreds of terrorists. He has specialized in Islamic theology and the strategy and tactics of the global Islamic movement. He retired honorably in July 2015.

ABOUT ART MOORE

Art Moore is an editor for online news giant WND. He entered the media world as a public relations assistant for the Seattle Mariners and a sports correspondent for Associated Press Radio. Moore served for ten years in Eastern Europe with a Christian organization and earned a master’s degree in communications from Wheaton College. Before joining WND shortly after 9/11, he was an editor for the news service Worldwide Newsroom and senior news writer for Christianity Today magazine.

See Something, Say Nothing will be in bookstores nationwide on May 24, 2016

RELATED ARTICLES:

Guide to the George Soros Network

The Peace & Security Funders Group: Funding the War Against the War-On-Terror

SEE NO SHARIA: How Our First Lines of Defense Have Been Disarmed

/in , , , /by

see_no_sharia_thumb-683x1024For much of the past fifteen years, the United States government has failed to understand, let alone decisively defeat, the enemy that, under the banner of its al Qaeda franchise, murderously attacked our country on September 11, 2001.  The reason why that has been so – notwithstanding the bravery and skill of our men and women in uniform and the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars – has been unclear to most Americans, including some in government.  Until now.

With the publication by the Center for Security Policy of a new book by two of its leaders, President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. and Vice President Clare Lopez, See No Sharia: “Countering Violent Extremism” and the Disarming of America’s First Lines of Defense, the case has been forcefully made that this sorry state of affairs is a product of a sustained and highly successful influence operation by Islamic supremacists. Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, Islamists in general and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular have gained access to and considerable sway over policymakers in the White House, the FBI and the Departments of State, Justice, Defense and Homeland Security.

President and CEO Frank Gaffney outlines the failures of the ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ program:

See No Sharia describes the trajectory that has flowed from such penetration and subversion.  It traces how fact-based counterterrorism and law enforcement have inexorably been supplanted by an approach defined by accommodations demanded by Islamists – purged lexicons and training programs, limitations on surveillance, case-making and rules of engagement and above all, eschewing anything that gives “offense” to Muslims.

In addition to showing the perils associated with such policies and practices as America faces the growing threat of global jihad and its animating doctrine of sharia, this book provides specific recommendations as to how to restore our first lines of defense – the FBI and other law enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security, the military and the intelligence community – whose effective service is needed today more than ever.

Frank Gaffney noted,

“Americans expect government officials to fulfill their oaths of office by protecting the Constitution, the Republic it established and its people from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  The vast majority of our public servants yearn to do their duty. Yet, as See No Sharia makes plain, for at least a decade and a half, they have been obliged to conform to policies that greatly diminish their chances for success.  We simply cannot afford to disarm those in our first lines of defense against Islamic supremacism and its jihad – both the violent kind and the stealthy sort the Muslim Brotherhood calls ‘civilization jihad.’”

Clare Lopez added,

“As a career intelligence professional, the extent to which our policy making apparatus has been penetrated and subverted by Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist operatives is deeply problematic.  This book is meant to expose their handiwork – and to impel the urgently needed and long-overdue policy course-correction.”

ABOUT THE CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.securefreedom.org.

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present this monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series.  “The Gulen Movement: Turkey’s Islamic Supremacist Cult and Its Contribution to Civilization Jihad in America” is available for purchase in kindle and paperback format on Amazon.com.

Click here for a full PDF of the newly released monograph.

Vetting Isn’t All It’s Cracked Up to Be

/in , , , , , /by

Should Americans be comfortable with the current refugee vetting process? 

Recently, the world was rocked by high profile Islamic terrorist attacks in far flung locales such as Paris, France and San Bernardino, California.  Some Americans have begun to raise serious concerns about how well individuals coming into the United States are screened.  Particularly, those streaming into our republic from such unfriendly places like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and Northern Sudan are a justifiable cause for concern.

I have wondered if the vetting process is really any good in the present configuration, particularly in regard to checking out people who are dedicated to a religion that thrives on the deception of non-participants.  Many passports certain people are using to get into our republic could and have at times been filled with false information.  In fact, some Muslim refugees traipsing into our nation have been found to be carrying false information about themselves.

Many applicants seeking entry into America apply for refugee status through the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR).  Then the applicants are forwarded to the traitorous U.S. State Department, which prepares these applications for adjudication by Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

Once an applicant is referred to the State Department biometric and biographic checks are conducted against various United States security databases are incorporated in this process, they include.

  1. Department of State
  • Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS)
  • Consular Consolidated Database (CCD)
  1. Department of Homeland Security
  • TECS   (a DHS Security System)
  • DHS Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT)
  1. National Counter Terrorism Center/FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center
  • Terrorist Identifies Datamart Environment
  • Terrorist Screening Database
  1. Federal Bureau of Investigation
  • Extracts of the National Crime Information Center’s wanted Persons File, Immigration
  • Violator File, Foreign Fugitive File, Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization File (and the Interstate Identification Index)
  • Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS)
  1. Interpol
  2. Drug Enforcement Administration
  3. Department of Defense
  • Automated Biometric Identification System (ABIS)

In addition, the refugee process requires a security advisory opinion to be completed by the FBI and the intelligence community on numerous refugee applicants who are considered higher risk.  Similarly, inter-agency checks (IACs) are constantly being done in connection with a wide range of U.S. agencies.

After the series of background checks, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services conducts a refugee interview.  These interviews cover everything from refugee immigration matters to security and nation-specific inquiries.

For example, Syrian Refugees Offices must undergo a one week training course on Syrian-specific issues, including classified information.  On top of that, scrutiny already is being applied to Syrians through the enhanced review for Syrian applicants process that put additional security and intelligence resources at the disposal of adjudicators.

Only at this point can an applicant be approved.  For those that are approved, health screenings and orientations begin.  The traitorous State Department and Office of refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services work with voluntary resettlement agencies to arrange for resettlement agencies to arrange for resettlement services and assistance.  After an average of 12 to 18 months, this process ends with entry into the United States.

My concern amongst many is that President Obama in typical bigoted, progressive fashion has stepped up efforts to make sure tens of thousands of Muslims file into the United States, while denying entry to Christian refugees from Syria.  It does not matter to Mr. Obama or other progressives in general that Christians are being slaughtered for sport, while the black African Christian that aren’t murdered are forced into brutal slavery, per instructions in the little quran.’

We must not forget that president Obama said that he wants to fundamentally change America.  One of the efficient ways to change America fundamentally is to flood her with people who have nothing in common with and no desire to assimilate into our country or culture.  In the case of dedicated Muslims, the vetting process is very detailed, but in a since fool-hearty.  By the way, since Muslims have declared war on the United States and Israel, it would not be wrong to consider a long moratorium on allowing them into our republic, at least until hostilities are extinguished.

Unfortunately, all dedicated Muslims who follow the tenets of their political/religious persuasion do not believe in assimilation into the countries they migrate to.  Their ultimate goal is domination and reducing women to sharia law third class abused citizens.  As we transition into a new year, let us as Americans rise together in unison from sea to shining sea in a Providentially guided effort to restore our nation under God with Liberty and Justice for all.  Then we will free ourselves from the dastardly plans of those who seek to kill, steal from and destroy America via a fake vetting system and open borders.

Happy New Year, God bless you God bless America and may America bless God.

DHS Whistleblower’s Open Letter to Congress: No Confidence in Administration’s Vetting Process

/in , , , , , /by

Today,  13-year Department of Homeland Security veteran, Philip B. Haney, released an open letter to Members of Congress, writing that he, “no longer [has] the confidence this administration can adequately vet or screen refugees or immigrants from Islamic countries.” (full text below)

Since becoming a whistleblower, Haney has met repeatedly with Members of Congress and their staffs in closed-door sessions, warning them of both the inadequacies of the Obama administration’s screening processes and the shut down of his investigation into extremist groups tied to both perpetrators of the San Bernardino terrorist attack.

On Fox News, Haney described an ill-advised action by DHS’ Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to terminate an investigation into groups associated to the Deobandi Movement and other Islamist groups. “This investigation could possibly have prevented the San Bernardino jihadist attack by identifying its perpetrators, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, based on their associations with these groups.”

An Open Letter to Members of Congress:

In the aftermath of the most devastating and lethal jihadist attack in the United States since 9/11, Americans are rightly angry their government will not face the problem of Islamic terrorism honestly. I know this first-hand.

During my 13 years at the Department of Homeland Security, I worked tirelessly to identify and prevent terrorism in the United States. As a recognized “founding member” of DHS, it was among my responsibilities to raise concern, not only about the individuals primed for imminent attack, but about the networks and ideological support that makes those terrorist attacks possible.

I investigated numerous groups such as the Deobandi Movement, Tablighi Jamaat, and al-Huda as their members traveled into and out of the United States in the course of my work. Many were traveling on the visa waiver program, which minimizes the checks and balances due to agreements with the countries involved. But the scrutiny we were authorized to apply was having results. This investigation could possibly have prevented the San Bernardino jihadist attack by identifying its perpetrators, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, based on their associations with these groups.

Almost a year into this investigation, it was halted by the State Department and the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. They not only stopped us from connecting more dots, the records of our targets were deleted from the shared DHS database. The combination of Farook’s involvement with the Dar Al Uloom Al Islamiyah Mosque and Malik’s attendance at al-Huda would have indicated, at minimum, an urgent need for comprehensive screening. Instead, Malik was able to avoid serious vetting upon entering the United States on a fiancé visa—and more than a dozen Americans are dead as a result.

The investigation was not stopped because it was ineffective, it was stopped because the Administration told us the civil rights of the foreign nationals we were investigating could be violated. When did foreign nationals gain civil rights in the United States, especially when they are associated with groups we already know are involved in terrorist activity? Based on what I have seen in the Department of Homeland Security, I no longer have the confidence this administration can adequately vet or screen refugees or immigrants from Islamic countries.

I took my story to the American people last week. Remarkably this week, DHS’ former acting under-secretary for intelligence and analysis, John Cohen, told ABC News that under the direction of DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, potential immigrants’ social media activity was off-limits to those responsible for screening.

Just as they did when they halted my investigation in 2012—which could have provided key intelligence and potentially saved over a dozen lives—DHS described a potential “civil liberties backlash” if the law enforcement officials tasked with keeping our country secure did the most basic checks on potential travelers, immigrants and refugees. Parents checking on someone their child may be dating look at social media, but our law enforcement officials can’t?

This administration has a deadly blind spot when it comes to Islamic terrorism. It is not willing to allow proper vetting and screening of refugees or immigrants from Islamic countries; Congress must take action to defend the security of the American people.

I understand the desire to welcome as many immigrants and refugees as possible, especially those fleeing dangerous conflict zones. However, this administration has handcuffed law enforcement officials tasked with vetting these individuals appropriately and that places the American people in danger.

Philip B. Haney

philip haney

Philip B. Haney

ABOUT PHILIP B. HANEY

Philip Haney served in Passenger Analysis Units at the Department of Homeland Security in Atlanta and at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s National Targeting Center. His responsibilities included in-depth research into individuals and organizations with potential links to terrorism.

After almost a year of research and tracking the Deobandi movement, Department of Homeland Security stopped the investigation, at the request of the Department of State and its own Civil Rights Civil Liberties Division, claiming that tracking individuals related to these groups was a violation of the travellers’ civil liberties.

Haney says, “The administration was more concerned about the civil rights and liberties of foreign Islamic groups with terrorist ties than the safety and security of Americans.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Conservatives ‘Shocked’ by Change to Immigration Law Tucked Inside Omnibus Spending Bill

How Well Is US Vetting Social Media of Immigrants? San Bernardino Attack Sparks Debate

Marco Rubio: ‘We Can’t Accept Refugees That We Can’t Truly Vet’

DHS: Quick to investigate Ohio High School Students … Radicalized Muslims not so much

/in , , , , /by

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and four other government agencies, missed identifying the radicalized Muslim couple who were responsible for the slaughter in San Bernardino. That’s the bad news. The good news is that the DHS was quick on the case of a group of Ohio High School Students who created the Killery Clinton political action committee.

Hands off Muslims who migrate to America bent on slaughter, investigate Ohio high school students exercising their First Amendment rights. 

What’s wrong with this picture?

Victor Skinner from EGANews.org reports:

A group of Ohio students who started an anti-Hillary Clinton super PAC in their government class were forced to can their creation after a visit from federal officials.

“We all try to be good students and this is not reflecting positively on us, so I hope you understand,” one of the students wrote in response to Cleveland.com’s request for comment about the super PAC “Killary Clinton.”

killaryclintonThe Pataskala, Ohio junior and two classmates were inspired to launch the PAC after another student, 17-year-old Cory Steer, started his own super PAC called “Better America for Tomorrow” to support Republican presidential hopeful Marco Rubio.

“We thought it was cool so we just talked about it,” one of the students, who were not identified, told the news site.

The students filed their paperwork with the Federal Election Commission Nov. 17 for the PAC “Killary Clinton” because their focus was on criticizing the former Secretary of State.

“We just did it for the heck of it,” the student said.

The teens also set up a Twitter account to get their message out, and their efforts quickly gained attention.

“The Department of Homeland Security, which is the umbrella department over the Secret Service, came to Pataskala and asked questions,” Cleveland.com Washington Bureau Chief Stephen Koff wrote. “Its inquiry seems to have been along the lines of ‘just checking it out,’ although a spokeswoman said the department probably would not be able to answer more specific questions (and has not responded to those questions).”

Koff added that the students’ government teacher and principal both ignored requests to discuss the issue. He alleges the principal also spoke with students and “just wanted to make sure his school and students weren’t doing anything improper.”

Read more.

Five Different Government Agencies Vetted San Bernardino Muslim Female Slaughterer

/in , , , , , /by

It just keeps getting worse. At first we were told that she had been vetted by two agencies. Apparently Obama Administration officials were hoping to cover up the magnitude of this failure. In any case, Tashfeen Malik stands as a witness to the impossibility of vetting for jihadis.

Tashfeen-Malik

Tashfeen Malik

“U.S. missed ‘red flags’ with San Bernardino shooter,” CBS News, December 14, 2015:

As investigators focus on what or who motivated San Bernardino shooters Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, to open fire at the Inland Regional Center, a report about Malik’s comments on social media before she moved to the U.S. is raising questions about how thoroughly she was vetted.

Law enforcement sources confirmed to CBS News that Malik made radical postings on Facebook as far back as 2012 — the year before she married Farook and moved to the U.S., reports CBS News correspondent Carter Evans. According to a report in the New York Times, Malik spoke openly on social media about her support for violent jihad and said she wanted to be a part of it. But none of these postings were discovered when Malik applied for a U.S. K-1 fiancé visa.

“If you’re going to start doing a deeper dive into somebody and looking at their social media postings or other things, you really want to focus your effort on the high-risk traveler, the person that you’re really worried about being a threat to the United States,” said James Carafano, national security expert and vice president of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation. “The question is, how do you identify them?”

Malik was not identified as a threat despite being interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan and vetted by five different government agencies that checked her name and picture against a terror watch list and ran her fingerprints against two databases.…

RELATED VIDEO: Pamela Geller with Charles Payne on Fox Business on San Bernardino Catastrophic Intel Failure:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Three House Panels to Investigate Islamic State Intelligence Scandal to Make it Appear that President Obama is Winning the War Against ISIS

DHS chief extended policy preventing scrutiny of visa applicants’ social media

100s of migrants in Norway had photos of executions and severed heads

Massachusetts judge orders landlord to learn about Islam after dispute with Muslim tenant

72 U.S. Department of Homeland Security employees on terrorist watchlist

/in , , , /by

Representative Stephen Lynch (D-Massachusetts) points up an appalling weakness in the Homeland Security Department that won’t be fixed by the firing of these 72 employees and the resignation of the director (which director he is referring to is unclear; the DHS Secretary certainly didn’t resign).

The entire culture of the Department, and the Washington establishment, needs to be changed, such that there is not a remote possibility of people who are on a terrorist watchlist getting hired at DHS. But no adequate screening procedures are in place, because they would be “Islamophobic.”

Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., addresses an audience during a campaign rally in Boston’s South Boston neighborhood, Monday, April 29, 2013. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)

“Congressman Lynch: 72 Department of Homeland Security Employees On Terrorist Watchlist,” by Tori Bedford, WGBH, December 1, 2015:

Earlier this month, 47 democrats in the house of representatives defied a house veto threat by backing a GOP bill to ramp up screening requirements for Syrian and Iraqi refugees. Congressman Stephen Lynch was among them. He joined Jim Braude and Margery Eagan on Boston Public Radio to discuss the reasoning behind his vote and other congressional matters.

Questions are paraphrased, and responses are edited where noted […].

MARGERY: Let’s start with the vote on the Syrian refugees. Why were you with those 47 other democrats?

It’s a very simple bill, I know that it’s got subsumed within a larger discussion about immigration policy, but basically, the bill we voted on was a very short bill—four pages in length, basically, and it said that the director of national security shall review the vetting process as being conducted by both the FBI and the department of homeland security. Because of the disastrous results we’ve had so far with the screening process, especially the department of homeland security, I think it was a very good idea to have another set of eyeballs looking at that process.

Back in August, we did an investigation—the inspector General did—of the Department of Homeland Security, and they had 72 individuals that were on the terrorist watch list that were actually working at the Department of Homeland Security. The director had to resign because of that. Then we went further and did and eight-airport investigation. We had staffers go into eight different airports to test the department of homeland security screening process at major airports. They had a 95 percent failure rate. We had folks—this was a testing exercise, so we had folks going in there with guns on their ankles, and other weapons on their persons, and there was a 95 percent failure rate.

I have very low confidence based on empirical data that we’ve got on the Department of Homeland Security. I think we desperately need another set of eyeballs looking at the vetting process. That’s vetting that’s being done at major airports where we have a stationary person coming through a facility, and we’re failing 95 percent of the time. I have even lower confidence that they can conduct the vetting process in places like Jordan, or Belize or on the Syrian border, or in Cairo, or Beirut in any better fashion, especially given the huge volume of applicants we’ve had seeking refugee status.

JIM: Even if you’re right that the system needs strengthening, the most likely way that a terrorist would come into this country is not through an 18-24 month-long process, but through this Visa program that allows 20 million people from 38 countries to come here every single year with absolutely no prior approval at all.

We had Democratic and Republican proposals on this bill, and there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two of them. It became a sort of a proxy battle over immigration. You had a bunch of Republican governors who were using it politically, and saying, “we’re going to stop refugees from coming into our state, which is baloney because they have no ability—zero ability—under the constitution to actually prevent refugees from coming into their state. You also had other people on the far left saying that this would stop every person from coming into the United States. In both cases, if they only took the time to read the bill, they would see that it did not do either. The democratic proposal also requires a multi-layered vetting process of refugees.

The reason the refugee issue came up and not the Visa waiver program is because in the Paris example, you had somebody go into the stream of legitimate refugees and then perpetrate acts of violence upon the civilians in Paris. That’s why that example came to the forefront.

I agree with you—I think the Visa waiver program, where you’ve got 20 million people coming in, versus the [refugees] coming in, 10,000? perhaps? At the end of the day, obviously the Visa waiver program is the one that we should be looking at….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Boston Marathon jihad murderer wants a new trial

SecDef on Pakistan: “We do press them on the need to fight terrorists”

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: No way to vet Muslim Syrian refugees

/in , , , , , , /by

And since the Obama Administration continues in its resolute denial of the motivating and guiding ideology behind the global jihad, there is no possible way that DHS could effectively subject these refugees to “robust screening.” Any attempt by them to do so is foredoomed.

“DHS Confesses: No Databases Exist To Vet Syrian Refugees,” Investor’s Business Daily, October 6, 2015:

Immigration: As the White House prepares to dump another 10,000 Syrian refugees on U.S. cities, it assures us these mostly Muslim men undergo a “robust screening” process. Not so, admits the agency responsible for such vetting.

Under grilling from GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions, head of the Senate subcommittee on immigration, the Homeland Security official in charge of vetting Syrian and other foreign Muslim refugees confessed that no police or intelligence databases exist to check the backgrounds of incoming refugees against criminal and terrorist records.

“Does Syria have any?” Sessions asked. “The government does not, no sir,” answered Matthew Emrich, associate director for fraud detection and national security at DHS’ U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Sessions further inquired: “You don’t have their criminal records, you don’t have the computer database that you can check?” Confessed Emrich: “In many countries the U.S. accepts refugees from, the country did not have extensive data holdings.”

While a startling admission, it confirms previous reporting. Senior FBI officials recently testified that they have no idea who these people are, and they can’t find out what type of backgrounds they have — criminal, terrorist or otherwise — because there are no vetting opportunities in those war-torn countries.

Syria and Iraq, along with Somalia and Sudan, are failed states where police records aren’t even kept. Agents can’t vet somebody if they don’t have documentation and don’t even have the criminal databases to screen applicants.

So the truth is, we are not vetting these Muslim refugees at all. And as GOP presidential front-runners duly note, it’s a huge gamble to let people from hostile nations enter the U.S. without any meaningful background check. It’s a safer bet just to limit, if not stop, their immigration.

“If I win, they’re going back,” Donald Trump vowed. “They could be ISIS. This (mass Syrian immigration) could be one of the great tactical ploys of all time.”

Ben Carson, for his part, said that he would bar refugees from Syria because they are “infiltrated” with terrorists seeking to harm America. “To bring into this country groups infiltrated with jihadists makes no sense,” Carson asserted. “Why would you do something like that?”

The Obama regime claims to have no evidence of terrorist or even extremist infiltration. But Sessions made public a list of 72 recent Muslim immigrants arrested just over the past year who were charged with terrorist activity.

The list doesn’t include the Boston Marathon bombers, who emigrated from Chechnya as asylum seekers. Or the several dozen suspected terrorist bomb-makers brought into the U.S. as Iraq war refugees.

They included two al-Qaida in Iraq terrorists mistakenly resettled as refugees in Bowling Green, Ky. Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi were sent to Bowling Green even though they had been detained by authorities in Iraq for killing U.S. soldiers.

Alwan had crossed the border into Syria. Still, both passed background checks and were declared “clean.” They were then placed in U.S. public housing and afforded other welfare benefits.

While here, the two refugees plotted to obtain Stinger missiles and attack homeland targets. The FBI caught up to them before they could carry out their plans. They are now serving 40 years in federal prison….

RELATED ARTICLES:

US officials question Toyota over how Islamic State obtained SUVs, pick-up trucks spotted in videos

UN Human Rights Council member Saudi Arabia rejects international “interference” over Shia activist’s crucifixion