CAIR’s Awad: Anti-Terror JASTA Bill Part of “War on Islam”

Posted September 26, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: 9/11, CAIR, Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, Obama and 9/11, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Saudi Arabia, U.S. Congress, War on Islam

Tags: , , , , , , ,

CAIR’s Awad: Anti-Terror JASTA Bill Part of “War on Islam” Investigative Project on Terrorism,  September 26, 2016

It might be one of the few things on which Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton agree: President Obama was wrong Friday when he vetoed the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.”

The bill, which passed the U.S. House Sept. 9 after passing the Senate May 17, would allow Americans victimized by foreign terrorist attacks to sue countries responsible. Specifically, 9/11 victims could sue Saudi Arabia, which generated 15 of the 19 hijackers who struck the World Trade Center, Pentagon and Flight 93, which crashed in a Pennsylvania field after passengers fought back.

But in an interview with the Arabic-language Al Sharq Al Awsat, Council on American-Islamic Relations Executive Director Nihad Awad cast the legislation as an anti-Muslim attack.

The bill “is a continuation of the series of [actions] attaching terrorism to Islamic societies, the Islamic world and Islamic countries, as well as Islamic personalities, since it aims to demonize Islam,” an Investigative Project on Terrorism translation of Awad’s remarks said. “… so that things have reached the point of attaching the accusation of terrorism against Saudi Arabia, which is the heart of the Muslim world, and accusing it is an accusation of Muslims all over the world.”

He compared the bill to campaigns against mosque construction in the United States and said it is pushed by the same ideology that “supports the campaign of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying that those who voted for the resolution in the Congress are those waging war on Islam and they always vote for wars and conflicts, and are exploiting the families of the victims in this crisis.”

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., co-sponsored and advocated for the bill, which enjoyed bipartisan support. In a statement, he pledged to make this President Obama’s first veto to be over-ridden by Congress.

More importantly, Awad’s description that the bill’s supporters “are those waging war on Islam” is especially dangerous and reckless. That message, that the West is at war against Islam, is considered the most effective at radicalizing Muslims.

CAIR officials used to repeatedly invoke that message, but seemed to have backed away from it in recent years. Awad’s revival was directed at an Arabic-speaking audience.
Former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham, who served as co-chairman of a congressional 9/11 inquiry, has long advocated for the release of 28 pages of his committee’s report focusing on the hijackers’ connections to Saudi government officials. Those pages were released in July. In a New York Times oped earlier this month, Graham said they raise more questions and advocated for the release of more investigative material still deemed classified.

His motivation for this campaign, and for supporting JASTA, had nothing to do with Muslims, he explained.

“It can mean justice for the families that have suffered so grievously. It can also mean improving our national security, which has been compromised by the extreme form of Islam that has been promoted by Saudi Arabia,” Graham wrote.

President Obama claims he vetoed the bill out of concern for unintended consequences, that it might open the door to similar litigation against U.S. military and government officials in other countries and “would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks.”

Both Trump and Clinton said they would sign the bill if elected president, CNN reported.

‘Donald Trump’s Special’

Posted September 26, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: 2016 elections, Hillary needs help, Trump-Clinton debates

Tags: , ,

‘Donald Trump’s Special’, Wall Street Journal, James Taranto, September 26, 2016

It’s normal to play down one’s own candidate’s strengths and play up the opponent’s, but this is ridiculous. Mook is saying Mrs. Clinton—who we’ve been told endlessly is the most qualified man, woman or child ever to seek office anywhere in the universe—can’t handle a debate unless the moderator takes her side. What’s going on here?


Why Mrs. Clinton needs help from the moderator.


The prevailing view ahead of tonight’s presidential debate, with which this column agrees up to a point, is that Hillary Clinton faces a much more difficult task than Donald Trump. He has to convince viewers that he is sane, while she has to persuade them to trust her.

It is possible he will fail, but it is difficult to see how she can succeed. “The concept pre-loaded with associations most damaging to immediate assessments and future dealings is untrustworthiness, along with its concomitants, such as lying and cheating,” observes social psychologist Robert Cialdini in his new book, “Pre-Suasion: A Revolutionary Way to Influence and Persuade.” What could Mrs. Clinton possibly say that would reverse decades of distrust?

Her surrogates are playing the expectations game, as surrogates do, but in a very strange way. They are “pressuring Monday night’s moderator to take a more active role in the presidential debate,” the Washington Times reports:

“It’s unfair to ask for Hillary both to play traffic cop with Trump, make sure that his lies are corrected, and also to present her vision for what she wants to do for the American people,” Robby Mook said on ABC’s “This Week.”

When pressed by host George Stephanopoulos that that’s “what a debater is supposed to do,” Mr. Mook said this case is “special.”

“Well, I think Donald Trump’s special,” Mr. Mook said. “We haven’t seen anything like this. We normally go into a debate with two candidates who have a depth of experience, who have rolled out clear, concrete plans, and who don’t lie, frankly, as frequently as Donald Trump does.”

“So we’re saying this is a special circumstance, a special debate, and Hillary should be given some time to actually talk about what she wants to do to make a difference in people’s lives,” he continued. “She shouldn’t have to spend the whole debate correcting the record.”

It’s normal to play down one’s own candidate’s strengths and play up the opponent’s, but this is ridiculous. Mook is saying Mrs. Clinton—who we’ve been told endlessly is the most qualified man, woman or child ever to seek office anywhere in the universe—can’t handle a debate unless the moderator takes her side. What’s going on here?

For a possible answer, let’s turn again to Cialdini, who advised President Obama’s 2012 campaign and is rumored to be advising Mrs. Clinton’s campaign this year. In his new book, he observes:

In contests of persuasion, counterarguments are typically more powerful than arguments. This superiority emerges especially when a counterclaim does more than refute a rival’s claim by showing it to be mistaken or misdirected in the particular instance, but does so instead by showing the rival communicator to be an untrustworthy source of information, generally. Issuing a counterargument demonstrating that an opponent’s argument is not to be believed because its maker is misinformed on the topic will usually succeed on that singular issue. But a counterargument that undermines an opponent’s argument by showing him or her to be dishonest in the matter will normally win that battle plus future battles with the opponent.

That’s what the Clinton campaign hopes to do to Trump. But she can’t do it on her own, because her dishonesty is already established in most voters’ minds. Thus she needs the help of an outside authority, the moderator.

And not just the moderator. Jason Easly of PoliticusUSA (slogan: “real liberal politics”) reported Friday: “The Hillary Clinton campaign held a special press call to call on the debate moderator, media, and voters to fact check Donald Trump. In order to help the press, debate moderators, and voters fact check Trump, the Clinton campaign has released 19 pages of Trump lies.”

As if on cue, HotAir’s Larry O’Connor notes, at least four major outlets published “news” articles characterizing Trump as a liar: the New York Times (“A Week of Whoppers From Donald Trump”), Los Angeles Times (“Scope of Trump’s Falsehoods Unprecedented for a Modern Presidential Candidate”), Washington Post (“Trump’s Week Reveals Bleak View, Dubious Statements in ‘Alternative Universe’ ”) and Politico (“Donald Trump’s Week of Misrepresentations, Exaggerations and Half-Truths”).

Here’s an example of one of Politico’s “fact checks”:

52. “We’re presiding over something that the world has not seen. The level of evil is unbelievable.” (Sept. 19, Fort Myers, Florida, rally)

Judging one “level of evil” against another is subjective, but other groups in recent history have without any question engaged in as widespread killing of civilians as ISIS.

Whom does that discredit, Trump or Politico?

We stumbled across another hilarious example last night on Twitter. On CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” host Brian Stelter had this exchange with Janet Brown, executive director of the Commission on Presidential Debates:

Stelter: What about the issue of fact checking that has been talked about so much in the past few weeks? Does the commission want Lester Holt to fact check?

Brown: The commission asks independent, smart journalists to be the moderators and we let them decide how they’re going to do this. But I have to say, in our history, the moderators have found it appropriate to allow the candidates to be the ones that talk about the accuracy or the fairness of what the other candidate or candidates might have said.

I think, personally, if you are starting to get into the fact-check, I’m not sure what is the big fact, and what is a little fact? And if you and I information [sic in transcript], does your source about the unemployment rate agree with my source?

I don’t think it’s a good idea to get the moderator into essentially serving as the Encyclopedia Britannica. And I think it’s better for that person to facilitate and to depend on the candidates to basically correct each other as they see fit.

Jon Ralston, a respected Nevada political journalist, tweeted: “This, from the executive director of the Commission on Presidential Debates to @brianstelter, is insane.” Paul Krugman, the academic economist and New York Times columnist, was incredulous: “The unemployment rate? The UNEMPLOYMENT RATE?”

Because, you see, the unemployment rate is a simple matter of fact, about which there can be no dispute. Or is it?

In 2013, the New York Times published a blog post titled “There Is No ‘True’ Unemployment Rate.” It got a little technical in discussing the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ different ways of gauging unemployment:

The usual measure, U3, measures your desire to work by asking whether you have been actively searching in the recent past; it measures your ability to find work by your taking a job, any job.

Obviously this can deviate from the Platonic ideal in both directions: there could be people who could find work if they were willing to take the jobs on offer, and there could be people who want to work but aren’t actively searching because they know that at the moment there’s no point—or who are working, but only part-time because that’s all they can find.

U6 casts a wider net; it includes people who are working part-time but say they want full-time work, it includes people who aren’t actively searching but either were working recently or say that they aren’t looking for lack of opportunities. Again, this could clearly deviate from the Platonic ideal, but it’s a reasonable stab at the problem. . . .

That’s all there is to it. No deep issues, just practical choices in a world where measurement is never perfect.

The author of that post: Paul Krugman.

The problem for Mrs. Clinton in relying on the authority of journalists is that their authority rests on the assumption that they are honest brokers of information who at least aspire to an ideal of objectivity. (That is also true of scholars, so that it would apply to Krugman in this example, even though he has no obligation of objectivity in his role as an opinion columnist.)
Journalists undermine their own authority when they use it to further a political agenda. The widespread and open anti-Trump bias will further erode journalistic authority and public trust in the news media. It may hurt Trump, although we tend to doubt it will hurt him much. Reporters are not trained in propaganda, so that they are not especially good at it.

Lester Holt and the other debate moderators find themselves in an especially difficult position. They are under pressure to side with Mrs. Clinton, not just from her campaign but from their peers. If they resist the pressure and conduct the debates in an ordinary manner, they’ll get the Matt Lauer treatment.

What if they don’t? There’s no guarantee they would succeed in discrediting Trump, who is no doubt prepared to respond by arguing that the debate is rigged (unlike Mitt Romney, who was taken by surprise when Candy Crowley made a brief and probably naive foray into “fact checking” in 2012).

If Trump is seen as winning the debate, the moderator will get no credit for trying to make him lose. The least bad approach, then, is probably to stick with old-fashioned professionalism.

Trump Really Would Recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital

Posted September 26, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump and Israel, Hillary Clinton and Israel, Jerusalem, Netanyahu, Obama and Israel

Tags: , , , , ,

Trump Really Would Recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital, PJ Media, Roger L Simon, September 26, 2016


Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton met with Benjamin Netanyahu Sunday.  Interestingly, Trump was with the Israeli prime for nearly ninety minutes, Clinton for less than an hour.

The Republican candidate obviously had more of substance to discuss with Netanyahu – the efficacy of security walls and their mutual distrust of the Iran nuclear deal being two obvious examples.  For Hillary, the encounter was more of a quick check on her bucket list, and probably an uncomfortable one.

After his meeting, Trump’s people made clear that Donald had pledged that, if elected president, he would formally recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state.

This has been a bone of contention (to put it mildly) from, we could almost say, time immemorial, because the Jewish claim on the city dates from at least the construction of Solomon’s temple, estimated to be 832 BCE. (Actually, there’s lots of earlier evidence of Jewish presence in Jerusalem, including the extensive excavations of David’s City, but I’m keeping it simple here.) Islam, currently occupying Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, has its origins in the beginning of the 7th Century CE, over 1400 years after Solomon, and in Mecca and Medina (not Jerusalem).  No one sane disputes this.

Several American presidential candidates – when running for office – have made pledges similar to Trump’s, then, upon election, basically reneged, usually by ignoring the situation or telling the Israelis to wait until the Palestinian question is resolved.  That gave those presidents a fair amount of cover because it would take Solomon himself to tell us when that would be – and even in his case I’m not sure.

So it’s natural that Trump’s pledge would be met with some skepticism.  On Twitter Sunday night, several Republican stalwarts attacked a tweet I had written in support of Trump on this matter, implying (or even stating) that I was promoting a lie.  The candidate would never go forward with the recognition.

While I think these attacks were basically masked, last-ditch NeverTrumpism, this would be a significant decision on Trump’s part with great international ramifications and I owe my critics a bit longer response than I could give in 140-character tweets.

To begin with, Trump attended the meeting Sunday in the company of his son-in-law Jared Kushner.  Kushner – a real estate investor himself and publisher of The Observer who has emerged as one of Trump’s key advisers – is an Orthodox Jew and therefore takes the Jerusalem issue quite seriously, far more than almost any politician or political professional would.  This could only signal to Netanyahu – and should to all of us – that Trump was not taking the meeting, or anything he said in it, lightly.

Yes, he could have been using Kushner as an emblem of some sort, but I suspect Kushner himself would have been unhappy about that.  So I further suspect the reverse was true here.  This was a gesture meant to say to the Israelis – I’m with you in the deepest sense.  (Clinton was accompanied in her meeting by Jake Sullivan, who has been frequently besmirched by the email scandal.)

More importantly, Trump, not being a lifetime politician, would be the first president, basically ever, well-positioned to follow through on the pledge. He has never participated in the seemingly endless rounds of Middle East negotiations.  The ins-and-out of the increasingly dubious Oslo Accords were not his doing.  He can come to all of this fresh, with, let’s hope, common sense.

Recognizing  Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is just the kind of action I think Trump would enjoy taking because, after the initial brouhaha, everybody would realize that nothing really had changed.  The facts on the ground would be the same, Israel would still be allowing Muslim worship at Al Aqsa, and the absurdity of Jerusalem not being recognized as the capital of Israel when it really is would be unmasked.

Most of all, it would be a sign that Western Civilization is not prepared to give up its dominant role in the future of humanity – something, at this moment, that is sorely needed.

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, Syrian American, and AIFD Express Deep Disappointment in White House Move to Obstruct Sanctions Efforts Against Assad Regime

Posted September 26, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: American-Islamic Forum for Democracy, Obama and Assad, Obama and Syria, Syria - sanctions, U.S. Congress

Tags: , , , ,

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, Syrian American, and AIFD Express Deep Disappointment in White House Move to Obstruct Sanctions Efforts Against Assad Regime, September 25, 2016

(Please see also, Obama’s Syria Policy Explained. — DM)

Phoenix, AZ, (September 25, 2016) – Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, the son of Syrian immigrants who fled Baathist tyranny, today condemned the disturbing move by the White House to block a bipartisan bill aimed at imposing sanctions against the genocidal Assad regime. The Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, a bill authored primarily by Democrat Rep. Eliot Engel (N.Y.), would impose new sanctions on the Assad regime and its supporters, initiate investigations into war crimes carried out by the regime, foster negotiation to end the crisis in Syria, and force the U.S. to take action against those who do business with or finance the Syrian government or its military, intelligence, airline, telecommunications and energy services.

Dr. Jasser and AIFD learned over the weekend that White House officials sadly had staffers call leaders in both parties, pushing for them to quietly shelve the bill, despite the fact that it its supporters are mostly Democrats.

In response to the news, Dr. Jasser said: “I am stunned that a president who claimed to hold a ‘red line’ standard in the use of chemical weapons would repeatedly hand civilians over to a murderous dictator – even when there is an option on the table – sanctions – which would at least make a small dent in the regime’s finances, which it uses to murder civilians, including with chemical weapons.

It is deplorable and criminal that we have not taken these measures already. How could we refrain from punishing those who finance the murder, torture and rape the bill’s namesake presented to us with undeniable evidence? It is beyond reason or comprehension. It seems our government – at its highest level – has completely forgotten our national commitment to ‘never again’ allow the genocide of a people. I encourage the bill’s bipartisan supporters to remain steadfast, and dissent with the Obama administration at once.”

Obama’s Syria Policy Explained

Posted September 26, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Iran - Syria war, Iran scam, Obama and Iran, Obama and Syria, Obama's motivations, Russia - Syrian war

Tags: , , , , ,

Obama’s Syria Policy Explained, Power Line, Paul Mirengoff, September 26, 2016

It seems likely that Obama welcomed Russia’s direct intervention since (1) it served Iran’s interests and (2) made it much easier for Obama to defend not taking military action. Indeed, Obama sees Russia as a partner in Syria.


In writing about the pathetic efforts of John Kerry to arrange a cease fire in Syria, I’ve referred to the Secretary of State as the village idiot. But what about President Obama?

Though his intellect may be overrated, he’s anything but an idiot. Obama is, instead, a clever operator who often thinks several moves ahead of his domestic, though not his foreign, adversaries.

Why, then, has U.S. policy paved the way for Assad’s revival, Iranian and Russian success in Syria, and the massacre of up to half a million Syrians?

I’ve come to believe that the answer lies in the Iran nuclear deal. I base this view in part on the great reporting of Jay Solomon for the Wall Street Journal.

For example, Solomon revealed that in 2013, Iran told Obama that if he were to strike the regime of Bashar Assad following the latter’s chemical-weapons attack, the Iranians would end the talks over their nuclear program. Obama duly canceled the strike and later reassured Iran that the United States would not touch Assad.

In my view, Obama’s priority from Day One has been to negotiate a nuclear deal with the mullahs and use the deal as a springboard to a kind of alliance with the their regime under which Iran would “stabilize” the region and the U.S. would basically exit. This desire best explains why Obama’s Syria policy serves Iran’s interests.

My view finds powerful support in a piece in Tablet by Tony Badran of the Federation for Defense of Democracies. Having read Badrad’s piece, it seems to me that the pro-Iran tilt manifested in Obama’s Syria policy is even more pronounced than I had suspected.

Badran states his thesis this way:

America’s settled policy of standing by while half a million Syrians have been killed, millions have become refugees, and large swaths of their country have been reduced to rubble is not a simple “mistake,” as critics like Nicholas D. Kristof and Roger Cohen have lately claimed. Nor is it the product of any deeper-seated American impotence or of Vladimir Putin’s more recent aggressions.

Rather, it is a byproduct of America’s overriding desire to clinch a nuclear deal with Iran, which was meant to allow America to permanently remove itself from a war footing with that country and to shed its old allies and entanglements in the Middle East, which might also draw us into war. By allowing Iran and its allies to kill Syrians with impunity, America could demonstrate the corresponding firmness of its resolve to let Iran protect what President Barack Obama called its “equities” in Syria, which are every bit as important to Iran as pallets of cash.

Obama’s intentions should have been evident from the beginning. After all, as Badran points out, “if Obama purposefully took the Iranian regime’s side during the 2009 protests so as not to upset the prospect of rapprochement, he similarly wasn’t about to commit the United States against Iran’s longest-standing strategic ally, Assad.”

But Obama did a great job of masking his pro-Assad tilt and confusing none-too-bright media. Badran writes:

[B]y 2012, criticism of the administration’s policy had grown more vocal, and calls rose to give military support to the Syrian opposition, a proposition the president was always opposed to. As this was a fixed position for Obama, the task before the White House was, therefore, one of public relations—to quiet the calls for supporting the opposition, outside and also within the administration, without doing anything that would actually upset Assad and his patrons in Iran.

Messaging, as always, was of paramount importance to the White House. As the Wall Street Journal reported in early 2013, “White House national security meetings on Syria [in 2012] focused on what participants called ‘strategic messaging,’ how administration policy should be presented to the public.” To that end, the administration started putting out targeted talking points. The administration laid down its now-infamous mantra: There is no military solution in Syria.

Unfortunately, Assad, Iran, and Russia did not share this view — as Obama knew. Thanks to U.S. policy, Assad, Iran, and Russia appear to be right.

Not content with the “no military solution” mantra, Obama added argument that he wanted to avoid “further militarization” of the situation in Syria. Thus Jay Carney stated:

We do not believe that militarization, further militarization of the situation in Syria at this point is the right course of action. We believe that it would lead to greater chaos, greater carnage.

In light of subsequent developments, this statement is obscene, but it was always ridiculous. A no-fly zone would have prevented much of the carnage — and presumably virtually all of carnage rained down from the air — that has occurred since Carney spoke this rubbish several years ago.

But a no-fly zone would have thwarted Iran’s ambitions. Thus, argues Bedran, it was always a non-starter for Obama.

Russia’s presence in the air over Syria provided Obama with an excuse for rejecting a no-fly zone. But, as Bedran says, the administration had firmly rejected such action for years before the Russians were anywhere near Syria.

It seems likely that Obama welcomed Russia’s direct intervention since (1) it served Iran’s interests and (2) made it much easier for Obama to defend not taking military action. Indeed, Obama sees Russia as a partner in Syria. According to Bedran, “partnership with Russia is what the White House has sought after since late 2015 and throughout 2016 —with [Robert] Malley as the point man, negotiating directly with the Kremlin’s special envoy. Malley, by the way, is virulently anti-Israel.

The cynicism of Obama’s pronouncements on Syria — his “strip tease” as Bedran calls it — is encapsulated by what he and his team have said about Russian intervention in Syria. Initially, the administration’s line was that Russia had made a tragic mistake by becoming involved in a quagmire (never mind that, as we pointed out at the time, its military involvement was limited almost entirely to air strikes). Now, Team Obama argues that Russia holds all the cards in Syria and that our only option is to work with the Kremlim.

Russia and Iran hold all the cards because Obama allowed them to. Bedran makes a strong case that Obama allowed them to because because he wants Iran to prevail.

One might admire the elegance of Obama’s “strip tease,” if not for the demise of hundreds of thousands of Syrians and the triumph of our arch-enemy in Tehran.

FBI: 7,700 Terrorist Encounters in USA Last Year

Posted September 26, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: FBI, Hezbollah, Iran and Latin America, Iran and terror, Iranian proxies, Opium trade, U.S. southern border

Tags: , , , , , ,

FBI: 7,700 Terrorist Encounters in USA Last Year, Counter Jihad, September 26, 2016


Breitbart news has received a collection of leaked documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that show a massive number of terrorist encounters, especially in border states.  The documents are not classified, though they are marked sensitive.  7,712 terrorist encounters occurred from July 20, 2015 and the same date a year later — last year, in short.

Some of the documents pertain to the entire U.S., while others focus specifically on the state of Arizona.  The states with the highest encounters are all border states. Texas, California, and Arizona–all states with a shared border with Mexico–rank high in encounters…. Most significantly, the map shows that many of the encounters occurred near the border outside of ports-of-entry, indicating that persons were attempting to sneak into the U.S.

Page Six shows a pie chart indicating that the majority of encounters in Arizona were with Islamic known or suspected terrorists, both Sunni and Shi’a.

That last is surprising, as one would expect drug cartels to make up the majority of such encounters.  The leak comes at a time when the FBI’s crime reporting shows an increase in violent crime across the country.

The Shiite terrorist organization Hezbollah has developed connections with the Latin American drug cartels because of its prominent role in heroin.  Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) controls the opium trade from the poppy fields in Afghanistan to the Levant, and they provide a great deal of opium to Hezbollah.  Hezbollah has a refining capacity in Lebanon that allows them to provide a substantial part of the world’s heroin.  They trade heroin to the Latin American drug cartels for other illegal money-making opportunities, forged documents, and access to the Americas.  Hezbollah’s operations produce between ten and twenty million dollars in revenue for its American operations, which are based out of a large Lebanese immigrant community in what is called the “Tri-border region,” an area between Paraguay, Brazil, and Argentina.

In addition to its money-making ventures, Hezbollah provides the cartels with military training.  As one of the world’s foremost guerrilla organizations, Hezbollah finds that its military trainers are sought after commodities.  They are able to parley those connections in order to perform operations in Mexico.  Their ability to infiltrate the United States, in order to conduct terrorist violence in service to Iran, is highlighted by these leaked FBI documents.

The role of Sunni groups is less fully understood, but it was a concern for the intelligence section of the United States military’s Southern Commandaccording to another set of leaks earlier this year.

Sunni extremists are infiltrating the United States with the help of alien smugglers in South America and are crossing U.S. borders with ease, according to a U.S. South Command intelligence report.  The Command’s J-2 intelligence directorate reported recently in internal channels that “special interest aliens” are working with a known alien smuggling network in Latin America to reach the United States….  Army Col. Lisa A. Garcia, a Southcom spokeswoman, did not address the intelligence report directly but said Sunni terrorist infiltration is a security concern.

“Networks that specialize in smuggling individuals from regions of terrorist concern, mainly from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, the Middle East, and East Africa, are indeed a concern for Southcom and other interagency security partners who support our country’s national security,” Garcia told theWashington Free Beacon….  “In 2015, we saw a total of 331,000 migrants enter the southwestern border between the U.S. and Mexico, of that we estimate more than 30,000 of those were from countries of terrorist concern,” she said….

[T]he Southcom intelligence report revealed that the threat of Islamist terror infiltration is no longer theoretical. “This makes the case for Trump’s wall,” said one American security official of the Southcom report. “These guys are doing whatever they want to get in the country.”

Here at CounterJihad, we reported on Southern Command’s commander, Admiral Kurt Tidd, and his testimony before Congress on the threat.  Tidd reported that a number of terrorists were transiting the region who had gone to Syria and fought for the Islamic State (ISIS) and other radical groups.  Their ability to return to Latin America was smooth, given that they actually had legal travel documents.

Whether they can then pass into the United States is an open question.  The leaked FBI documents only talk about actual law enforcement encounters with people on terrorist lists.  How many are infiltrating without encountering law enforcement?

Liberals Demand Trump be Arrested for “Hate Speech” – Petitioning Attorney General for Indictment

Posted September 26, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Department of Justice, Donald Trump, Hate speech

Tags: , ,

Liberals Demand Trump be Arrested for “Hate Speech” – Petitioning Attorney General for Indictment, Mark Dice via YouTube, September 26, 2016

The blurb beneath the video states

Social Justice Warriors sign a petition to arrest Donald Trump for “hate speech” crimes, and throw him to jail for ten years. This shocking social experiment was conducted by media analyst Mark Dice to discover how far liberals would go in hopes of stopping Donald Trump from becoming President of the United States. Media analyst Mark Dice has the story. © 2016 by Mark Dice