Posts

The Constitutionality of A Presidential State of Emergency

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

My inbox is being inundated with the question de jour: “If President Trump declares a ‘State of Emergency’ to build the wall on the border of Mexico, is that Constitutional?”

I am certain that is not the right question, or perhaps not the right way to ask it, but to ask it and answer it correctly, let’s briefly remind ourselves of America’s Constitutional structure and function.

The Constitution of the United States defines the powers for the three branches of federal government. Each of these branches are delegated specific enumerated powers that are not only limited and defined by the Constitution but also separate and distinct in their delegations. The branches of government do not share powers unless that specific cooperation is ascribed by the Constitution. For example, the power to create treaties (today referred to with the obfuscatory label — “deals”) is not an autonomous power belonging to the president but one that requires specific concurrence by the Senate.

Recall that the 10th Amendment declares that any power not delegated through the Constitution remains in the hands of the States. This is the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt’s “stewardship” doctrine that says the feds can do whatever they want as long as the Constitution doesn’t say they can’t. Federal Supremacists love this perspective. That was NOT the discussion or conclusion of the ratification debates. There are no unnamed powers floating in the ether waiting to be snatched up by the central government. Roosevelt’s Secretary of War William Taft rightly conveyed the framers’ positions, “a specific grant must be either in the Federal Constitution or in an act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof. There is no undefined residuum of power which (the federal government) can exercise because it seems…to be in the public interest…”

The specific delegations of power, as well as NON-delegations, were created thoughtfully, deliberately, with knowledge of history and human nature. The limitations of those powers involved considerable debate and study into past history and ancient governments.

Patrick Henry said in his famous “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech: “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #20: “Experience is the oracle of truth…”

However, it is not uncommon in the evolution of the American Republic to see the government AND the citizenry cast off the wisdom and experience enshrined in the founding documents to address some “urgent necessity.” Instead of taking the intentionally cumbersome path to do it right, Americans willingly run roughshod over Constitutional barriers because — “we have to get this done ,” or “there is no other way to do it!” These instances have slowly transmuted the Republic into the nearly limitless federal behemoth we know today.  We would be well-served to paste a banner over our televisions and computers reminding us of what William Pitt said in 1783:

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

So when people ask questions like “Can the president do…?” “Can the House, Senate, or Supreme Court do…?” the first sources that must be consulted are the Constitution and the people who drafted it.  If the Constitution provides no authority for the activity, then the power does not Constitutionally reside in the hands the federal government. So more to the root of the question being asked, “Does the Constitution enumerate a power to the President to declare a state of emergency?” The short answer is No.S

Every state of emergency refers to the National Emergencies Acts as the source of its authority. So the real question is “Does the Constitution authorize Congress to alter (expand or contract) executive power by legislative act?”  The constitutional answer to this question is obviously No.  Congress cannot add powers that the Constitution has not delegated to the president nor can they take away powers that have been delegated.  For Congress to have the authority to add power to the executive branch, they would have to possess the authority to actually amend the Constitution by congressional act, which they do not.  Additionally, for Congress to delegate a power to the executive branch that has been constitutionally delegated to Congress, is a per se violation of the Constitution by crushing the principle of Separation of Powers.  James Madison, quoting political philosopher Montesquieu, was very direct with his words regarding separation of powers:

“There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates…” Federalist #47

Spending, war, appropriations, national defense, and naturalization are all powers specifically delegated to Congress.  For Congress to abdicate its power to the executive branch is not only not authorized by the Constitution, it is necessarily forbidden by the principle of Separation of Powers to ensure the security of the Liberty of the people.

Shockingly, this debate over states of emergency has raged for decades and nobody seems to offer the obvious correct answer — if we want the President to have such powers we must amend the Constitution.

Yet if you consider how far we have strayed and how long we have been off the path, President Trump is doing nothing out of the ordinary, he is following a long history of extra-Constitutional (aka unconstitutional) action.  We have just accepted a broken government as the norm since at least 1861 when it comes to “national emergencies.”

If you tell a lie long enough, people believe it to be truth and the lie of expanded executive power has a long history.  I think this principle is even more powerful when that lie comes from someone you like, or applies to a situation you happen to agree with.  But that lie can only operate as truth with very dire consequences, the most obvious consequence would be that the lie operates as truth not only for the people you like but also the people you don’t like.

Some claim expansion of executive power began with the George Washington administration’s response to the whiskey rebellion. Yet in this instance, Congress authorized Washington to quell an “insurrection” which falls within the constitutional authority of both Congress and President. It was Congress that then began creating “stand-by laws” to give the President powers beyond the grant of the Constitution in time of “national emergency.” They should have proposed a Constitutional amendment, not passed a law. (Interestingly, Washington later pardoned everyone who was arrested during the rebellion, if they were not already acquitted.)

The first unilateral act of a president arose when Lincoln blockaded American ports and expanded military forces without Congress.  The Congress and the courts eventually went along and this became the confirmation and justification of the President’s emergency power.  Woodrow Wilson and FDR faced similar emergency power controversies and were not thwarted by Congress.  In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson started the “Presidential Proclamation” that triggered the availability of all so-called stand-by laws for these declarations of emergency.  The process came to a head when, after Truman proclaimed an emergency in response to Korean hostilities, the same order was used to wage war in Vietnam 22 years later. 

Congress, led by Senator Church, launched an investigation. One of numerous Congressional studies in 1973 showed that the Congress had already passed over 470 statutes granting the President “EXTRAORDINARY POWERS” during time of emergency.  In an attempt to restrain and proceduralize the use of emergency powers, perhaps restrain the monster they allowed to grow, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act on in September of 1976.

In light of the fact that Congress is not authorized through Congressional act to expand delegated authority, consider these two points from two constitutional delegates:

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.  No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” Federalist #78 — Alexander Hamilton

“…the power of the Constitution predominates.  Any thing (sic), therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law.” James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention 1787

The Constitution, as well, is not silent on this issue.  Article 6 clause 2 codifies the principles laid down by the above drafters of the Constitution when it says:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; …shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Every law must be made, every federal action must be taken, “in pursuance” to the Constitution.  If that act is not specifically authorized by the Constitution, then the “Judges in every State” are NOT bound thereby.  What that means is the “National Emergencies Act,” “War Powers Act,” 8 US 1182- empowering the president to determine the admissibility of aliens, and many, many others are all unconstitutional delegations of power by Congress to the president.  Which makes them, by the terms of the Constitution AND the drafters of that document, null and void.

So the question is NOT: “If the President declares a national emergency and builds the wall, is that Constitutional?” That’s an easy question to answer, No. The question is “Will we keep pretending to live in a Constitutional Republic, while making it up as we go along?”  Other than electing a Congress that actually cares for the security, safety and integrity of the nation, there are two simple options: Amend the Constitution and have the states give the president this authority or stop pretending, get rid of the Constitution and go back to a monarchy.

ABOUT KRISANNE HALL, JD

KrisAnne Hall is a former biochemist, Russian linguist for the US Army, and former prosecutor for the State of Florida. KrisAnne also practiced First Amendment Law for a prominent Florida non-profit Law firm. KrisAnne now travels the country teaching the foundational principles of Liberty and our Constitutional Republic. KrisAnne is the author of 6 books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, she also has an internationally popular radio and television show and her books and classes have been featured on C-SPAN TV. KrisAnne can be found at www.KrisAnneHall.com.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Has a Strong Legal Argument That He Can Declare National Emergency at Border

EDITORS NOTE: This column from The Revolutionary Act is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Anthony Garand on Unsplash.

Relegating Radical Islam to the ‘Ash Heap of History’

On June 8th, 1982 in a speech before the British Parliament President Ronald Reagan blazed forth with his belief that ”[T]he march of freedom and democracy . . . will leave Marxist Leninism on the ash heap of history.” Nine years later, on Christmas Day 1991, the Soviet flag flew over the Kremlin in Moscow for the last time.

Fast forward to February 15th, 2017 and the meeting between President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington, D.C.

During a press conference Prime Minister Netanyahu said to President Trump,

“Under your leadership, I believe we can reverse the rising tide of radical Islam, and in this great task, as in so many others, Israel stands with you and I stand with you. Mr. President, in rolling back militant Islam, we can seize an historic opportunity because for the first time in my lifetime and for the first time in the life of my country, Arab countries in the region do not see Israel as an enemy, but increasingly as an ally.”

Breitbart’s Edwin Mora reports:

President Donald Trump’s deputies intend to overhaul President Barack Obama’s “Countering Violent Extremism” program to focus only on Islamist extremism, says Reuters.

The shift is not finalized, but is expected to reduce federal focus on non-Islamic extremism, reports Reuters, citing five unnamed people briefed on the matter. The shift may also cut off pending federal funding for Islamic groups.

The pending reorganization comes after widespread reports that Obama’s program has already failed, largely because of opposition by resident Muslim activists and groups, say some Republican lawmakers and news outlets.

Reuters notes:

The program, ‘Countering Violent Extremism,’ or CVE, would be changed to ‘Countering Islamic Extremism’ or ‘Countering Radical Islamic Extremism,’ the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.

The news outlet cites Hoda Hawa, director of policy for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), who said she learned of the push to refocus the CVE program “from tackling all violent ideology to only Islamist extremism” from unnamed U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials last week.

MPAC has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and has previously advocated for the removal of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the group Palestinian Islamic Jihad from the U.S. State Department list of designated terrorist groups.

Read more…

President Trump has now named the evil empire bent on stopping the march of freedom and democracy in the world. That neo-evil empire is lead by radical Islamic supremacists. It is called “the Caliphate.” The restoring of the caliphate has been and remains the ultimate goal of radical Islamists.

Marxism, Leninism and radical Islam share a common ideal, the replacement of freedom with subjugation and replacing democracy with a totalitarian ideology based upon a fanatical world view.

President Trump understands this, others do not. The others are the followers of Marx, Lenin and Mohammed.

RELATED ARTICLE:

New Hamas Leader, a Vicious Killer, Portends New Rounds of Violence by Yaakov Lappin

Report: Muslim Sympathizers at CIA Behind Trump Leaks

President Trump’s Immigration Challenge: To undo Obama’s catastrophic damage

On January 20, 2017 President Trump can and likely will end all of Obama’s illegal immigration executive orders, but he needs to do more.

For decades the effective enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws was hobbled by lack of resources in general and a particularly devastating failure to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.

For decades the Border Patrol was perceived as the primary enforcement arm of America’s immigration laws and for the Border Patrol this worked out fine.  They got the lion’s share of publicity and, far more importantly, the funding while INS special agents and the interior enforcement mission were all but ignored

When the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) was created in the wake of the terror attacks of 9/11, the former INS was dismantled and broken into several components of the DHS and mixed in with other agencies, principally the U.S. Customs Service.

Bad as it was for INS agents to operate in the shadow of the Border Patrol, the creation of the DHS was disastrous and caused many of the INS agents nostalgic for “the good old days.”

On May 5, 2005 the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims conducted a hearing on the topic, “New ‘Dual Mission’ Of The Immigration Enforcement Agencies.”

I was one of four witnesses who testified at that hearing.  In point of fact, I testified at several hearings that sought to understand the challenges that the creation of the DHS created for the effective enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws.

In my testimony I clearly articulated my concerns about the myriad issues created when the DHS was established and the former INS was dismantled.

Consider this excerpt from the testimony of then-Subcommittee Chairman John Hostettler in which he articulated the importance of immigration law enforcement and that was, however, hobbled by the creation of the DHS:

The first two Subcommittee hearings of the year examined in detail how the immigration enforcement agencies have inadequate resources and too few personnel to carry out their mission. The witnesses mentioned the lack of uniforms, badges, detention space, and the inevitable low morale of frontline agents who are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of incoming illegal aliens. If this were not enough, these ”immigration enforcement” agencies also face internal confusion resulting from dual or multiple missions in which immigration has all too often taken a back seat. Sadly, contrary to Congress’ expectations, immigration enforcement has not been the primary focus of either of these agencies, and that is the subject of today’s hearing.

The Homeland Security Act, enacted in November 2002, split the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS, into separate immigration service and enforcement agencies, both within the Department of Homeland Security. This split had been pursued by Chairman Sensenbrenner based on testimony and evidence that the dual missions of INS had resulted in poor performance.

There was a constant tug-of-war between providing good service to law-abiding aliens and enforcing the law against law-breakers. The plain language of the Homeland Security Act, Title D, creates a ”Bureau of Border Security,” and specifically transfers all immigration enforcement functions of INS into it. Yet when it came down to actually creating the two: new agencies, the Administration veered off course. Although the service functions of INS were transferred to USCIS, the enforcement side of INS was split in two, what is now Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to handle interior enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to guard our borders.

ICE was given all Customs agents, investigators, intelligence and analysis-from the Treasury Department, as well as the Federal Protective Service to guard Federal buildings, and the Federal Air Marshals to protect our airplanes, and finally the INS investigators.

CBP was given all Treasury Customs inspectors at the ports-of-entry, Agriculture Inspector from the Department Of Agriculture, and INS inspectors.

At no time during the reorganization planning was it anticipated by the Committee that an immigration enforcement agency would share its role with other enforcement functions, such as enforcement of our customs laws. This simply results in the creation of dual or multiple missions that the act sought to avoid in the first place.

Failure to adhere to the statutory framework established by HSA has produced immigration enforcement incoherence that undermines the immigration enforcement mission central to DHS, and undermines the security of our Nation’s borders and citizens.

It is not certain on what basis it was determined that customs and agriculture enforcement should become part of the immigration enforcement agency, except to require Federal agents at the border to have more expertise and more functions.

It is also unknown on what basis the Federal Air Marshals should become part of this agency, especially since it has been revealed that the policy is not to apprehend out-of-immigration status aliens when discovered on flights. If the mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to protect the homeland, it cannot effect its mission by compromising or neglecting immigration enforcement for customs enforcement.

The 9/11 terrorists all came to the United States without weapons or contraband—Added customs enforcement would not have stopped 9/11 from happening. What might have foiled al Qaeda’s plan was additional immigration focus, vetting and enforcement. And so what is needed is recognition that, one, immigration is a very important national security issue that cannot take a back seat to customs or agriculture. Two, immigration is a very complex issue, and immigration enforcement agencies need experts in immigration enforcement. And three, the leadership of our immigration agencies should be shielded from political pressures to act in a way which could compromise the Nation’s security.

It was clear that the Bush administration was eager to de-emphasize immigration law enforcement.  What was not noted in the testimony is that most of the management at ICE came from Legacy Customs and not from Legacy INS.

However, as bad as things became when the DHS was created by the Bush administration, the Obama administration, once again, caused ICE agents to become nostalgic about “the good old days” of the Bush administration.

While nature’s laws are immutable, legislated laws are not.  Law enforcement personnel are essential to the enforcement of laws.

The incoming Trump administration must make effective interior enforcement of our immigration laws a key priority if his immigration policies are to be successful.

Additionally, because of the policies of the Obama administration, there is an abject lack of managers and agents who have any actual experience or understanding of effective immigration law enforcement.

Institutional memory about effective immigration law enforcement has been all but expunged from the DHS.

Furthermore, most federal prosecutors lack experience in bringing criminal charges for violations of immigration laws.

I would recommend that the Trump administration make training a key priority for all prosecutors and immigration enforcement programs as well as for the employees of USCIS.

They all need to work cooperatively and collaboratively.

The culture of the adjudications program that is the realm of USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) is to not cooperate with the ICE agents.  This culture was created and nurtured by the Obama administration.

The Trump administration must swiftly remove or reassign any USCIS managers who refuse to cooperate fully and collaboratively with ICE enforcement personnel.

Consider a particularly egregious case involving the manager of the San Bernardino office of USCIS obstructed ICE/HSI agents assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force from entering her facility.  They were seeking to locate and arrest a suspected co-conspirator of the San Bernardino terror attack less than 24 hours after that attack.

She was subsequently nominated for the prestigious Secretary’s Award.

My article about this insanity included this excerpt:

On March 16, 2016, Senator Ron Johnson, the Chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, requested an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Homeland Security into the circumstances surrounding this monumental screw-up.  On June 1, 2016 the OIG report of the investigation was made public.

This is how the OIG report described the outrageous confrontation between the USCIS manager and the ICE agents:

The Field Office Director told the agents they were not allowed to arrest, detain, or interview anyone in the building based on USCIS policy, and that she would need to obtain guidance from her superior before allowing them access. During this exchange, the agents also spoke by phone with the Acting Chief, Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS), USCIS, Los Angeles. According to the HSI agents, he told the agents that it was USCIS policy not to arrest, detain, or interview on USCIS property.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) also accused her of lying to their investigators.

President-elect Trump’s has focused on immigration.  He will have the unique opportunity to address the multiple failures of the immigration system, many of which are decades old while some were created by the Obama administration.

Trump’s leadership can undo the madness foisted on America and Americans by the Obama administration and even correct the errors inherent in the way that the DHS was created in response to the terror attacks of 9/11.

What a way to start the new year and a new administration.

EDITORS NOTE: This column first appeared in Frontpage Magazine.

Democratic convention more about Fantasyland than America

If you had just arrived from Mars to observe the Republican and Democratic conventions, one after the other, you undoubtedly would conclude that they were talking about two different countries.

One America recognizes real threats from foreign jihadi fighters who seek to eradicate our existence and to replace our freedoms with Islamic sharia law. It believes that economic revival — through tax reform, trade reform, and enforcing our borders and immigration laws – holds the key to future prosperity.

The other America believes we face no real foreign threats, the economy is doing great, and that our biggest challenge comes from crop failures, rising seas, and monster storms caused by — you guessed it, climate change.

It wasn’t by chance that the Democrats made no mention of ISIS on the first day of the convention and scarcely mentioned it on the next two days.

Terrorism and Islamist ideology that seek to replace our democratic republic with a “superior” law written by Allah are a distraction from the real mission of Democrats in Philadelphia. As former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley put it: “to hell with Trump’s American nightmare.”

In his first year in office, President Obama directed the Central Intelligence Agency to divert significant assets from the war against real threats from terrorists and enemy nations to the hypothetic dangers of “climate change.”

The Defense Department was ordered to follow suit, and under Obama’s direction, launched massive building programs at American naval bases to shelter them from rising seas.

President Obama squandered billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in pursuit of an ideological agenda.

This past May, the CIA quietly shuttered its climate change initiative, since it was unable to find data to sustain the Left’s faith in its new religion that man-made climate change would destroy the earth, or significant portions of it.

Cyclical changes in our climate have always occurred and have had dramatic impacts in the past, long before the carbon emissions the Left blames for today’s droughts and tsunamis.

Hollywood actress Signourey Weaver, hair on fire, introduced a “scare-me” video by James Cameron and claimed that farmers in Kansas were losing their crops today because of climate change.

I understand that Ms. Weaver is too young to have lived through the Dust Bowl — so am I. But I would hope she isn’t too dumb to have read about it and to have understood that these things have happened before, and will happen again.

Government’s role, in such circumstances, is to extend a helping hand of solidarity to individuals who lose their livelihoods to disasters they had no way of foreseeing. Its role is not to preemptively cripple the nation with fantasy-driven regulations and shut down entire sectors of the economy.

Incapable of a sustained conversation about national security, we’re left with Sen. Harry Reid suggesting that the Director of National Intelligence should “fake” national security briefings to Donald Trump. Why? Because Trump suggested that perhaps the Russians might be able to find the 33,000 emails Hillary Clinton admitted she deleted from the private server even President Obama warned her not to use.

In Senator Reid’s mind, entrusting Mrs. Clinton with our national security secrets is just fine, even though FBI Director James Comey acknowledged she had been “extremely careless” by transmitting highly-classified intelligence information on her personal email server. Let’s not forget that the FBI still hasn’t found more than 2,000 classified emails Mrs. Clinton deleted.

Bill Clinton thought he had found a “trump” card that would earn his wife a place in the pantheon of national security heroes.

“She launched a team — and this is really important today — she launched a team to fight back against terrorists — online — and built a new global counterterrorism effort,” he said.

Think about that for a moment. In the words of her own husband, Mrs. Clinton’s main achievement in the war against the terrorists attacking us was to hire a few social media analysts whose advice she didn’t consult and in fact ignored when they informed her the Benghazi attacks had nothing to do with a YouTube video insulting Mohammad.

I’ve got news for the Clintons: our intelligence community has been focusing on social media for years. The biggest growth industry among the Beltway bandits is foreign language experts who can mine Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites for evidence of jihadi connections.

That’s great, but it isn’t enough.

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta went overboard in his support for Mrs. Clinton, claiming that, if elected, she would take office as someone who “has the trust of our troops who know she will always have their back.”

Four men died in Benghazi because Mrs. Clinton didn’t have their backs. Instead of rushing to the rescue, she spent hours in meetings trying to keep Panetta from sending reinforcements to their rescue.

But that’s the other America. The America of facts.

The differences of our two Americas are many. One America lionizes the mothers of young black men killed by the police – often after they had committed assaults of one sort or another. The other celebrates as heroes police officers gunned down by snipers seeking vengeance.

One America believes that women, illegal immigrants, invalids, minorities, and people with kaleidoscope glasses constitute grievance classes who deserve special treatment. The other believes that all Americans deserve equal treatment under the law and equal opportunity under our system.

As a life-long investigative reporter, I remain committed to the facts. But I recognize that the contest in November will be determined not by facts, but by faith, and by how many believers on each side come to the polls. That is the new reality of the two Americas of 2016.

Fitting, Trump Clinches GOP Nomination on Memorial Day Weekend

The Associated Press reported on Thursday [May 26, 2016] that Donald J. Trump has exceeded the 1,237 delegates necessary to win the Republican Party’s nomination for President of the United States on the first ballot at the party’s convention next month.

Mr. Trump had 1,229 delegates after winning the state of Washington on Tuesday, but since then has received commitments from enough unbound delegates to put him over the top. Trump is expected to expand his now insurmountable lead next month, when the last five states to vote—South Dakota, New Mexico, New Jersey, Montana, and California—hold their primaries.

Fox News reports, “Trump’s achievement marks the completion of a primary campaign that has upended the political landscape and defied multiple predictions of failure from political commentators. It now sets the stage for a bitter fall campaign against likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.” The NRA endorsed Mr. Trump last week.

Meanwhile, though Clinton is still favored to win the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, the Washington Post reports that Hillary Clinton’s email problems just got worse, following the release of a State Department Inspector General’s report, which described Clinton’s manner of handling her emails as “not an appropriate method.” Clinton refused to speak to the Inspector General’s investigators.

Asked about the news during a press conference in North Dakota, Trump said the report shows that Clinton suffers from “bad judgment,” an assessment that would be equally appropriate if the report had assessed Clinton’s position on gun control.

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

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’

Star Wars Episode 10: Donald J. Skywalker v. Darth H. Obama [Video]

Pat Condell, noted commentator from the UK, in a video titled “We Want The Truth” explains from a British perspective why Donald Trump is the favored candidate in the Republican Party.

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. confidence in protection from attack lowest in over a decade
http://www.military.com/daily-news/20…

Government missed red flags on San Bernadino killers
http://www.breitbart.com/national-sec…

San Bernadino killer passed three background checks to gain entry to the US
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic…

FBI admits there is no way to screen all the Syrian refugees Obama plans to accept into the US
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic…

Donald Trump calls for a temporary ban on Muslims coming the the US
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-ca…

Trump still winning despite Muslim backlash
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/20…

Trump wins more support as petition reaches half a million signatures
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world…

Trump is right. Police say parts of Britain are no-go areas
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/6255…

U.S. report warns of ISIS ability to create fake passports
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/11/pol…

Obama bows to the Saudi king
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world…

VIDEO: Six Patriots explain why the Iran Nuke Deal is a ‘Bad Deal’ for U.S.

The United West video taped six American patriots on the Iran nuclear deal. These six distinguished individuals include: a Rabbi, a former Iranian prisoner and dissident, a gold star father, a wounded warrior veteran of Iraq, a retired Army Lieutenant General and a former CIA operations officer.

A statement by William Kristol, Chairman of the Emergency Committee for Israel, on the potential vote in Congress on the Iran deal reads:

“The Obama Administration has not complied with the legal requirement that it provide Congress ‘any additional materials’ related to the Iran deal, including ‘side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.’ The Administration has not given Congress a key side agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, one which describes how key questions about the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program will be resolved, as well as how the verification regime will work.

“Congress should not accept this evasion of the law by the Obama Administration. Congress should insist on the text of this and any other side agreements. Lacking this, Congress can and should take the position that the Iran deal has not been properly submitted to Congress to review, and therefore that the president has no authority to waive or suspend sanctions.

“We understand the temptation of leadership to get to a vote on a resolution of disapproval and then to move on to other votes. But the Iran deal isn’t just another legislative issue where some corner-cutting by the Administration is to be accepted with a brief expression of discontent followed by a weary sigh of resignation.

“The Iran deal is the most important foreign policy issue this Congress will have before it. Congress should rise to the occasion and insist on its prerogative — and the American people’s prerogative — to see the whole deal. The first resolution the House should consider when it returns tomorrow should be one stating that Congress has not been provided the material it needs, that the Iran deal has not been properly submitted to Congress, and therefore that the president has no authority to waive or suspend sanctions on Iran.”

Please take the time to watch all the videos or one that interests you the most. It is important to keep the pressure on those 34 Democrat U.S. Senators who have decided that the interests of Iran far outweigh the interests of the American people.

Thanks for taking the time to watch, share and send this compilation to your U.S. Senators and member of Congress.

VIDEO #1: Billy Vaughn and Staff Sargent Robert Bartlett. Gold Star father Billy Vaughn and U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Ret.) Robert Bartlett urge everyone to call their Congressman and Senators to vote NO on the Iran Deal. Our soldiers died and sacrificed for your freedoms, pay them back by simply making your voice heard.

VIDEO #2: LTG Jerry Boykin. Retired U.S. Army General Jerry Boykin is one of America’s most significant leaders on national security issues, including Iran’s march to Atomic weapons. Moreover, Boykin is an ordained Minister serving as the Executive Vice President at the Family Research Council in Washington DC. Listen to this his critically important and insightful analysis of the Obama/Iran Nuclear Deal.

VIDEO #3: Amir Fakhravar. Amir Abbas Fakhravar, (Siavash) is an Iranian jailed dissident and award winning writer. Amir exposes the Blindfolded inspection procedure under the current Iran deal. Currently Fakhravar serves as Research Fellow and Visiting Lecturer at the Institute of World Politics.

VIDEO #4: Clare Lopez. Clare Lopez is a retired CIA Operations Officer, currently VP of Research & Analysis at Center for Security Policy. Recently in Montecito California she presented an amazing, short, insightful deconstruction of this horrendous deal that President Obama has made with the Iranian Ayatollah.

VIDEO #5: Rabbi Efrem Goldberg. Unedited footage of Efrem Goldberg protesting Joe Biden on the Iran deal in Broward County FL, at a Jewish Community Center.

VIDEO #6: Rabbi Efrem Goldberg at his Boca Raton synagogue. Senior Rabbi at the prestigious Boca Raton Synagogue in Florida delivers a powerful, on-point message against the Obama Iran Nuclear deal. Please listen to this very brave man!

VIDEO #7: Ryan Mauro, Research Analyst for the Clarion Project, producers of award-winning documentaries on national security issues presents a powerful deconstruction of the Iran/Obama Nuke Deal at the Montecito Luncheon Briefing.

Trump to Deliver National Security Address at Veterans for a Strong America Event

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. /PRNewswire/ — Donald J. Trump will join Veterans for a Strong America (VSA) Chairman Joel Arends and VSA board members, dignitaries and supporters for a major national security address aboard the battleship USS Iowa Tuesday, September 15, 2015 in Los Angeles, California on the eve of the CNN presidential debate focused around national security.

Arends, a decorated veteran of the war in Iraq, said, “Donald Trump is a long standing supporter of veterans and the military and we are honored that he has chosen our organization and event for his major national security address.”

The “Make America’s Military Great Again” event will focus on topics of concern for our veterans, the military, and their families. Public opinion polls show that national security issues are among the top concerns for all age groups of Americans. VSA’s 500,000 supporters nationwide are particularly vocal about reforming a broken and corrupt VA Health Care system, rebuilding our military after six years of drastic budget cuts, defeating ISIS and preventing the rise of a nuclear Iran.

Arends continued, “Donald Trump has stated very clearly he supports an American military that is so powerful it will be challenged by no one, and that he equally supports caring for veterans when they return home by providing them with the healthcare and treatment they deserve. Mr. Trump knows what America’s military and veterans community needs and he is prepared to fight to achieve it. It’s an honor to host Mr. Trump for this historic address.”

Jonah Goldberg, AEI fellow writes, “There are many reasons the non-politicians — Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina — are doing so well, but near the top is the fact that they haven’t internalized the language of political consultants and pundits.”

ABOUT VETERANS FOR A STRONG AMERICA

Veterans for a Strong America is an Iraq and Afghanistan veterans organization dedicated to mobilizing Americans to communicate the importance of a robust national defense and to ensuring that America remains a strong nation by advancing liberty, safeguarding freedom and opposing tyranny.

Intelligent Debate: Data and Privacy

A political row is once again brewing over data and privacy. This week David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation published his report into the future of surveillance legislation.

In it he accepted that our intelligence agencies need to carry on being able to access data in bulk and he remained open to enhancing our ability to get more data if an operational and legal case can be made (which means revisiting the so-called “Snoopers’ Charter”). He accepted the need for the retention of powers introduced in emergency legislation last summer and suggested a number of reforms including a new commissioner to provide oversight on the entire system.

But potentially problematically he also proposes getting much more involvement from the judiciary in the process. This includes all authorisations for interception warrants (such as the content of emails) to be taken away from the Secretary of State and handed over to a judge. This is a big step and a potentially very unfortunate one. Politicians are able to assess the diplomatic landscape when approving warrants, and not just the legal technicalities; they may need to sign warrants in the middle of the night in an emergency; and are ultimately accountable in a way judges are not.

Of course this whole area is one over which there is a huge public interest. HJS has involved itself in that debate for two principle reasons. The first is that the debate needs to be far better informed than it currently is. As David Anderson himself said this week, an exceedingly small number of people actually know what they are talking about in this area. We would add, however, that almost everybody has an opinion. The gap between interest and knowledge in this area urgently needs to be addressed.

But the second reason is that the gap should be filled by people who are not hostile to the principles of intelligence and national security. In scoping out the ground for our recent report we discovered that almost all of the organisations and groups who have been most vociferous and most quoted in these matters are groups which (with the obvious exception of government agencies) have expressed a remarkable degree of hostility to matters which are absolutely essential for the proper running of a national security apparatus. These are groups and organisations who simultaneously wish to criminalise our intelligence services, make them so transparent they could not possibly operate and transfer almost all oversight powers from politicians to lawyers.

We believe that there is a public interest in the intelligence agencies being able to do their job of keeping the public safe and that politicians are best placed – and ultimately most accountable – to oversee that process. This is not, or should not be, a minority pursuit. It is, rather, a matter of the utmost public and political significance.


 

mendozahjsFROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK

It’s often the case that you can assess whether you are hitting the mark, or not, as an organisation, by what your detractors say about you. If you have gotten them sufficiently riled that they feel the need to spend time and resources on combating your message, then it is a safe bet to assume you are succeeding. If they don’t even attempt to engage in intellectual debate and instead try to attack you as an organisation – playing the ‘”man” rather than the “ball” as it were – then you’ve pretty much hit the bullseye. Thus it proved this week with the convening of a conference at the University of Bath which spent a good portion of its time mentioning The Henry Jackson Society as standing in the way of its pro-Islamist and anti-Western agenda.

Featuring such luminaries as Norman Finkelstein and Max Blumenthal as its star attractions, HJS was honoured to receive a whole panel session dedicated to itself at the conference. Our session was headlined by the Director of the Cordoba Foundation – an innocent-sounding organisation until you realise that no less a person than British Prime Minister David Cameron has called it a “political front for the Muslim Brotherhood” – and the notorious former Guantanamo Bay detainee Moazzam Begg, Director of pro-terrorist group CAGE. HJS has of course been instrumental in public education about CAGE’s pro-terrorist agenda in past months.

As I have written before, we wear criticism from sources such as these as a badge of pride. We are clearly doing something right if strenuous efforts are being made to oppose us by some of Britain’s most dangerous ideologues. I don’t think it is any coincidence that as our effectiveness in researching and highlighting public policy problems in the counter-terrorism and extremism areas has increased in recent years, so has the level of ire directed at us.

So I would like to conclude this week by thanking our staff for their dedication to their work and in ensuring that our message continues to get heard. Their jobs are not easy ones. But it is of the utmost importance that they are prepared to do them for the greater good.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society

Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

RELATED ARTICLE: Max Blumenthal warmly endorses CAGE pro-jihad, pro-stoning UK Muslim leader

The Idiocy of Modernity

President Obama proves over and over again how the idiocy of modernity is utterly jaw dropping.  The president recently stated that the United States is now the “most respected country in the world.”  I had to review that statement several times over and over again, just to make sure I wasn’t hallucinating.  First of all, from the outset of his first term in office, the White House Occupier has seen fit to purposefully disrespect our allies.  Not since the 1938 Munich Conference, where First Lord of the admiralty Duff Cooper resigned in protest from British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s cabinet has there been a leader of a nation so adamant to appease enemies of his country, until now.

Prime Minister Chamberlain believed in bending over backwards to try and please Herr Hitler through the language of sweet reasonableness.  History unfolded and fully exposed the folly Chamberlain’s day dream of being buddies with Hitler, by making nice and granting hideous concessions which eventually proved dreadfully harmful to Great Britain.  While Neville Chamberlain sought a favorable position in the eyes of Hitler, Sir Winston Churchill rightfully bristled with much concern and anger that heated to the boiling point.   He called Chamberlains appeasement effort “A misplaced belief in sweet reason and a moral fiber as stiff as two overripe melons crushed together.”

Much like Chamberlain, who granted more favor toward Hitler’s demands than the safety of Great Britain at the onset of World War Two, so is President Obama today consistently more concerned with enemy demands and desires than our national security.

Yet in stark contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been openly vocal about his refusal to give in to unreasonable demands of those who have vowed to destroy his delightful nation.  The idiocy of president Obama’s refusal to govern on behalf of the best interest of the United States, has resulted in America now teetering on the brink of tumbling down from her lofty perch as the world’s number one nation, militarily, morally, economically and socially.  Mr. Obama has methodically created a level of Allied nations distrust of the United States never experienced before in the history of our dear republic.

To gain a full grip on how idiotic President Obama’s policies are (at least from the angle of the rational self- interest of America) I watched a recent episode of an Egyptian television talk show.  The host and his guests were actually lamenting over the various economic, social, military, and moral decisions the president of our nation has made and are literally killing our country.  The Egyptian talk show participants laughed hysterically about Obama’s anemic approach toward ISIS, which is sweeping through the Middle East like a plague of murdering locusts.

The United States was founded upon the greatest set of national principles ever assembled, other than what is found in the Bible.  Yet, she like a drunken idiot of modernity, the government continues to write and enact mountains of laws and regulations the create lack of function.  Thus, America is taken further and further away from the mighty foundational rock the made our republic, the greatest nation ever.  The ever growing system of unlawful laws and regulations are turning America into a self-destroyer of her economy, military, educational system, churches and even our constitutionally limited republic way of life.

Under the idiocy of today, America has devolved from a nation where the government was of by and for the people into of by and for the elite progressives, who now live to destructively lord over “We the People.”  As I have state3d before in The Edwards Notebook radio commentary, wisdom has sprouted wings and flown back to the Father, or God.  The evidence is almost everywhere.  How else can one explain the stupidity of instructing the police to no longer approach suspicious looking characters?  To magnify the problems, the know it all city governments refuse to allow the police to reestablish a more aggressive posture towards potential criminals despite major spikes in the street cretin activity. Simply check out statistics in Chicago, Atlanta, Baltimore, Ferguson, Mo.  Cleveland may soon be added to the list of cities with a dramatic increase in crime. Thanks to the Department of Justice hamstringing police officers with extraneous overbearing regulations that will make it impossible for them to be a real force against thug activity.

Dear reader, the idiocy culture now strangling the life out of our overburdened nation is obviously destructive indeed.  But the good news is that this tragedy by design can and I believe, will be overcome.  That is, if we are willing to put aside petty differences and decide that America is worth rescuing and rebuilding.  Those of us who desire authentic life liberty and the pursuit of happiness must look to the same providential provider who granted great wisdom and overcoming power to many great Americans of the past and present.  The likes of which include the founding fathers, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, Billy Graham, Ronald Reagan and the founders of Women Defending America.

I firmly believe that wisdom returning from the Father will soon resonate in the minds of those with the heartbeat of Christ and the iron are going to reconstruct this sweet land of liberty.  The really good news is that we are obligated nor should we be willing to sit idly by and watch our America be swept away by those who hate her.  Victory is achievable.  So let us take hold of it and win.

Federal Refugee Program Brings Jihadi Threat to America

According to the Pew Research Religion and Public Life Project (Pew Research) there are an estimated 2.7 million Muslims in America. Pew Research reported in 2013 over I million legal immigrants entered the U.S. of which 100,000 were Muslim. More than 1.3 million Muslims have been brought into the U.S. via the billion dollar U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (U.S. RAP). Annually the U.S. RAP brings in 70,000 refugees allotted by the UN High Commissioner of Refugees (UNHCR). These annual USRAP allotments are virtually controlled by the UNHCR, which designates refugee populations most at risk. The current USRAP allotment exceeds that of all other countries combined. Separate from the U.S. RAP are other legal avenues for Muslim immigration that include the asylum program that converts illegal border crossers into legal immigrants with benefits equivalent to refugees, the Diversity “Green Card” Lottery and the investor EB-5 Visa Program.

According to Ann Corcoran, editor of the Refugee Resettlement Watch  (RRW) blog,  this UN refugee agency “virtually calls the shots”  for the U.S. RAP that provides legal refugee immigrants with a veritable smorgasbord of cash welfare, Social Security benefits for elderly refugees, Medicaid, educational  assistance and a pathway to ultimate citizenship. Including both federal and state level benefits; some experts estimate that the annual total cost of the U.S. RAP could be upwards of $12 to $20 billion annually.

The tripartite US RAP is administered by: the US Department of State, Bureau of Population Refugees and Migration (BPRM) that admits and contracts with voluntary agencies to process refugees; the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that allegedly screens refugees abroad; and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) of the US Department of Health and Human Services that funds grants to program contractors and refugee ethnic groups for community absorption. The President, upon advice from the State Department BPRM, sends Congress an annual directive conveying these UNHCR refugee allotments that are virtually “rubber stamped” by immigration and border security subcommittees of Congress. A network of 9 major religious and secular voluntary agencies (VOLAG), supported by 350 subcontractors places refugees in more than 190 cities, often without any opportunity for review by localities. These contractors include:

  • Church World Services (CWS)
  • Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC)
  • Episcopal Migration Ministries
  • Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
  • International Rescue Committee (IRC)
  • U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants
  • Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (LIRS)
  • United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)
  • World Relief Corporation (WR).

Based on 2012 IRS Form 990 submissions, the top U.S. RAP funded Volag was the IRC that received more than $332 millions in federal grants and contracts accounting for more than 73% of annual revenue. Next in rank was the USCCB that received $71 million in federal grants and contracts accounting for 98% of their annual revenue.

The Congress has never exercised effective oversight of the Refugee Admissions Program through hearings and recommendations. The U.S. RAP has been used punitively against political critics. One example is the assignment of large numbers of Somali refugees to the Congressional District of former US Rep. Michelle Bachmann in St. Cloud, Minnesota

The U.S. RAP has been fraught with fraud facilitating the entry of Muslim Jihadis from countries that hate us; Somalia, Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo. Rampant fraud was detected from DHS DNA samples taken among Somali applicants for screening under the State Department Family Reunification P-3 Visa Program resulting in the shutdown of the program for three years. 20,000 fraudulently admitted Somali refugees were never pursued or ejected. Given the world’s attention on the problem of illegal migrants crossing the Mediterranean, the State Department refugee program let in to the US hundreds of Somalis who fled to the Island of Malta without any clearances.

Poised to add to this troubling mix is a stream of 17,000 Syrian refugees, who are predominately Muslim, discriminating against admissions of endangered Middle East Christians. Doubtless they and growing number of Muslim refugees from elsewhere in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia will be “seeded” in American cities under the Fostering Community Engagement and Welcoming Communities Project of theORR with the Soros-backed NGO, “Welcoming America.“

There are rising concerns over Muslim refugee resettlement under the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program that has operated for 35 years. These concerns have arisen since the Refugee Act of 1980 was passed and signed into law by former President Jimmy Carter. The law was introduced by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy and then Senator, and now Obama Vice President, Joe Biden. Corcoran of RRW believes that it is overdue for a major overhaul and reform. By virtue of admitting hundreds of potential Jihadis among refugees from Muslims lands, the program constitutes a significant national security risk.

Now there is pushback by American cities, as witnessed by concerns expressed in letters to Secretary of State Kerry by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), chairman of the House Judiciary Sub Committee on Immigration and Border Security. Both The House Subcommittee and the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, chaired by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) hold annual hearings over refugee allotments. Gowdy’s letter of April 13, 2015 was prompted by constituent complaints in Spartanburg, South Carolina over the establishment of a VOLAG office dedicated to the processing of Syrian refugees. He wrote Secretary Kerry seeking answers as to why the office was being established and had not been reviewed with state and local agencies.

The US RAP is a virtual Trojan Horse facilitating immigration under the Islamic doctrine of Dar al Hijra- immigration that constitutes civilizational jihad. This is the subject of a book by former Islamic jurist and convert to Christianity, Sam Solomon, and co-author E Al MaqdisiModern Day Trojan Horse; The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration – accepting Freedom or Imposing Islam?  The authors drew attention to the Islamic imperative behind migration allegedly attributed to the prophet Mohammed:

Migration cannot be ended as long as there is kufr (unbelief) or as long as there is an enemy that resists (kenz al Umak 4627). In other words, as long as there are communities out there that are non-Muslim, where Islam is not regarded as a supreme system, then jihad must continue.

Hence, Mohammed made it clear that migration is a duty that needs to be upheld forever or until the earth has submitted to the Islamic hegemony.

The authors note that the hadith (alleged sayings of Mohammed) demand that Muslim migrants not assimilate and remain separate adhering to Sharia “advancing the cause of Islam”:

In other words: “no integration with the host country.” Now if one’s entry visa or livelihood is based on showing some kind of integration … then it must be in appearance only and temporary until the Islamization objective is achieved.

Corcoran is featured in a brief video on the problematic Muslim refugee resettlement in the US produced by the Center for Security Policy. It has gone viral since posted on YouTube April 20, 2015. As of May 29, 2015 the Corcoran video had more than 537,122 hits which continue to climb every day. Clearly, Corcoran’s message has resonated among concerned Americans. Watch it on YouTube:

The CSP YouTube video is a complement to her recently published book on the problems confronting America over the threat of Muslim migration that has transformed Europe and now troubles grass roots America, Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America.”

Corcoran and her RRW team of activists chronicle news and developments about this issue on the blog where she is editor, Refugee Resettlement Watch. In our May 2015 NER interview with Erick Stakelbeck ofCBN’s The Watchman program, ISIS Threat to America, he drew attention to the Somali refugee communities in the American heartland sending jihadi terrorists to Somalia and Syria. He spoke of young Somali émigré men who have joined up with Al Shabaab in Somalia, and now the Islamic State. We have drawn attention to the problems of Somali Refugee Resettlement in NER articles and Iconoclast posts over the past eight years. They have covered severe cultural and integration problems in the American heartland in places like Shelbyville, TennesseeEmporia, KansasGreeley , ColoradoMinneapolis, MinnesotaColumbus, Ohio, and Lewiston, Maine.

The Somali émigré jihadis aren’t the only terrorists among admitted refugees. Six Bosnian refugees were arrested in January 2015 and charged with providing material support to the Islamic State. Think of the brothers Tsarnaev who perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013. See our NER article, “Refugee Jihad Terror in Boston.” An ABC investigation reported that dozens of terrorists have been admitted fraudulently under the U.S. RAP.

Another example was two Iraqi refugees, al Qaeda operatives, arrested in Bowling Green, Kentucky in 2011 and convicted in 2013. They were charged with sending weapons and cash to Al Qaeda. They lied on their Federal Refugee Admission forms about their prior terrorist involvements in Iraq. One had constructed IEDs, involved in killing four members of a Pennsylvania National Guard unit in 2006 in Iraq. A check of fingerprints on the shards of the IED caught the perpetrator. Watch this 2013 ABC Report. Recently, one of those convicted, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, filed a motion seeking to overturn his conviction because his counsel said he wouldn’t get life. That episode briefly raised the ire of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).

In late May 2015 Democrat Senators Durbin of Illinois, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and 12 others have signed a letter calling for the Obama Administration to admit a flood of 65,000 Syrian Muslim Refugees “suggested” by UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR):

The group letter noted the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) wants to resettle 130,000 Syrian refugees over the next two years and has thus far submitted more than 12,000 resettlement cases to the United States for consideration.

On the same day, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) called the resettlement effort a “serious mistake” because of the security risks it poses.

Adam Kredo of The Washington Free Beacon reported May 23, 2015 that the DHS admitted that several hundred terrorist supporters entered the U.S. illegally, and subsequently were admitted as refugees giving rise to Congressional demands for information and a likely hearing:

Congress is demanding that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) release documents detailing how many foreigners seeking asylum in the United States have been found to have ties to terror groups, according to a recent letter sent to the agency by leading lawmakers.

The letter comes on the heels of revelations by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that at least 638 aliens seeking asylum in America have been found to have connections to terrorists.

Against this background, we arranged to interview Ann Corcoran of RRW.

Mike Bates

Mike Bates:  Good afternoon and welcome back to Your Turn. This is Mike Bates. This half hour is a special conversation about a topic that I think is safe to say almost no one in America is aware of. Certainly the percentage of people who are aware is in single digits. Joining me, Jerry Gordon, Senior Editor of the New English Review and its blog, The Iconoclast. Welcome, Jerry.

Jerry Gordon

Jerry Gordon:  Good to be here, Mike.

Bates:  And joining us by telephone is Ann Corcoran. She’s editor of Refugee Resettlement Watch, and the author of the book Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America. Ann. Welcome.

Ann Corcoran:  Thank you so much for having me.

Bates:  Ann, I’d like to build this pyramid from the ground up with a very broad based question. What refugee resettlement are you watching?

Corcoran:  I’m watching a very complicated, secretive program, where we bring in approximately 70,000 refugees a year from various countries around the world, and the U.N. is basically calling the shots as to who gets into the country.

Bates:  Are you concerned about refugees from the entire planet, or a specific segment that is of greater concern?

Corcoran:  I can tell you the truth; it’s quite shocking for most people to realize that we are bringing in tens of thousands of refugees every year from countries where people hate us; Somalia, Iraq and soon Syria will be on the list. It is those refugees that I’m most concerned about.

There are also economic reasons why we should cut the numbers of refugees, generally.

Gordon:  Ann, I want to read you a quotation from Mo, our friend, the Prophet Mohammed.

Bates:  May peace be upon him.

Gordon:  This is courtesy of one of the more reliable commentators, Bukhari. “Accordingly, there can be no Hijra – which means migration – after the conquest, but Jihad and a desire or an intention, and if you settle, then spread out.”

How important is this Islamic doctrine behind the mushrooming effect of Muslim immigration to America?  There have been roughly 350,000 to 400,000 Muslims who have come to the U.S. as refugees from some of these countries you just enumerated that hate us; 100,000, for example, originally from Somalia; another 100,000 from Iraq, and another 100,000 from Bosnia.

Out of these groups have emerged “known or lone wolves or terrorists against us.” We saw that in the case of the Chechen refugees, the Tsarnaev brothers who perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombing. Then in Bowling Green, Kentucky, you had not one, but two Iraqis who came in as refugees lying on their admission forms who were actually Al Qaeda operatives. They were trying to ship weapons and money to Al Qaeda.

One of them, amazingly, got fingered, literally, because his prints were on the shards of IED’s that he made in Iraq. Are there hundreds if not thousands of these folks among these “refugees from countries that hate us”?

Corcoran:  Well there certainly could be. One of my larger concerns, aside from the terrorists who are getting in here, is we can’t properly screen them. Recently the FBI testified in the House Homeland Security Committee that they can’t screen the Syrians because they are coming from a failed state. Which is only common sense as you wouldn’t be able to screen people from countries that don’t have records of them; particularly countries like Somalia. I’m also concerned about the civilizational Jihad; the pressure that comes on our western societies when Islamic population reaches certain levels. It doesn’t even have to reach high levels for the pressure to be put on for us to accommodate Sharia, Islamic law and the Islamic way of life.

Bates:  Jerry cited the instruction from the Prophet Mohammed – may peace be upon him – so I completely understand why the Muslims’ wish to immigrate to the United States. But why are we taking them? Is this something that we’re doing voluntarily? Is this a policy of this administration? Is this a long standing policy of the United States? Why are we allowing so many refugees into the U.S.?

Corcoran:  This is a program that has been in place for 35 years; most people are surprised to find that out.  The Refugee Act of 1980 was the brain child of -this won’t surprise you – the late Senator Ted Kennedy and former Senator, now Vice President Joe Biden. Jimmy Carter signed it into law.

This has been going on as I said for 35 years, with the United Nations calling the shots more and more. In recent years, we are seeing more refugees being taken from countries in the Middle East – of course, that’s where much of the turmoil is – and from Africa.

We all know there are millions of refugees in the world. We could be taking them from other places if we so chose. However, we are taking a large number now from Iraq, Somalia and soon Syria.

Bates:  I know that the Refugee Act of 1980 allows the United Nations to designate the number of refugees to be resettled in certain countries – they get to call the shots. But do we as a sovereign nation have the ability to say no to what the U.N. says we have to do?

Corcoran:  We absolutely do. However, I’m afraid to say the United States and the U.S. State Department does whatever the U.N. tells it to do. This is not just something that occurred in the Obama administration. This was going on during the Bush administration as well.

I have only been following the refugee program since 2007. That was triggered when refugees landed in my rural county in Maryland and I wanted to understand how this worked. Each year the President sends a determination letter to Congress and designates how many refugees from each part of the world we are going to receive.

Congress could come back and say, “No we aren’t.” However, they never do. They just rubber stamp it and the President concurs on how many come from which parts of the world based on what the United Nations is pressuring us to do.

Gordon:  Recently we had an outburst of concern about the acceptance of Syrian refugees that triggered a series of letters between US Rep. Trey Gowdy to Secretary of State Kerry. We know Gowdy because of his involvement with the Benghazi affair and other matters. What role does he play in the House in terms of reviewing these determinations about how many refugees enter this country, and what was the concern?

Corcoran:  Trey Gowdy is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security of the House Judiciary Committee. His Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the Refugee Act of 1980 and how it is administered; and they could be holding oversight hearings.

In my years of following this, I’ve never seen Congress lift a finger to examine this program. Now Gowdy is involved because refugees were – surprise, surprise – being planned to enter his Congressional district.

We saw the U.S. State Department do this in other Congressional Districts; most notably Michele Bachmann’s district in St. Cloud, Minnesota. Now, they are planning to, bring in refugees to Gowdy’s district and so he is now involved, thank goodness.

So, we would love for him to hold hearings. I think that is what needs to be done now for this program.

Bates:  Is there a concern in Congress beyond just Trey Gowdy?

Corcoran:  Is anybody concerned in Congress? Anyone else besides Trey Gowdy? No.

Bates:  We don’t hear much about it. I don’t hear very many people complaining about it. I think most of the country is ignorant about it. Are most Congressmen ignorant about it?

Corcoran:  Yes, they are frankly ignorant about it. I had one of my activists, contact Senator Enzi from Wyoming. One of Enzi’s staff wrote back about a completely different immigration program. They didn’t even understand what the refugee program is. I found that to be the case all over the place. There has been a virtual silence out of Congress on this program.

Gordon:  Ann, who is placing these refugees that we just talked about in communities like Spartanburg, South Carolina, Shelbyville, Tennessee, Minneapolis, Minnesota or Greeley, Colorado? Which groups are actually involved with setting up offices, screening and processing them and making money out of it?

Corcoran:  That is the part that shocks the public the most when they learn this. The U.S. State Department brings in the refugees that the U.N. has largely chosen for us, and Homeland Security are supposed to screen them. I mean, how do you screen somebody from a failed state when you don’t even know who they are? Then, these are divvied up, literally, between nine major contractors that include groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, World Lutheran Service and Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. There are six of them that are supposedly religious charities, exclusively funded by the U.S. taxpayer. They then divide up their allotment of refugees among 350 subcontractors in 190 U.S. cities. They literally compete with each other for these refugees, because money comes along with each refugee.

Gordon:  Ann there is a new wrinkle in the seeding of refugees in these communities. It has to do with a group out of Atlanta called “Welcoming America,” which has been, funded in part by none other than George Soros.  What is their angle and who are they contracted with?

Corcoran:  I first came across “Welcoming America” in 2013 when I went to an Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) stakeholder meeting. Now stakeholders are everybody who has a piece of this refugee resettlement program. It doesn’t mean the average citizen can normally go to these events held in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

When I first heard about “Welcoming America” at the ORR stakeholder meeting and I heard the phrase used by the federal program presenter about “pockets of resistance forming in America.” To deal with these “pockets of resistance” the Federal Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) funded “Welcoming America” with a grant to go around the country and make sure these pockets of resistance were straightened out.

Gordon:  Ann, what kind of benefits are these refugees receiving, and are they on some sort of fast track towards citizenship?

Corcoran:  Refugees are the only category of legal immigrants that can come right into the country and be signed up for various social service programs. I’m talking about food stamps, subsidized housing, education for the kids, and health insurance right from the start.

Most legal immigrants have to be here for a number of years before they can access those welfare benefits. Even elderly refugees receive Supplementary Security Income (SSI) from Social Security as well. On the matter of fast track for citizenship, within a year following their entry into the US, they are given green card like permanent resident aliens. That allows them to be processed for citizenship. These same contractors that I’m talking about, the nine voluntary agencies and their 350 subcontractors receive grant money from the federal government to help them guide refugee clients through the citizenship process, literally holding their hands.

Gordon:  When you and I were first writing about this “secret program,” there was an event that occurred that shut down the Family Reunification Visa Program for nearly three years. It concerned fraud in Somali refugee camps prior to coming here. Can you tell us about that?

Corcoran:  In 2008, the U.S. State Department discovered – surprise surprise – that Somalis applying to enter the U.S. to reunite with their families here were not related to the families here in the first place.

The U.S. State Department had to shut down the whole P-3 Visa program for Family Reunification for about three or four years to try to get this straightened out. Teams from the DHS did sample DNA tests and discovered the massive amount of fraud that was going on.

At one point the U.S. State Department was saying 20,000 Somalis got into the United States illegally and nothing was ever done to find them and remove them.

Now, the P-3 Visa program is back up and running and we’re bringing Somalis into the United States at the rate of 700 to 800 a month. I’d like you to consider why we are bringing any Somalis into the United States at all. We are bringing them in at a rate almost on par with the Bush Administration, which saw the highest rates of Somalis entering the US.

Bates:  They’re not just coming into the country for temporary refugee status. This is permanent relocation. Given that we do not have any clue where these people are coming from? Are they terrorists? Does this pose a national security problem for the United States?

Corcoran:  It absolutely does pose a national security problem. Who are these people that we are bringing in? They say they screen them, but how can they screen them? One of the great shocks that I discovered a few years ago was illegal migrants coming across the Mediterranean that we are now reading about in our news.

Many illegal Somali migrants got to the tiny island nation of Malta in the Mediterranean. Starting in the Bush administration we were bringing in 700 to 1,000 of those illegal Somali migrants who got to Malta to the United States as refugees.

How on earth do we know who these people are who got on boats and came across the Mediterranean and then we brought from Malta to the US? It makes absolutely no sense.

Gordon:  Ann, prior to this interview we were speaking about why countries in the Gulf region, the wealthy Emirates, Saudi Arabia, aren’t backing this refugee program setting up camps in their locale. You mentioned what happened to a group of Somalis who made it to Saudi Arabia. What happened in that case?

Corcoran:  Actually, there was more than one case. Any Somalis who have entered illegally into Saudi Arabia are immediately put on a plane and sent back to Mogadishu, and the United Nations hasn’t said a word about this.

You can just imagine what ruckus would be made in the media if the United States decided to start rounding up Somalis putting them on a plane and sending them back to the failed state of Somalia. But Saudi Arabia can do it and there’s not a word out of anyone, whether at the UN or here in the US.

Bates:  What I find so disconcerting about this is twofold: one, are they terrorists because so many in the Muslim world are, and the other aspect of it is culturally. It used to be that immigrants would come to America and they would assimilate into the culture, but most of these refugees are not assimilating into the culture.

They are just forming their own distinct neighborhoods living very deliberately separate from the American culture. Is that not a problem?

Corcoran:  Yes, it’s definitely a problem. By the way, assimilate is a dirty word now. The Obama administration has basically banned the word. It is not allowed. The Obama administration has a taskforce on new Americans where they literally discuss seeding American towns with immigrants, but the word assimilation is verboten.

It is only, the soil or the community that must change to accommodate the seedling. So, the term assimilation is not allowed any longer.

Bates:  This is incredibly foolish. It is a Trojan horse of the worst kind, given the problems with mass Muslim immigration and the lack of assimilation of Muslim communities in Europe that are, in many cases, violent.

I don’t just mean Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish bakery in Paris attacks, but even the protests and other kinds of violence that is occurring there. Of course it’s always reported as youth but never Muslim youth.

It’s not like we don’t know where this is going. Europe has done this to its own detriment. Why do we follow in the footsteps of this foolishness?

Corcoran:  I wish I had an answer to that question because, it blows my mind. All you have to do is to look to Europe to see what might be our future. Why? Probably, because we have no leadership that is able to stand up to this. They’re all so afraid of being called racist xenophobes or Islamophobes.

To be frank, we have no leadership in Congress. We have no one who is going to stand up to this, speak about what’s happened in Europe and say, “Let’s not have it happen here.” Let me say what one of the other things that I am annoyed about with this program. That is the secrecy behind which communities in America are being slated to receive refugees and yet they are not included in the process at all.

I contend that if this was such a fabulous program, put all the cards on the table in every community the State Department and ORR is targeting for refugees. Explain where they will be living, going to school, working and what impacts and costs are involved. But the federal and voluntary agencies involved with the refugee programs appear not to be able to resolve the problems without being secretive about it.

Gordon:  Ann, one of the most disturbing parts of this U.N. controlled program is the patent discrimination against endangered Christian refugees, legitimately, from places like Syria, Iraq and other locations. What is the evidence of that?

Corcoran:  Let’s just take the Syrian refugee issue. So far the State Department has brought in a small number of Syrians, relatively speaking, into the country. One would think that we would be choosing first and foremost the Christians who are in real danger. But we are bringing mostly Sunni Muslims. There were about 800 Syrians who have been brought into the country in the last few years. Now the State Department and the U.N. have 11,000 in the pipeline waiting to come into the U.S.

But of the 800 that have come in so far, approximately 700 are Sunni Muslims, there were only 43 Christians among the Syrian refugees that have come in so far. That translates to approximately 92 percent of refugees coming in from Syria are Muslims.

I’m told that that is mostly because we are bringing them in from U.N. camps, where the Muslims are found.  Christians do not go to the U.N. camps, but to Turkey if they get out of Syria at all, where they’re taken care of by the Syriac church.

Gordon:  You talked about possible options for reform of this secretive program administered by the State Department and Department of Health and Human Services. What are the top of the list alternatives that we could possibly consider to rein in this program?

Corcoran:  You mean if I were queen for a day and I could wipe out the whole program? That would be one way to start. Clearly the refugee program has to be completely revamped. This whole system of turning these refugees over to these non-governmental organizations that are calling the shots is just outrageous.

I would go back to a day when we resettled refugees, with the help of individual churches and other civic groups. Where a civic group or a church would have to take a refugee family under its wing for a year or two, get them assimilated and settled, and without tapping into taxpayer funds to accomplish it.

That is what I would like to see if, we were going to continue the refugee program. There are serious questions about whether the numbers of refugees are too high from countries that hate us. Perhaps the first thing one could do is to limit the countries from which refugees could come.

There is a lot that could be done to reform this program if there was leadership brave enough to do it.

Bates:  Much more to discuss, Ann, but not much more time. We’ve barely scratched the surface, so I would encourage our listeners to go to your website which is www.refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com. Ann Corcoran. Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you Jerry for arranging this important interview.

Listen to the 1330am WEBY interview with Ann Corcoran, here and here.

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

Barack “Climate Change” Obama

“Woe to the land that’s governed by a child.” – Shakespeare, Richard III

I have been wrestling for some kind of explanation why the President of the United States, Barack Obama, would continue to talk about climate change and urge the global transition from fossil fuels to wind, solar and bio-energy. I have concluded that he thinks everyone, not just Americans, are idiots.

We know he lies about everything, but these two topics are clearly near and dear to his heart.

Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen

My friend, Paul Driessen, is a policy analyst for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a free market think tank. Among the pundit class he’s ranked very high by his colleagues. Here’s what he has to say about climate change:

“Earth climate always has changed, is always changing, and always will change—but not from fossil-fuel use. Solar fluctuations, deep ocean circulation patterns, and other powerful natural forces have driven climate change and weather events throughout Earth’s history and will continue to do so.”

“President Obama’s hubris is breathtaking. He now thinks an army of regulators can control our planet’s temperature and climate by tweaking emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide, a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere.”

“America’s communities do not need to be protected from climate change. They need to be protected from the excesses of authoritarian presidents and bureaucrats.”

Driessen and I look at and listen to Obama and wonder if others too see and hear someone uttering some of the most absurd claims about the climate. Then we worry that this someone is the President of the United States with the power to turn his ignorance into national policy.

At this point we have suffered his initial failure to respond to the recession he inherited from the 2008 financial crisis. More than six years later the economy has barely moved toward a normal rate of growth. Then we were gifted with ObamaCare and the disruption of what was widely regarded as the best health system in the world. And, for good measure, he imposed Common Core on an already weakened educational system. It is being repealed and opposed in many states. For good measure, his foreign policy, if he has one, is widely regarded as a total failure.

How is it a former “community organizer” possesses a seemingly vast understanding of meteorology? Did they also teach that at the Harvard Law School? “Climate change,” said Obama, addressing a graduating class of the Coast Guard Academy, “constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and make no mistake; it will impact how our military defends our country.”

“Our military and our combatant commanders,” the President told the Academy graduates, “our services—including the Coast Guard—will need to factor climate change into plans and operations, because you need to be ready.” For what? For a rainstorm? For snow? Wind?

This is the same President who sees no threat to our national security from Iran whose leaders shout “Death to America” every day when they aren’t also shouting “Death to Israel.” He has zealously been pursuing a deal that would enable Iran, the leading supporter of terrorism, to have nuclear weapons. Meanwhile Islamic State (ISIS) is taking over more territory in northern Iraq and into Syria. Obama might as well be dropping bags of marshmallows on them.

He blamed climate change in the form of “severe droughts” for the rise of Islamism in the Middle East and Africa. Someone needs to tell Obama that there have always been severe droughts somewhere on the planet, and floods, and forest fires, and blizzards, and hurricanes. Even so, in the last eighteen years, there have actually been LESS of these natural events, along with the flatlining of the planet’s overall or average temperature—there has been no warming!

Not content to blame climate change for the rise of terrorism, the White House issued a report that was described as “a doomsday scenario of health, security, economic and political issues.” The thing about climate is that it measured in centuries, not years. As for the weather, while records are maintained, it is usually reported as today’s news with a forecast of the coming week.

So you shouldn’t be surprised that the report blamed “asthma attacks” on climate change!

Suffice to say there isn’t a glimmer of hard evidence to support anything the President is saying these days about climate change.

And this is the same President that wants the U.S. and the rest of the world to give up the use of fossil fuels—coal, oil and natural gas—to “stop climate change.”

IF Obama’s climate change idiocy is just a way to distract Americans from the real problems we have encountered thanks to his failure to address them, then it is purely cynical and political.

IF Obama really believes this stuff, he is unfit to be President.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

Dr. Rich Swier joins the Tom Trento Show to explain “FITNA” in TEXAS

Join me and my special in-studio guest Dr. Rich Swier as he explains the Islamic doctrine of “FITNA” and how it is relevant to the Islamic State jihad attack in Garland, Texas. Dr. Swier explains that Fitna (resisting Islam) is worse than the slaughter we see in the Middle East and the slaughter which nearly happened in Garland.

Also in our show today is an Israel update by Arie Egozi detailing a “phantom” attack at a weapons depot in the Sudan and more information on the Iranian nuclear crisis.

After this show was taped UK Imam Anjem Choudary told Pamela Geller on the Sean Hannity Show that she should be tried in Shariah Court and slaughtered… for speaking out against Islam. Why did he say this?

The reason that Imam Choudary believes this is because the Quran says so. What Imam Choudary is demonstrating is the Global Islamic Movement strategy of Fitna. Fitna is defined as “[F]orces that cause controversy, fragmentation, scandal, chaos, or discord within the Muslim community, disturbing social peace and order.”

Quran versus 2: 191-193, reads:

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

Imam Choudary is doing what the Quran demands. Slaughter any unbeliever who causes Fitna for the “fitna is worse than killing.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Feds overlooked Texas jihadi because “there are so many like him”

Robert Spencer in PJM: PEN members forget purpose of free speech

What to Make of ISIS Claim of Responsibility for Texas Shootings

Egypt: Five Christian children held for blasphemy – for insulting the Islamic State

What Constitutes an ‘Insult’ to Mohammed

Dr. Mordechai Kedar – A Warning To America, Israel and the West [Video]

mordechai_kedar

Dr. Mordechai Kedar

The United West is proud to bring you another installment of our Israel Trip Series featuring Israeli Scholar and National Security subject matter expert, Dr. Mordechai Kedar. The title of Dr. Kedar’s presentation is “A Warning To America – National Security And Understanding The Muslim Mind.”

Dr. Kedar combines his 25 years in various IDF Intelligence Units, fluency in Arabic dialects, and a stellar academic career at Bar Elon University into a National Security Briefing you must watch from beginning to end.

“We in the West often delude ourselves into believing that all cultures have exactly the same goals (peace, prosperity, freedom) and exactly the same values (human life, honesty, human rights). And although all of these goals and values are undoubtedly part of every human culture, not all cultures value them to the same degree that we do in the West.”

In this briefing Dr. Kedar will present a compelling look into understanding the Middle Eastern mind, culture, religion, and how the Muslim world sees Western culture. Only by understanding how the Muslim world sees us will we be able to properly defend our culture from The Global Jihad Movement.

In this briefing Dr. Kedar covers these topics:

  1. The Family unit and population demographics are a National Security issue.
  2. 14:43 Understanding Islamic immigration to the West and why the export or Hijra is vastly important but misunderstood by Americans and Europeans. How this works into the framework of the Greater Middle East.
  3. 45:40 Understanding the two types of threats emanating from the great Middle East and Persia.
  4. 1:03:00 The Big Picture. The West’s Geo-Strategic picture with Iran.
  5. What the Israeli message to Iran will have to be.
  6. 1:11:00 How the Iranian mind thinks and processes information using their own imagery. The Shia Iranians do not think like us politically. Dr. Kedar takes Iranian political propaganda and deconstructs what it means from their perspective. What we think is irrelevant in dealing with the Iranians.

After you watch and absorb what Dr. Kedar is telling you about the Iranian mind you will be angry at how the current U.S. administration is dealing with our Iranian adversaries geo politically and even more urgently with the Iranian Nuclear program.

This lecture should be mandatory watching for President Obama, John Kerry, and everyone at the U.S. State Department.

To follow Dr. Kedar’s body of work go to: http://mordechaikedar.com/

Go to www.TheUnitedWest.org and listen to our daily simulcast AM radio show – Enemies Of The State.

Special thanks to Dr. Bob – 00Z – CVC