Outraged OBAMA Lectures GOP on His Refusal to Use Term RADICAL ISLAM
“A Chinese proverb: “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names.” – JonathanTurley.org
– Not sure what Obama is grinning about while he talks about the murderous rampage in Orlando, but Obama lectures us like we are at fault somehow.
– Obama assures us the commitment of members of the federal government in their pursuit of terrorists should not be questioned.
No one is questioning that. Some of us are starting to question the commitment that begins at the top. So stop grinning, this is not a time for levity, cheap shots or ‘okie doke.’
– We know his commitment to golf, but we’re not as sure about his commitment to fighting a foe it took him 7.5 years to call out by name.
– In fact names do matter for a foe. If you cannot name it, you cannot defeat it. Apparently, Obama would not have used the phrase ‘Japanese Imperialism’ in World War II. It might have resulted in hurt feelings.
And Pearl Harbor would have been a simple ‘territorial dispute’ no doubt from his point of view./CJ
…More here @ theGatewaypundit.com
Obama: U.S. safe against ISIS threat
In a Nov 2015 CBS interview President Obama said that while ISIS is a threat, the United States was safe against an attack.
What changed and how can he be so clueless in the face of this threat with the full force and might of the entire US government at his disposal?
See the video here.
Video: Obama talking about ‘My Muslim Faith’ on ABC News
…More here @ Youtube
DHS Ordered Me to Scrub records of Muslims with Terror ties – Philip Haney
After the Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009….
“Most Americans were unaware of the enormous damage to morale at the Department of Homeland Security, where I worked, his condemnation caused. His words infuriated many of us because we knew his administration had been engaged in a bureaucratic effort to destroy the raw material—the actual intelligence we had collected for years, and erase those dots. The dots constitute the intelligence needed to keep Americans safe, and the Obama administration was ordering they be wiped away.
After leaving my 15 year career at DHS, I can no longer be silent about the dangerous state of America’s counter-terror strategy, our leaders’ willingness to compromise the security of citizens for the ideological rigidity of political correctness—and, consequently, our vulnerability to devastating, mass-casualty attack.
Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to “connect dots.” Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database.
A few weeks later, in my office at the Port of Atlanta, the television hummed with the inevitable Congressional hearings that follow any terrorist attack. While members of Congress grilled Obama administration officials, demanding why their subordinates were still failing to understand the intelligence they had gathered, I was being forced to delete and scrub the records. And I was well aware that, as a result, it was going to be vastly more difficult to “connect the dots” in the future—especially beforean attack occurs.
As the number of successful and attempted Islamic terrorist attacks on America increased, the type of information that the Obama administration ordered removed from travel and national security databases was the kind of information that, if properly assessed, could have prevented subsequent domestic Islamist attacks like the ones committed by Faisal Shahzad (May 2010), Detroit “honor killing” perpetrator Rahim A. Alfetlawi (2011); Amine El Khalifi, who plotted to blow up the U.S. Capitol (2012); Dzhokhar or Tamerlan Tsarnaev who conducted the Boston Marathon bombing (2013); Oklahoma beheading suspect Alton Nolen (2014); or Muhammed Yusuf Abdulazeez, who opened fire on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee (2015). ”
…Continue reading more by Philip Haney @ theHill.com
– Does this qualify as ‘aid and comfort’ to the enemy? Is that why Obama was grinning? /CJ
“See Something, Say Nothing” SFR sits down with DHS whistleblower Phil Haney
– Center for Security Policy
Sure. Tablighi Jamaat is an organisation with between seventy-five and a hundred and twenty-five million members. Outside of America, it’s known as the Army of Darkness. It originated in the 1860s and very soon they found out that they had an identical ideology as Wahhabi Saudis. And so they formed an alliance. That is why you constantly hear about Saudis funding madrassas, schools, in places like Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. That is essentially the Deobandi movement, the branch of Islam that originated out of the Asian subcontinent.
So talk about this group, how this Tablighi Jamaat performs its role as the Army of Darkness in this larger enterprise.
They are evangelists. They travel in groups of two, three, four and five and they go around the world and they visit the mosques in the countries where they go. To encourage the believers to become more Salafi, to become more observant of the original way of Islam. I noticed in 2006 that these groups of men were coming in from the UK, primarily, on visa waiver. We’ve heard a lot about visa waiver lately, about the holes in the system. Well, I noticed they were coming in on visa waiver and they had letters signed by an imam that was already on our law enforcement radar. So that immediately made them worth a secondary investigation, a discussion.
Why are you here? Where are you going? What do you intend to do? Well, that case began in 2006 and by 2011, five years later, I was sent to the National Targeting Center to work on it there in Washington, DC. On my own case that I actually started six years prior – five years prior. And the long and short of it is, that in March of 2012, after we had already gotten twelve hundred law enforcement actions based on this case, the Tablighi Jamaat initiative, the Department of State came in one day and we had a meeting with the management of NTC. And they said they had concerns about our focus on Tablighi Jamaat. Because they were not a designated terrorist organisation and we may be violating their civil rights and civil liberties.
Their civil rights and civil liberties? These are people coming from elsewhere in the world through Britain. They have civil rights and civil liberties under US law?
Yeah. They are essentially, by default, extending them constitutionally mandated civil rights and civil liberties because of their concern that we might be discriminating against them because we’re focusing on this group called Tablighi Jamaat.
Tell us what happened next after Hillary Clinton’s lawyers and officials from the State Department told you to cease and desist.
Well, we’ll fast forward to San Bernardino. The mosque that Syed Farook attended was part of that Tablighi Jamaat network. The administration deleted sixty-seven records out of the system that I had worked on as a component of the Tablighi case. So the question remains, if those records had not been deleted, it’s very plausible that Syed Farook would have never been able to travel to Saudi Arabia and it’s also just as plausible that his pending fiancée would have never been given a visa. And then we would have stopped the attack.”
….Continue reading @ Center for Security Policy
– Yale Law Journal
“On October 11, 2006, the Department of Justice indicted Adam Gadahn on charges of treason and giving material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization. The indictment alleged that Gadahn, an American citizen, “knowingly adhered to an enemy of the United States, namely, al-Qaeda, and gave al-Qaeda aid and comfort . . . with intent to betray the United States.” Gadahn allegedly betrayed the United States by appearing in five al Qaeda videos in which he ranted in English against the United States, praised the September 11 attacks, and touted al Qaeda’s ability to attack again. Because Gadahn’s alleged crimes consist solely of participating in propaganda videos, his case strongly resembles the last wave of treason prosecutions of American civilians, many of which targeted citizens who served as propagandists for Germany and Japan during World War II. In those prosecutions, the government employed an “aid and comfort” theory of treason; today, that theory raises First Amendment problems.
Instead, the government should prosecute Gadahn under the “levying war” prong of the Treason Clause on the basis of his participation in a campaign of psychological warfare against the United States.
Treason, as defined by the Constitution and by federal statute, means either “levying war” against the United States or “adhering to [the United States’] enemies, giving them aid and comfort,” with the intent to betray the United States.
The World War II propagandist cases mention “levying war” only in passing, and instead rest their decisions—all affirming guilty verdicts—on the “aid and comfort” prong. However, the courts have had great difficulty explaining exactly what “aid and comfort” a propagandist provides, by way of either benefit to the enemy or detriment to the United States. In earlier decisions applying the phrase “aid and comfort,” courts faced clearer cases in which the defendants provided concrete materiel to the enemy. For instance, in Haupt v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld the treason conviction of the father of one of the Quirin saboteurs who, with full knowledge and endorsement of his son’s mission of sabotage, supplied him with housing, food, transportation, and employment in the United States. In a Civil War-era case, the Supreme Court found that British residents of the United States had committed treason when they provided saltpeter to the Confederacy with the knowledge that it would be used for gunpowder.”
…Continue reading @ Yale Law Journal