Archive for the ‘Department of Homeland Security’ category

Our Catastrophic Failure of Jihad Denial

August 23, 2016

Our Catastrophic Failure of Jihad Denial, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, August 23, 2016

cf

An outraged nation watched on September 11 as a handful of Muslim terrorists managed to kill thousands of Americans in one of the worst attacks in our history. Answers were demanded and commissions were established to investigate why we failed to prevent the attack.

Why didn’t we know that it was coming? Why didn’t we do something?

It’s still a good question as the number of attacks mount. But under Obama, we actually know less about Islamic terrorism than we used to.

While thousands of Americans died on that terrible day at the hands of Islamic terrorists, thousands of other Americans stepped forward to do their duty. Some brought sandwiches to Ground Zero. Others enlisted in the military to fight. Still others sought unique ways to use their special talents to make a contribution to combating the enemies of civilization.

Stephen Coughlin was a reserve Army officer called up to active duty. He left the private sector for the Directorate for Intelligence. For the next six years he worked in a variety of key roles to shape and orient the war and spoke about the threat of Islamic terrorism everywhere from Quantico to the Naval War College so that those on the front lines of the conflict would understand who the enemy was.

Then he was forced out because he was too good at pointing out the enemy. And the enemy had gotten inside. It would bore deeper and deeper into our national security infrastructure as the years and the wars dragged on.

But the government’s loss is our gain.

Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” is Coughlin’s vigorous blast of fresh air through the stale clichés that clutter up counterterrorism conversations. You know the ones. Offending Islam plays into the hands of the terrorists. Mentioning that Al Qaeda is Islamic plays into the hands of the terrorists. Doing anything except playing the denial game also plays into the hands of the terrorists.

“Catastrophic Failure” conveys the information that Coughlin packaged in briefings to the men and women fighting the war. It is the outcome of his work, his briefings and his research. It is why he was fired.

As one of the leading experts in what the terrorists of Islam actually think and want, Stephen Coughlin not only shatters this brass wall of dishonesty, but shows that the real threat comes from the concealment of whom the terrorists we are fighting are and what they really want.

Coughlin’s conviction in analysis took him on this Diogenesian journey for the truth. He was not the only one traveling this road, discarding the excuses and the lies, striving to see clearly what was happening and why. And yet his position so close to the heart of the great failure machine of national security gives him a unique insight into what has gone wrong and into what must be set right.

That is what “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” is. It is an analysis of what has gone wrong. Its cover of an eagle wearing a green blindfold all too aptly captures the tragic farce of our fight against terrorism. But it is also a compelling argument about what we must do.

Instead of seeing the threats the bird of prey tasked with our national defense has been hooded in green. He sits tamely on the arm of the Muslim Brotherhood falconer. Our government has responded to Muslim terror by seeking out Muslim moderates to save us from the extremists. But the moderates are not moderate. And working so close to the machine, Coughlin saw how the need to win over moderates, to consult them and rely on them, led to the shift in power as they created the framework in which decisions were made.

Counterterrorism was increasingly being made in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The great struggle of our time is to flip that framework over and restore the power of decision for this war to Americans. Coughlin is a powerful writer and thinker, and he has poured his passion into these arguments that are meant to accomplish just that. He knows Islamic thought and law, and their real life implications, but his background has also prepared him to present focused laser blasts of information to audiences. His key goal and theme has been the importance of knowing the enemy.

“Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” is a text of knowledge. It is a book about the importance of knowing the enemy so that we may know the war that we are in.

Coughlin draws us a map of the Islamic organizational war against civilization “unconstrained” by the usual preconceptions about moderates and extremists. Instead he shows us who the enemy is by showing us how they think and how they see themselves. He connects the red dots of the Islamic Movement and the road to the Caliphate which is being pursued by far more Muslim groups than just the overt butchers of ISIS whose lack of patience leads them to act before they can sustain their Jihad.

“Catastrophic Failure” is not merely a book about Islamic terrorism. It is about the core worldview of the struggle. It is about how the bombings, shootings and stabbings that we see on the evening news are rooted in an Islamic mindset that stretches from the proverbial “lone wolf” whose actions are blamed on psychiatric problems or a failure to integrate to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the rest of our so-called moderate allies and partners.

It is also about how our process, our ability to analyze and produce forecasts, and then to make decisions based on them, was corrupted by Islamic influence operations. It is about how the “eagle” was seduced with fantasies of moderate Islam by the enemies of this country. And it is about what must be done to lift the eagle’s blindfold and allow him to soar overhead again.

Stephen Coughlin has seen the profound failure of our national security up close. He saw what went wrong and equally importantly, he has seen what could have been if national security were oriented around our security instead of orbiting like a satellite around our impulses toward political correctness.

“Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” is a valuable book because it reflects the invaluable experiences of its author. It is a story of three wars. The war that was. The war that is. And the war that will be. The motives and the tactics of the enemy have remained consistent in these wars. And that allows Coughlin to predict their patterns. The enemy will not suddenly turn moderate. The question that hangs over the war that will be is whether our leaders will open their eyes to the fight.

Favoritism for Somali Immigrants from DHS

August 13, 2016

Favoritism for Somali Immigrants from DHS, Counter JihadBruce Cornibe, August 13, 2016

DHS

We commonly hear of the refugee crisis coming out of Syria but they aren’t the only country with the problem. The war-town African country of Somalia has also been having substantial issues with its population. This overview shows the number of registered Somali refugees as of 2016 reaches nearly one million people just in Somalia’s geographic region, while another overview shows that Somalia has over one million internally displaced persons which creates many other issues. Furthermore, Minnesota has been impacted with tens of thousands of Somali Muslims refugees settling in Minneapolis from jihadi influenced Somalia, which has created a hotbed for terrorist recruitment. Numerous Somali Muslims in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area have left to join terrorist groups like Al Shabaab and ISIS or have been apprehended by government authorities. As reported last year by the StarTribune, “Minnesota leads the nation in the number of people who have left or sought to leave the country to fight with terrorists aligned with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Syria[.]” Worse yet, there is a vocal segment within the Somali-Muslim community that doesn’t blame the terrorists for luring their children into the cause of jihad, but blames the authorities for ‘racial profiling’ – which reflects in them a type of victimhood mentality. For example, Breitbart reports how during a June terrorism trial that found multiple Somalis guilty of terrorism related charges a contributor to City Journal, Scott W. Johnson, was disturbed by the animosity of the Somali community toward the government:

Perhaps most shocking to me was what utterly ordinary members of the Minnesota Somali community the defendants and their friends appeared to be. So far as I can tell, Somali culture is alien and hostile to the United States. Many among the local Somali community considered the defendants to be persecuted innocents entrapped by the government. It would be unduly charitable to characterize the attitude as willful blindness.

We have seen this suspicion manifested before such as when Somali-Muslim leaders blamed the TSA for ‘racial profiling’ several months ago and called for an investigation into the matter. Even after Somali groups received hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in federal and state grants under President Obama’s Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program, the Somali Muslim community is still distrustful of the government. Apparently this constant complaining by leaders from the Somali-Muslim community is a reoccurring theme even when DHS has attempted to be transparent and given them special access to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Judicial Watch reports:

On at least two occasions—December 18, 2014 and February 18, 2015—federal authorities granted the unprecedented excursions of the facility’s sterile and secure areas, according to Transportation Security Administration (TSA) records obtained by Judicial Watch. The DHS agency that conducted the expeditions, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), provided the Muslim participants with “an in-depth, on-site tour and discussion of CBP’s airport, including both inbound and outbound passenger processing,” the TSA files state. Besides multiple roundtable meetings between CBP and Somali community leaders including imams, the records show that a luncheon and “cultural exchange and educational brief” also took place between December 2014 and February 2015 so that attendees could ask about the agency’s “specific practices” at the airport.

The roundtable events and airport tours were organized by Abdirizak Farah, who is identified in the records as a policy advisor in the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL). Farah joined DHS in 2010 with an annual salary of $89,033 and by 2015 his yearly pay increased to $130,453, according to a government database. The TSA’s “Somali liaison officer” in Minneapolis, Andrew Rhoades, told Judicial Watch that the special airport tours were organized for Somali Muslims after they complained to Johnson [DHS secretary] that they felt “harassed and profiled” by CBP at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport. The DHS secretary had “a sympathetic ear to that,” Rhoades said, adding that no other group has been granted such airport access by DHS…

Not only is DHS’s preferential conduct disturbing, the fact they possibly gave Islamists or those associated with Islamist groups access to procedures and processes that protect airport security is even more troubling. We have already seen how the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport has been used by jihadists traveling to Syria to join ISIS – this was the case with Abdi Nur in 2014. Also, one ISIS supporter/sympathizer allegedly once worked at the airport. DHS and other department’s ignorance of the threat of Sharia and jihad is sadly not surprising considering how federal bureaus and agencies have given into the political correctness of the Islamist agenda. For example, a June 2016 DHS CVE Subcommittee report recommends avoiding the use of words such as “jihad,” “sharia,” “takfir” or “umma.” These kinds of suggestions handicap our authorities from detecting important ‘red flags’ that help in preventing Islamic terror attacks.

DHS is not only showing favoritism to the Somali-Muslim community in Minneapolis, but it is also jeopardizing U.S. security by giving into the demands of Islamists. In addition, there’s little to no evidence that the CVE programs are actually working to reduce extremism and build meaningful bridges with the Muslim community. Furthermore, a couple of months ago up to thirty Somali males harassed residents of a Minneapolis neighborhood, and one woman said a man made threats of kidnap and rape. With incidents such as this one, how are we supposed to believe that youth outreach is having a meaningful effect in Minneapolis? Our taxpayer dollars must be spent more wisely – President Obama can start by scrapping the whole CVE program.

State Dept. Says Program to Dissuade Jihadis Failed. So They TRIPLE Its Budget

August 4, 2016

State Dept. Says Program to Dissuade Jihadis Failed. So They TRIPLE Its Budget, PJ MediaRobert Spencer, August 4, 2016

(How about pamphlets showing that Islamic terrorism causes global warming? And free ham sandwiches? — DM)

wh cve

No matter how much money they pour into it, this program will fail on the drawing board until the State Department drops its willful ignorance about the ideology that fuels and motivates the jihad.

****************

Even in its final months, the Obama administration continues to pour taxpayer money into its disastrous projects designed to “counter violent extremism.” The projects have failed, and were foredoomed to fail because of the administration’s policy of denying and ignoring the enemy’s motivating ideology.

The New York Times reported Thursday:

[T]he Obama administration has revamped a program designed to lure foreign fighters away from extremist groups like the Islamic State, focusing on a series of new advertisements and social media posts that seek to appeal to emotion rather than logic.

Emotion, logic, whatever. No such approach can work as long as the administration refuses to admit what inspires Muslims to join jihad groups in the first place.

This latest bout of wishful thinking and fantasy-based policymaking comes at a high cost to the taxpayer:

Money for the program, which is managed by the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, tripled this year, to $16 million, after administration officials concluded that past efforts that had attempted to scare potential militants away from the extremist groups were not working.

At least the government correctly concluded that, indeed, the programs were not working:

[M]ultiple reboots have shown how hard it has been for these programs to find traction. … [R]ecent attacks in Turkey, Iraq, France and Bangladesh seemed to show extremism has been spreading.

But this time, the Times assures us, it’s going to be different:

The new initiatives have been tailored to keep the United States government’s involvement as low-key — and in some cases, as secretive — as possible, because overt American backing for some projects had turned off the exact group of disaffected young men that the campaign is trying to reach.

So the State Department finally realized that Muslims who hate America will not be dissuaded via appeals from … America?

Baby steps! Still — not going to work. The Times reports:

“[T]hese new efforts include using Facebook videos, Instagram ads and other social media that have been designed to convince young men and women that joining the militants’ fight means breaking their mothers’ hearts, tearing apart their families and leaving their loved ones to lives of emptiness.”

So the latest plan from the Obama administration rests on this assumption: A young man who thinks he is serving Allah in a cause commanded by the supreme being — and who thinks that being killed will secure a place in Paradise for himself and (in accord with statements attributed to Muhammad) for his family — will be dissuaded by realizing his mother might miss him.

The State Department is forbidden, as a matter of policy, from studying or understanding the jihadi worldview. They instead operate under the assumption that Muslims aspiring to jihad have the same basic values and priorities of modern secular Westerners. This assumption is, at best, unproven.

This Keystone Kops myopia is longstanding. The Times writes:

[P]ast efforts from the administration had sought to frighten potential jihadists with warnings that waging war against the West would get them killed, but officials concluded that the warnings actually served the opposite purpose of glorifying militancy.

The willful blindness necessary to believe that jihadis — who repeatedly avow that they “love death” — could be dissuaded from jihad in any significant numbers by fear of death is breathtaking. It epitomizes how wrongheaded the administration’s approach has been from the beginning.

Even the Times acknowledges this about the initiative, while citing unnamed “critics”:

 [The initiative] was unlikely to have done anything to dissuade young people from joining either Al Qaeda or the Islamic State.

However, while the New York Times admits that the administration’s program to dissuade jihadis has thus far been completely ineffective, it has no idea why.

In reality, all possible versions of this program are doomed to failure because they manifest no understanding whatsoever of the jihadis’ worldview, beliefs, assumptions, motives, and goals. None of this is surprising, since the Obama administration has forbidden the examination and discussion of all of that.

Take, for example, one image that the State Department published on Twitter. It says:

Women under ISIS are enslaved, battered, beaten, humiliated, flogged.

Obviously this would deter someone from becoming a jihadi only if he already thought it was terrible for women to be enslaved, battered, beaten, humiliated, and flogged.

The State Department wonks who came up with this weren’t allowed to learn from the Qur’an. So they obviously don’t know that the Qur’an mandates the enslavement of infidel women(4:3; 4:24; 23:1-6; 33:50; 70:30) and the beating of disobedient women (4:34).

A Muslim who knows that is unlikely to be troubled by the prospect of the Islamic State beating or enslaving women.

The Times adds:

On Sept. 11, 2014, for example, an Al Qaeda leader posted on Twitter that ‘on this day, in 2001, the USA’s largest economic shrine, the idol of capitalism was brought to the ground.’ The State Department quickly responded on Twitter by posting a photo of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Islamic State leader, wearing a Rolex watch: “Nobody’s a bigger fan of the fruits of capitalism than so-called #ISIS Caliph.”

This, too, was myopic: from an Islamic standpoint, the Rolex was not a sign of hypocrisy, since Islam does not have the reverence for asceticism that Christianity has. Rather, it was a sign that Allah had blessed the caliph, since blessings are promised to the pious in both this world and the next – and those blessings specifically include the spoils of war against non-Muslims.

The caliph could have been signaling to his followers: “Kill an infidel, take his Rolex.”

No matter how much money they pour into it, this program will fail on the drawing board until the State Department drops its willful ignorance about the ideology that fuels and motivates the jihad.

Obama eyes takeover of presidential election security

August 3, 2016

Obama eyes takeover of presidential election security, Washington ExaminerPaul Bedard, August 3, 2016

Amid new claims from Republican Donald Trump that the fall election may be “rigged” against him, the Obama administration is considering taking a step toward nationalizing the cyber security of the process, according to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.

“We should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process, is critical infrastructure like the financial sector, like the power grid,” Johnson told a media breakfast Wednesday.

“There’s a vital national interest in our election process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure,” he said at the breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

DHS plays a vital security role in 16 areas of critical infrastructure. DHS describes it this way: “There are 16 critical infrastructure sectors whose assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, are considered so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof.”

A White House policy directive adds, “The federal government also has a responsibility to strengthen the security and resilience of its own critical infrastructure, for the continuity of national essential functions, and to organize itself to partner effectively with and add value to the security and resilience efforts of critical infrastructure owners and operators.”

Johnson did not identify any current problems with security of the elections, but did note that there are thousands of localities that conduct elections differently.

“There’s no one federal election system. There are some 9,000 jurisdictions involved in the election process,” he said.

“There’s a national election for president, there are some 9,000 jurisdictions that participate, contribute to collecting votes, tallying votes and reporting votes,” he said.

Without giving many details of what his department of the administration had in mind, he did say that in the short term he would likely reach out to the 9,000 jurisdictions with advice on how to conduct security of the election.

Department of Homeland Security Targeting the Wrong Enemy

July 26, 2016

Department of Homeland Security Targeting the Wrong Enemy, Gatestone InstituteA.J. Caschetta, July 26, 2016

(Please see also, ISIS Ignored: Moral Sickness at the Democratic Convention. — DM)

♦ President Obama has surrounded himself not with military strategists but rather with fiction writers, wide-eyed diplomats whose strategy is “don’t do stupid shit,” and law enforcement officials who believe that “Our most effective response to terror and hatred is compassion, unity and love.”

♦ Only “rightwing extremism” is obvious to the Obama Administration. Everything else is apparently too complex and nuanced for labels. Even Micah Xavier Johnson, who said that he was motivated by “Black Lives Matters” rhetoric and hatred of white people, is a conundrum to the president, who bizarrely asserted that it is “hard to untangle the motives of this shooter.”

♦ The Obama era is one of willful blindness to the jihadist movement that has declared war on America. CIA Director John Brennan purged the word “jihad” from the agency’s vocabulary. Obama’s two Attorneys General have done the same at the Department of Justice.

♦ The federal government has spent the last 8 years pretending that “rightwing extremists” are more numerous and dangerous than the careful and intelligent jihadist attackers, whom it insists are just “madmen” or “troubled individuals.”

Anyone surprised by President Barack Obama’s recurring attempts at exploiting jihadist attacks in his efforts to restrict gun ownership should read the earliest known document concerning terrorism assembled by his administration. The unclassified assessment by Department of Homeland Security (DHS), titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” is dated April 7, 2009 — a mere 77 days after Obama’s inauguration.

The document was leaked shortly after its release to law enforcement officials across the country and made public by Roger Hedgecock on April 13, 2009. It laid out the new president’s legislative and executive priorities on terrorism, guns and immigration. Uniquely combining these three issues would become a predictable, coordinated pattern during Obama’s two terms in office.

The assessment boldly delineated the Tom Ridge and Janet Napolitano eras at the DHS. As Eli Lake wrote the day after the document was leaked, “Since its inception in 2003, the department has focused primarily on radicalization of Muslims and the prospect of homegrown Islamist terrorism.” Under Obama’s leadership, attention was directed away from Muslims and Islamist terrorism and redirected towards limiting the Second Amendment, scrutinizing military veterans and expanding both legal and illegal immigration.

Contrary to criticism of the Obama administration as uninterested in the plight of military veterans, the DHS assessment shows that vets were very much a priority. The document’s authors, in fact, were worried that “military veterans facing significant challenges returning into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists.”

The only significant acts of domestic terrorism perpetrated by veterans lately have not been inspired from the right, however: Micah Xavier Johnson and Gavin Long are products of a “left wing,” anti-police, anti-establishment ideology. The assassinations they carried out fit the pattern of the so-called “New Left” wave of terror carried out in the 1970s by the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers.

The language of the document also foretells the Obama story. In its brief seven pages of text there are 25 references to gun control, weapons and ammunition-hoarding. Terrorists motivated by “anti-immigration” and “white supremacist” ideologies are mentioned 11 times, and veterans returning home from Afghanistan and Iraq are mentioned 9 times. Variations of “extremism,” which would become Obama’s preferred euphemism, occur 42 times.

Timothy McVeigh is the model terrorist in the document. DHS spokeswoman Sara Kuban said a goal of the report was “to prevent another Tim McVeigh from ever happening again.”

The 1990s figure prominently in the DHS prognostication, meriting 17 references. The “poor economic climate,” the Clinton “assault weapon” ban and “a perceived threat to US power and sovereignty by other foreign powers” are envisioned as parallel to the situation in 2009. Looking back at the 1990s and predicting similar troubles in the age of Obama, Napolitano’s DHS made no mention of the most significant development in the evolution of political violence to occur in the 1990s: the rise of Al-Qaeda.

Military strategists worth their pay will recognize the DHS version of “preparing to fight the last war,” but then Obama has surrounded himself not with military strategists but rather with fiction writers, wide-eyed diplomats whose strategy is limited to “don’t do stupid shit,” and law enforcement officials who believe that “Our most effective response to terror and hatred is compassion, unity and love.”

In a passage about “the historical election of an African American president and the prospect of policy changes,” there is a reference to “the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009.” The shooter in question was Richard Poplawski, who ambushed the police called to his home to investigate a domestic disturbance. The DHS concludes that “his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories” led to his “radicalization,” though years later, after Poplawski was convicted and sentenced to death, reporters and even the jury were still unsure of his motives.

The Poplawski shooting occurred just three days before the date on the document. Compare that remarkably speedy conclusion to the way the Obama Administration has handled jihadist attacks. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s November 5, 2009 attack in Fort Hood, Texas, and Alton Nolan’s September 24, 2014 ritual beheading of a coworker at the Vaughan Foods plant in Moore, Oklahoma, are described as “workplace violence.”

FBI Director James Comey expressed confusion over Omar Mateen’s motives for the recent Orlando jihad attack, even though Mateen’s attack was accompanied by the jihadist’s battle cry “Allahu Akhbar” and a pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Caliph of the Islamic State during a 911 call. Before that it was the San Bernardino husband-wife jihadist team whose motives were ostensibly a mystery to the FBI.

Only “rightwing extremism” is obvious to the Obama Administration. Everything else is apparently too complex and nuanced for labels. Even Micah Xavier Johnson, who told Dallas police that he was motivated by “Black Lives Matters” rhetoric and hatred of white people, is a conundrum to the president, who bizarrely asserted that it is “hard to untangle the motives of this shooter.”

1709 (1)Left: The 2009 Department of Homeland Security assessment titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” Right: Micah Xavier Johnson, who murdered five Dallas police officers and injured nine others, said that he was motivated by “Black Lives Matters” rhetoric and hatred of white people.

After the 2009 DHS assessment was widely and rightly criticized, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) complained that the administration “let its team devoted to non-Islamic domestic terrorism fall apart in the aftermath of… [the] controversial leaked report.” But while the “Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division” may have been dropped, but the principles that led to the document were not.

Even more so than the Bush era, the Obama era is one of willful blindness to the global jihadist movement that has declared war on America. CIA Director John Brennan purged the word “jihad” from the agency’s vocabulary. Obama’s two Attorneys General have done the same at the Department of Justice.

The federal government has spent the last eight years pretending (maybe even believing) that “rightwing extremists” are more numerous and dangerous than the careful and intelligent jihadist attackers, whom it insists are just “madmen” or “troubled individuals.”

Dr. Jasser reacts to the attack in Nice, France on Your World 07.15.2016

July 16, 2016

Dr. Jasser reacts to the attack in Nice, France on Your World 07.15.2016, Fox News via YouTube, July 15, 2o16

Obama to BLM Supporters: Cool it For Now

July 12, 2016

Obama to BLM Supporters: Cool it For Now, Dan Miller’s Blog, July 12, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Obama plans to nationalize State and local police forces to make them focus on fighting white “racism” in much the same way that his “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) farce focuses on attacking “Islamophobia” rather than Islamist terrorism. Under Obama’s plan, black violence and its causes will be ignored if possible; if they can’t be ignored, they will continue to be minimized.

As I suggested in The Contempt Obama and Clinton Have For America,

In response to public concerns about potential Islamist terror attacks, Obama turned the nation’s “war on terror” into a “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) farce, the focus of which has been largely on promoting the agenda of CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamist organizations. To that end, the Department of Homeland Security has stricken the study of Islam from its teaching materials and banned the use of words such a  “jihad” from the lexicon of Federal law enforcement officials. Its primary focus has been on combating “Islamophobia,” rather than on preventing Islamic terror attacks.

As I also noted in the same article, The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is closely allied with Black Lives Matter and other racist Black groups.

It seems quite likely that CAIR, et al, are assisting Obama in structuring His program to federalize State and local law enforcements to make it focus on white “racism,” while continuing to encourage or at least to ignore black racism and violence.

As reported by Breitbart today,

President Barack Obama is warning his angry supporters that more violence and “rhetoric” by the Black Lives Matter movement could derail his campaign to federalize state and local police forces. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

For the moment, Obama and his deputies are simply pretending that the Dallas attack had nothing to do the Black Lives Matter movement, despite the killer’s decision to explain his anti-cop, anti-white motives to Dallas police. “The shooter is not reflective of the large movement to bring about change that was out in Dallas to peacefully demonstrate,” Jeh Johnson, Obama’s loyal head of the Department of Homeland Security, told a CBS interviewer on Sunday. [Emphasis added.]

But the growing wave of attacks on cops has put Obama on the political defense, and his supporters may spin further out of control to create more riots or attack that would delegitimize his campaign to federalize state and local police forces — and also damage Hillary Clinton’s election chances. [Emphasis added.]

Although Obama condemned violence against law enforcement personnel, he said this as well:

The flip side of that … [I] would hope that police organizations are also respectful of the frustration that people in these communities feel and not just dismiss these protests and these complaints as political correctness, or as politics or attacks on police.  There are legitimate issues that have been raised, and there’s data and evidence to back up the concerns that are being expressed by these protesters. [Emphasis added.]

Victor Davis Hanson, in an article titled Have we reached a point of no return? published today by National Review, traces Obama’s promotion of and reliance on racial disharmony to suit His political ambitions.

“Punish our enemies” characterized Obama’s approach to race and bloc voting. Each time an explosive racial confrontation appeared on the national scene, Obama — always in his accustomed academic intonations — did his best to exploit the issue. So the Skip Gates farce was leveraged into commentary about police stereotyping and profiling on a national level. The police officer in the Ferguson shooting was eventually exonerated by Obama’s own Justice Department, but not before Obama had already exploited the shooting for political advantage, as part of a larger false narrative of out-of-control racist cops who recklessly shoot black suspects at inordinate rates to the population (rather than in the context of their national incidence of contact with police). [Emphasis added.]

Yep.

When the full video of Obama’s Dallas address is available at YouTube, I’ll update this post. In the meantime, here’s a summary from The Washington Times.

President Obama defended the Black Lives Matter movement Tuesday at a memorial service for five slain Dallas police officers, saying bigotry remains in police departments across the U.S.

While paying tribute to the fallen officers for sacrificing their lives to protect others from a sniper, Mr. Obama also called on law-enforcement agencies to root out bigotry.

“We have all seen this bigotry in our lives at some point,” Mr. Obama told an audience of several hundred at a concert hall in Dallas.

“None of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune. And that includes our police departments. We know this.”

Here’s the only video I have found thus far; it focuses on gun control.

UPDATE: Here’s a video of Obama’s full remarks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1940&v=L8gNihaXJgM

What do you think?

DHS top dog Jeh Johnson refuses to answer Senate on scrubbing terror docs of all mention of jihad and Islam

June 30, 2016

DHS top dog Jeh Johnson refuses to answer Senate on scrubbing terror docs of all mention of jihad and Islam, Jihad Watch

Throughout this questioning by Ted Cruz, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson maintains that how the enemy is identified is unimportant, and that he and other intelligence and law enforcement top dogs know full well who the enemy is, and are busy foiling his plots. Cruz, in response, shreds Johnson, pointing to numerous ways in which the Obama administration’s politically correct willful ignorance led to danger signs being disregarded numerous times — danger signs that, if they had been heeded, might have prevented the Fort Hood, Boston, and Orlando jihad massacres.

Johnson’s irritable arrogance here, and refusal to address the facts Cruz adduces, is revealing of the mindset of the administration in its refusal to name the enemy accurately. The facts to which Cruz points show how this policy is costing lives.

Terror Investigation Obstructer Nominated for Secretary’s Award for Valor

June 27, 2016

Terror Investigation Obstructer Nominated for Secretary’s Award for Valor, Front Page MagazineMichael Cutler, June 27, 2016

irene-martin

Generally that high honor, the Secretary’s Award for Valor, is bestowed upon government employees who, acting on or off duty, put their lives at risk to save the lives of others.  It is not clear if she has been nominated in spite of her outrageous actions or because of them.

Perhaps in the twisted parallel universe of the Obama administration, Ms. Martin “stood up” to five armed ICE agents, thereby “protecting” an alleged accomplice of a massive deadly terror attack and his alien wife.  Today we not only have the lunacy of “sanctuary cities,” but apparently “Sanctuary DHS Agencies” where illegal aliens and criminals and terrorists are safe from detection and arrest.

***********************

I have written a follow-up article to my March 18, 2016 piece with the sarcastic title, “Are DHS Leaders Seeking an MVP Award From ISIS?The day after the San Bernardino terror attack, why exactly did USCIS managers block a team of ICE agents from entering their facility?

I began my original commentary by saying that I was not trying to go “over the top” with the title of my article and that I had not lost my mind but that I was infuriated that a manager of USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) would block ICE agents from entering that facility.

It is worth noting that both USCIS and ICE are component agencies of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

At the time I wrote my original article, the actual identity of the manager who blocked five ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents was not known, however, it has been disclosed that the manager is Irene Martin.

It must be noted that these ICE agents were assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the office that they sought to enter was located in San Bernardino, the very same city where less than 24 hours earlier, on December 2, 2015, Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook carried out a terror attack that resulted in the murder of 14 and the wounding of 22 innocent victims.

Furthermore, Enrique Marquez, the individual the ICE agents were hoping to locate at the office, was believed to have provided the weapons used in carrying out that terrorist attack.  They had discovered that Marquez was scheduled to appear for an interview that day in conjunction with the application he filed for his wife to provide her with lawful immigrant status.

The agents were not only concerned about questioning and arresting Marquez because of the crimes he was alleged to have already committed in providing weapons and possibly other material support to the two terrorists, but the agents were greatly concerned that Marquez may have provided similar assistance to other terrorists who had not yet carried out additional attacks.  Time was obviously extremely critical and potentially innocent lives were hanging in the balance.  The clock was ticking and time was not on the side of the agents — or of possible additional victims, for that matter.

As for the supposed “marriage” between Marquez and his “wife” Chernykh, they have subsequently been charged with conspiracy to commit immigration/marriage fraud.  I addressed this issue in my May 3, 2016 article, “Immigration Fraud Linked to San Bernardino Jihadist’s Family.”

On April 28, 2016 ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) issued a press release about this case,  “3 people tied to shooter in San Bernardino terrorist attack arrested on federal conspiracy, marriage fraud and false statement charges.”

Additionally, it must be pointed out that if ICE agents had information about anyone who was seeking an immigration benefit for an alien, even if terrorism is not a component of the case, the adjudications officers should welcome any information that would provide relevant information about the bona fides of the petition/application that is to be adjudicated.  Immigration fraud is a felony without any other factors being involved.  Furthermore the 9/11 Commission noted that immigration fraud and visa fraud were key entry and embedding tactics of terrorists.

I am intimately familiar with these issues inasmuch as I served as an adjudications officer for one year, many years ago.  I volunteered to be a part of a pilot project that paired adjudications officers with Criminal Investigators (Special Agents) of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) to uncover fraud.  During that assignment my colleagues and I collaborated closely with the agents.  When I became an INS Special Agent I worked closely with the adjudications officers who, back then, were referred to as Examiners.

However, in this case, Ms. Martin refused the ICE agents entry into her facility for reasons that have never been made clear.  This is especially insane given the nexus this all has with a terror attack that was conducted in the very same city as her office less than 24 hours earlier.

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

That OIG report noted, in part:

At approximately 12:20 p.m., December 3, 2015, less than 24 hours after the shooting, HSI was notified that the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), San Bernardino, CA, had developed information that Mariya Chernykh, a Russian national attempting to adjust her immigration status, was married to EnriqueMarquez, an associate of Syed Rizwan Farook, and that she had an appointment at 12:30 p.m. on December 3, 2015, at the USCIS Office, San Bernardino, CA.

The JTTF believed that Marquez might accompany her to the appointment. HSI dispatched a team to go to the USCIS office to prevent any possible further attacks as well as to detain Marquez and Chernykh for questioning.

The OIG report noted that the five ICE agents were wearing tactical gear and that they explained the importance of their mission and that time was critical.  They were delayed by approximately 30 minutes and when they were finally admitted into the offices, they were brought to an interview room.

This is how the GAO report described this meeting:

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

The OIG report also noted that Ms. Martin made statements that were contradicted by statements made by others — she apparently lied to OIG investigators.  Such lies are felonies and also subject employees to dismissal.

USCIS adjudicates more than 6 million applications for various immigration benefits. This process has serious national security implications.

Page 47 of “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel: Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” includes this paragraph that draws a clear nexus between immigration fraud and national security:

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

The administration has apparently decided to take action concerning Ms. Martin, however, it is not the action that would make sense. But then when has this administration taken actions that makes sense especially where immigration and terrorism are concerned?

In my March 18th article I sarcastically suggested that whoever interfered with the ongoing terror investigation should be given the Most Valuable Player Award by ISIS.  So far ISIS has not weighed in, but, unbelievably, on June 23, 2016 Fox News reported, “Immigration boss who barred feds from terror suspect up for award, but agency won’t say why.”

Here is an excerpt from report about the egregious actions of the administration:

Irene Martin heads the San Bernardino U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office, where last December, she allegedly blocked five armed Department of Homeland Security agents from the man authorities say supplied the firepower in the deadly attack a day earlier. Although an Inspector General’s report found she acted improperly, and then lied to investigators, FoxNews.com has learned she has been nominated for the Secretary’s Award for Valor.

Generally that high honor, the Secretary’s Award for Valor, is bestowed upon government employees who, acting on or off duty, put their lives at risk to save the lives of others.  It is not clear if she has been nominated in spite of her outrageous actions or because of them.

Perhaps in the twisted parallel universe of the Obama administration, Ms. Martin “stood up” to five armed ICE agents, thereby “protecting” an alleged accomplice of a massive deadly terror attack and his alien wife.  Today we not only have the lunacy of “sanctuary cities,” but apparently “Sanctuary DHS Agencies” where illegal aliens and criminals and terrorists are safe from detection and arrest.

Ted Cruz to Hold Hearing on Cover-up of Islamic Terror by Obama Administration

June 22, 2016

Ted Cruz to Hold Hearing on Cover-up of Islamic Terror by Obama Administration, Conservative Review, Daniel Horowitz, June 22, 2016

Senate Judiciary Committee member, Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas questions Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, April 28, 2015, during the committee's hearing on oversight of the Homeland Security Department. (AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)

Senate Judiciary Committee member, Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.  Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)

It’s been over a week since the largest terror attack on American soil in 15 years, yet nobody in Congress has successfully steered the discussion to the actual source of our perilous security situation. The Obama administration is covering up all connections of the Orlando shooter to known Islamic terrorists with the help of the Muslim Brotherhood advising DHS and the FBI.  Yet, all Republicans and Democrats want to discuss is guns. That is about to change.

Next Tuesday, June 28, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, will conduct a hearing investigating the willful blindness on the part of the relevant law enforcement agencies to domestic Islamic terror networks.  The subject of the hearing is “Willful Blindness: Consequences of Agency Efforts To Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism.”

Senators on the committee now have an opportunity to expose the Muslim Brotherhood influence within DHS and the FBI, their invidious “Countering Violent Extremism” Agenda, and their hand in covering up counter-terrorism investigations.

Senator Cruz hinted at the agenda he plans to pursue at this hearing in an op-ed for Conservative Review earlier this week:

President Obama’s politically correct reluctance to attribute the terrorist threat we face with radical Islam hobbles our ability to combat it by discouraging counterterrorism agents from taking radical Islam into account when evaluating potential threats. The examples of Fort Hood, Boston, San Bernardino, and Orlando demonstrate the harmful consequences of this administration’s willful blindness.