TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION: An Honest, Open, Effective, Transparent, Good-Faith, Responsive, Accountable, Much Smaller and Far Less Expensive Federal Government --
Greater Freedom and Liberty -- Fewer and Smarter Regulations --
Fewer and Smarter Taxes (i.e., FAIR TAX) --
More National Security --
More Secure Borders --
More Stable Currency -- An Accurate, Fair, Honest and Unbiased News Media
1. The world is a dangerous place to live — not because of the people who are evil but because of the people who don't do anything about it. — Albert Einstein
2. The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. — George Orwell
3. History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap. — Ronald Reagan
4. The terror most people are concerned with is the IRS. — Malcolm Forbes
5. There is nothing so incompetent, ineffective, arrogant, expensive, and wasteful as an unreasonable, unaccountable, and unrepentant government monopoly. — A Patriot
6. Visualize World Peace — Through Firepower!
7. Nothing says sincerity like a Carrier Strike Group and a U.S. Marine Air-Ground Task Force.
8. One cannot be reasoned out of a position that he has not first been reasoned into.
Showing posts with label national security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label national security. Show all posts
No. 10 — Only in America ... Could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 per plate Obama campaign fund-raising event. No. 9 — Only in America ... Could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General and roughly 20% of the federal workforce is black while only 14% of the population is black, 40+% of all federal entitlements goes to black Americans: 3 times the rate that go to whites, and 5 times the rate that go to Hispanics! No. 8 — Only in America ... Could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner (the head of the Treasury Department) and Charles Rangel (who once ran the Ways and Means Committee), BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.
No. 7 — Only in America ... Can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash. No. 6 — Only in America ... Would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege, while they discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just 'magically' become American citizens. (probably should be number one) No. 5 — Only in America ... Could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be called EXTREMISTS. No. 4 — Only in America ... Could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.
No. 3 — Only in America ... Could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. Oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).
No. 2 — Only in America ... Could you collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year - for total spending of $7 Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money. No. 1 — Only in America .... Could the rich people—who pay 86% of all income taxes—be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all. IS THIS A GREAT COUNTRY OR WHAT!
EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is attributed to William J. Bennett, host of Bill Bennett’s Morning in America Show. It is yet to be determined, however, if the following is, in fact, Bennett’s work. Regardless, the message is a must-read.
They will kill him before they let him be president. It could be a Republican or a Democrat that instigates the shutting up of Trump.
Don’t be surprised if Trump has an accident. Some people are getting very nervous: Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Jon Corzine, to name just a few.
It’s about the unholy dynamics between big government, big business, and big media. They all benefit by the billions of dollars from this partnership, and it’s in all of their interests to protect one another. It’s one for all and all for one.
It’s a heck of a filthy relationship that makes everyone filthy rich, everyone except the American people. We get ripped off. We’re the patsies. But for once, the powerful socialist cabal and the corrupt crony capitalists are scared. The over-the-top reaction to Trump by politicians of both parties, the media, and the biggest corporations of America has been so swift and insanely angry that it suggests they are all threatened and frightened.
Donald Trump can self-fund. No matter how much they say to the contrary, the media, business, and political elite understand that Trump is no joke. He could actually win and upset their nice cozy apple cart.
It’s no coincidence that everyone has gotten together to destroy The Donald. It’s because most of the other politicians are part of the a good old boys club. They talk big, but they won’t change a thing. They are all beholden to big-money donors. They are all owned by lobbyists, unions, lawyers, gigantic environmental organizations, and multinational corporations – like Big Pharmacy or Big Oil. Or they are owned lock, stock, and barrel by foreigners like George Soros owns Obama or foreign governments own Hillary and their Clinton Foundation donations.
These run-of-the-mill establishment politicians are all puppets owned by big money. But there’s one man who isn’t beholden to anyone. There’s one man who doesn’t need foreigners, or foreign governments, or George Soros, or the United Auto Workers, or the teacher’s union, or the Service Employees International Union, or the Bar Association to fund his campaign.
Billionaire tycoon and maverick Donald Trump doesn’t need anyone’s help. That means he doesn’t care what the media says. He doesn’t care what the corporate elites think. That makes him very dangerous to the entrenched interests. That makes Trump a huge threat to those people. Trump can ruin everything for the bribed politicians and their spoiled slave masters.
Don’t you ever wonder why the GOP has never tried to impeach Obama? Don’t you wonder why John Boehner and Mitch McConnell talk a big game, but never actually try to stop Obama? Don’t you wonder why Congress holds the purse strings, yet has never tried to de-fund Obamacare or Obama’s clearly illegal executive action on amnesty for illegal aliens? Bizarre, right? It defies logic, right?
First, I’d guess many key Republicans are being bribed. Secondly, I believe many key Republicans are being blackmailed. Whether they are having affairs, or secretly gay, or stealing taxpayer money, the National Security Agency knows everything.
Ask former House Speaker Dennis Hastert about that. The government even knew he was withdrawing large sums of his own money from his own bank account. The NSA, the SEC, the IRS, and all the other three-letter government agencies are watching every Republican political leader. They surveil everything. Thirdly, many Republicans are petrified of being called racists, so they are scared to ever criticize Obama or call out his crimes, let alone demand his impeachment. Fourth, why rock the boat? After defeat or retirement, if you’re a good old boy, you’ve got a $5 million-per-year lobbying job waiting. The big-money interests have the system gamed. Win or lose, they win.
But Trump doesn’t play by any of these rules. Trump breaks up this nice, cozy relationship between big government, big media, and big business. All the rules are out the window if Trump wins the Presidency. The other politicians will protect Obama and his aides but not Trump. Remember: Trump is the guy who publicly questioned Obama’s birth certificate. He questioned Obama’s college records and how a mediocre student got into an Ivy League university.
Now, he’s doing something no Republican has the chutzpah to do. He’s questioning our relationship with Mexico; he’s questioning why the border is wide open; he’s questioning why no wall has been built across the border; he’s questioning if allowing millions of illegal aliens into America is in our best interests; he’s questioning why so many illegal aliens commit violent crimes, yet are not deported; and he’s questioning why our trade deals with Mexico, Russia and China are so bad.
Trump has the audacity to ask out loud why American workers always get the short end of the stick. Good question! I’m certain Trump will question what happened to the almost billion dollars given in a rigged no-bid contract to college friends of Michelle Obama at foreign companies to build the defective Obamacare website. By the way, that tab is now up to $5 billion. Trump will ask if Obamacare’s architects can be charged with fraud for selling it by lying. Trump will investigate Obama’s widespread IRS conspiracy, not to mention Obama’s college records. Trump will prosecute Clinton and Obama for fraud committed to cover up Benghazi before the election. How about the fraud committed by employees of the Labor Department when they made up dramatic job numbers in the last jobs report before the 2012 election?
Obama, the multinational corporations, and the media need to stop Trump. They recognize this could get out of control. If left unchecked, telling the raw truth and asking questions everyone else is afraid to ask, Trump could wake a sleeping giant. Trump’s election would be a nightmare. Obama has committed many crimes. No one else but Trump would dare to prosecute. He will not hesitate. Once Trump gets in and gets a look at the cooked books and Obama’s records, the game is over. The jig is up. The goose is cooked. Holder could wind up in prison. Jarrett could wind up in prison. Obama bundler Corzine could wind up in prison for losing $1.5 billion of customer money. Clinton could wind up in jail for deleting 32,000 emails or for accepting bribes from foreign governments while Secretary of State, or for misplacing $6 billion as the head of the State Department, or for lying about Benghazi. The entire upper level management of the IRS could wind up in prison.
Obamacare will be de-funded and dismantled. Obama himself could wind up ruined, his legacy in tatters. Trump will investigate. Trump will prosecute. Trump will go after everyone involved. That’s why the dogs of hell have been unleashed on Donald Trump.
Yes, it’s become open season on Donald Trump. The left and the right are determined to attack his policies, harm his businesses, and, if possible, even keep him out of the coming debates. But they can’t silence him. And they sure can’t intimidate him. The more they try, the more the public will realize that he’s the one telling the truth.
President Obama has dangerously surrendered the nation’s global leadership, but it can be ours again—if we choose his successor wisely.
By
DICK CHENEY And
LIZ CHENEY
Born of the revolutionary ideal that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights,” we were, first, an example to the world of freedom’s possibilities. During World War II, we became freedom’s defender, at the end of the Cold War, the world’s sole superpower. We did not seek the position. It is ours because of our ideals and our power, and the power of our ideals. As British historian Andrew Roberts has observed, “In the debate over whether America was born great, achieved greatness or had greatness thrust upon her, the only possible conclusion must be: all three.”
No other nation, international body or “community of nations” can do what we do. It isn’t just our involvement in world events that has been essential for the triumph of freedom. It is our leadership. For the better part of a century, security and freedom for millions of people around the globe have depended on America’s military, economic, political and diplomatic might. For the most part, until the administration of Barack Obama, we delivered.
Since Franklin Roosevelt proclaimed us the “Arsenal of Democracy” in 1940, Republican and Democratic presidents alike have understood the indispensable nature of American power. Presidents from Truman to Nixon, from Kennedy to Reagan, knew that America’s strength had to be safeguarded, her supremacy maintained. In the 1940s American leadership was essential to victory in World War II, and the liberation of millions from the grip of fascism. In the Cold War American leadership guaranteed the survival of freedom, the liberation of Eastern Europe and the defeat of Soviet totalitarianism. In this century it will be essential for the defeat of militant Islam.
Yet despite the explosive spread of terrorist ideology and organizations, the establishment of an Islamic State caliphate in the heart of the Middle East, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and increasing threats from Iran, China, North Korea and Russia, President Obama has departed from this 75-year, largely bipartisan tradition of ensuring America’s pre-eminence and strength.
He has abandoned Iraq, leaving a vacuum that is being tragically and ominously filled by our enemies. He is on course to forsake Afghanistan as well.
He has made dangerous cuts to America’s military. Combined with the sequestration mandated in the Budget Control Act of 2011, these cuts have, according to former Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno, left the Army as unready as it has been at any other time in its history. Chief of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenert has testified that “naval readiness is at its lowest point in many years.” According to Air Force Chief of Staff Mark Welsh, the current aircraft fleet is “now the smallest and oldest in the history of our service.”
For seven decades, both Republican and Democratic presidents have understood the importance of ensuring the supremacy of America’s nuclear arsenal. President Obama seems not to. He has advocated cutting our nuclear force in the naïve hope that this will persuade rogue regimes to do the same. He has imposed limits on our ability to modernize and maintain nuclear weapons. He has reduced the nation’s missile-defense capabilities.
He says that he is committed to preventing nuclear proliferation. For more than 45 years, presidents of both parties have recognized that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is vital in this effort. Signed by 190 countries, including Iran, the NPT has been arguably the single most effective multilateral arms-control agreement in history. President Obama stands ready to gut it. Among the many dangerous deficiencies in his nuclear deal with Iran is the irreversible damage it will do to the international nonproliferation regime contained in the NPT.
Allowing the Iranians to continue to enrich uranium and agreeing to the removal of all restraints on their nuclear program in a few short years virtually guarantees that they will become a nuclear-weapons state, thus undermining the fundamental agreement at the heart of the NPT. President Obama is unraveling this international structure as part of an agreement that provides a pathway for the world’s worst state-sponsor of terror to acquire nuclear weapons.
Nearly everything the president has told us about his Iranian agreement is false. He has said it will prevent the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons, but it will actually facilitate and legitimize an Iranian nuclear arsenal. He has said this deal will stop nuclear proliferation, but it will actually accelerate it, as nations across the Middle East work to acquire their own weapons in response to America’s unwillingness to stop the Iranian nuclear program.
President Obama told us he would never accept a deal based on trust. Members of his administration, including his secretary of energy and deputy national-security adviser, said the nuclear deal would be verifiable with “anywhere, anytime” inspections. Instead, the Obama deal provides the Iranians with months to delay inspections and fails to address past clandestine work at military sites. Inspections at these sites are covered in secret deals, which is historic, though not in the way the president claims. Under the reported provisions of the secret deals, the Iranians get to inspect themselves for these past infractions. Inevitably these provisions will be cited by the Iranians as a precedent when they are caught cheating in the future.
The president has tried to sell this bad deal by claiming that there is no alternative, save war. In fact, this agreement makes war more, not less, likely. In addition to accelerating the spread of nuclear weapons across the Middle East, it will provide the Iranians with hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief, which even the Obama administration admits likely will be used to fund terror. The deal also removes restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program; lifts the ban on conventional weapons sales; and lifts sanctions on Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, on the Quds Force, and on Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani. Under Mr. Soleimani’s leadership, the Quds Force sows violence and supports terror across the Middle East and has been responsible for the deaths of American service members in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A vote for the Obama nuclear deal is not a vote for peace or security. It is a vote for an agreement that facilitates Tehran’s deadly objectives with potentially catastrophic consequences for the United States and our allies.
The Obama nuclear agreement with Iran is tragically reminiscent of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s Munich agreement in 1938. Each was negotiated from a position of weakness by a leader willing to concede nearly everything to appease an ideological dictator. Hitler got Czechoslovakia. The mullahs in Tehran get billions of dollars and a pathway to a nuclear arsenal. Munich led to World War II. The Obama agreement will lead to a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclear-arms race in the Middle East and, more than likely, the first use of a nuclear weapon since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The U.S. Congress should reject this deal and reimpose the sanctions that brought Iran to the table in the first place. It is possible to prevent Iran from attaining a nuclear weapon, but only if the U.S. negotiates from a position of strength, refuses to concede fundamental points and recognizes that the use of military force will be required if diplomacy fails to convince Iran to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons.
As America faces a world of rising security threats, we must resolve to take action and shouldn’t lose hope. Just as one president has left a path of destruction in his wake, one president can rescue us. The right person in the Oval Office can restore America’s strength and alliances, defeat our enemies, and keep us safe. It won’t be easy. There is a path forward, but there are difficult decisions to be made and very little time.
We are living in what columnist Charles Krauthammer has called “a hinge point of history.” It will take a president equal to this moment to lead us through. America needs a president who recognizes that everything the nation must do requires having a U.S. military with capabilities that are second to none—on land, in the air, at sea, in space and in cyberspace. The peace and security of the world and the survival of our freedom depend on it. We must choose wisely.
As citizens, we have another obligation. We have a duty to protect our ideals and our freedoms by safeguarding our history. We must ensure that our children know the truth about who we are, what we’ve done, and why it is uniquely America’s duty to be freedom’s defender.
They should know about the boys of Pointe du Hoc and Doolittle’s Raiders, the battles of Midway and Iwo Jima. They should learn about the courage of the young Americans who fought the Nazis at the Battle of the Bulge and the Japanese on Okinawa. They should learn why America was right to end the war by dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and about the fundamental decency of a nation that established the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Airlift and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. They need to know about the horror of the Holocaust, and what it means to promise “never again.”
They should know that once there was an empire so evil and bereft of truth it had to build a wall to keep its citizens in, and that the free world, led by America, defeated it. They need to know about the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, the courage of the first responders and the heroism of the passengers on Flight 93. They should understand what kind of world militant Islam will create if we don’t defeat it.
They should learn about great men like George C. Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan. We must teach them what it took to prevail over evil in the 20th century and what it will take in the 21st. We must make sure they understand that it is the brave men and women of the U.S. armed forces who defend our freedom and secure it for millions of others as well.
Our children need to know that they are citizens of the most powerful, good and honorable nation in the history of mankind—the exceptional nation. They must know that they are the inheritors of a great legacy and a great duty. Ordinary Americans have done heroic things to guarantee freedom’s survival. Now, it is up to us. Speaking at Omaha Beach on the 40th anniversary of the D-Day landings, President Reagan put it this way, “We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.”
Mr. Cheney, former vice president of the United States, and Ms. Cheney are the authors of “Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America,” from which this article was adapted; the book is being published Sept. 1 by Simon & Schuster’s Threshold Editions.
The Vilification of Donald Trump Over Illegal Immigration by Bill O'Reilly 2015 July 6 Does the truth hurt? Or did Mr. Trump unfairly malign Mexico and millions of Mexican illegal aliens? Talking Points will now answer those questions. The primary mistake Donald Trump made in his campaign kickoff speech was speaking too generally about the border problem. Most Mexicans who sneak into the USA or overstay their legal visitation status do so because they are economically deprived. They are largely under-educated folks who are trying to feed their families. Also, the vast majority of illegal aliens do not commit crimes while on American soil, apart from their immigration offense. But there are big problems stemming from Mexican illegal immigration, and the statistics tell the story. As we all know, Mexico is the major supplier of illegal drugs to the USA. The drug cartels down there have corrupted the police and many politicians. They are brutal thugs who commit mass murder, torture and generally shame their nation. ISIS has nothing on these drug cartels; they are both savage enterprises. The government of Mexico is not capable of defeating the drug lords and rejects direct American intervention. U.S. drug agents are not allowed to carry firearms in Mexico, thereby putting themselves at great risk assisting Mexican authorities. For decades Mexico City has allowed organized crime to brutalize its own people and Americans, as well. Some of the drug organizations have branched out into people smuggling, charging money to get desperate migrants across the border. In the process many, perhaps most, migrant women are sexually molested, and that was the rape situation Donald Trump mentioned. But it's not ordinary Mexicans doing the raping. It's the gangsters, and Trump should have made that clear. The truth is there is little supervision on the Mexican side of the border. Cities like Juarez and Nuevo Laredo are literally run by the drug cartels. Border security in Mexico is non-existent and has been for decades. That situation will not improve. So Trump is correct in saying that only a massive wall will stop the chaos. And even then, drugs and people will get through, although not to the extent they do now. Washington knows all this but has turned away from securing the border ever since President Reagan promised to do so after he signed an immigration amnesty in 1986. Mr. Reagan did not keep his promise, and every single president since has failed to secure the southern border. Every one. Now what about the immigrants themselves? Fifty-nine percent of Mexican residents and illegal aliens have less than a high school education. Only four percent have a college degree. Sixty-eight percent are poor or near poor. Fifty-seven percent receive means-tested welfare of some kind. Fifty-six percent do not have health insurance. Many of those will receive Obamacare subsidies. So, Trump's analysis is correct. The majority of Mexicans coming to the USA are not achievers in the economic sense. To be fair, that was the case with the Irish, Italian and European immigration waves of the past … hard-working people trying to improve themselves. But here is the dangerous part. According government statistics, 71% percent of non-American citizens in federal prisons are from Mexico. Colombian nationals are second, just 4%. Mexican criminals represent a whopping 16% of all convicts serving time in federal penitentiaries. That is a huge burden on the American taxpayer, and a dangerous situation for ordinary Americans like 32-year-old Kate Steinle. Last Wednesday Kate was walking with her father in San Francisco when she was shot dead on the street for absolutely no reason at all. Police say 45-year-old Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal alien from Mexico, murdered Kate. Apparently Sanchez has seven felony convictions and had been deported five times. Yet he was still walking around the streets of San Francisco. That's because Mayor Ed Lee and the eleven members of the San Francisco City Supervisors refuse to cooperate with the federal government on criminal aliens. The feds asked the city of San Francisco to keep Sanchez in custody; the city refused. Ms. Steinle paid for that irresponsible and unconstitutional decision with her life. San Francisco is a sanctuary city, and violent crimes committed by criminal aliens have happened before. City authorities refuse to say how many because they know this is a huge scandal -- a black mark on the history of San Francisco, the most tolerant of cities. The family of Kate Steinle is asking for calm, not vengeance. But Talking Points is not as charitable. In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act, which stipulated that local and state authorities were to cooperate with the feds in apprehending illegal aliens, especially criminals. In 2007 then Mayor Gavin Newsom issues an Executive Order stating that as a Sanctuary City, San Francisco would not cooperate with federal authorities on illegal immigration matters and would protect even criminal aliens. The feds did nothing. In 2010 the Obama administration openly said it would not punish cities that refuse to obey the 1996 law. So here's the deal. The mayor and city supervisors of San Francisco are directly responsible for the death of Kate Steinle and the Obama administration is complicit. Attorney General Loretta Lynch could order FBI agents to arrest Mayor Lee and the supervisors for violating federal law. She is within her authority to do that. I know that will never happen because racial politics drives the law these days, which is why Trump caught so much hell. The Constitution demands that the federal government protect Americans from foreign intruders. Obviously, that responsibility is not being met. And if you point that out as Trump did, you are a racist, a piñata for the open-border crowd to bash. The fact that a felon could be deported five times and still be walking around the USA should shame Congress. Where is a law that says if you are deported one time and come back you serve five years in prison. Where is that law? Congress should pass it, and if President Obama doesn't sign it, everything will then be on the table. That legislation should be called the Kate Steinle law, much like Jessica's Law. So who will sponsor the new law? Please let me know. We are looking for some legislators of courage. Are you out there? Talking Points is disgusted with the cowardice of our elected officials, from the crazy left San Francisco people to the president to the Congress. Most of them are rich folks who could not care less about the violence and chaos out of control criminal activity south of the border is creating here. If Mexico does not crack down hard on border intrusions and drug trafficking, we should punish them economically. Period. This entire disaster has been going on for far too long. The excuse that America is at fault because we use drugs and do not secure the border on our side is valid. We are at fault. But that does not excuse Mexico's rampant corruption and abuse of its own people. Drug and people smuggling injure millions and cost lives. It's the dirtiest of crimes. Finally, the poor people sneaking in here to paint your house are not the problem. The cowardly politicians who will not uphold the law and the Constitution of the United States are the problem. That's what Donald Trump should have said. And that's the memo.
Less than a year after I moved to the United States in 2006, I was asked to speak at the University of Pittsburgh. Among those who objected to my appearance was a local imam, Fouad El Bayly, of the Johnstown Islamic Center. Mr. Bayly was born in Egypt but has lived in the U.S. since 1976. In his own words, I had “been identified as one who has defamed the faith.” As he explained at the time: “If you come into the faith, you must abide by the laws, and when you decide to defame it deliberately, the sentence is death.”
After a local newspaper reported Mr. Bayly’s comments, he was forced to resign from the Islamic Center. That was the last I would hear of him—or so I thought.
Imagine my surprise when I learned recently that the man who threatened me with death for apostasy is being paid by the U.S. Justice Department to teach Islam in American jails.
According to records on the federal site USASpending.gov and first reported by Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller, the Federal Bureau of Prisons awarded Mr. Bayly a $10,500 contract in February 2014 to provide “religious services, leadership and guidance” to inmates at the Federal Correctional Institution in Cumberland, Md. Ten months later he received another federal contract, worth $2,400, to provide “Muslim classes for inmates” at the same prison.
This isn’t a story about one problematic imam, or about the misguided administration of a solitary prison. Several U.S. prison chaplains have been exposed in recent years as sympathetic to radical Islam, including Warith Deen Umar, who helped run the New York State Department of Correctional Services’ Islamic prison program for two decades, until 2000, and who praised the 9/11 hijackers in a 2003 interview with this newspaper.
That same year, the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism held hearings on radical Islamic clerics in U.S. prisons. Committee members voiced serious concerns over the vetting of Muslim prison chaplains and the extent of radical Islamist influences. Harley Lappin, director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the time, said that “inmates are particularly vulnerable to recruitment by terrorists,” and that “we must guard against the spread of terrorism and extremist ideologies.”
Yet it is not clear what measures—if any—were taken in response to those concerns.
Testifying in 2011 before the House Committee on Homeland Security, Michael P. Downing, head of the Los Angeles Police Department’s Counterterrorism and Special Operations Bureau, said that in 2003 it was estimated that 17%-20% of the U.S. prison population, some 350,000 inmates, were Muslims, and that “80% of the prisoners who convert while in prison, convert to Islam.” He estimated that “35,000 inmates convert to Islam annually.”
Patrick Dunleavy, retired deputy inspector of the Criminal Intelligence Division at the New York State Department of Corrections, said in testimony that prison authorities often rely on groups such as the Islamic Leadership Council or the Islamic Society of North America for advice about Islamic chaplains. Yet those groups can and have referred individuals not suited to positions of influence over prisoners. As Mr. Dunleavy pointedly testified: “There is certainly no vetting of volunteers who provide religious instruction, and who, although not paid, wield considerable influence in the prison Muslim communities.”
The problem isn’t limited to radical clerics infiltrating prisons. Radical inmates proselytize and do their utmost to recruit others to their cause. Once released, they may seek to take their radicalization to the next level.
Kevin James formed the Assembly of Authentic Islam while in New Folsom State Prison in California. In 2004 James recruited fellow prisoner Levar Washington to his cause. After being released, James developed a list of possible targets including an Israeli consulate, a Jewish children’s camp in Malibu, Los Angeles International Airport and a U.S. military recruiting station in Santa Monica. The two men pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges; Washington was sentenced to 22 years in 2008, James to 16 years in 2009.
Michael Finton converted and radicalized in an Illinois state prison while serving time for aggravated assault. Finton wanted to attack a federal government building and spoke of the need to attack members of Congress. He pleaded guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and was sentenced to 28 years in prison in 2011.
In 2009 the “Newburgh Four”—James Cromitie, Laguerre Payen, David Williams and Onta Williams—were arrested for plotting to bomb synagogues in New York City. The men also intended to shoot down military aircraft with Stinger missiles. All four had converted to Islam in prison, where they developed radical sympathies. The men didn’t know each other while in prison but met after their release while attending a local mosque connected to a prison ministry. All four were convicted on conspiracy charges and received 25-year sentences in 2011.
In January 2010 John Kerry, who was then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a report warning that “three dozen U.S. citizens who converted to Islam while in prison have traveled to Yemen, possibly for al Qaeda training.”
Europeans have known for some time that prisons can be breeding grounds for Islamists. The British “shoe bomber,” Richard Reid, is thought to have been radicalized while in prison for smaller crimes. Two of the gunmen in the Paris terror attacks in January—Chérif Kouachi and Amedy Coulibaly—came under the religious influence of Djamel Beghal, a convicted terrorist and charismatic Islamist, when serving prison sentences. Mohamed Merah, who killed three soldiers, three small children and a rabbi at a Jewish school near Toulouse, France, in 2012, apparently became a jihadist while in jail. The list is depressingly long.
The problem is that experts tend to be concerned about prison radicalization only to the extent that it ultimately results in some type of violent attack. Yet there are good reasons to be concerned about the inmates who come to cherish a radical interpretation of Islam while refraining—for the time being—from the use of violence. The boundary between nonviolent and violent extremism is much more porous than conventional wisdom allows.
What can be done to stop prisons from becoming academies of jihad? Here are four suggestions:
1) Choose better partners than the Islamic Society of North America and the Islamic Leadership Council to screen prison chaplains. The American Islamic Forum for Democracy, founded and led by M. Zuhdi Jasser, a medical doctor and former lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy, would be a good choice.
2) Prevent radical clerics from coming into prisons to spread their message to susceptible inmates.
3) Ban radical Islamist literature from being disseminated in U.S. prisons.
4) Stop placing inmates in proximity to radicalized mentors.
The fact that Fouad El Bayly, an imam who publicly called for my death, was chosen to provide “religious services, leadership and guidance” at a federal prison shows that U.S. authorities haven’t learned the right lessons from a growing list of prison-convert terrorists. Bringing in radical imams to mentor vulnerable inmates will not do anyone any good—least of all prisoners looking for a better path in life.
Ms. Hirsi Ali, a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School and the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of “Heretic: The Case for a Muslim Reformation,” just out from HarperCollins.
State Dept Doubles Down on Meeting Muslim Brotherhood
BY ELLIOT FRIEDLAND
2015 FEBRUARY 4
U.S. State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki told reporters that there was no problem with the government’s meeting with a Muslim Brotherhood delegation this week. She also explicitly affirmed the State Department had no issue with the photographs taken by a member of the delegation displaying the Islamist "Rabia" hand sign inside the State Department after the meeting.
The Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shokry expressed shock at the State Department’s decision, saying that other countries should respect Egyptian law. The foreign minister was referring to the fact that Egypt as declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. (The Brotherhood has also been designated as a terrorist group by Russia, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates as well.) Shokry added that he doesn’t understand why the U.S. would be communicating with “sides that are involved in terrorist acts in Egypt.”
Psaki clarified that the event was organized by the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID), rather than by Georgetown, which she had claimed earlier. When asked by a reporter whether the State Department intends to continue its relationship with CSID she answered that they would have no problem with it.
According to the Muslim Brotherhood’s official statement on the meetings, the delegation was comprised of Dr. Maha Azzam, Judge Walid Al-Sharabi (secretary-general of the Egyptian Revolutionary Council and a spokesman for Judges for Egypt, a group reported to have close connections to the Brotherhood), Dr. Gamal Heshmat (a top Brotherhood member) and Dr. Abdul-Mawgood Dardery (a Brotherhood member who served in the parliament).
They claim that the delegation, sent under the banner of the ‘”Egyptian Revolutionary Council,” had meetings with “representatives from the White House, US State Department, members of the US Congress, and a number of American research centers.”
This week, a few days after the meeting, the Muslim Brotherhood expressed their intentions to open “a new phase” of “long, unrelenting jihad” on their Arabic website. The article exhorted followers to undertake strenuous efforts for the cause and concluded:
“For everyone must be aware that we are in the process of a new phase in which we summon what of our power is latent within us, and we call to mind the meaning of Jihad, and prepare ourselves and our children, wives and daughters, and whoever marches on our path for a long, unrelenting Jihad. We ask in it the abodes of the martyrs.”
However, at the same time on their English website the Brotherhood released an article proclaiming their supposed long standing commitment to non-violence. This brazen disparity between the group's English statements and their Arabic ones has been long noted by Egyptian commentators such as Mohamed Salmawi who noted "In English, the Muslim Brotherhood says one thing and in Arabic something completely different."
Case in point: While Heshmat was in Washington discussing matters with the U.S. State Department, his son, Khaled Gamal Heshmat, also a Brotherhood supporter, posted on Twitter an incendiary message glamorizing and glorifying the terrorist attack on Egyptian army bases in the Sinai Peninsula that killed at least 35 people last Thursday.
Although Islamic State affiliate Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis claimed responsibility for the attack, Egypt blamed the Muslim Brotherhood and its efforts to depose President Sisi for the massacre.
The Brotherhood's official 10-point statement on the meetings asserted that “The Egyptian Revolution is non-violent. Recent events and entities that began to be formed to respond to the military crimes are a reaction to the absence of justice and neutral judiciary in Egypt...”
Although it claims that the revolution is non-violent, it is immediately followed by a reference to the attacks by terrorists in the Sinai justifying them by saying that they are a reaction to “military crimes” and “the absence of justice.” The statement justified the jihadists by terming them a “reaction,” with no criticism of armed struggle.
This dovetails with the group’s Arabic post declaring the onset of a new phase of jihad.
Although the statement mentions that, “The only legitimacy belongs with the Egyptian people” it neglects to mention that 15 to 30 million Egyptian people came out onto the streets demanding the resignation of Muslim Brotherhood President Muhammed Morsi after only one year of his rule.
Instead, the statement by the Muslim Brotherhood group on the meetings in Washington concludes by saying that “the Revolution is the only strategic option to break the military coup.”
Given that the statement also says that further follow-up meetings will take place, why are U.S. government officials meeting with a group openly devoted to the overthrow of the government of an important strategic ally and the replacement of that government with a caliphate governed by sharia law?
Elliot Friedland is a research fellow at Clarion Project.
Victory in military campaigns against the Islamic State group, the Taliban, the Haqqanis and others means nothing without concrete plans, retired top commanders say. by Paul D. Shinkman U.S. News & World Report 2015 January 27 An absence of clear policies from the White House makes it impossible for the U.S. to achieve any sort of victory in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere in the region, according to three former top military officers who oversaw recent wars there. “[We need to] come out from our reactive crouch and take a firm, strategic stance in defense of our values,” retired Marine Gen. Jim Mattis said to Congress Tuesday morning. “America needs a refreshed national security strategy,” he added, saying that it must look beyond the string of crisis “currently consuming the executive branch.” The notoriously blunt combat commander and former head of U.S. Central Command was testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee alongside retired Navy Adm. William Fallon, also a former CentCom chief, and former Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. John Keane. They spoke to new members of the Senate, which for the first time includes veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, such as Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, who was on the dais at Tuesday’s hearing. The three former commanders highlighted what they see as a common problem among top conflicts sucking in U.S. forces deployed abroad, and threats to the American people at home. The U.S. has been in a “strategy-free” stance in Iraq for some time, and it didn’t begin with the Obama administration, Mattis said. He applauded President Barack Obama for visiting Saudi Arabia this week to reinforce ties with the longtime Middle Eastern ally, and for using U.S. influence to help oust Nouri al-Maliki, the polarizing former Iraqi prime minister. But many countries in the region, including the Saudis, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan, remain confused about what America hopes to achieve there while stating its goal remains to pivot to the Pacific. “We’ve disappointed a lot of friends out there, from Abu Dabi to Riyadh, from Tel Aviv to Cairo,” Mattis said. Keane, a Vietnam veteran, helped oversee the initial invasion of Iraq and became one of the most vocal advocates following his 2003 retirement for increasing the number of troops deployed to the war there. Keane, along with Mattis and Fallon, criticized Obama’s preference for ending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on a preconceived deadline, instead of weighing progress on the ground, he says. The U.S. fight against Islamic extremism should resemble something closer to U.S. efforts to contain communist ideology wrought by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, he said Tuesday. A “policy of disengagement in the Middle East” has contributed to the rise of such extremism, he said, conceding that the appeal of groups like the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, or al-Qaida in Pakistan or Yemen, would still exist were it not for U.S. intervention in the region. The U.S. must focus on gathering allies who share similar values and political beliefs to confront his threat, he said, or it remains doomed to face the same problems again. This is particularly important ahead of the reported massive offensive against the Islamic State group in the key Iraqi city of Mosul and in Anbar province this spring. “Will there be something after ISIS to deal with?” he said, using a common alternative name for the Islamic State group. “You bet, if we don’t take a comprehensive approach to deal with it.” Mattis offered a similar example in Syria, saying it remains unclear what the administration hopes to achieve politically in that country. A civil war between the regime of President Bashar Assad and an opposition movement flared up in early 2011 amid the so-called “Arab Spring.” Extremists from al-Qaida in Iraq crossed the border into the active war zone, where they found safe haven, giving them time to arm, train and supply before launching a new offensive back into Iraq as the Islamic State group. The Obama administration kept the civil war at arms length, refusing on multiple occasions to openly fund and arm the opposition movement, or to conduct unilateral airstrikes. That changed last summer when the U.S. began a continuing air campaign targeting only the Islamic State group fighters. “We have to get a very detailed level of understanding. What is the political objective we’re out to accomplish? Frankly, I don’t know what that is right now,” Mattis said. “The clarity and commitment of the U.S. can draw in the full commitment of others.” Tentative or halfhearted commitment only drives potential allies further away, he said. In Afghanistan and elsewhere, Fallon stressed the importance of differentiating between Sunni militants who believe in the cause of extremist groups, and the disaffected local populations who are coerced into joining such networks because they have no other alternative. Fallon stepped down from his position in 2008 following remarks published in an Esquire article criticizing what he perceived as President George W. Bush administration’s march to war with Iran. The U.S. should remain in Afghanistan beyond the 2016 deadline imposed by the Obama administration when all U.S. troops will withdraw, he said. Troops could remain in largely a training role, with special operations forces helping the government with the tasks its own military cannot yet perform. "The Haqqanis have safe havens in the east, embedded there," Keane said, referring to the notoriously brutal Islamic extremist network that was largely able to hide in Pakistan from U.S. strikes during the war. "The Afghan National Security Force does not have the capability to deal with that harsh reality." But all of these threats represent a lower priority than one originating from within the U.S. government. Across-the-board spending caps known as sequestration remain law in Congress, which has yet to pass a budget deal that would repeal the automatic cuts. Sequestration is greater than any foreign threat, and without budget predictability, no strategy can be implemented, Mattis said.
