Posts

The Counter-Terrorism Impasse in Afghanistan, Israel and the United States

by Jerry Gordon, Lisa Benson and Richard Cutting…

The New Year marks the 14th year in the conflict in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan with the Taliban. Following 9/11, a victory against the Salafist Taliban was achieved in less than six months with special operators of the US and cadres of Afghan war lords. Fast forward to the fall of 2015, the Taliban has undertaken stunning attacks against NATO-ISAF forces. There was the brief Taliban takeover of the northern regional capital of Kunduz in September 2015 culminating with the mistaken USAF bombing of a Medicins sans Frontiere hospital with 26 dead. There was the instability of local regional police and Afghan security failing to prevent the Taliban from regaining control over Helmand province. An explosives laden motorcycle attack on December 22, 2015 on a joint NATO-ISAF Afghan patrol took the lives of six Americans, including a 15–year veteran of the NYPD, John Lamm. Stratfor in an analysis of the situation in Afghanistan commented:

Without local support and adequate resources, the Afghan government will not be able to keep crucial areas from falling to the Taliban. Winning public support domestically and securing international aid, important in any counterinsurgency, will remain vital components of Kabul’s fight for survival in the Afghanistan conflict.

A serious emerging threat was the rise of ISIS in Afghanistan and the eruption of a barbaric internecine war between the two extremist Islamic groups. That was graphically portrayed in a PBS Frontline report in November 2015, ”ISIS in Afghanistan.” In neighboring Pakistan, the Taliban have spread havoc beyond their bastion in Northwest Waziristan conducting terror attacks in Islamabad and Lahore. Emblematic of that was an attack that killed 22 on January 20, 2016 by the Pakistani Taliban at Bacha Khan University in Charsadda, Pakistan.

The Obama Administration was poised at the start of its final year in office with less than 9,800 US forces in Afghanistan winding down to less than 5,500 engaged in primarily advisory and training roles. That was supplemented by a few thousand NATO forces under the ISAF Command.  During hearings in the fall of 2015 before the US Senate and House Armed Services, in testimony by US Amy General John Campbell, he called for the equivalent of a surge in Afghanistan. In a USA Today interview he said: “My intent would be to keep as much as I could for as long as I could. If that means more people, it’s more people.” In response to his and other military experts’ testimony, Senate Armed Services Chairman, Arizona Republican Senator John McCain commented:

We have made significant and steady progress in Afghanistan. But as U.S. military officials and diplomats have warned for years – I repeat, for years – these gains are still reversible, and a robust and adaptive U.S. troop presence based on conditions on the ground is essential to ensuring that these gains endure.

Failure to adopt such a conditions-based plan, these experts have warned, would invite the same tragedy that has unfolded in Iraq since 2011. If we have learned anything from that nightmare, it is that wars do not end just because politicians say so.

An additional burden has been placed on Gen. Campbell. On January 20, 2016, the White House announced that the U.S.-led ISAF could now undertake operations against the growing ISIS threat in eastern Afghanistan.

The Pakistani counterterrorism effort has been brought into question given the announced retirement on January 25, 2016 of Armed Forces strategic thinker, Gen. Raheel Sharif, who will leave in November 2016. The popular General Sharif had led the tough counterterrorism campaign against the Pakistani Taliban and other Islamist terror groups.

Embattled Israel was confronting a low-intensity wave of violence that the media has labeled, a “knife intifada.” It has been waged daily since September 2015 by Palestinians and some Israeli Arabs allegedly incited by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. The Palestinian and Israeli Arab violence has claimed 29 Israeli, US and foreign migrants dead. Dozens were injured from knifings, car rammings and shootings. 149 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli security. In one troubling case, in January 2016, an Israeli Arab using a semi-automatic weapon at a Tel Aviv café killed three persons. He fled the scene and was eventually tracked by Israeli security forces to his home area in Northern Israel and killed.

In June 2015, the Palestinian Authority in an apparent “diplomatic Intifada” brought charges before the International Criminal Court at The Hague in the Netherlands. The PA alleged that the IDF had committed “war crimes” during the 50 day summer rocket and tunnel war in 2014  waged cross border by the terrorist group Hamas. The ICC released preliminary findings which brought this reaction from Israel’s Justice and Foreign Ministries according to a Jerusalem Post report, “Israel has an engagement with the ICC over competence issues.”

 “Competence” is a code word for trying to convince the ICC that there is no state of “Palestine” and that the ICC cannot investigate IDF personnel, because the IDF’s own investigations of its personnel meet international law standards.

An International Military Tribunal presented testimony at the UN Human Rights Council probe chaired by former New York Supreme Court Justice Mary McGowan Davis in mid-June 2015. The Tribunal, composed of former generals and diplomats, concluded that ”the IDF acted within the bounds of international law during its war with Hamas in Gaza.” Further, the group’s report concluded:

During Operation Protective Edge last summer, in the air, on the ground and at sea, Israel not only met a reasonable international standard of observance of the laws of armed conflict, but in many cases significantly exceeded that standard.

We saw clear evidence of this from the upper to the lower levels of command. A measure of the seriousness with which Israel took its moral duties and its responsibilities under the laws of armed conflict is that, in some cases, Israel’s scrupulous adherence to the laws of war cost Israeli soldiers’ and civilians’ lives.

One of those who presented testimony was former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, Col. Richard E. Kemp (ret.), CBE.  In a New York Times op-ed, Kemp disputed the ruling by UNHRC Special Rapporteur Judge Davis, saying:

It pains me greatly to see words and actions from the United Nations that can only provoke further violence and loss of life. The United Nations Human Rights Council report on last summer’s conflict in Gaza … will do just that.

[…]

The former British commander wondered why the commission refused to incorporate a 242-page report commissioned by Israel after it declined to cooperate with the U.N. Commission, which included findings by 11 senior military officials from seven nations, including Kemp and Chairman of the Unites States Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin E. Dempsey. That report said Israel’s actions were “lawful” and “legitimate” and rejected claims the IDF intentionally targeted civilians.

Kemp also noted several internal contradictions in the U.N. report, such as acknowledging that Israel Defense Forces tactics saved lives while indicting “decision makers at the highest levels of the government of Israel of a policy of deliberately killing civilians.”

He accused the U.N. commission of endorsing “Hamas’s anti-Israel narrative.”

Kemp said he was in Israel for much of the 50-day conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza last summer.

When the Paris and San Bernardino massacres occurred in November and December 2015, with large mass casualties, the worst since 9/11 in the California jihad attack, questions were raised about both fraudulent passport and questionable Visa screening procedures. This was especially the case as the US DHS was responsible for vetting Iraqi and Syrian refugees being admitted  under the authorized US Refugee Admissions Program.

Given the infiltration by ISIS operatives in the stream of Syrian asylees flooding into Europe, including jihadis killed in the Paris attack, Congress created legislation – the Security Against Foreign Enemies or SAFE Act, H.R. 4038. The SAFE Act required additional clearances by the FBI and unanimous consent by the DHS, FBI and Director of National Intelligence before Iraqi and Syrian refugees could be admitted. It was passed by the House on November 19, 2015 by a vote of 239 to 137, including 47 Minority Democrats. The SAFE legislation was rejected from consideration by the US Senate on January 20, 2016. The bill was “provisionally dead due to a failed vote for cloture required to move past a Senate filibuster or the threat of a filibuster that required a 3/5th vote.” The measure couldn’t be considered as Senate Republicans could only muster 55 votes. That still left the dual questions of how we could stem the flood of Iraqi and Syrian conflict refugees into the US.

Against this background, The Lisa Benson Show convened a discussion about these issues in a January 10, 2015 broadcast with guests Counterterrorism experts Col. Richard E. Kemp (ret.) CBE, and Dr. Sebastian Gorka.

Listen to the podcast of the Lisa Benson Show broadcast with Kemp and Gorka.

Lisa Benson

Lisa Benson: Welcome, America. Welcome, everyone. And good evening to our friends listening from around the world tonight. Shalom to our friends joining us from Israel, and we thank them for staying up. It’s 10:00 PM in Israel. This is your host, Lisa Benson. Our broadcast today has two distinguished guests, very highly qualified counterterrorism experts. They are Dr. Sebastian Gorka, often seen on FOX News, andColonel Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan.

There are several breaking stories we are watching today. As you heard this week, the insurgency of ISIS sympathizers in the United States is on the rise. This is evidenced by the attacks in San Bernardino and Philadelphia. ISIS sympathizers were arrested in Sacramento, Rochester, New York, and Houston, Texas. At the same time, we are learning that the New York Police Department is being curtailed on profiling Muslimsunder suspicion, and an award of $11 million has been made to Muslim advocates. That story was in the Wall Street Journal weekend edition. We are going to discuss that with Dr. Gorka today. Adding to the nexus of international geopolitics, the Saudi Arabians are cutting their ties with Iran. North Koreans are claiming detonation of an H-bomb. ISIS and Hezbollah are on the northern Israeli border. Sanctions are to be lifted on Iran this week or next. Transfer of $100 billion to Iran, and still we do not have a signed agreement on the Iran deal that our lawmakers handed them on a silver platter. All the while, Iran continues to violate the agreement, but we will lift our sanctions. You know full well what will happen to those released funds. The Taliban, ISIS and Al-Qaeda are on the rise in Afghanistan. Those are just a few of the stories we have been following this week.  Jerry Gordon, are you with me?

Jerry Gordon

Jerry Gordon:  I am with you.

Benson:  Thank you so much. Jerry Gordon, senior editor, New English Review, our honorary, board member, and co-producer of this show.

Gordon:  Thank you.

Benson:  It is quite an honor to have once again back with us, Col. Richard Kemp. Col. Kemp, are you there?

Colonel Richard Kemp

Col. Richard Kemp:  I’m here, and it’s a real pleasure to be with you.

Benson:  Richard Kemp is the best-selling author of Attack State Red and a regular columnist for the Times of London. He frequently writes for other national and international newspapers, and is a prolific contributor to television and radio news and current affairs programs. He is a Distinguished Fellow at the Gatestone Institute. Col. Kemp was a front-line observer in three IDF operations against Hamas in Gaza in 2009,2012, and 2014. He has presented expert testimony on IDF counterterrorism operations in Gaza before the tribunals of the United Nations. Richard, I was reading your Facebook page, and one thing that strikes me is you think the Royals should pay a visit to Israel.

Kemp:  Yes, I go there as often as I possibly can. It’s an absolutely brillian country. The only democracy in the Middle East. They have been at war constantly since, the modern State of Israel was founded in 1948. They have been attacked many times, both by conventional armies and by terrorists using rocket attacks from Gaza. Yet they manage to not only to maintain their country, to develop their country, which has produced major benefits, inventions and technical advancements for the world. I think it’s a fantastic country. I do think the British royal family should go there. They haven’t.

The Queen hasn’t visited Israel. She is the head of the Church of England. The Church of England, of course, owes its origins to Jerusalem. I think it is time that the royal family should visit in 2017 which is the anniversary of the re-conquest of Jerusalem by General Allenby, who headed British Empire forces, liberating Jerusalem from the Turks. Many British and Empire soldiers, particularly Australians and New Zealanders, died in that, in Palestine. I think that it is the time for the Queen to commemorate the deaths of those brave soldiers.

Benson:  I hope you can make that happen. Your Prime Minister Cameron should be whispering into our president’s ear on why exactly he deemed the MuslimBrotherhood a terrorist organization. We just can’t seem to make that kind of headway here. The president of the United States believes that the Muslim Brotherhood in America is a moderate entity. Would you like to tell the listeners why that was important for you in Great Britain to deem them a terrorist organization that follows suit with the United Arab Emirates?

Kemp:  Our prime minister has many failings and faults, as do every prime minister, every other human being. However, one thing that you can say for him is that he is a strong supporter and friend of Israel. He made a speech two years ago in the Knesset in which he spelled out very clearly the, the United Kingdom’s support for Israel. Not perfect by any means, but it is there. We enjoy very, very close relations, particularly on the intelligence front with the upper levels of Israeli military. Israeli battlefield and medical technology have saved the lives of British soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, as it has American soldiers. The Muslim Brotherhood is an evil organization. It is an organization that wishes to spread the Islamic caliphate into Europe. That wishes to effectively take over all governments in the Middle East and in Europe as well. It would run them along Islamic lines. And, that also includes Israel. The terrorist organization Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. They are very closely linked.  They wish to destroy the state of Israel. They wish to drive Israel into the sea. They want to see all Jews out of not only Israel, but the world as well. That is in their charter. The Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas have very similar objectives. In some respects, similar also to the Islamic State, which of course, is involved in the worst depravity we are seeing in the world today.  Witness the torture, murder, massacre, abuse that takes place throughout the Middle East under their dispensation. So I think our prime minister, our government, is quite right to outlaw and brand the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. And I think that President Obama should take the same steps.

Benson:  We hope so.

Gordon:  Col. Kemp, it is a pleasure to have you back on the program. And I want to return to your days in Afghanistan as Commander of British Forces in HelmandProvince. Why was the Taliban, vanquished in the first months following 9/11, able to return as a significant threat in Afghanistan in what is now a 14-year war?

Kemp:  I think one of the problems that we experienced in Afghanistan was that we, we were fighting two campaigns at the same time. We were fighting Iraq and we were fighting in Afghanistan. I think we took our eye off the ball a little bit in Afghanistan after initially vanquishing the Taliban. We then ended up with a resurgentTaliban. That does not need to continue.  It has been curbed to an extent. However, we must actually maintain our military presence, and support for the government of Afghanistan, to try and stop the spread of the Taliban and the Islamic State which is gaining increasing traction there as well.

Benson:  I am now going to bring on Richard Cutting, actor, film and, TV writer, producer and counterterrorism commentator. Welcome back, Richard.

Richard Cutting

Richard Cutting:  Thanks for having me back. ISIS and the Taliban are now at each other’s throats in Afghanistan. ISIS is having a presence of some note along the Pakistani border. What is the relative probability of ISIS gaining significant traction in Afghanistan long-term? What is the Afghan government doing to fight any ISIS advance? How are they getting, involved with Pakistan? How, are they gaining access to the theater in Afghanistan?

Kemp:  I think one of the issues here is the support that Pakistan has given to the Taliban over many years. If it had it not been for the support of the Pakistani government, in particularly their intelligence services and their army for the Taliban, then their insurgency would not have been as powerful and successful as it has been. That is one area that remains a concern as the Taliban continues its encroachment. The Islamic State is, um, gaining strength in Afghanistan.  They are gaining recruits from the Taliban. There are some whole units of the Taliban moving across to the Islamic State. In some cases, individual recruits are crossing over. They are gaining power; they’re gaining strength.

They are still not as strong as the Taliban; they’re fighting the Taliban. That is a good thing, of course, because the Islamic State members are killing Taliban people and Taliban are killing Islamic State forces, which we should encourage. We should hope that will continue because they’re both evil groups. They’re both enemies ofthe West. They’re both enemies of the Democratic Republic in Afghanistan. We need to see that continue. One of the problems is, that Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state. The Islamic State wishes to gain control in Pakistan. There is a risk of them gaining more traction in Pakistan. And the Pakistani Taliban is trying to seize control in Pakistan. We have Al-Qaeda, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The two theaters in some ways, I think, need to be seen as one. The difficulty is that they are enemies of each other. Pakistan hates Afghanistan, and vice versa. So this rivalry and animosity feeds and enables the growth of the Taliban and the Islamic State in both of these countries. It is an area that we need to be very concerned about. We certainly need to keep military engagement in Afghanistan. And we certainly need strong political engagement and pressure put on the Pakistani government.

Benson:  Col. Kemp: Do you see Al Qaeda and ISIS threatening the United States and its European allies?

Kemp:  As we all know 9/11 was spawned in Afghanistan. There is a very strong risk that if significant areas of Afghanistan or even the whole country, is again taken over by Islamic jihadists, we could see a scenario where they’re able to plan, organize and launch attacks against the U.S. and the West. However, it is not simplyAfghanistan today. We have very strong issues in Syria and Iraq, where the Islamic State has gained power. Admittedly, some of the areas are being taken back. We also have problems in Libya, in many parts of the Middle East, and in North Africa. There is territory that is being gained by the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda and the jihadists. All of these areas are areas that we need to monitor closely. I know the CIA is doing that. The U.S. military is doing that as well. Wherever ISIS raises its head, it has to be hit. It has to be knocked off. The problem is not going away. It is a generation’s long problem that we are facing and fighting for a very long time. We need to be constantly vigilant. We need to be aggressive in the way that we deal with it. We cannot afford simply relax our guard and hope that it is going to die down; it is not. The US has to be very politically active in the Middle East. The U.S. actually is backing the wrong horse. They are supporting one of the world’s most dangerous powers – Iran. They are abandoning their allies in the region. Their allies include Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the US is not providing backing for those powers which have been effective stalwarts and bulwarks against Islamic jihad throughout the region and the world.

Benson:  I hope we can last another year with less than 10,000 combat forces in Afghanistan and soon to be reduced. We cannot imagine what will happen.

Gordon:  By the end of the Obama presidency, which is now a year away, are the Afghan security forces under the status of forces agreement, capable of defendingthe country against both the Taliban and ISIS?

Kemp:  They are not, unfortunately no. That is not without strong U.S. and Allied assistance. Britain is providing some assistance, but not as much as it should be. The problem with the Afghan security force is that they are working for a corrupt government. Corruption is endemic in Afghanistan. It started, under President Karzai and is continuing. What armed forces can be expected to fight for a corrupt regime that doesn’t support them, that does not pay them properly, that does not put a priority on giving them the resources they need? That is why U.S. forces need to retain a presence there. If they don’t, then we risk the same situation occurring in Afghanistan, perhaps on an even worse scale as we saw when President Obama pulled virtually all U.S. forces out of Iraq in 2012 as part of his domestic political agenda, which helped him to be reelected for a second term.

Benson:  As we wrap up this segment with Col. Richard Kemp, I would like to have. Richard Cutting summarize.

Cutting:  What occurs to me in listening to the Colonel is, simply this: we are in a new world. We really have to integrate that in our daily thinking. Just as you go out to hear your candidates and in your local political arenas, talking about taxes and your local issues, we must now begin to listen to our friends in the military. Col. Kemp’s message couldn’t have been clearer today. As a citizen of this country, we are in a generational battle, and we need to start acting that way. We need to think about these theaters of war as part of our everyday lives, and support the people who are intelligently analyzing this, and leading this fight. We are not in episodic wars like World War II anymore. This is going to be, unfortunately, something we pass on to our children. There must be a continuum of intelligent political discussion, that is precise, and based on the good efforts and fine work of people like Col. Kemp. Thank you, Colonel, for putting in that generational aspect. It has to start becoming normalized.

Gordon:  Col. Kemp is a man who has also put his finger on what the problem is here in the West. He calls it the “amoral revolution.” He, however, has been an exemplar of defending those common Judeo-Christian values, coming to the assistance of the Israel Defense Force.  The IDF has been unfairly castigated in international forums. It has been unjustly accused of war crimes. Kemp also put his finger on whom in the Muslim world, are backing the Taliban and ISIS, particularly in the Middle East, North Africa, and even South Asia.

Kemp:  I think it’s very important that Americans realize the war that we’re in. The two commentators there made it absolutely clear, and rightly, that this is agenerational struggle. It’s a struggle between the West and radical Islam. This is not a war sought by the West. This is a war that has been sought by radical Islamists. They want to dominate the Middle East. They want to deny any access to the Middle East by the West. They also want to dominate areas of the West, perhaps the whole of the West. We have to fight them. We have to stand up and fight them. We are not going to fight them by pretending that the struggle doesn’t exist, by pretending that they are not our enemies, because they are our enemies.

I am not suggesting that all Muslims are our enemies. Those who wish to see us destroyed, those who wish to change the way of life in countries like Britain and the United States of America that have been responsible for the vast majority of good that’s been done in this world. We just cannot allow them to destroy us. We have to stand up against them and fight them. We should not deny that this problem exists. We need to find ways of dealing with it.  Our politicians are too enthusiastic about understanding and wanting to embrace cultures that simply don’t work in our countries. They cannot work in our countries unless we wish to see our countriesdescending into the kind of violence and amorality that exists in so many parts of the Middle East. Let us support Israel. Let us do everything we can to support the outpost of civilization, the outpost of Western values that exists in the Middle East. It is a very valuable country. It is a magnificent country from which we all benefit. We must support Israel as we support our own civilizations.

Benson:  I’d like to bring on my next guest, Dr. Sebastian Gorka. Welcome, Dr. Gorka.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka

Dr. Sebastian Gorka:  Thank you so much, Lisa.

Benson:  Dr. Gorka, You are advisor to the Department, the Department of Defense in its irregular warfare joint operation concept. You currently serve as the Major General Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at Marine Corps University. Previously you were Associate Dean of Congressional Affairs and Relations to the special operations community at the National Defense University.

Gordon:  Dr. Gorka, in early December we had the San Bernardino, California terrorist massacre. This weekend we had a shooting of a police officer in Philadelphia by a former convicted felon. Were these crimes by Muslims inspired by loyalty to the pure Islam of ISIS?

Gorka:  The most important thing we have to do is jettison a phrase that is used so regularly in the media, of “lone-wolf terrorism.” This is a phrase that was invented to make the listener disconnect the dots. There is this idea that there has to be some kind of operational link between the perpetrators and Al-Qaeda central, or ISIS headquarters in Iraq or Syria. The fact is that, whether it’s the Boston Bombers whether it’s the Chattanooga shooter, whether it is the two in San Bernardino or this new, attempted murder of this police officer in Philadelphia, it’s very clear that the connective tissue for all of them is the ideology of global jihad. We have to understand that all of these actors from 9/11 down are connected, share the same concept that we are the infidel; America is antithetical to Islam, and as a result we must be destroyed. This is the big picture. This is the strategic understanding that the current administration doesn’t want your listeners to have.

Cutting:  Dr. Gorka, two Iraqi refugees, one in Sacramento and the other in Houston, were arrested this past week. One had joined ISIS in Syria and returned toCalifornia as a trained jihadi, influencing the other to join ISIS. How deficient is our system for vetting refugees, in light of the Administration’s resettlement of thousands of Syrian refugees in the United States?

Gorka:  It is not just deficient; it’s actually, impossible to do the vetting that would be required. So, if you want to vett somebody, from the national securityperspective, who’s coming into the country as a refugee, there are really only two ways to do it. This is very personal to me; my parents were refugees. They escaped the Communist country during the Cold War, and they were vetted. They escaped Hungary in the revolution of 1956. They arrived in a refugee camp in Austria. For the next few weeks, they were persistently and repeatedly interviewed by counterintelligence professional who would make the determination after dozens of interviews, whether or not the individual was truly a refugee and should be supported and given succor? Or whether they were an agent of a hostile power – in that case, a Communist regime? So that’s the first way you do it. Right now America does not have the manpower to do that. Remember, the president has just declared that his priority is to provide more agents to the FBI to do background checks for firearms purchases. I doubt this would be a priority.

The second way to vet is to compare that individual’s story and the data they are providing you, against an objective, confirmed database – a source that you know is true. You check that against their presentations to the individual who’s interviewing them. As Director Comey of the FBI, has testified on the Hill, we do not have that database to check refugee data against. It doesn’t even exist. Even if it existed in Syria, the Assad regime would not give us access to that information. So when it comes to the very basic 101 of national security, we don’t have the manpower, nor do we have the objective data – the verifiable data – available to do a proper refugee screening as the U.S. national security would require.

Gordon:  Dr. Gorka, you were in both Israel and Jordan during the Christmas/New Year’s holiday. You visited a Syrian refugee camp in Jordan. What did you take away from that experience about Administration policies regarding the conflict in Syria and the strategy combating ISIS?

Gorka:  There were two big takeaways after we visited the biggest refugee camp in Jordan. The first one is the fact that Jordan is doing an incredible job with minimal assistance from either the United States or the, very wealthy Gulf states. So think about this; Jordan has a population of 6 million Jordanians, and they’ve absorbed atleast one and a half million refugees from Syria. This is a nation that doesn’t have oil; that is not wealthy. They are doing an incredible job absorbing the aftermath of the murderous war that is occurring in Syria. So they need support, and fundamentally they need support from the Gulf States that are in a position to assist them. Secondly, I think the biggest take-home is what the Jordanian authorities shared with us after we had seen everything, and after we asked them, so what’s the long-term scenario here? And they were very candid with us. Remember, Jordan is a Muslim country. It is a Sunni Muslim country; it headed by King Abdullah II, who is descended from Mohammed. That is why it’s called the Hashemite Kingdom. They were very explicit; they said, look, these are Syrians from Syria. We don’t want them to stay in refugee camps. Nor does it make sense for them to move further north into Europe, nor does it make sense for them to travel across the Atlantic to be accepted into countries like the United States. The long-term answer is for the crisis in Syria to be resolved, and for these Syrians to go back to Syria. So when a, a Muslim nation right next to the Syrian conflict tells you that, I think we should listen.

Benson:  Dr. Gorka, New York City concluded a settlement ending the NYPD Muslim community profiling program imposing a civilian monitor on the policedepartment. Do you think this puts New York City at greater risk for Islamic terror?

Gorka:  Absolutely. I was actually briefing a House Committee about this Friday. One of the Congressmen asked me, “So what’s the good news?” Because I gave them a very depressing presentation on how we are losing the war with the jihadists. At the end of the briefing, one of them said, “So, Dr. Gorka, give us some good news about what works. What have we done right in the last 15 years?”  I said, “You know what? Our federal government really hasn’t done very much right in the last 15 years. But if you want a model of how to make America secure or part of America secure, it’s the NYPD.”

The NYPD after 9/11 made a very simple decision. They said, “The feds have let us down. The Big Apple was the key target. and, they didn’t do their jobs. So we’re not going to ask, we’re not going to expect Uncle Sam to protect the citizens of New York again, but we’re going to do it ourselves.” New York went from having six counterterrorism intelligence analysts, to building probably one of the world’s best counter-jihadi intelligence capabilities, with amazing human intelligence networks. People who were trained to go into the communities to monitor the radical Imam, the radical mosques. This is way to do it to protect Americans. But that only lasted until Mayor de Blasio. So now you have in New York, a, another version of what’s happening here in Washington with the White House. You have politics getting in the way of national security. And you’ve got ideology undermining American lives.

Cutting:  Dr. Gorka, you cover such a range. The one thing that didn’t get factored into this is the Persian Gulf, situation with Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Gorka:  I’m going to steal somebody else’s words here. There is no better summary than Netanyahu’s, description before Congress recently, when he said, “If you want to understand what’s going on in the Middle East now, you have to understand that it is a game of thrones for the crown of the caliphate.” We’re obsessed with Al-Qaeda, with ISIS; but we have to understand that it is actually a war between the Shiite version of the Caliphate, as, designed by the Mullahs in Tehran, and the Sunni version of the Caliphate, as exemplified by Al-Qaeda and, ISIS. So this, this is the war that we are caught up in. Two versions of the Caliphate and Iran is potentially even more dangerous than ISIS, because of their nuclear capabilities.

Gordon:  Dr. Gorka has basically told us that we can forget about the administration’s famous program combating violent extremism. If you don’t focus on theunderlying Islamic Koranic doctrine, you will not succeed in combating either domestic terrorism or ISIS and settling the problems in the Middle East. Furthermore, you’ve got a sectarian divide rising between Iran – which is potentially going to be nuclear-powered – and Saudi Arabia.

 Benson:  Thank you, Jerry Gordon. Thank you, Richard Cutting. Thank you Dr. Gorka.

Gorka:  You’re very welcome.

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

Pope’s envoy warns of ‘silent genocide’ and ‘biggest terrorism in the world’

“A silent genocide” and “the biggest terrorism in the world.” Did Charles Maung Bo mean the Muslim persecution of Christians that has eradicated ancient Christian communities in Iraq, while Catholic bishops in the West stand by silently afraid to harm their precious and utterly useless “dialogue” with Muslim leaders? Did he mean the terrorism that has claimed committed over 27,000 jihad terror attacks worldwide since 9/11, and more every day, and boasts about its imminent conquest of Rome and the entire West?

No, of course he doesn’t mean that silent genocide or that terrorism. He means poverty and injustice — in other words, he means that the West needs to give more money to Third World nations. That the West might collapse utterly from jihad activity, Muslim migration, Sharia supremacism, etc., well, Catholic prelates don’t speak of such things. To do so would be to “provoke” Muslims and “poke them in the eye,” when they know that “respect” (i.e., cringing, shivering fear combined with appeasement) is the order of the day.

Catholic bishops today are failing their people, failing the Church, failing the world, and helping pave the way for a catastrophe of proportions they will find unimaginable when it engulfs them, but at that point it will be far too late.

Charles Maung Bo and Francis

“Pope’s envoy warns of ‘silent genocide’ and ‘biggest terrorism,’” by Nestor Corrales, Inquirer.net, January 24, 2016:

CEBU CITY – “A silent genocide” and “the biggest terrorism in the world.”

The Pope’s envoy at the 51st International Eucharistic Congress (IEC) made that analogy to describe starvation, poverty and injustice in the world.

Citing a data from the United Children’s Nation’s Fund (Unicef), Charles Maung Cardinal Bo of Myanmar said 20, 000 die of starvation and malnutrition everyday, totaling to more than seven million a year.

In a powerful homily on Sunday, Cardinal Bo urged Catholics to declare a “third world war” against poverty and break the “chains of injustice.”

“In a world that continues to have millions of poor, the Eucharist is a major challenge to humanity,” he said.

“What is the greatest mortal sin? Seeing a child dying of starvation,” the cardinal added.

In a press conference on Monday, Bishop Mylo Hubert Vergara said the papal legate’s homily was a challenge to the Catholic faithful to make fighting poverty and injustice “a priority.”

“To make it as urgent, to become a priority in us,” Vergara told reporters.

He said social justice is a responsibility of everyone.

“We want to make social justice realized, to live it out. And it is a responsibility for all of us.” he said.

Vergara said Cardinal Bo’s statement was an urgent call “just to make us realized that we really have to fight for poverty, graft and corruption.”…

Maybe it would be better to fight against them, but whatever you say, Mylo — who am I to question a bishop?

RELATED ARTICLES:

India: Gandhi statue defaced with Islamic State slogan and threats

Islamic State in West Africa attacks 5 Nigerian villages, murders 36 people

The Islamic State vs. the Laffer Curve by Daniel J. Mitchell

Based on my writings, some people may think I’m 100 percent against higher taxes.

But that’s not exactly true. In some cases, I like punitive taxation. Or, to be more precise, I sometimes take pleasure when punitive tax policy backfires on bad people.

Here’s an example. An interesting article in Slate, authored by Adam Chodorow of Arizona State University Law School, looks at how a terrorist group’s attempt to form a government is being stymied by an inability to collect taxes.

Revolution is easy. Governing is hard. And there are few things more difficult than taxes. Operating a country requires money, and that typically requires taxes. … 

The population in this area is estimated to be between 7 million and 8 million, about the same as the population of Washington state. While ISIS currently collects about $1 billion annually, countries of similar size collect about $16 billion, suggesting that ISIS has a long way to go if it wants to operate like a real state.

But the comparatively low levels of tax revenue are not because of a Hong Kong-type commitment to limited government.

Instead, the terror group is discovering that people don’t like giving their money to politicians and bureaucrats, even ones motivated by Islamic fundamentalism.

Taxes aren’t a great way to ingratiate oneself with the governed. … More than one government has fallen because of its tax policy. ISIS must face these challenges just as any emerging polity does… ISIS may have displayed prowess on the battlefield, but it has revealed that it is as stymied and constrained by the complexities of taxation as the rest of us. …

ISIS’s taxes appear to be … no more popular in the territory it controls than they would be here in the U.S. As the Times reported, ISIS’s taxes are now so onerous that large numbers of people, who were apparently willing to tolerate ISIS’s religious authoritarianism, are fleeing Syria and Iraq to escape them. At some point people will either rise up or leave, threatening ISIS’s internal revenue source.

So taxes are becoming so onerous that taxpayers (and taxable income) are escaping.

Hmm… excessive taxation leading to less taxable economic activity. That seems like a familiar concept — something I’ve written about one or two times. Or maybe 50 or 100 times.

Ah, yes, our old friend, the Laffer Curve!

ISIS is … constrained by a lack of administrative resources and the simple reality once sketched on the back of a cocktail napkin by the economist Arthur Laffer: that tax rates can only get so high before they actually drive down government revenues.

Given current conditions, ISIS may be near or at the limits of its ability to tax, even if it can recruit jihadi tax accountants to its cause. Thus … it’s not clear how much room the group has to grow internal revenues. More important, its efforts to do so may do more to damage its prospects than outside forces can accomplish.

This sounds like the tax equivalent of War of the Worlds, the H.G. Wells’ classic in which alien invaders wreak havoc on earth until they are felled by bacteria.

Tom Cruise was the star of a 2005 movie adaptation of this story, but I’m thinking I could rekindle my acting career and star in a movie of how the Laffer Curve thwarts ISIS!

But to have a happy ending, ISIS has to be defeated. And Professor Chodorow closes his article with a very helpful suggestion.

Rather than send in ground troops … view our tax code as a weapon of mass destruction. … We could make full use of it in the war on ISIS, perhaps by translating it into Arabic in the hopes that the group adopts it.

Sounds like the advice I once gave about threatening Assad with Obamacare.

A version of this post first appeared at Dan Mitchell’s blog International Liberty.

Daniel J. MitchellDaniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.

U.S. State Department: 9,500 foreigners whose visas were revoked for terrorism go missing

The solution: bring in hundreds of thousands of refugees whose ties to jihad terror will be impossible to vet.

“Feds can’t say whereabouts of those whose visas were revoked over terror threat,” Fox News, December 19, 2015 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

The Obama administration cannot be sure of the whereabouts of thousands of foreigners in the U.S. who had their visas revoked over terror concerns and other reasons, a State Department official acknowledged Thursday.

The admission, made at a House oversight hearing examining immigrant vetting in the wake of major terror attacks, drew a sharp rebuke from the committee chairman.

“You don’t have a clue do you?” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told Michele Thoren Bond, assistant secretary for the Bureau of Consular Affairs.

Bond initially said the U.S. has revoked more than 122,000 visas since 2001, including 9,500 because of the threat of terrorism.

But Chaffetz quickly pried at that stat, pressing the witness about the present location of those individuals.

“I don’t know,” she said.

The startling admission came as members of the committee pressed administration officials on what safeguards are in place to reduce the risk from would-be extremists….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Refugee Resettlement: The lucrative business of serving immigrants

Germany: Muslims recruit openly for Islamic State on Berlin train

UK: Socialist leader calls terror-linked mosque “wonderful community asset”

Syed Farook and San Bernardino: MSM narrative fails, Muslim CAIR steps in

mass-shooter-syed-farook-islam-in-america-religion-of-peace-933x445

As America reacted to Wednesday’s horrific mass shooting at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, in which 14 people were killed and 17 wounded, some mainstream media were racing to craft their preferred narrative.

That narrative creation process was in high gear throughout the early afternoon, while the situation was still quite “fluid,” as some would say. At about 3:20pm, MSNBC was reporting that a Planned Parenthood clinic was “only a few blocks away.” After Twitter erupted with ridicule once people began checking their Google Maps, Bloomberg Business tweeted at 4:29pm,”San Bernadino [sic] shooting happened less than two miles from a Planned Parenthood health clinic.”

Bloomberg’s “less than” qualifier was “less than” sufficient to convince anyone the attackers were somehow targeting PP. Aren’t all map apps and GPS more accurate than within a two mile radius?

Calls for gun control from President Obama and Hillary Clinton failed to address why San Bernardino’s gun-free zone status did not prevent the shooting.

By mid-afternoon EST, the Liberal narrative had failed, and details were beginning to leak out.

The facts released thus far present a complex scenario with the main suspect, Syed Farook, having possible connections to a person investigated for terrorism a few years ago, and having travelled recently to Saudi Arabia.

RT France was first to report the chief suspect’s name, Syed Farook. NBC followed a few hours later, citing multiple sources. Soon after, the New York Daily News had interviewed Syed Farook’s father, who described the suspect to be a “very religious” Muslim.

Over at CNN, ex-CIA analysts were describing the assault as having “the hallmarks of the sort of attacks you see in the Middle East,” multiple shooters, IEDs, etc.

The Daily Beast seems to be the first news organization to locate and approach the Farook family’s home in Corona CA:

Farook lived at a home with his wife and children in Corona, California. The Daily Beast knocked on the home’s door and was met by a man who said, “My name is Farook.” When asked if he knew Sayed, the man said, “Of course I know him but I have nothing to say.” When asked about Syed being named as a suspect, he said, “I have nothing to say.” […]

Five minutes after he answered the door, Farook got into a white car and drove away, answering questions again with, “I have nothing to say.”

The Daily Beast contacted Farook’s sister, Saira Khan, by phone on Wednesday shortly after the shooting. She said the media was jumping to conclusions on identifying the suspect and said that her brother was at work. Khan said she would try to get in touch with her brother and pass along his contact information.

Some additional pieces to the puzzle have emerged:

CNN reports that Farook had “abruptly left” the holiday event for county employees. And from the Wall Street Journal: “Government records show Mr. Farook, a U.S. citizen, traveled to Saudi Arabia last year.” (Thanks to Breitbart News for these links.)

The NY Times reports on possible international connections:

One senior American official said that Mr. Farook had not been the target of any active terrorism investigation, and he was not someone the bureau had been concerned about before Wednesday’s shooting. Other officials said the F.B.I. was looking into a possible connection between Mr. Farook and at least one person who was investigated for terrorism a few years ago.

There were also accounts by investigators that one of the attackers had recently had a dispute with fellow employees, according to law enforcement officials who did not want to be identified.

Chief Burguan confirmed that someone left the party after a dispute, “but we have no idea if those were the people that came back.”

This last assessment seems at odds with CNN’s reporting cited above.

At the late evening press conference, however, Fox News reports, “I’m now being told…[police] are going on the premise there wasn’t a disagreement…he was there to case the location.”

MSNBC relates a survivor’s account:

The shooters who opened fire in a conference room at a California center for the developmentally disabled Wednesday didn’t say anything before they started spraying the room with bullets, the husband of a woman who was shot but survived said.

Salaheen Kondoker’s wife, Annie, an environmental engineer who works for San Bernardino County, was inside the conference room when gunfire erupted at around 11 a.m. local time.

“They just started shooting … they didn’t yell or say anything beforehand,” Salaheen Kondoker said his wife told him.

News reporting continued late into the evening at a San Bernardino police press conference, with tantalizing bits of evidence being tweeted. From Raheem Kassam at Breitbart:

20-21 officers in shootout with suspects, both dead. First suspect Syed Rizwan Farook, 28. Second is Tashfeen Malik, 27.

“There was a relationship” between Farook and Malik…
“It really looks like we have 2 shooters…”
“We have not ruled out terrorism…”
“Based upon what we’ve seen… how they were equipped… there had to be some level of planning”
Journalist asks if any connection to ISIS: “I’m not gonna weigh in on that one” says police spox
“We have multiple addresses for [the suspects]…”

Did political correctness enable the shooter’s plot to be carried out? Will Carr of Fox News tweeted this:

@KNX1070 reporting a neighbor did not call authorities about suspicious activity bc she did not want to racially profile

CAIR steps in

Once Syed Farook’s name was released as one of the suspects, CAIR-LA immediately scheduled a press conference. The full text of CAIR-National’s press release can be read here. The key statement reads:

“We condemn this horrific and revolting attack and offer our heartfelt condolences to the families and loved ones of all those killed or injured,” said CAIR-LA Executive Director Hussam Ayloush. “The Muslim community stands shoulder to shoulder with our fellow Americans in repudiating any twisted mindset that would claim to justify such sickening acts of violence.”

Breitbart reports Farook’s family was “in shock”:

At the CAIR press conference, Syed Farook’s brother-in-law Farhan Khan is present and delivers a statement. “I have no idea why he would he do something like this. I have absolutely no idea. I am in shock myself.” Khan does not answer questions from reporters. Executive Director of CAIR-LA says “We unequivocally condemn the horrific act that happened today.”

The reaction of some to the CAIR presser is that it seemed odd:

Toby Harnden: Weird weird weird @CNN right now. No mention of Islam & then live to CAIR presser w multiple people saying it’s nothing to do with Islam.

toddstarnes: Not quite what to make of that CAIR presser….Odd.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama on SB: “We do not yet know why this terrible event occurred”

San Bernardino-area man didn’t report suspicious activity for fear of being called racist

CNN Always Blames Conservatives for Terrorism

John Nolte tells the truth. But it isn’t just CNN: numerous people who are putatively on the right, including Donald Trump, Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham and others who should know better but clearly don’t, lined up after our free speech event in Garland, Texas last May to blame us for the jihad terror attack on the event.

Planned Parenthood & Pamela Geller: CNN Always Blames Conservatives for Terrorism,” by John Nolte, Breitbart, November 30, 2015:

Chris Cuomo: “Now we get into why did it happen? The man charged with Friday’s murderous attack on a Colorado Planned Parenthood is probably a crazy extremist who did something sick and negative and wrong. But isn’t killing babies primarily for purposes of convenience provocative?

Alisyn Camerota: “What people are saying is that the business you are in, aborting innocent unborn children primarily for convenience purposes, is incendiary and provocative.”

Erin Burnett: “Is being caught on video talking so cavalierly about dismembering innocent babies and selling their parts stoking the flames? Do you think on some level, Planned Parenthood relished this attack?”

Carol Costello: “Is Planned Parenthood’s belligerent insistence on taxpayer funding a deliberate attempt to provoke and taunt?”

The questions above are fabricated. Not a single one of CNN’s left-wing anchors raised anything close to the idea that Planned Parenthood’s horrific abortion practices provoked last week’s violence.  Which is appropriate. What happened at a Colorado Planned Parenthood Friday afternoon was indefensible and evil. The only person responsible is the person who committed those three murders.

Throughout Monday, though, and on too many occasions to count, like the rest of the DC Media, CNN did attempt to blame conservative pro-lifers for provoking the Friday attack, this includes the Center for Medical Progress, a group that exposed Planned Parenthood’s ghoulish cottage industry involving the dismemberment of dead babies and the selling of those tiny body parts to the highest bidder.

And yet, if it means the left-wing network can blame conservatives, this very same CNN does see cartoons as a provocative taunt that makes the intended victim in some way responsible for the terrorism. (Donald Trump said the same thing, by the way).

Back in May, after Islamic terrorists tried to murder everyone at a Texas free speech event organized by Pamela Geller, CNN relentlessly attacked Geller for wearing a short free speech skirt. According to CNN, the bitch was begging for it.

Believe it or not, these quotes are real:

Chris Cuomo to Pam Geller: “Now, we get into, why did it happen? They’re crazy extremists. They bought into an ideology that is sick and negative and wrong, that’s fact. But what you did was calculated in a way that would be provocative.”

Alisyn Camerota to Pam Geller: “What people are saying is that there is that there is always this fine line of being intentionally incendiary and provocative.”

Erin Burnett to Pam Geller: “I mean, are you stoking the flames? Do you on some level relish being the target of these attacks?”

Carol Costello: “She can say whatever she wants but if this [cartoon] contest was set up to deliberately taunt or provoke, is that responsible?”

At CNN, no matter what happens, the political Right is always to blame.

Even for train crashes.

Today’s reminder of just how good Democrats got it … especially at CNN.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama’s Apology to the World for U.S. on Climate Is Ridiculous

The Most Surprising Thing About the Colorado Springs Shooting

UK: Muslim rape gang member says 13-year-old victim seduced him

Obama administration gun-running scheme armed the Islamic State

Why Muslim Migrants Always = Terrorism

What’s the point in the West sending troops to the Middle East if we bring the Middle East to the West? The preceding is a money line, one that should be used by Islam realists from Germany to Georgia.

The Paris terror attack has inspired much debate, from conservatives saying we need to confront ISIS aggressively overseas to liberals wringing their hands over rising anti-Islam sentiment that they claim will exacerbate the jihadist problem. And while I’m more sympathetic to the former sentiment than the latter, nothing should distract us from what must be our number-one priority: stopping the Muslim influx into the West cold.

Many say this is a cold position. And, unfortunately, their prescription for (misguided) compassion is seldom sufficiently refuted.

In an attempt to salvage a failing multicultural model and strategy for importing left-leaning voters, we hear that the Muslim migrants must be “vetted” better. A practical problem with this notion is that Syria’s and other Middle Eastern countries’ databases are woefully inadequate, making accurate information on many migrants impossible to obtain. This confronts us with a simple matter of probability: if 1 million migrants enter a nation over time and just 1/10th of 1 percent are terrorists, that’s 1000 dangerous jihadists. Is this acceptable? Note that my estimate may be conservative.

Yet there’s also a fundamental problem with vetting that goes unmentioned: even with complete information, it only tells you about the past.

It cannot tell you about the future.

In other words, even if those one million migrants have “clean records,” how many will become terrorists in the future? Again, 1/10th of 1 percent is 1000.

And what of their children? How many of them will become terrorists? No point repeating best-case-scenario percentages.

One response here is that the children will be more integrated and thus the problem should diminish over time. This is logical, but, unfortunately, also apparently untrue.

Studies have shown that young Muslims in Europe are actually more radical than their elders. This certainly is counterintuitive, but only because the average Westerner’s cranial database also doesn’t contain accurate information. For example and related to this, moderns take as a given that religion is declining in our “enlightened times.” Yet religious belief is actually increasing worldwide, a phenomenon poised to continue. Islam’s adherents are growing in number, and Catholicism’s are, too, slightly in excess of the increase in world population. Religious belief is only declining in the West — and, most significantly, among Westerners in the West.

Another common argument was expressed by Charles Grant, director of pro-E.U. think-tank Centre for European Reform. He said that ratcheting up the anti-Islamic rhetoric would serve ISIS’ ends and that “Europe’s game must be to resist that and not repeat the mistakes we made after September 11 which played right into al-Qaeda’s hands. We must hold our nerve and embrace our values of tolerance of faith and religions which we share in common and against the Islamic State,” reported the Telegraph. Many leftists echo this, the idea being that we must not further “alienate” Muslim communities. This overlooks that you can only alienate those who aren’t already alien.

Note again that the pattern evident is for younger Muslim generations to become more alienated from the West, not less. Some would blame this on the West itself, saying that — despite indulging multiculturalism, outlawing anti-Muslim rhetoric and offering generous government benefits — we still aren’t opening our arms and hearts to these newcomers. Kill ‘em with kindness, the thinking (feeling?) goes.

Of such people ask a simple question: can you cite one time in history in which large numbers of Muslims have willingly assimilated into a non-Muslim culture?

Just one?

While there may be some exception, I can’t think of any. Note here a recent poll showing that a slim majority of U.S. Muslims prefer living under Sharia law to American civil law (and how many wouldn’t admit such a thing to pollsters?). The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and the historical record informs that “Muslim assimilation” is a contradiction in terms.

In fact, I don’t know of even one instance in which large numbers of Muslims were ever shaken from Islam other than by the sword, and that wasn’t done very much, if at all. There was an attempt by a group of medieval Christian missionaries to peacefully convert Middle Eastern Muslims, but the effort was found futile and abandoned after a short time.

Then there’s the myth of “assimilation.” The term is thrown around thoughtlessly much as is “diversity,” and seldom mentioned is that assimilation is often never complete. For while large groups who immigrate to a nation often do change, they also are agents of change. Did the large waves of Irish, Italian and German immigrants not alter America somewhat? This might have been a good, bad or neutral thing, but it’s assuredly a real thing.

There are also those who don’t assimilate markedly, if at all. Have the Amish or Hasidic Jews assimilated noticeably into the wider culture? Again, I’m not here making a value judgment on their particular different-drummer walk. The point is merely that assimilation is, foolishly and dangerously, taken as a given when there’s great precedent proving it’s not.

And this also is a numbers game. The rare Muslim who contemplated going to the West many years ago had to be a different kind of Muslim, one who understood he was entering a Christian culture that wouldn’t cater to his desires. He and his co-religionists would be so few and far between there’d be no prospect for “Halal” groceries, Islamic interest-free financing or Muslim schools for his children. So he’d be forced to assimilate by having to work within the established institutions of the host nation. But great numbers of Muslims form their own enclaves and their own institutions; this reality not only makes the journey west more inviting to pious Muslims, but also enables them to reinforce each other’s beliefs.

There’s another problem with assimilation: a prerequisite for it is providing something attractive to assimilate into. The communist political activist Willi Munzenberg once reportedly said, “We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.” This has been accomplished. Decadence is everywhere, and we no longer even know what marriage is or what boys and girls are. French president Francois Hollande recently canceled a dinner meeting with the Iranian president because he refused to bow to a demand to serve Halal meat and no wine. It’s good he took at least that stand, but one could just imagine his hurling accusations of “intolerance” at Christians who refused to refrain from saying the Lord’s Prayer before a meal with Muslims. It’s an example of how Western Europe has been hollowed out, how it has the superficialities of its culture but not the substance. What are foreigners today supposed to assimilate into in today’s France, Italy, Germany and U.S.? Bread and wine; pasta fagioli; Wiener schnitzel; and baseball, hot dogs and reality TV, all lathered in moral relativism? Are they really going to follow the lead of a dying anomaly in a world of growing religiosity? Heck, I’m a Westerner, and as a believing Christian I refuse to assimilate into my country’s wider culture (although I save my cutting off of heads for broccoli). Thus, with assimilation, even if Muslim migrants were buyin’, they wouldn’t be buyin’ what we’re sellin’.

Of course, none of this means we should toss the post-Christian West from the frying pan into the fire. If you want to destroy liberalism, though — both the suicidal modern ideology and the extant remnants of the classical variety — Islamization is a sure way to do it.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

RELATED ARTICLES:

Refugees and children of refugees have been connected to terror plots in the U.S.

The Expanding Threat Posed by ISIS

GOP Lawmakers, National Security Experts Debate Risks, Syrian Refugee Programs’ Vetting Process

Reports: Syrians headed to the US border as southern border-crossings heat up again

Iran’s Justice Minister: U.S. world’s top terrorism supporter, drug trafficker

“Iran Calls U.S. World’s Top Terrorism Supporter, Drug Trafficker,” Washington Free Beacon, November 6, 2015:

The head of Iran’s Justice Minister [sic] on Friday called the United States the world’s top supporter of terrorism and drug trafficker, according to regional reports.

Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi, Iran’s Justice Minister, made the remarks while in Russia for a meeting with his counterparts.

“I want to say that we perceive the United States as country supporting terrorism and spread of narcotic substances,” Pour-Mohammadi was quoted as saying in Iran’s state-controlled press.

In Afghanistan, for instance, drug production has increased exponentially since U.S. forces invaded the country, Pour-Mohammadi claimed.

“Today, financial support and supply of weapons [to terror groups] are carried out either by the United States or by its allies,” the leader added….

RELATED ARTICLES:

“Jihad” is “misunderstood” spiritual struggle, Muslim scholar tells Oprah

France: Muslim plotted to attack MP “to serve Islam”

Trump: If elected, I would shut down certain U.S. mosques

The Hamas-linked terror organization CAIR, which works assiduously to silence and marginalize everyone who speaks out against jihad terror, is now pretending to support the freedom of speech: “Donald Trump’s apparent willingness to close down American mosques that he deems ‘extreme’ is totally incompatible with the Constitution and our nation’s cherished principle of religious freedom,” said CAIR Government Affairs Department Manager Robert McCaw. “The government should not be in the business of deciding what is acceptable free speech or religious belief. Donald Trump’s off-the-cuff remarks are both un-American, and un-presidential.”

The freedom of speech and the freedom of religion do not give anyone a license to plot murder or sedition. It is completely reasonable to shut down mosques in which jihad terror is preached or plotted. Our American Freedom Defense Initiative called for that in 2013. This shouldn’t be controversial at all: churches in which murder is plotted or preached should also be shut down. No institution in which murder and sedition are preached or plotted should remain in operation.

Trump doesn’t understand the war against free speech or the implications of self-censorship in the face of violent intimidation, and that is a very serious flaw; but he is right on this one, and the sinister Islamic supremacists speaking out against him — Hamas-linked CAIR, Linda Sarsour — are testimony to that.

“Donald Trump: I would shut down certain mosques in U.S. if elected,” by Adam Edelman, New York Daily News, October 21, 2015 (thanks to David):

Donald Trump on Wednesday promised to close certain mosques in the U.S. if elected President.

Trump, discussing his strategy to fight ISIS during an interview on Fox Business Network, also said he would revoke the passports of U.S. citizens who have traveled abroad to fight for ISIS.

“I would do that,” Trump said during a telephone interview after FBN host Jim Varney asked him if he would favor revoking passports and closing mosques. “Absolutely. I think it’s great.”

“If you go out, you go fight for ISIS, you can’t come back. Why can’t you do it? You can do it here,” he added.

Varney, however, then pressed the 2016 Republican front-runner, asking again: “Can you close a mosque? I mean, we do have religious freedom.”

“Well, I don’t know,” Trump responded in an apparent backpedal. “It depends on if the mosque is, you know, loaded for bear, I don’t know. You’re going to have to certainly look at it.”

The comments drew immediate rebuke from leaders within the Muslim-American community.

“It is truly outrageous that the leading Republican presidential candidate would announce openly that he would violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by closing down religious institutions,” Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based advocacy and rights organization, told The News. “I hope this finally prompts people to speak out against this off-the-rails Islamophobia that we are seeing from the right wing of the American political sector. ”

Linda Sarsour, executive director of the Arab-American Association of New York, called the comments “dangerous” and warned that unless other politicians publicly chastised Trump, his remarks could put people within the community at risk.

“That the Republican front-runner for president is calling for the closing down of religious institutions in the land of religious freedom is outrageous,” Sarsour told The News. “This rhetoric, if it’s allowed to continue, has real consequences for the Muslim community in the U.S.”

“It creates suspicion and stigma against an entire community,” she added. “It’s unfair and unjust.”

Even Trump’s fellow Republicans took issue with the remark, with Rep. Peter King (R-Long Island) — who himself hasn’t exactly been an ally of the U.S. Muslim community — taking the candidate to task.

“Donald Trump is talking before he knows what he’s talking about. I have been critical of people in the Muslim community, but the fact is you can’t be going around shutting down mosques,” King said on Fox

The front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination also said he would revoke the passports of U.S. citizens who have traveled abroad to fight for ISIS.

“I think we should have surveillance of mosques. I think we should be trying to find out what is going on in a mosque, find out if there’s activity in that mosque, where there’s weapons or conspiracy going on,” he added. “Then yes you can take action. But to be casually, the way Donald Trump seems, to be talking about shutting down mosques? No.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim hacker says he will release CIA top dog Brennan’s emails

Muslim from UK murders and wounds 80 in jihad suicide attack for Islamic State

Israeli Minister: “Citizens trained to use weapons are a multiplying force in our battle against terrorism”

Recent reports out of Israel show that that Israeli civilians aren’t taking a recent spate of terrorist violence lying down, they are arming themselves to fight back. Further, the Israeli government is cooperating by taking measures to ensure that more citizens will have access to the tools necessary to protect themselves and their communities.

In recent weeks, Israel has experienced a wave of attacks, primarily stabbings, carried out by individual Palestinians against Israeli civilians. According to the Washington Post, as of Wednesday, eight Israelis had been killed and dozens injured in this latest round of violence.

The Israeli government has taken drastic measures to combat the attacks, calling up reservists and deploying troops in cities. However, with the unpredictable nature of the violence, civilians are turning to private gun ownership for safety.

In describing the clamor for arms, Agence France Presse (AFP) reported “[c]ars are double- and even triple-parked outside a gun shop in Israel’s coastal city of Tel Aviv. Inside, customers jostle each other as they wait to be served.” The report goes on to quote store owner Iftash Ben-Yehuda, who said, “[t]he last time the shop was so busy was probably in the 1970s. I’ve never before seen such stress or panic.” The article also notes that applications for firearms licenses have risen “by tens of percent” in only 10 days.

Some seeking arms recognize that the effects of carrying go well beyond their own personal safety. Jerusalem resident Netanel Oberman told Bloomberg News, “I want a gun not so much because I’m worried for my own safety, but because I’ll be better prepared to protect other people from attack.”

Israel Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan seems to agree with this assessment. In a statement Wednesday, Erdan noted, “[i]n recent weeks, many citizens have helped the Israel Police subdue terrorists. Citizens trained to use weapons are a multiplying force in our battle against terrorism. Therefore, I have worked to ease conditions for obtaining firearms.”

Further, on Wednesday, the Ministry of Public Security issued relaxed guidelines on who is eligible for a firearm license. The move makes it easier for those on active or reserve military duty to acquire a license, as well as civilians who have completed a requisite security guard course.

Israel typically has very stringent firearm licensing requirements that have gotten progressively stricter over the course of the last two decades. However, just last year, government officials were forced to ease restrictions on carrying firearms following a brutal terrorist attack that resulted in the murder of four Orthodox Jewish men in a West Jerusalem Temple.

Unfortunately, as the Bloomberg News article makes clear, some law-abiding civilians are unable to get a firearms license even with the relaxed rules. Segev Gorbitz of Jerusalem told the outlet, “[i]t’s not right… I want a gun to defend myself and my family, and if you’re an Israeli like me who served in the army and have no criminal record, you should be able to get one.”

Remarkably, even given the present dire situation, Israel’s anti-gun activists are still out in force. The AFP article quoted a leader of an Israeli anti-gun coalition called Gun Free Kitchen Tables, who told the outlet, “[i]n the long run it is obvious that more weapons creates more danger, not more security but the opposite… Encouraging civilians to use firearms on the street could lead to very unfortunate results.” Similarly, according to Bloomberg, Galia Wallach of NA’AMAT, which holds anti-gun positions, protested her countrymen’s increased access to the tools of self-defense, telling a radio program, “I’m very concerned that easing licenses for guns might escalate violence.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Thirty Israeli students attacked during visit to Joseph’s tomb

Democratic Debate “Race to the Bottom” on anti-gun posturing

Hillary Clinton Calls us her Enemies, While Dan Gross Calls us Terrorists!

Hillary Clinton Supports Australia-style Gun Confiscation

Congressional Report: Iran Spends Billions to Foment Global Terror

Responding to a request from Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), the Congressional Research Service prepared a report detailing monies spent by Iran supporting terrorist organizations in the Middle East.

The report, obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, outlined the massive expenditures by the Iranian regime on Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shiite militias Syria and Iraq, the Assad government, the Houthi rebels in Yemen and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, as well as Iran’s own military program.

These expenditures will only increase with the expected release of $150 billion in sanctions relief due to the current nuclear agreement between Iran and the world powers.

Iranian Military Spending

Although in May 2015, U.S. President Barack Obama stated Iran’s military budget was “$15 billion compared to $150 billion for the Gulf States,” Press TV, an Iranian-owned media outlet, reported in March the Iranian parliament had approved a $300 billion budget for the military for 2015.

The report names the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps’ Quds Force as the main vehicle that carries out terrorism for the regime, citing one study that claims the actual funding for the force is “much greater” than the amount allotted to it in the official budget “as the group’s funds are supplemented by its own economic activities.”

Assad Government

Iran provides an estimated $6-20 billion per year in aid to the Assad regime in Syria. One source estimated in 2013 Iran was giving $600-700 million per month to Syria, while another says that the amount has since doubled. The money funds militias, weapons and military training as well as the purchase of subsidized oil from Iran and other commodities.

Although Iran claims to be cash strapped because of international sanctions, this past July, Iran extended $1 billion in additional financial credit to the Syrian regime.

Shiite Militias in Syria

Iran provides training for Iraqi Shiite militias who are fighting for the Assad regime in Syria. An estimated 5-10,000 Iraqi Shiites are said to comprise these forces that fight alongside Hezbollah and form sniper teams, lead ambushes, establish checkpoints and provide infantry support for Syrian armored corps. Iran also recruits fighters for the Assad regime from Afghanistan and from within Syria itself. Iran pays each fighter an estimated $500-1,000 per month.

Shiite Militias in Iraq

One Iranian cleric cited in the congressional report estimates Iran has spent more than $1 billion in military aid to Iraq since the Islamic State swept through the country and captured large swathes of territory in the north last summer.

The militias Iran funds in Iraq are theose that fought against the United States between 2003 and 2011. Iraqi intelligence officials say just one of these militias, As’aib Ahl Al Haq (League of the Righteous), receives between $1.5 and $2 million per month from Iran.

A report published by Amnnesty International in 2014 titled Absolute Impunity: Militia Rule in Iraq documented the horrific kidnapping and murder of Sunni men by these Shiite paramilitary groups.

Hezbollah

The latest State Department Country Report on Terrorism (2014) states Iran provided Hezbollah with “training, weapons, and explosives, as well as political, diplomatic, monetary, and organizational aid.” The Department of Defense estimates Tehran gives Hezbollah between $100-200 million in aid per year.

Iran-Khamenei-Nasrallah-Kiss-IP_0

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah kisses Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (Photo: © Reuters)

Hamas

In 2006, it was estimated Iran was providing Hamas with $20-25 million per month to cover its governing budget as well as supplying the Gaza-based terror group weapons, technical assistance and military training.

In the years following, it was reported the aid had been cut, while at the same time Iran began sending more assistance to an alternate terror group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Most recent media reports say Iran has resumed its support of Hamas, providing “tens of millions of dollars” to Hamas’ military efforts including the rebuilding of tunnels destroyed the 2014 Israel-Gaza war, the replenishment of rockets and the salaries of fighters.

Houthi Rebels

Over the past number of years, Iran has been increasing its activities in Yemen. The Islamic republic is currently supporting the Houthi rebels who are fighting against the Saudi-backed Yemeni government, providing them with “tens of millions of dollars.”

The infusion of $150 billion dollars in sanctions relief due to the current nuclear agreement with the world’s powers, in addition to monies garnered through vast business dealings with the West, will provide Iran will more fodder as it fans out its terrorist fires across the globe.

Meira Svirsky is the editor of ClarionProject.org

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘New drone technology can target any American airbase that threatens Iran’

Pew Poll: Only 21 Percent of Americans Support Iran Deal

Texas Teenager Arrested for Aborted Attempt to Join ISIS

Khamenei: No Deal If Sanctions Are Only Suspended, Not Lifted

Legality of Lifting Sanctions Against Iran Called Into Question

VIDEO: Ryan Mauro on Stopping the Iran Deal

Ryan Mauro, National Security Analyst, Clarion Project is our featured guest on today’s short promotional for the “DAY OF ACTION” in Santa Barbara, California on Sunday, August 30th, 2015.

Join us in STOPPING THE IRAN DEAL!

We have TWO amazing events on August 30th!

The first is a Roundtable Luncheon featuring a panel of national and local experts on the Iran Treaty, on the U.S. and Israel and how it will affect Santa Barbara County. Tickets are $60. Sponsorships are available at different levels. A ticket to the lunch gets you a VIP seat at the rally (details below). If you are not able to attend but would like to donate (100% tax-deductible) to help offset to costs of this grassroots effort, it would be appreciated. To purchase tickets, to sponsor or to donate, go to: StopIran.eventbrite.com

After the lunch, there will be a Stop Iran NOW Rally at the Santa Barbara Courthouse Sunken Gardens co-hosted by Stand With Us, The Clarion Project, The United West and other local groups. The rally is FREE and we need as many people as possible to attend. Please forward to your friends, family, neighbors and co-workers. It’s up to us to stop this deal! Signs and flags will be provided.

Iran: The Nuke Deal will Help Us Target Israel

Zarif isn’t even bothering to hide Iran’s intentions. The deal is done. He knows he has John Kerry in his pocket, and that nothing can stop the mullahs now.

“Iran says the nuke deal will help it target Israel,” New York Post, August 13, 2015 (thanks to Eli):

President Obama says his nuclear deal with Iran is good not just for America, but also for US ally Israel. Iran’s foreign minister disagrees.

Mohammad Zarif was in Lebanon this week, meeting with the head Hezbollah terrorist, Hassan Nasrallah.

Hezbollah’s TV station al-Manar reported, “Zarif said from Beirut that the nuclear agreement between Tehran and the world powers created a historic opportunity for regional cooperation to fight extremism and face threats posed by the Zionist entity.”

Translation: With a “signing bonus” to Iran of $100 billion or more, the nuke deal will empower the Islamic Republic to send more cash, rockets and other arms to Hezbollah and other anti-Israel terrorist groups.

It will also boost Tehran’s regional prestige — allowing it to bully other nations into greater hostility toward Israel.

Plus, the deal provides a glide-path for Iran to go nuclear in a decade or so, even without cheating. And Iranian nukes will drastically shift the regional balance of power in Tehran’s favor — and against Jerusalem.

No, this isn’t just spin from the Hezbollah station. Zarif told reporters that Iran’s top challenge in the region involves “confronting” “the Zionist and extremist regime.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Brooklyn: Muslim pleads guilty to aiding jihad terror group

Mississippi Islamic State jihadi is son of imam

American Muslim Leaders Shocked, Shocked to Find that Terrorism Is Going On Here!

Over at PJ Media, I ask why authorities are still taking mosque leaders’ statements after terror arrests at face value.

It’s an iconic moment in American cinema, from Casablanca: Captain Renault tells Rick Blaine that he is “shocked! shocked!” to discover that gambling is going on in his establishment, and that it will be immediately closed — just as a clerk approaches and hands Renault his winnings. Muslims aren’t generally known for cinematic tributes, but mosque leaders around the country deserve Oscars for how they reenact this scene every time a jihadi is apprehended. For how long are law enforcement officials going to fall for the act?

The latest example comes courtesy of Arafat Nagi of Lackawanna, New York, who was arrested last week for recruiting for the Islamic State. According to WIVB, the local Muslim community is “devastated and in shock.”

In shock, eh? Dr. Khalid Qazi, President of the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Western New York, said that Nagi “had withdrawn from the community about three years ago. He had some domestic issues, some family issues.” Ah, that does explain it. Qazi is implying that Nagi was a bit unbalanced, leading to his involvement with the Islamic State, and that if he hadn’t withdrawn from the peaceful Muslim community three years ago, this wouldn’t have happened.

But wait: back in 2002, Nagi had wanted to join the Lackawanna Six – six local Muslims who attended an al-Qaeda training camp.

According to Qazi, Nagi only withdrew — he wasn’t expelled for his “extremism,” but withdrew — from the local Muslim community only three years ago. That means that for ten years after trying to join an al-Qaeda group, Nagi was presumably a member in good standing of the local Muslim community.

Clearly his recent arrest shows that he hadn’t given up his “extremism.” Yet when Nagi is arrested, the local community is “in shock”? They knew for at least thirteen yearsthat Nagi was a supporter of the violent jihad doctrine they supposedly reject and abhor. What was shocking about his arrest?

Qazi was, of course, posturing for the media and law enforcement authorities, and there is no indication that either didn’t wholly swallow his act. Indeed, despite the fact that this same act has played all over the country, it always gets rave reviews.

It played in Birmingham, Alabama, last April, when a young Muslim woman fled to the Islamic State. A spokesman for the girl’s parents — why did they need a spokesman? — said:

For them this is worse than losing the life of a child, to have them join such a horrible, horrible gang of violent extremists. Nothing can describe the pain they are facing.

The spokesman was none other than Hassan Shibly, a lawyer and the chief executive director of the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group with established ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Shibly claimed that the woman had withdrawn from the local Muslim community a year before joining the Islamic State, and added:

The reason she withdrew from the community is because the Muslim community is very vocal against groups like ISIS … she made the decision based on her communication online with them that she wanted to join them.

He didn’t bother to explain why the peaceful Islam the young woman presumably learned from the community and her shocked and devastated parents wasn’t able to withstand the appeal of a supposedly twisted, hijacked version of the religion. He didn’t have to: he could be secure in the knowledge that no one would ask him to do so.

And so it goes. After the July 16 jihad massacre of U.S. Marines in Chattanooga by Mohammod Abdulazeez, the Times Free Press reported that Bassam Issa, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga:

… has said how shocked he was to find out that a young man who went to his mosque harbored radical ideas. He doesn’t see how anything Abdulazeez learned locally could have led to such thinking or to such a tragic plan.

And last April, a Muslim woman named Noelle Valentzas was arrested for plotting, along with another Muslim woman, a jihad bombing on U.S. soil. Valentzas’ husband, Abu Bakr, said of his wife’s arrest:

I don’t believe any of it, period. We are all shocked, the whole community. That’s not who she is.

But back in 2007, Abu Bakr was photographed at the Muslim Day Parade in New York City with the black flag of jihad. He carried it at other parades as well.

A particularly hammy version of this play-acting came in Rochester, New York in June 2014, when Mufid Elfgeeh, a Muslim local restaurant owner, was arrested for plotting to murder American soldiers. Sareer Fazili, President of the Islamic Center of Rochester, said:

Our religion is one of peace and one of submission and I think all of our friends in the faith based community know that. … I’m very shocked, I’m very upset, very disappointed that somebody who claims they follow Islam, the same religion that has been taught for so many years would think that he is within the bounds of our teachings because nothing could be further from the truth.

He was shocked to hear that someone who professes to be a Muslim would commit an act of violence? Really?

Had Sareer Fazili never heard of 9/11? 7/7? The Bali bombing? The Boston Marathon bombing? The Fort Hood massacre? Or any of the thousands of other jihad attacks perpetrated by people who not only profess to be Muslim, but say that when they bomb and kill they are following the teachings of Islam?

Fazili also said, according to WHEC, that he “does not believe Elfgeeh has ever been a member of the Islamic Center.” That may be, but it is noteworthy how so many devout Muslims who turn to violent jihad — Elfgeeh had tweeted “about the prophet Muhammad and terrorist groups fighting in the name of Allah” — never seem to go to mosque.

Every time there is a jihad attack or plot in the U.S., local Muslims say that no one knew him, he never went to mosque. Yet by their own words, these people are fanatically devout and observant….

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iraqi archbishop: US more concerned about image of Islam than victims of persecution

New Jersey Muslim charged with conspiring to support the Islamic State

What are the Nominees saying about Iran, Islamic Radicalism and the Threat

We’ve scoured the speeches, interviews and statements of all 22 Democratic and Republican nominees and now bring them to you in one single, easy-to-navigate resource.

We will continue updating the information throughout the campaign so you will have all the facts at your fingertips to ask the right questions as election day approaches.

To what extent do candidates care about terror on American soil? What role should America play in the battle against the Islamic State? What about Iran – its nuclear program, terror and rampant human-rights abuses?

We’d love to hear your feedback too. And, if you’d like to help us in this important work, we’d appreciate your clicking on this link.

Learn more at ClarionProject.org.

Here is where the nominees stand on Iran, Islamic radicalism and the threats to the United States:


Jeb Bush

Former governor of Florida
Son of former president George H.W. Bush

“[Islam has] been hijacked by people who have an ideology that wants to destroy Western civilization, and they’re barbarians.”

View the Bush Platform


Ben Carson

Political activist and neurosurgeon
Famous for criticizing President Obama’s healthcare plan

Sees the war with Islamic extremism as ideological in nature.

View the Carson Platform


Chris Christie

Governor of New Jersey

As governor of New Jersey, Christie has had warm relationships with known Islamists, including an imam with ties to Hamas.

View the Christie Platform


Ted Cruz

Senator from Texas

A nuclear-armed Iran is “the single greatest National security threat” today.

View the Cruz Platform


Carly Fiorina

Former CEO of Hewlett Packard

“I believe that terrorists who kill in the name of Islam are subverting that religion.”

View the Fiorina Platform


Jim Gilmore

Former governor of Virginia. U.S. Army intelligence officer; served a three-year tour in West Germany as a counterintelligence agent

Gilmore endorsed an award given to Jamal Barzinji, an Islamist radical investigated for links to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad

View the Gilmore Platform


Lindsey Graham

Senator from South Carolina
Former Congressman from South Carolina

“You’ll never have peace with radical Islam … They want a master religion for the world like the Nazis wanted a master race.”

View the Graham Platform


Mike Huckabee

Former governor of Arkansas

“The Bush administration has never adequately explained the theology and ideology behind Islamic terrorism or convinced us of its ruthless fanaticism. The first rule of war is ‘know your enemy,’ and most Americans do not know theirs.”

View the Huckabee Platform


Bobby Jindal

Louisiana Governor
Former Louisiana Congressman

Views the conflict as ideological and defines the enemy as ‘all forms of radical Islam’ and sharia law

View the Jindal Platform


John Kasich

Two-term Governor of Ohio Former Ohio Congressman

“U.S. should send ground forces to fight the Islamic State (ISIS) terrorist group with an international coalition.”

View the Kasich Platform


George Pataki

Former governor of New York

“We must understand that a hatred of our values exists, and acknowledge that interventions in foreign countries may well exacerbate this hatred.”

View the Pataki Platform


Rand Paul

Senator from Kentucky

“We must understand that a hatred of our values exists, and acknowledge that interventions in foreign countries may well exacerbate this hatred.”

View the Paul Platform


Rick Perry

Former governor of Texas

“To every extremist, it has to be made clear: we will not allow you to exploit our tolerance, so that you can import your intolerance.”

View the Perry Platform


Marco Rubio

Senator from Florida

“There is no greater risk to this country than the risk posed by radical Islamic terrorists … We need to make it unmistakably clear that we will take whatever it takes for however long it takes to defeat radical Islamic terrorism.”

View the Rubio Platform


Sanders_Bernie_Portrait

Bernie Sanders

Senator from Vermont

”The war with the Islamic State is “a battle for the soul of Islam.”

View the Sanders Platform


Rick Santorum

Former Senator from Pennsylvania

“Terrorism is a tactic that is not an ideology. [You have to] identify the ideology … and realize that’s their motivation.”

View the Santorum Platform


Donald Trump

Billionaire real estate mogul and president of the Trump Organization

“I say that you can defeat ISIS by taking their wealth. Take back the oil. Once you go over and take back that oil, they have nothing. ”

View the Trump Platform


Scott Walker

Governor of Wisconsin

“U.S. strategy against Islamism must target the radical Islamic ideology and not just the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda terrorist groups ”

View the Walker Platform