Why We Seem To Have No Coherent Policy Regarding Islamists

Last Tuesday, the Center for Security Policy posted a story documenting a House Intelligence Committee Member’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. This is not really news–the Obama Administration is rife with people who have family or other connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. This partially explains why the Obama Administration has provided so little assistance to Egyptian President al-Sisi in his fight to end the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (where the group began).

The article at the Center for Security Policy reports:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi recently appointed Rep. André Carson (D-IN) to a coveted position on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.  This panel is charged with oversight of the United States’ most sensitive national intelligence capabilities and operations.  These include any directed at Islamic supremacists seeking to impose worldwide – through violent and, where necessary, through stealthy forms of jihad – the totalitarian program they call shariah.

Preeminent among the practitioners of this jihadist agenda is the Muslim Brotherhood.  In fact, according to evidence introduced by the U.S. government into the Holy Land Foundation trial in 2008, the Brotherhood’s self-declared mission in America is: “a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands [i.e., those of non-Muslims] and those of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” (From the 1991 Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, Government Exhibit 003-0085, 3:04-CR-240-G.)

It is, therefore, problematic and potentially detrimental to the national security that Rep. Carson has extensive and longstanding ties to organizations and individuals associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.  As established in a dossier and video released today by the Center for Security Policy, the Indiana congressman has an extensive record of involvement with, support of and support from a virtual Who’s Who of Brotherhood front organizations in America and leading figures in the jihad movement in this country.  The dossier makes it clear that, as a group, they have “a documented history of serving as unregistered foreign agents, engaging in material support for terrorism and possessing direct ties to the Brotherhood’s Palestinian franchise, Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.”

If the American media were doing its job, this would be called treason.

The article reminds us:

It is wholly unacceptable to have as a member of a key congressional committee charged with overseeing U.S. intelligence and counterintelligence an individual with extensive personal and political associations with the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihadist infrastructure in America.  At a minimum, Rep. Andre Carson’s presence on the House Intelligence Committee will necessitate restrictions on his access to classified information about the presence and operations in this country of what amounts to a subversive Islamist Fifth Column and his participation in the panel’s deliberations concerning how it can best be countered.

If voters do not start paying attention to what their representatives do soon and voting against those that are not acting in the voters’ interests, they will find themselves in an unrecognizable country with their freedoms being taken away and replaced by the sort of legal systems the Founding Fathers sought to avoid.


Common Sense On Iran

Charles Krauthammer posted an article at the National Review on Friday about some of the information that has been leaked out about the upcoming nuclear treaty with Iran.

The article reminds us of the relationship between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA):

Yet so thoroughly was Iran stonewalling International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors that just last Thursday the IAEA reported its concern “about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed . . . development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

 Iran is not negotiating in good faith–Iran is stalling for enough time to complete their work on an atomic bomb–at that point the negotiations will be moot.

Joel C. Rosenberg posted an article on his blog yesterday entitled, “The biggest threat now is not Radical Islam. It is “Apocalyptic Islam.”” The article includes excerpts from his speech to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention.

Mr. Rosenberg states:

The most serious threat we face in the Middle East and North Africa is what I call “Apocalyptic Islam.”

This term — “Apocalyptic Islam” — is one that each of needs to become familiar with and begin to teach others. Why? Because for the first time in all of human history, we have not just one but two nation states whose rulers are driven not by political ideology — or even mere religious theology — but by apocalyptic, genocidal End Times eschatology.

The Islamic Republic of Iran today is ruled by an apocalyptic, genocidal death cult. (see also here, here and here)

So is the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. (see here and here)

The former are Shia. The latter are Sunni. Both believe the End of days has come. Both believe their messiah – known as the “Mahdi” — is coming at any moment. Both are trying to hasten the coming of the Mahdi. Yet each has entirely different strategies to hasten his arrival or appearance on earth.

ISIS wants to build a caliphate. Iran wants to build The Bomb. ISIS is committing genocide now. Iran is preparing to commit genocide later.

Part of the doctrine of this form of Islam is that the coming of the Mahdi can be hastened by causing chaos around the world. Therefore there is no reluctance to cause harm to innocent people.

Mr. Rosenberg concludes:

These facts have real-world implications. Our President and many policy-makers are ignoring both the facts and their implications. But we must be clear: we face a threat from Radical Islam which seeks to attack us. We face an even greater threat from Apocalyptic Islam which seeks to annihilate us.

 The article at the National Review looks at President Obama’s history in dealing with Iran:

Wasn’t Obama’s great international cause a nuclear-free world? Within months of his swearing-in, he went to Prague to so declare. He then led a 50-party Nuclear Security Summit, one of whose proclaimed achievements was having Canada give up some enriched uranium.

 Having disarmed the Canadian threat, Obama turned to Iran. The deal now on offer to the ayatollah would confer legitimacy on the nuclearization of the most rogue of rogue regimes: radically anti-American, deeply jihadist, purveyor of terrorism from Argentina to Bulgaria, puppeteer of a Syrian regime that specializes in dropping barrel bombs on civilians. In fact, the Iranian regime just this week, at the apex of these nuclear talks, staged a spectacular attack on a replica U.S. carrier near the Strait of Hormuz.

Well, say the administration apologists, what’s your alternative? Do you want war?

It’s Obama’s usual, subtle false-choice maneuver: It’s either appeasement or war.

The article at National Review reminds us that Congress has the power to put in place economic sanctions on Iran. He also suggests that the United States make it clear that we will not stand in the way of any country willing to take the problem of Iran’s nuclear program into its own hands.

The article at the National Review concludes:

Consider where we began: six U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding an end to Iranian enrichment. Consider what we are now offering: an interim arrangement ending with a sunset clause that allows the mullahs a robust, industrial-strength, internationally sanctioned nuclear program.

Such a deal makes the Cuba normalization look good and the Ukrainian cease-fires positively brilliant. We are on the cusp of an epic capitulation. History will not be kind.

 This is one of those times in American History where the survival of our nation depends on Congress having a backbone. I don’t find that encouraging.


I Guess Finding Terrorists Jobs Isn’t The Answer

Yesterday the New York Post posted an editorial in response to intelligence information regarding Jihad John, shown in ISIS videos beheading westerners.

The article reminds us that the facts show the fallacy of recent U.S. State Department comments on terrorists:

Contrary to the claim that the attraction to radical Islam is being driven by economic deprivation, Emwazi grew up in a wealthy household in West London, attended nice schools and graduated with a degree in computer programming.

And he was no recent transplant: His family moved to Britain from Kuwait back when he was six.

This picture should put to rest the ridiculous assertion by the State Department’s Marie Harf that fighting ISIS means understanding the “root causes that leads people to join these groups” — e.g., a lack of good jobs.

Hostages who escaped ISIS’s clutches described Emwazi as “obsessed” with Somalia and say he forced them to watch videos of ISIS-offshoot al-Shabaab.

Jihad John, Muhammad Emwazi, is educated an middle-class. Osama bin Laden was wealthy. It seems that material or professional success has very little to do with becoming a terrorist.



Sometimes You Just Have To Keep Digging To Find The Truth

Yesterday the Washington Times reported that the Internal Revenue Service‘s Inspector General is conducting a criminal investigation into the disappearance of Lois Lerner’s emails.

The article reports:

Investigators have already scoured 744 backup tapes and gleaned 32,774 unique emails, but just two weeks ago they found an additional 424 tapes that could contain even more Lerner emails, Deputy Inspector General Timothy P. Camus told the House Oversight Committee in a rare late-night hearing meant to look into the status of the investigation.

“There is potential criminal activity,” Mr. Camus said.

Unfortunately, the Inspector General is still having problems getting the information he needs to pursue the case.

The article reports:

Rep. Gerald Connolly, Virginia Democrat, said Mr. George is refusing to turn documents over to him, prompting a heated reply.

“You’re not entitled to certain documents,” Mr. George said.

“Oh really? We’ll see about that, won’t we,” Mr. Connolly replied, saying that he questioned whether Mr. George could be trusted if he’s refusing to provide documents, yet is in charge of an investigation into whether the IRS stonewalled document requests.

The hearing was the latest chapter in the complex investigation into the IRS’s targeting of tea party groups for special scrutiny.

Several congressional committees are still probing the matter, and both the inspector general and the Justice Department are conducting criminal investigations.

I wouldn’t hold my breath for the results of the Justice Department investigation.


Rewriting History When It Is Convenient

BuzzPo posted an article today about some recent remarks made by Secretary of State John Kerry.

The article reports:

Later, Kerry was asked to comment on Netanyahu’s criticism of a hypothetical deal with Iran as a threat to Israel.

“The prime minister was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush,” Kerry replied. “We all know what happened with that decision.”

Well, isn’t that special. Benjamin Netanyahu became Prime Minister of Israel in 2009–long after the invasion of Iraq. John Kerry, as a Senator, voted for the invasion of Iraq.

Facts are such inconvenient things.

What Did You Learn In School Today?

CNS News posted an article today about the Barron’s AP European History study guide. I have previously written articles about the changes made to AP American History, but this time the textbook writers (and the guide writers) have outdone themselves.

In explaining the difference between the political left and the political right, the guide instructs:

Things get interesting when Messrs. Roberts and Eder show the far right as “reactionary / fascist,” which they define simply as “those who want things like they used to be.” Never mind the bit about fascism having something to do with dictatorial rule, absolute power over individual freedom and prohibition of dissent. If you “want things to be like they used to be” – say, because you don’t want unelected judges imposing their views by fiat or because you think market-based solutions tend to work better than top-down central economic planning – you are a fascist.

Then comes the spit-take.

Who are today’s reactionary fascists? Barron’s 7th edition (page 168) gives the answer: “Clarence Thomas and the KKK.”

Say what?!

Justice Thomas, the second black justice of the United States Supreme Court, wrote passionately in his autobiography, “My Grandfather’s Son,” of growing up during segregation and overcoming racial discrimination. Even liberals have recognized his compelling background. During Justice Thomas’s confirmation process, columnist William Raspberry quoted a friend as saying, “Given the choice between two conservatives, I’ll take the one who’s been called ‘nr.’”

I hope someone is teaching our students how to think. Our schools are simply indoctrinating them.

The Money Behind ‘Net Neutrality’

The Washington Examiner posted a story today about the funding behind the support for net neutrality. Net neutrality is the politically correct expression used to describe the federal government’s takeover of the internet.

The article reports:

“The Ford Foundation, which claims to be the second-largest private foundation in the U.S., and Open Society Foundations, founded by far-left billionaire George Soros, have given more than $196 million to pro-net neutrality groups between 2000 and 2013,” said the report, authored by Media Research Center’s Joseph Rossell, and provided to Secrets.

“These left-wing groups not only impacted the public debate and funded top liberal think tanks from the Center for American Progress to Free Press. They also have direct ties to the White House and regulatory agencies. At least five individuals from these groups have ascended to key positions at the White House and FCC,” said the report which included funding details to pro-net neutrality advocates.

This is a government takeover of the internet. It is also unconstitutional–Congress has not passed this law–it was passed by the Federal Communications Commission.

Yesterday The Examiner posted a story about the lack of cooperation between the FCC and Congress regarding this law.

The Examiner reported:

On the eve of the highly controversial attempt by Barack Obama and the Democrats to seize the Internet, FCC Chair Tom Wheeler flat-out refused to appear before Congress for questioning. Wheeler has also refused to provide information to Congress about the government takeover, demanding that Congress approve the proposal for the federal government to seize the Internet — deceptively called “Internet neutrality” — without knowing a thing about what they are approving.

…Supporters of so called net neutrality have a hidden agenda they wish to implement. Under the new rules the FCC would have the power to intrude upon and regulate free speech and freedom of the press. Collectivists have long decried the power of the people when the Internet is used to jettison their dependence on government-approved “news,” such as that which is provided by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC. Government elitists fear the truth in the hands of the people, and the Internet has allowed the people to do their own independent research and news gathering. Hillary Clinton, for example, has complained about having “too many news sources.” She further stated that the “net neutrality” regulations would give collectivists a “foot in the door” in the gradual move to totally control the Internet. Hillary once stated in 1998 that Internet news “needs a rethink.”

Regardless of the motives and long-term goals of the FCC, it has become obvious in recent years that more federal regulation is never a good thing. The only good news in this is that net neutrality will be tied up in the courts for years.

Has The Obama Administration Read The U.S. Constitution?

CNS News is reporting today that Secretary of State John Kerry has stated that he did not believe a negotiated agreement should go through a “formal approval process” by Congress.

The article quotes the Secretary of State:

“I don’t think there ought to be a formal approval process,” he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, adding that the administration was consulting with Congress and that lawmakers would ultimately have to vote on lifting sanctions on Iran.

That’s very nice that he doesn’t want a formal approval process, but this is what Thomas.gov says about the role of the Senate as far as treaties are concerned:

In accordance with the Constitution, the Senate has responsibility for advice and consent to ratification of treaties with other nations that have been negotiated and agreed to by the Executive Branch.

President Obama is about to sign a treaty with Iran that will allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. The President knows that the Senate will not approve that treaty. Therefore, the President does not want the Senate to have a chance to vote on the treaty. Will anyone stand up to President Obama and his total disregard for the U.S. Constitution?

Does Integrity Matter?

Should a government official lose his job for doing something that is routinely done in bars all over America every night of the week? That is one way to look at the situation surrounding Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald. This is actually a really sad story. In an effort to relate to a homeless veteran, Secretary McDonald stated that he had served in the Special Forces. Unfortunately the moment was caught on camera. The sad part of this story is that Secretary McDonald is a military veteran (despite the fact that he was not in the Special Forces) and obviously has compassion for military veterans. The fact is that he lied. The question is, “How significant is that?” Actually, I think it is rather significant–if I were in the Special Forces and had seen action, I would resent someone who hadn’t served there claiming he had.

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article noting the news coverage of this incident.

The article states:

A majority of headlines this week have characterized Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald’s claim that he served in the Army’s Special Forces as a “misstatement” and a “false claim.” Very few have referred to his admitted fabrication as a “lie.”

McDonald, who qualified but never served as a Ranger and did not serve in Special Forces, apologized this week for the falsehood.

Headlines from the Huffington Post, the Washington Free Beacon, the Washington Examiner, the Hill and Military Times have used variations of “falsely claimed” in headlines regarding McDonald’s fabrication.

I hate to be difficult, but I can’t help but wonder if this event would have been reported differently if a Republican were in the White House.

Following The Law Has Become Optional

On Monday, John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article about the number of illegal work permits that have been issued by the Obama Administration since 2009

The article reports:

…it has come to light that the Obama administration has been handing out illegal work permits for years. The Center for Immigration Studies has received documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act request that indicate millions of such illegal work permits have been issued since 2009.

The Center for Immigration Studies report is posted at Power Line. Follow the link above the view the entire report.

Some highlights of the report:

Government data reveal that more than 7.4 million work permits (formally known as Employment Authorization Documents) were issued to aliens from 2009 to 2014. Because neither lawful permanent residents (green card holders) nor temporary work visa holders need a work permit, this amounts to a huge parallel immigrant work authorization system outside the numerical limits and categories set by Congress. …

Approximately 2.1 million work permits were issued to aliens with temporary visas or who entered under the Visa Waiver Program. Of these, about 1.4 million (66 percent) had a visa status for which employment is generally prohibited under the law, except in what are supposed to be rare cases. For example, more than 548,000 work permits were issued to aliens on tourist visas and 593,000 were issued to foreign students. More than 213,000 were issued to dependents of students and guestworkers — all categories in which the law prohibits employment except in rare circumstances. …

More than 2.2 million work permits were issued over this time period to illegal aliens or aliens unqualified for admission. Nearly all of these (2.1 million) were illegal aliens who crossed the border illegally (Entered Without Inspection). Inexplicably, 2,860 work permits were issued to aliens who were denied asylum, were suspected of using fraudulent documents, were stowaways, or were refused at a port of entry….

A huge number of work permits, 1.9 million, were issued to aliens whose status was unknown, not recorded by the adjudicator, or not disclosed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that processes the applications.

How many Americans have left the work force because they could not find job? How many of the people with these illegal work permits are working at jobs that Americans would love to do? This is only a small taste of the damage President Obama’s illegal amnesty will do.


Things That Make You Wonder

One of the many changes in child raising in recent years has been the fear of and the prevalence of peanut allergies. Allergies need to be taken seriously, and it has reached the point where some of my grandchildren are not allowed to bring peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to school. It is a serious problem that seems to have increased in recent years. Well, some researchers have discovered some things that might help us understand what has happened.

WCVB in Boston posted a story yesterday about some recent research into peanut allergies.

The article reports:

Researchers at King’s College London studied 530 infants who were between 4 and 11 months when the study began.

All of the babies were given skin tests and found to be at high-risk for a peanut allergy. They were then split into two groups.

One group was instructed to consume peanuts, or a dissolvable peanut snack, on a regular basis.
the other was told to avoid peanuts.

The children were followed for five years and overall, the prevalence of peanut allergy in the peanut-avoidance group was 17 percent compared to 3 percent in the consumption group.

Researchers are calling this a landmark study because it may have answered the question as to what might be the best time to start feeding allergenic foods like peanuts, eggs, milk or tree nuts to infants who are at high risk for the development of food allergies.

The fact that conscientious parents delayed the introduction of peanuts may actually be responsible for the sudden increase in peanut allergies. How ironic. Hopefully this study may help us turn the tide on this problem. I want to go back to the days where peanut butter and jelly are allowed in our schools!

Common Sense From One Of My Favorite Liberals

Alan Dershowitz is a Professor at Harvard University. He is a brilliant man with unassailable credentials as a political liberal. He has campaigned for President Obama twice. He posted an article in the Wall Street Journal today.

His article on the opinion page deals with the upcoming visit to America by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Professor Dershowitz states:

At bottom, this controversy is not mainly about protocol and politics—it is about the constitutional system of checks and balances and the separation of powers.

Under the Constitution, the executive and legislative branches share responsibility for making and implementing important foreign-policy decisions. Congress has a critical role to play in scrutinizing the decisions of the president when these decisions involve national security, relationships with allies and the threat of nuclear proliferation.

Whether or not Iran gets nuclear weapons should not be a partisan issue–if Iran goes nuclear, all Americans are in danger.

Professor Dershowitz continues:

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Speaker John Boehner ’s decision to invite Mr. Netanyahu or Mr. Netanyahu’s decision to accept, no legal scholar can dispute that Congress has the power to act independently of the president in matters of foreign policy. Whether any deal with Iran would technically constitute a treaty requiring Senate confirmation, it is certainly treaty-like in its impact. Moreover, the president can’t implement the deal without some action or inaction by Congress.

…Another reason members of Congress should not boycott Mr. Netanyahu’s speech is that support for Israel has always been a bipartisan issue. The decision by some members to boycott Israel’s prime minister endangers this bipartisan support. This will not only hurt Israel but will also endanger support for Democrats among pro-Israel voters. I certainly would never vote for or support a member of Congress who walked out on Israel’s prime minister.

Professor Dershowitz concludes:

Inviting a prime minister of an ally to educate Congress about a pressing foreign-policy decision is in the highest tradition of our democratic system of separation of powers and checks and balances.

This is a security issue for all Americans. Anyone in Congress who boycotts this speech should be defeated as soon as they are up for re-election.

It Would Be Interesting To Know If She Was Working For Herself Or Someone Else

On Friday, the Dallas Morning News posted an article about Sherin Thawer, 45, an Irving, Texas, immigration lawyer, who was arrested on federal fraud charges for allegedly forging visa applications for illegal immigrants she represented.

The article reports:

The seven-count indictment, issued earlier this week and unsealed on Friday, charges Thawer with one count of conspiracy to commit fraud in connection with immigration documents; one count of mail fraud; one count of transfer or use of the means of identification of another person; and four counts of aggravated identity theft.

Thawer represented immigrants who were applying for various visas to enter or remain in the U.S., officials said. That included U Nonimmigrant Status, known as a U-Visa.

To qualify for a U-Visa, an immigrant must have been a victim of a certain crime and helped law enforcement with the investigation or prosecution. Applicants must submit a form completed by the law enforcement agency that worked on the case.

From around March 2012 to September 2014, Thawer submitted forged law enforcement certification forms to get U-Visas for the immigrants she represented, authorities said.

What in the world was this woman thinking? When she was admitted to the bar, there were certain standards that she was expected to uphold. It is really sad that she chose to violate the law instead of enforce it.

Sounds Good, But The Numbers Just Don’t Work

The Democrat Party has long claimed to be the champion of wage equality–women should make as much as men. I agree they should if they do the same job. I think most people agree on that, but what are the facts?

Steven Hayward posted an article at Power Line today showing the differences between the pay of men and women in the Obama White House and on Hillary Clinton’s staff.

These are the charts from the article:

Perry 1 copy

Perry 2 copy

In his 2014 State of the Union speech, President Obama stated, “You know, today, women make up about half our White House workforce, but they still make only 86.7 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment.”

This is a copy of a tweet by Hillary Clinton:

Hullary Tweet copy

Facts are just inconvenient things.

Looking Past The Current Crisis

The current crisis in Washington is the Democrat filibuster of the Homeland Security Department budget. The news media doesn’t frame it that way, but the last time I checked, the people doing the filibuster were the people preventing the bill from being discussed or passed.

At any rate, the Republicans refuse to fund executive amnesty, and the Democrats refuse not to fund executive amnesty. That is the discussion in a nutshell. So how in the world can we be safe if the Department of Homeland Security is not funded (please excuse the sarcasm)? We will be equally safe whether the department is funded or not. You see, even if the department is not funded, ‘essential’ workers will still report for work. (If they are not essential, why are they working there in the first place?)

Today the Washington Free Beacon posted a story about the Department of Homeland Security and some of their budget.

The article reports:

Funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—which is due to expire at the end of this week unless an agreement in Washington is reached—has continued to rise under President Barack Obama. His administration claims the agency’s increased funding is necessary to protect the homeland, but records show that the DHS has continued to increase its spending on furniture and office makeovers as its budget has been increased.

A review of records on the official government spending website by the Washington Free Beacon shows the agency has spent nearly $150 million on office furniture and makeovers since Obama took office. Those fiscal years for which he has been responsible and whose budgets have been enacted are FY2010 through 2014.

“The FY 2015 Budget reflects the Administration’s strong commitment to protecting the homeland and the American people through the effective and efficient use of DHS resources, continuing the focus on preserving frontline priorities across the Department by cutting costs, sharing resources across Components, and streamlining operations wherever possible,” the administration’s request states.

Each year under Obama the administration, DHS funding has increased. The FY 2015 budget request is $60.9 billion, compared with FY 2014’s budget of $60.7 billion. In fiscal year 2013, the DHS budget was $59.2 billion. By contrast, President George W. Bush’s last budget for DHS for FY 2009 was $52.5 billion.

Please understand. Whether amnesty is funded or not, there is never any desire on the part of most Congressmen to cut the federal budget. Money is power, and Congressmen like power. The problem is on both sides of the aisle. The reason the Tea Party and Tea Party groups are such a threat to both parties (yes, they are a threat to the Republicans as well as the Democrats) is that they support smaller government. America will not see smaller government unless we elect fewer Democrats and fewer establishment Republicans. We also need to take the leadership of the Republican party away from establishment Republicans and put it into the hands of people who support the values the Republican party used to espouse.

The article concludes, reminding us:

Although the upcoming budget has not yet been approved, records show the DHS has already signed contracts in the amount of $2.2 million for new furniture for FY 2015. A total of 247 contracts have already been signed. They include a contract signed two weeks ago for $294,058 for “furniture and furniture installation services” for the agency’s office in Coleman, Fla.

Jeh Johnson, the secretary of the DHS, went on five talk shows Sunday urging passage of his agency’s budget and said the national security of the country is at risk. Essential employees of the DHS, including border patrol agents, members of the Coast Guard, and Transportation Security Administration workers are required to report to work even if the budget is not approved.

Wouldn’t we all like their furniture budget?

Who Was Invited And Who Wasn’t Invited

On Thursday, The New York Times posted an article stating that the the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, was not invited to the three-day conference this week on countering violent extremism in the United States and abroad. The White House explained that an invitation was not issued to Director Comey because the administration did not want the event too focused on law enforcement issues.

The article reports:

But Mr. Comey’s Russian counterpart — Aleksandr V. Bortnikov, the director of the Russian Federal Security Service, the post-Soviet K.G.B. — was at the meeting, even though international human rights groups have repeatedly accused the Russian security service of unjustly detaining and spying on Russians and others.

The service also declined to provide American counterterrorism and intelligence officials with information before the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings that would probably have led to more scrutiny of one of the suspects.

Also attending the meeting was Salam al-Marayati, leader of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood.

It is amazing to me that the Obama Administration stated that they did not want the meeting too focused on law enforcement issues. The Obama Administration has been trying for years to get terrorists out of the military justice system and into the civilian justice system. They have consistently treated terrorism as a law enforcement issue.

The article notes:

Stopping terrorist attacks has been the F.B.I.’s highest priority since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The bureau oversees joint terrorism task forces in every major American city that bring together federal, state and local authorities to investigate terrorism.

Excluding the FBI Director from the violent extremism conference was not wise. Including Muslims tied to the Muslim Brotherhood in the conference was also not wise. After a while, you begin to questions to wisdom and goals of the Obama Administration regarding terrorism.

Recreating The Housing Bubble

On Friday, The Daily Caller posted an article about the government making changes in the mortgage industry that will put the taxpayers on the hook for unpaid loans (sound familiar?).

The article reports:

The administration’s policies and price cuts at the Federal Housing Administration – the latest coming on January 26 — are squeezing the private sector competitors. President Barack Obama and the FHA are engineering things so that just about anyone with a modest down payment who wants a mortgage needs Uncle Sam to get it.

FHA was originally conceived as a vehicle only for low- and moderate-income individuals seeking modest homes and mortgages who were not served by the conventional market. Today, FHA is insuring very large mortgages for people in all income brackets (including ones that absolutely can get mortgage financing in the conventional market). Thanks to prodding from the administration, the FHA mission’s has been transformed in a way that grows the government’s market share, puts private capital in the backseat, and exposes the taxpayers to even greater risks due to their 100 percent guarantee.

After the Dodd Frank law required that lenders to make sure borrowers have the ability to repay mortgage loans, the FHA loosened the standards for FHA loans. This is setting up the taxpayers to be the ones that will have to bail out those loans.

The article concludes:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Together the Obama administration and the House and Senate committees looking at the whole business are setting the mortgage market on a path to where — as it now is with student loans — anyone who buys a house will have a government guaranteed loan. This is about as far from the founder’s vision of limited government as one can get. Instead, policymakers should be taking steps to strengthen the private mortgage insurance industry to minimize the exposure of us all to bad policy.

Federal Election Violations In 2014

Yesterday the Washington Examiner posted an article about a 29-page complaint filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission by the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust. The charges are against Catalist, a Washington, D.C.-based firm.

The article reports:

Catalist, the Washington, D.C.-based firm at the heart of the allegations, was accused of “providing candidates and federal party committees data and list-related products and services at below-market rates, constituting excessive, source-prohibited, and unreported in-kind contributions” to the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Also named in the complaint were nearly 400 Democratic campaign committees, including Obama for America, the re-election committee for DNC national chairman Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and the re-election committee for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Additionally, the complaint charged that Catalist engaged “in an illegal coordination scheme where the common vendors use their specific products and services to exchange their campaigns and parties data with soft-money groups making independent expenditures.”

The nonprofit watchdog further charged that Catalist was “established, financed, maintained and/or controlled by the Democratic National Committee.” The complaint was first reported by the Washington Free Beacon’s Lachlan Markay.

Follow the link above to the Washington Examiner to read the entire complaint–it is included in the article.

The article states:

Former U.S. Attorney Matthew Whitaker, who heads the nonprofit watchdog, estimated that Catalist and the other committees and allied groups named in the complaint spent more than $100 million in illegally coordinated and unreported campaign contributions in 2014.

On February 18, 2015, opensecrets.org reported the following:

The final figures are in: The 2014 election was the most expensive midterm election in history, costing a grand total of $3.77 billion. But for the first time since 1990, fewer Americans donated money in this midterm election than the one before. Simply put, more money went into the system, but fewer people provided it.

…Even when it came to outside spending groups, there were fewer donors. In 2010, there were 57,405 individual donors to outside spending groups (including 527s) who gave a total of $104.6 million, or roughly $1,800 apiece. In 2014, there were 53,725 donors to outside groups, whose average donation was $8,011. That’s an increase in the size of the average donation of almost 445 percent.

We are not going to be able to take the money out of elections. What we can do is make sure that all donations are transparent and all sources and amounts of money known.



A New Level In Government Overreach

Breitbart.com posted an article today about a government panel of nutrition experts seeking ways to encourage Americans to make better nutritional choices.

The article reports:

The panel’s recommendations will help determine what gets into the new version of dietary guidelines being prepared by the Agriculture and Health and Human Services departments. The advice includes eating more fruits and vegetables and whole grains and limiting added sugars and fat.

However, the panel goes beyond previous versions of the dietary guidelines by suggesting a broad list of possible policy changes – a tax is just one – that could make it easier for people to follow that diet advice.

“Taxation on higher sugar- and sodium-containing foods may encourage consumers to reduce consumption and revenues generated could support health promotion efforts,” the committee wrote as part of the recommendations released this week.

Let’s look at some of the past mistakes of the government on the subject of nutrition. The food pyramid many of us were raised on was later revealed as less than ideal.

A Harvard public health website reports:

With an overstuffed breadbasket as its base, the Food Guide Pyramid failed to show that whole wheat, brown rice, and other whole grains are healthier than refined grains. With fat relegated to the “use sparingly” tip, it ignored the health benefits of plant oils—and instead pointed Americans to the type of low-fat diet that can worsen blood cholesterol profiles and make it harder to keep weight in check. It grouped healthy proteins (fish, poultry, beans, and nuts) into the same category as unhealthy proteins (red meat and processed meat), and overemphasized the importance of dairy products.

Recently, CBN News reported that new research shows that cholesterol is not the problem that scientists one declared it was:

Sinatra (Cardiologist Dr. Stephen Sinatra, author of the book, The Great Cholesterol Myth) used to believe high cholesterol was responsible for heart disease until he saw with his own eyes, in his own patients, that was’t true. He noticed many of his heart patients had low cholesterol and saw that many people with high cholesterol did not have heart problems.

“I was doing angiograms on people with 150, who had far advanced heart disease,” he recalled. “And the converse, I was doing angiograms on somebody with cholesterol of 280 and they had no heart disease.”

Sinatra is among a growing number of physicians who actually tout the benefits of high cholesterol in most cases.

“Cholesterol many times can be a gift in disguise, higher cholesterol,” he said.

He said high HDL cholesterol is good for you and says even LDL cholesterol is good for you as long as it’s the large, fluffy particles.

He admits the small, dense LDL particles are harmful. Therefore, he recommends, instead of getting your overall LDL cholesterol checked, you get it further broken down into particle size.

I have no doubt that sugary drinks and foods are not good for us. I also have no trust in the government actually being an expert on nutrition. Even the experts are not experts on nutrition. I also resent the fact that the government is trying to collect money from me because I occasionally drink a soda or eat a brownie. This suggested tax would impact people who eat sweet or salty things all the time and those who occasionally eat sweet or salty things. I truly resent Big Brother telling me what to eat. Big Brother does not have a great scientific track record.

The Canadians Get It Right

The Center for Security Policy posted an article yesterday about one aspect of the Countering Violent Extremism Summit hosted by President Obama. The Canadian Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness The Honorable Steven Blaney outlined the Canadian view on Islamic terrorism.

The article reports that view:

1. The threat is global: Unlike President Obama, whose Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIS seeks to limit U.S. options to just Iraq and Syria, we must recognize  the global element of the threat is vital. Jihadists from Somalia to France and from Mali to Norway are all looking to harm the U.S. and their allies wherever they can. Unless our response is equally global, it can not succeed.

2. The threat is jihad: Our enemies say they are called to wage jihad, a term which is defined by Islamic law. Reliance of the Traveller (a reputable book of Shafi’i Islamic law) establishes that, “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.” That many individuals who identify as Muslim may not subscribe to this doctrinal requirement is a positive, but nonetheless the preference of individuals does impede the significance of a doctrinal requirement that motivates a large segment of a population..

3. The threat is a movement. It is not merely ISIS which has declared war against us and must be combated. Rather our fight is with all those who subscribe to the movement’s ideology which obliges them to wage war in order to “establish the religion.” Individual groups and leaders may morph, change or evolve, but the ideological heart of the movement remains the same, and until that is addressed, we will not prove victorious. And as a movement, those responsible for spreading and indoctrinating the ideology are as important (if not more so) than the frontline jihadists who engage in fighting or acts of terror.

Our Canadian neighbors understand the threat and are ready to fight back, even as our President is still quibbling over what to call it.

Knowing The Goal Of The Conference By The Attendees

Yesterday Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review about President Obama’s “summit” on “Countering Violent Extremism.”  Mr. McCarthy pointed out that one of the attendees at the summit was Salam al-Marayati, leader of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

Let’s take a look at the history of Salam al-Marayati. Andrew McCarthy  explains:

Marayati and MPAC figured in my 2010 book on the Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. operations – The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America (“grand jihad” and “sabotage” are lifted verbatim from an internal Brotherhood memo that describes the Islamists’ objective to infiltrate and destroy our country). And three years ago, I profiled Marayati and MPAC in this NRO column.

 There is a reason why Obama’s summit is striking all the wrong chords with the public: strangely sympathetic to Islamist sensibilities and grievances at the very time when rampaging jihadists, while quoting Islamic scripture, are barbarically slaughtering their enemies and conducting a pogrom against Christians (there being no Jews left to mass-murder in Syria, Iraq and Libya).

 The reason is that the summit serves exactly the same purpose as is served by MPAC and Marayati: It is the nexus between Islamists and Leftists.

We need to remember that President Obama’s only real leadership experience has been as a community organizer. His job was to cause people to recognize grievances (real or otherwise) and address them. This is the perspective he brings to the war on terror.

The article explains how that works:

 For the Left, radical Islamic terrorism cannot be called “radical Islamic terrorism”; it must be called “violent extremism,” to avoid offending the Left’s Islamist allies. Still, while the labeling of terrorism may be problematic, the fact of terrorism is an opportunity – a crisis that, like all crises, can be used to advance the “social justice” agenda.

Just have a look at President Obama’s op-ed in the Los Angeles Times this week. ISIS and al-Qaeda are on the march, so what does the president suppose this is the occasion for? “Our focus [in the “summit on countering violent extremism”] will be on empowering local communities.”

Note to President Obama–the local communities are empowered–they are cutting people’s heads off.

Please read the entire article at the National Review. It explains how radical Islam has infiltrated American politics and intends on undermining our freedom and security. The President’s “summit” on “Countering Violent Extremism” was not only not helpful, it was part of the problem.

An Announcement From Judicial Watch

The following information is taken directly from the Judicial Watch website. It was posted today.

U.S. Africa Command records – heavily blacked out – show military gathered forces to support “anti-terrorist” actions in Benghazi day after attack

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that the Obama administration finally turned over hundreds of pages of documents about the military response to the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound and other facilities in Benghazi.  The documents, which are heavily blacked out (redacted), confirm that the U.S. Military, through its U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) drafted orders for a military response to the attack, specifically “to protect vital naval and national assets.”  Other documents suggest that the military, hours after the attack, tied the assault to a group supporting “an Islamic state” that wanted to attack U.S. interests in Libya in retaliation for a drone strike on an al-Qaeda leader.

The Pentagon produced a total of 486 pages in response to a federal court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit Judicial Watch filed against the U.S. Department of Defense asking for “any and all” records produced by the U.S. Africa Command Operations Center concerning the terrorist attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia on September 4, 2014, (Judicial Watch v. Department of Defense (No. 1:14-cv-01508)).  Almost all of the documents had been previously classified as secret, and the Defense Department has redacted a large percentage of the material in order to protect “military plans and operations,” “intelligence” activities, and other exemptions.

Included in the production was a September 13, 2012, draft cable, “US Africa Command Request for Forces,” which sought an “immediate” response from the Joint Chiefs of Staff for “additional forces” for the mission to “provide limited duration military and expeditionary antiterrorism and security forces in support of USAFRICOM commander in order to protect vital naval and national assets.”  The planning document was approved by “VADM [Charles] Joseph Leidig, Deputy CDR, Africa Command.”  The name of the military’s Benghazi operation was Jukebox Lotus.

The Obama administration blacked out the specific mission information in the final deployment orders for Operation Jukebox Lotus.  The orders (EXORD) detail that, ultimately, several components of the military, including Special Operations Forces, were deployed to support limited security and evacuation operations in Libya, including support for “BPT” (Be Prepared To) included, from the U.S. Army in Africa, “BPT support with mortuary affairs.”  The Pentagon has previously released other orders with virtually no redactions, including an operation in Libya in 2004 and an Obama administration operation to attack Muammar Gaddafi’s government forces in Libya in 2011.

Other documents show that, early on September 12, 2012, the day after the attack, top Pentagon leadership received intelligence briefing slides reporting that a June 6, 2012, attack on the Benghazi Special Mission Compound was tied to a group promoting an Islamic state in Libya, “came in response to the 5 June [2012] drone strike on al-Qaida senior leader Abu-Yahya al-libi.”

The documents also confirm that the military used a photo from a Twitter post to try to ascertain the status of Ambassador Stevens.

The Obama administration produced no documents showing communications from the State Department to AFRICOM.

The records do show that U.S. military officials were keenly aware of the terrorist threat in the region. “The DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] terrorism threat level for Libya is significant,” one email message says. “The DOS [Department of State] residential criminal threat level for Libya is high and the non-residential criminal threat level is high. The political violence threat level for Libya is critical.”

Judicial Watch dismissed its lawsuit on February 12, 2015, after it succeeded in finally obtaining these AFRICOM Benghazi documents.  The Vaughn index, which describes why the documents have been withheld, is also publicly available for congressional and other investigations into the scandal.

Islamic militants attacked the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi on the evening of September 11, 2012.  U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith were both killed. Just a few hours later, a second terrorist strike targeted a different compound about one mile away. Two CIA contractors, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were killed and 10 others were injured in the second attack.

“It is extraordinary that we had to wait for over two years and had to force the release of documents that provide the first glimpse into the military response to the terrorist attack in Benghazi,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “There is no doubt that the military considered this to be terrorist attack tied to a group allied with al Qaeda. Why does the Obama administration continue to black out history in these military documents?  If there were no embarrassing facts, there would be nothing to hide.  This lack of transparency is an insult to those in the military and other deployed U.S. government personnel whose morale has been decimated by the breach of trust caused by President Obama’s Benghazi lies and failures.”

At Least Someone Is Stepping Up To The Plate

On Tuesday, Breitbart.com reported that Italy is considering sending 5,000 troops into Libya to fight terrorists.

The article reports:

In a recent video purportedly produced by the Islamic State’s Libya affiliate, the group slaughtered twenty-one Christians and vowed to seek out Rome as its next target. “And we will conquer Rome, by Allah’s permission, the promise of our prophet, peace be upon him,” a North American English-accented militant leader said after his comrades slaughtered the Christian hostages.

Italian Defense Minister Robert Pinotti said that the 5,000 troops were ready and willing to lead a unilateral mission if necessary.

Prime Minister Matteo Renzi said on Monday that “the proposal is to wait, so the U.N. Security council can work with a bit more conviction on Libya” in reaching a diplomatic accord, the Associated Press reported. The Italian head of state said that the U.N. should recruit “all the players, the local tribes, African Union countries, Arab countries, the Europeans” to fight ISIS in Libya.

Cabinet Undersecretary Enrico Zanetti said regarding the proposal, “From how things are evolving in Libya, frankly, it’s difficult to imagine a scenario different from a military kind of international intervention.”

The rapid growth of ISIS is an international problem. However, the fact that Iran is about to obtain a nuclear weapon and a delivery system is also an international problem. We need to be careful to pay attention to both problems. Every nation needs to defend itself from terrorism, but we also need to remember that a radical Islamic state with a nuclear bomb and the rocket to deliver it will bring us to a new level of terrorism threat.

Politics vs. Reality

The Washington Times posted an article on Tuesday about President Obama’s summit on Tuesday aimed at countering ‘violent extremism.’

The article reports:

The summit is aimed at combating the root causes of terrorism, and President Obama and his top advisers are determined not to portray extremists as motivated by radical Islam. But some critics said the administration is partnering in its three-city pilot program a group called the Islamic Society of Boston and its political arm, the Muslim American Society, which have ties to individuals convicted of terrorist activities.

Charles Jacobs, president of the Boston-based Americans for Peace and Tolerance, said the ISB has connections to at least a dozen extremists who have either been killed, imprisoned, deported or sought as fugitives on terror-related charges, including the Tsarnaev brothers accused of the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013. The administration also has started pilot outreach programs to discourage terrorism recruitment in Los Angeles and Minneapolis.

“Most everybody [connected to the Boston mosque] has been and is moderate,” Mr. Jacobs said in an interview. “The problem is the leadership. The leadership of the Islamic Society of Boston is replete with people in the past and now who have connections to terror.”

One of the things to look at when evaluating a mosque in America is who paid for the mosque and who is funding it. Unfortunately, many of the seemingly innocent mosques in America are simply recruiting stations for jihad. A book entitled Muslim Mafia by P. David Gaubatz lists the Muslim American Society as a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood. That is the group the Obama Administration is planning on working with. That is a really bad idea.

Meanwhile, in the world of ‘violent extremism,’ America is at risk. Yesterday the Clarion Project website posted a story about a jihadist enclave in Texas.

The article reports:

The enclave belongs to the network of Muslims of the Americas, a radical group linked to a Pakistani militant group called Jamaat ul-Fuqra. Its members are devoted followers of Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, an extremist cleric in Pakistan.

The organization says it has a network of 22 “villages” around the U.S., with Islamberg as its main headquarters in New York. Clarion Project obtained secret MOA footage showing female members receiving paramilitary training at Islamberg. It was featured on the Kelly File on FOX News Channel in October. A second MOA tape released by Clarion shows its spokesman declaring the U.S. to be a Muslim-majority country.

A 2007 FBI record states that MOA members have been involved in at least 10 murders, one disappearance, three firebombings, one attempted firebombing, two explosive bombings and one attempted bombing. It states:

“The documented propensity for violence by this organization supports the belief the leadership of the MOA extols membership to pursue a policy of jihad or holy war against individuals or groups it considers enemies of Islam, which includes the U.S. Government. Members of the MOA are encouraged to travel to Pakistan to receive religious and military/terrorist training from Sheikh Gilani.”

The document also says that, “The MOA is now an autonomous organization which possesses an infrastructure capable of planning and mounting terrorist campaigns overseas and within the U.S.”

It is time for the Obama Administration to get their head out of the sand and understand that it is their responsibility to protect Americans from terror. I don’t care what they call it or don’t call it, this enclave is a threat to Americans. Please follow the link above to read the entire article and see the history of this group. We can pay attention, or we can do 9/11 all over again. The responsibility belongs with the Obama Administration.


PovertyInIslamThe violence in Islam is not the result of poverty. Those practicing violence are in agreement with the basic tenets of Islam as espoused in the Koran and the Hadith. If you doubt that killing infidels is part of basic Islam, please read Reliance of the Traveller. This book is the accepted translation and explanation of Islamic beliefs. Islam can be practiced without violence, but violent Islam is part of the Koran.