Secure America’s Border


ISIS in MX means ISIS in USA

CSP Provides the Knowledge Tools

 

By John R. Houk

© April 21, 2016

 

Frank Gaffney has sent an email that has a hook – a petition, and a goal – fund raising. Frank Gaffney is the Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy (CSP) in Washington, D.C. Mr. Gaffney is the host of Secure Freedom Radio, a nationally-syndicated radio program. Secure Freedom Radio is a part of the CSP strategy as a Counterjihad organization dedicated to America’s National Security especially against the threat of Radical Islam toward Americans. The CSP looks at the dissemination of Radical Islam via the fifth column aspects of the Muslim Brotherhood and their deceptive offshoots of Muslim-American organizations that outwardly attempt to promote the image of Moderate Islam and the mesmerization of the concept that Islam is peace on the non-Muslim American people yet have a Caliphate agenda to Islamize America.

 

The petition itself serves an awesome purpose if you can get past CSP fund raising. Although admittedly, CSP is an awesome organization to invest. Largely because most of the CSP educational resources are FREE. One of the points this email makes you aware of is that CSP is donor supported and receives no funding from the government. As if an Obama led U.S. government would ever support any actual Counterjihad strategy to keep America safe from any Caliphate agenda.

 

The petition is a part of CSP’s Secure Freedom Strategy:

 

(Washington, DC): If there were any lingering doubts that the United States and the rest of the Free World are losing a decades-long war with the Global Jihad Movement (GJM), events of the past week should have put them to rest. Murderous attacks in Europe, warnings by MI5 of more – and worse – to come, there and perhaps here and an intercepted plot to attack the U.S. Capitol are the most obvious indicators.

 

Less evident, but no less portentous, is the absence of the President of the United States from the Western effort to push back – compounded by his record of accommodation to, and collaboration with, those seeking to impose “blasphemy” and other restrictions driven by their shariah ideology at the expense of Americans’ constitutional freedoms.

 

Such developments have moved a remarkable, ad hoc group of highly skilled national security professionals to step forward and offer an alternative approach: a strategy for actually countering and defeating totalitarians and their supremacist ideology that has been proven effective in the one environment that matters: the real world.

 

This “Tiger Team” has been sponsored by the Center for Security Policy, an organization whose mode of operation from its founding 26 years ago has been modeled after the best of America’s military – its elite unconventional warfare units. As the “Special Forces in the War of Ideas,” the Center has pulled together, much as the real special operators would do, sixteen of the best in the business, individuals with unique and necessary skill sets for the mission at hand: Adapting the strategy that defeated the last totalitarian ideology that sought our destruction, Soviet communism.

 

At a National Press Club conference at noon on Friday, 16 January 2015, ten members of this Tiger Team will introduce and explain the component parts of READ ENTIRE PDF press release (NATIONAL SECURITY TIGER TEAM PRESENTS THE ‘SECURE FREEDOM STRATEGY’ FOR VICTORY OVER THE GLOBAL JIHAD MOVEMENT; CSP Press Release; 1/15/15)

 

On The Secure Freedom Strategy page at CSP one of the exponents of the strategy – Tommy Waller (a Marine Reserve Major – LinkedIn profile) – has a roughly four-minute video introducing the concept of Civilization Jihad:

 

VIDEO: Tommy Waller: “Civilization Jihad is here”

 

 

Posted by securefreedom

Published on Jan 16, 2015

 

Tommy Waller, Director of State Legislative Outreach at the Center for Security Policy, discusses matters of information dominance and civilization jihad at the launch of the Center’s new “Secure Freedom Strategy” to combat jihad.

 

The Secure Freedom email you are about to read is informative. At the very least it gives you a great idea to go to one of the great Internet sites to educate yourself on what many call Radical Islam – I just call it Islam. The petition link allows you to read the petition that will be sent to your Congressman according to your zip code. Then as you sign by clicking “submit,” you will be redirected to the donation page of CSP. If it’s in your budget, throw a little support toward the Center for Security Policy. If it’s not in your budget, feel good about doing the right thing for joining the CSP petition that will reach your Congressman. And of course take advantage of educating yourself at CSP. ( For that matter wouldn’t hold it against you to through a little financial love to your Blog Editor via the SlantRight 2.0 Paypal button or perhaps this Paypal link.)

 

The Petition is to encourage your Congressman to do this:

 

This petition is part of a targeted signature campaign being launched in response to elevated security concerns over the vulnerability of our country due the lax security of our southern border.

 

The link to the petition will include my name and email – CHANGE IT TO YOUR INFORMATION.
3 Jihad Stages- Immigrate, Infiltrate & Caliphate

JRH 4/21/16

Please Support NCCR

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

ISIS Camp 8 Miles From USA

 

Email sent by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

Sent: 4/20/2016 10:05 AM

Response Action Network: Below please find a special message from one of our advertisers:

 

Go here to find a formal petition addressed to your Member of Congress.

Please read it carefully. If you agree with it, I would like to ask you to please SIGN and AUTHORIZE it immediately for transmission to your U.S. Representative in Washington, DC.

 

This petition formally requests that your U.S. Representative make defending the security and safety of the United States a top Congressional priority by supporting measures to fully guard, monitor and protect the 2,000 mile border between Mexico and the United States.

This petition is part of a targeted signature campaign being launched in response to elevated security concerns over the vulnerability of our country due the lax security of our southern border.

I do not want to alarm you. We are aware of no actionable intelligence of an immediate threat of violence in your vicinity or against the United States.

But there are growing concerns regarding the threat posed by documented numbers of drug and sex-traffickers, gang members and suspected jihadists who are taking advantage of the border’s porousness.

It is widely known, for example, that Iran and its proxy, the terrorist organization Hezbollah, have had a presence in Latin America for years.

And most recently, ISIS, the notorious terrorist jihad group, has been discovered operating a camp about 8 miles from the U.S. border near Juarez in Mexico. And another ISIS cell in Puerto Palomas is close to the New Mexico towns of Columbus and Deming and has easy access to the United States.

And perhaps the gravest warning was sounded by the Home Secretary of Great Britain, a key ally in the war on terror, who stated that “ISIS could become the world’s first truly terrorist state,” and that “we will see the risk . . . that the terrorists will acquire chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons to attack us.”

Some “experts” and Members of Congress dismiss these concerns. But as Pearl Harbor should have taught us, it is the nature of warfare to exploit surprise and vulnerability. And it is widely acknowledged that our insecure southern border offers enemies of this country abundant vulnerabilities and opportunities for surprise attacks.

In the words of the Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Representative Michael McCaul:

 

“President Obama claims that our borders are more secure than ever before . . . This is simply not true. As of last count, only 44 percent of the border was under operational control.

“Just last year the Border Patrol apprehended almost half a million individuals along our Southern border — representing only the people we know that are being stopped. We have no way of telling how many people we didn’t catch, or what they brought with them.”

 

WHY IS CONGRESS NEGLECTING TO TAKE THE COMMON-SENSE STEPS NEEDED TO PROTECT OUR BORDERS FROM THE LIKELIHOOD OF TERRORIST INTRUSION?

We believe a good part of the answer lies with the policies of Barack Obama.

President Obama’s political agenda of dramatically increasing immigration appeals to many of his partisans. And the prospect of more and more aliens-turned-voters causes even some of his political opponents to shy away from taking key steps to secure our borders lest they alienate potentially influential voting blocs.

Politics, in short, has again taken precedence over Congress’ responsibility to do what is right for our country — which is why we have made the decision to launch this citizens’ campaign and ask for your support by signing this letter to your Member of Congress.

As I will explain below, I must also request financial support of this effort with a contribution of at least $25.

But most importantly, please authorize your formal petition as quickly as possible.

HOW URGENT IS THE THREAT?

Surprise attacks are, by definition, “unlikely.” That is why they are “surprise attacks.” But there are often forewarnings.

For example, the surprise 9/11 attack was preceded by a failed attempt to bomb the World Trade Center years earlier.

And the Wall Street Journal last year ran an account of an attack on a California power station, reporting that the former chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission “is calling it a terrorist act that, if it were widely replicated across the country, could take down the U.S. electric grid and black out much of the country.”

And the intent of ISIS to launch attacks on shopping malls and kill as many Americans as possible is being widely reported.

Even the threat of nuclear or chemical terror attack, while also dismissed as “unlikely” by some, cannot be responsibly ruled out.

 

According to Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, Commander of the U.S. Southern Command, “Terrorist organizations could seek to leverage . . . smuggling routes to move operatives with intent to cause grave harm to our citizens or even quite easily bring weapons of mass destruction into the United States.”

 

The hard truth is, a mass-destruction assault on the U.S power grid, or financial or communications hubs, a population concentration such as a sporting event or shopping mall, or to our seat of government could be catastrophic to our nation.

And who would argue that such attacks are not being discussed, planned and encouraged right now as part of the global Jihad strategy in terror in training camps in places like Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia and countless other places around the world?

In light of this, we believe that leaving the “back door” of our nation unlocked, open and unguarded in the face of these gravely serious threats is utterly unacceptable.

THERE ARE SIMPLE, PRUDENT STEPS THAT CONGRESS CAN TAKE.

For example:

 

Under former Texas Governor Rick Perry, his state’s Department of Public Safety, Border Patrol agents and other federal officials utilized an array of military-grade video cameras to monitor key crossing points along the Texas-Mexico frontier.

 

The cameras’ feed was posted on the Internet, drawing on many thousands of volunteers to help monitor and alert the authorities to aliens sneaking across the border. This army of “online deputies” helped achieve a 92% rate of interception of individuals crossing the Rio Grande and elsewhere illegally. But, incredibly, this practical and proven system — which could be very cost-effectively deployed across the entire U.S.-Mexico frontier — has been discontinued.

 

In short, we have the technology, know-how and resources to secure our borders. That is not the issue.

WHAT IS NEEDED IS THE POLITICAL WILL TO ACT.

And that is why we are launching this campaign to educate and remind Congress of their prime responsibility to protect our country by protecting our borders — and why your signature is so important.

Limited resources mean we must begin by focusing on certain key Members of Congress for this campaign. Our goal during this phase is to gather a minimum of 1,000 signatures from every targeted Congressional District.

YOU ARE ONE OF THE SIGNATURES NEEDED TO HELP MEET THIS GOAL.

Will you help out by signing your formal petition, indicating your authorization of its language and purpose, and, if possible, making a contribution of $25, $50, $100 or more to support this campaign and our other research and education projects?

Secure Freedom receives no funding from the government. We are entirely independent — so we must rely on voluntary contributions like yours to sustain our efforts.

Even just the mailing portion of a campaign such as this costs upwards of $100,000 for printing, postage and processing. And, if we have the resources, we hope to heighten the awareness of this critical issue through a campaign of TV, radio and print ads, op-ed articles, position papers and studies to be distributed to the press and Congress.

But right now, your signature on the petition to your U.S. Representative is the single most important step in moving this campaign forward.

And your contribution of at least $25 will significantly strengthen and heighten the impact of your involvement, enabling us to urge more citizens to contact more Members of Congress.

So please do what you can. Please sign your petition, and make whatever contribution you can to help support this campaign and sustain our ongoing efforts to promote a national security philosophy of Peace Through Strength.

We face very real, very ominous threats from some of the most ruthless and brutal adversaries our nation has ever encountered. They have said — and demonstrated — that they will do anything to harm and destroy us.

Protecting our “back door” to keep these sworn enemies of freedom and America from literally walking in and doing us harm is just common sense.

Please ask your Member of Congress to act responsibly and protect our borders.

Sincerely,

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
President, Secure Freedom

P.S. Some try to discount these warnings as “alarmist.” But U.S. Representative Lamar Smith, chair of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, recently substantiated our concern over the border’s insecurity, stating flatly: “The border is not more secure than it’s ever been.” And with reports that ISIS has now set up a camp in Mexico, just a few miles away from the border, I feel it is grossly irresponsible for Congress to wait for another devastating surprise attack on our nation before it takes concrete and long-overdue action.

This year Congress will authorize well over half a trillion dollars in defense spending in order to protect our nation from jihadist enemies and others now on the march around the globe — from Iraq and Iran to Afghanistan and Africa to our own hemisphere.

Taking steps to protect us from harm right here at home just makes common sense. And choosing NOT to do so — for fear of “offending” the political interests of pro-immigration voter-blocs — is grossly negligent and irresponsible. We are, after all at war. The global Jihad mission to destroy the West –and in particular America — is fully known. And our lack of defense of our homeland has already cost thousands of American lives.

If you agree, please let your Member of Congress know how you feel ASAP.

Please sign the petition for immediate transmission to your U.S. Representative. And please consider making a contribution of at least $25 to support this critical effort.

Thank you.

The number one priority of every Member of Congress should be to protect the security and safety of our nation and our citizens.

F.J.G.

___________________

Secure America’s Border

By John R. Houk

© April 21, 2016

__________________

ISIS Camp 8 Miles From USA

 

Secure Freedom
1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 201 Washington, DC 20006, (202) 835-9077

As a 501c3 tax-exempt organization, we are able to do our part to keep America safe by educating citizens and members of Congress on vital matters of national security. All gifts to Secure Freedom are therefore tax-deductible. Thank you for helping to secure freedom in America!

 

About Rapid Response Network

 

The Response Action Network team works every day to ensure that our values are protected. We believe that each of us can make a difference in the political process, and we each have devoted our working lives to that end.

 

The Response Action Network (RAN) is a special project of Viguerie Political lists, which connects the grassroots to conservative political and advocacy organizations, and campaigns to advance the cause of freedom.  RAN gives you perspective you won’t find anywhere else – because everything we do is backed with decades of hands-on political experience.  We give you a window on the politics and policy affecting our liberties– and a powerful platform to make your voice heard.

 

You may have heard of Richard Viguerie. He is considered by many to be one of the most innovative tacticians and fundraisers in modern politics.  He has always strongly believed in helping the right candidates reach the right voters, and the right organizations reach the right activists. It is this mission that is at the core of who we are.

 

Viguerie founded what Viguerie Political Lists is today 50 years ago, and has raised billions of dollars in defense of freedom.  Richard responded to a question from Campaigns & Elections magazine about what his goals are:

 

To use the Internet to involve Americans in the political process, to help conservatives gain an advantage over the left. To fight against government’s use of power, to fight for individual rights and responsibilities. . .

 

RAN builds on that foundation. We educate. We energize. We connect. And most of all, we listen…to you.

 

This website is our hub, the place where we share news, ideas, and issue calls to action.

 

We invite you to READ THE REST

More: JASTA, Saudi Threats against U.S. Economy & 28 Classified Pages


BHO Broken Promise- 28 Pages

John R. Houk – Editor

 

Here are a series of posts I discovered after cross posting the New York Sun’s essay – Obama v. 9/11 Families (of which I included a short relevant intro) – at three of my active blogs.

 

JRH 4/20/16

Please Support NCCR

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

The 9/11 Civil Litigation and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA)

 

By Steve Vladeck

April 18, 2016 at 8:02 AM

Just Security

 

For lots of readers, I suspect Saturday’s front-page New York Times story by Mark Mazzetti was their first exposure to the ongoing efforts by 9/11 victims and their families to sue the government of Saudi Arabia and other entities in U.S. courts over their alleged role in providing financial support for the September 11 attacks. Indeed, allegations of Saudi involvement are also back in the public eye in connection with the possible declassification of 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report that supposedly deal with the role and responsibility of various senior Saudi officials.

 

In a nutshell, (1) the 9/11 plaintiffs’ claims–that the Saudi government and a wide range of other entities, including banks, provided material support to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks–have gone nowhere, thanks to a series of shifting (but now largely stabilized) court rulings concerning the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA); (2) Congress is now considering legislation–the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA)–that would in effect overrule each of those holdings; and (3) the Obama administration is, as Mark’s story explains, aggressively lobbying against that legislation, out of fears over the potential diplomatic and economic consequences of U.S. court judgments against the Saudi government that could run into the billions of dollars, and concerns over reciprocity from foreign countries.

 

In this post, I aim to provide a more detailed explanation of the legal background against which JASTA is being considered–so folks can better understand exactly what courts have held to date, and why JASTA could be a big deal, albeit in a very narrow class of cases.

 

I. The FSIA and theTerrorist AttacksLitigation

 

The shifting litigation sands vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia date back to a pair of 2005 district court rulings (In re Terrorist Attacks I and II), which threw out claims against the Saudi government and other state-run entities on the basis of the FSIA’s “discretionary function” exception. That exception preserves the sovereign immunity of foreign states even over non-commercial torts (for which the FSIA otherwise allows suits) if the tort resulted from discretionary conduct on the part of a foreign sovereign (e.g., whether to provide financial support to particular entities with links to terrorist organizations).

 

On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed in In re Terrorist Attacks III, albeit on different grounds: The Court of Appeals there held that a different FSIA provision, waiving the sovereign immunity of “state sponsors of terrorism,” was the exclusive means for seeking to hold a foreign sovereign liable for its involvement in acts of terrorism, and so the fact that the State Department had not designated Saudi Arabia a “state sponsor of terrorism” precluded liability under any of the FSIA’s other exceptions (including the non-commercial tort exception) for terrorism-related claims. The court also held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over many of the other defendants (a holding that the Second Circuit would expand upon in its April 2013 decision in Terrorist Attacks IV).

 

The plaintiffs in Terrorist Attacks III sought certiorari, at which point the Supreme Court called for the views of the Solicitor General. In its “CVSG” brief, the U.S. government recommended that the Court deny certiorari–albeit on an alternative ground from that relied upon by the Second Circuit: In then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s view, the FSIA could theoretically allow a foreign sovereign to be held liable for terrorism-related non-commercial torts even if it was not a state sponsor of terrorism, but only if, as the Supreme Court had already interpreted the non-commercial tort exception in Amerada Hess, the “entire tort” took place within the territorial United States (as opposed to the injury arising from the tort).

 

As the government argued, even taking the plaintiffs’ allegations as true, a material amount of the allegedly tortious conduct (including the alleged help in financing the 9/11 attacks) took place overseas. Thus, the government offered a far narrower (and less vulnerable) ground on which to defend the Second Circuit’s ruling–which may have had a lot to do with the Supreme Court’s subsequent denial of certiorari, which appeared to conclude (at least at the time) the Terrorist Attacks litigation.

 

Things would indeed have ended there, except that, in 2011, the Second Circuit overruled its holding in In re Terrorist Attacks III, concluding in a different case (Doe v. Bin Laden) that the exceptions to the FSIA for non-commercial torts and state sponsors of terrorism were wholly unrelated–and therefore provided independent grounds on which to hold foreign sovereigns liable in U.S. courts. In other words, under Doe, a foreign sovereign that is not a “state sponsor of terrorism” can still be held liable for terrorism-related conduct under the FSIA, so long as one of the other exceptions–including the non-commercial tort exception–applies.

 

The Doe ruling led the Terrorist Attacks plaintiffs to file a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the judgment in their earlier case, which provoked its own round of litigation, culminating in the Second Circuit’s December 2013 ruling that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief from the earlier judgment, which sent the case back to the district court for (re-)litigation of the original merits. Finally, last September, the district court nevertheless granted Saudi Arabia’s renewed motion to dismiss based upon the FSIA–because, as the U.S. government had argued in its 2009 CVSG brief in Terrorist Attacks III, the “entire tort” did not take place within the territorial United States, and so the non-commercial tort exception did not abrogate Saudi Arabia’s sovereign immunity. That ruling itself is now being appealed to the Second Circuit–so the underlying litigation remains very much ongoing…

 

II. The Anti-Terrorism Act and Aiding-and-Abetting Liability

 

Although the effort to hold the Saudi Arabian government liable notwithstanding the FSIA has received most of the headlines, there have also been concerted efforts by the 9/11 families to hold private individuals and entities liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act–which creates civil remedies for U.S. nationals to obtain triple damages against those responsible for injuries arising out of “an act of international terrorism,” but, notoriously, does not specify the parties against which such liability may be pursued, or the theories upon which such liability may be predicated.

 

As relevant here, the biggest open question is whether the ATA allows theories of “secondary liability,” i.e., whether claims may be maintained against entities that were not directly responsible for the underlying act of international terrorism, but that somehow supported it (including by aiding and abetting the perpetrators). Both the Second and Seventh Circuits (the latter sitting en banc) have expressly held that the ATA does not allow claims based upon common law understandings of secondary (or accessory) liability, although the Seventh Circuit in Boim III nevertheless adopted an expansive theory of primary liability–what Judge Posner called “primary liability . . . [with] the character of secondary liability.” As he explained, “In addition to providing material support after the effective date of section 2339A, a donor to terrorism, to be liable under section 2333, must have known that the money would be used in preparation for or in carrying out the killing or attempted killing of, conspiring to kill, or inflicting bodily injury on, an American citizen abroad.” Indeed, the Seventh Circuit explained, such not-quite-secondary liability requires proof of intentional misconduct–a high (and potentially insurmountable) hurdle to holding banks, governments, and other entities liable on a theory that they did nothing more than provide material support to the perpetrators of the underlying acts.

 

And the Second Circuit subsequently held that the ATA also requires proximate causation, i.e., that the tortfeasor’s contribution be a “substantial factor in the sequence of responsible causation and whose injury was reasonably foreseeable or anticipated as a natural consequence.”

 

I don’t mean to get lost in the doctrinal weeds (which are, as should be clear, quite densely packed). The larger point is that these circuit-level decisions, together with the nature of the 9/11 attacks themselves, have made it difficult to use the ATA to impose any civil liability against those indirectly responsible for September 11.

 

III.  JASTA

 

Understanding this litigation background should help to put into perspective exactly what JASTA does. The bill passed the Senate but died in the House in the 113th Congress, and has, to date, only gotten out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 114th Congress. As relevant here, JASTA would work four material changes to existing law:

 

  • It would amend the non-commercial tort exception to the FSIA to abrogate sovereign immunity in tort suits “in which money damages are sought against a foreign state arising out of physical injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of the office or employment of the official or employee (regardless of where the underlying tortious act or omission occurs), including any statutory or common law tort claim arising out of an act of extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, terrorism, or the provision of material support or resources for such an act, or any claim for contribution or indemnity relating to a claim arising out of such an act.”

 

  • It would amend the ATA to expressly allow aiding-and-abetting liability not in all cases, but in cases arising out of an act of international terrorism “committed, planned, or authorized” by a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO): “[L]iability may be asserted as to any person who aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism.”

 

  • It would amend the ATA to allow personal jurisdiction against such entities to the constitutional limit “for acts of international terrorism in which any national of the United States suffers injury in his or her person, property, or business by reason of such an act in violation of section 2333.”

 

  • It would also amend the ATA to repeal the prohibition on suits against “a foreign state, an agency of a foreign state, or an officer or employee of a foreign state or an agency thereof acting within his or her official capacity or under color of legal authority.”

 

JASTA’s amendments to the FSIA and ATA would apply to any civil action “pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of enactment of this Act; and . . . arising out of an injury to a person, property, or business on or after September 11, 2001.” In other words, the new law would apply to some pending cases–all those in which the underlying injury took place on or after September 11. Claims arising before September 11 would, presumably, not be covered.

 

IV. Taking Stock

 

It is certainly Congress’s prerogative to expand the scope of statutory liability that it created in the first place. And it’s hard to argue that amending the Anti-Terrorism Act to allow aiding-and-abetting liability (and more expansive personal jurisdiction) against private entities raises foreign relations and diplomatic questions nearly as grave or fraught as those provoked by the FSIA amendment.

 

The much more sensitive part of JASTA is the FSIA amendment and the last ATA amendment–which could be especially powerful for tort claims against foreign sovereigns that (1) are not designated as state sponsors of terrorism; but (2) could nevertheless be held liable in tort for “extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, terrorism, or the provision of material support or resources for” an act of international terrorism within the United States, even where much of the underlying tort occurred overseas. At least at the moment, that basically appears to be at most a class of one–to wit, Saudi Arabia, at least if the allegations in the pending lawsuits are true.

 

Although it’s easy to be sympathetic to the plaintiffs in the Terrorist Attacks litigation, as Mark explained in his Times article,

 

Obama administration officials counter that weakening the sovereign immunity provisions would put the American government, along with its citizens and corporations, in legal risk abroad because other nations might retaliate with their own legislation. Secretary of State John Kerry told a Senate panel in February that the bill, in its current form, would “expose the United States of America to lawsuits and take away our sovereign immunity and create a terrible precedent.”

 

Those reciprocity considerations, combined with the concerns about the United States’ diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and the potential economic consequences if, as a result of the bill, Saudi Arabia seeks to withdraw as many of its financial resources from U.S. territory as possible, are what potentially makes JASTA such a fraught proposition.

 

I don’t have a strong position on whether Congress should enact JASTA’s FSIA amendment or the last amendment to the ATA, largely because I’m not in a good position accurately to balance the ramifications of enacting JASTA against the unquestioned entitlement of the 9/11 victims and their families to appropriate legal relief, or to assess whether, if the FSIA and last ATA amendment were excised, JASTA’s amendments to the rest of the ATA would still go a sufficiently long way toward providing the 9/11 victims and their families with meaningful judicial redress. Moreover, I suspect reasonable minds will disagree about which of these compelling but competing considerations should receive greater weight. My hope, though, is that this post will at least help to illuminate what the legal obstacles to relief for the 9/11 families have been to date, what JASTA would do to eliminate them, and why, per Mark’s story in Saturday’s Times, it has proven so controversial.

 

Update (4/18/2016, 6:14 p.m. EDT): This post has been revised to clarify the effect of JASTA’s fourth provision–which would not create a new exception to liability for the U.S. government and its officers, but would rather excise the existing bar on liability for foreign states and their officers. Thanks to a careful reader for prompting this important clarification!

 

Steve Vladeck is co-editor-in-chief of Just Security. Steve is a professor of law at American University Washington College of Law. Follow him on Twitter (@steve_vladeck).

 

+++

Saudis Warn US of Economic Retaliation Over 9/11 Bill

A bi-partisan bill has been proposed in Congress that would allow victims of terrorist attacks to sue foreign governments that are responsible.

 

April 19, 2016

Clarion Project

 

The Twin Towers on fire after 9-11 Attack

The Twin Towers on fire during the September 11, 2001 terror attack in New York City. (Photo: © Reuters)

 

Saudi Arabia has threatened economic retaliation if the U.S. passes pending legislation that would allow victims of terrorist attacks to sue foreign governments that are responsible.

 

The bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, would permit victims of 9/11 to sue the Saudis and other financial partners of terrorism. The Obama administration is vigorously trying to block the bill.

 

Saudi Arabia warned it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars of American assets if the bill is passed. Delivering the message personally in Washington, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told Congress Saudi Arabia would sell $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets before they would be in jeopardy of being frozen by American courts.

 

Saudi Arabia denied involvement in the 9/11 attacks, however, the official U.S. government report on the attack contains 28 censored pages on the topic of “foreign support for the September 11 hijackers.” Investigators say these pages confirm the Saudi’s role in the 2001 attacks that claimed the lives of close to 3,000 people and injured more than 6,000.

 

For years, the Saudis have asked for the release of the censored pages, but the Bush administration said disclosure would damage the U.S.’ ability to gather intelligence on terrorists. The Obama administration also refused to release the redacted pages.

 

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Other evidence of Saudi involvement in the terrorist attacks includes information leaked from the censored pages including the documentation of a series of phone calls between one of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego and the Saudi Embassy, and the transfer of $130,000 from then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar’s family checking account to one of the hijacker’s handlers in San Diego.

 

Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called “20th hijacker,” who was sent to prison for his role in the attacks said members of the Saudi royal family donated funds to al-Qaeda. He also said he personally met a Saudi diplomat in Washington to plot the assassination of the U.S. president using a surface-to air missile. The two discussed bombing the U.S. Embassy in London as well.

 

“The Saudis have known what they did in 9/11, and they knew that we knew what they did, at least at the highest levels of the U.S. government,” said former Sen. Bob Graham, co-chair of the 9/11 congressional inquiry commission.

 

Families tried in the past to sue the Saudi government, but the cases were rejected due to a 1976 law granting foreign nations immunity from lawsuits in the American judicial system.

 

“I think part of the concern is that somehow this is a thumb in the eye to Saudi Arabia, a valuable ally,” said Senate-sponsor Cornyn. “It’s not open-ended and it’s not targeted at Saudi Arabia.”

 

Cornyn also dismissed the threats from Saudi Arabia. “It’s seems overly defensive to me and I doubt they can do it,” he said. “I don’t think we should let foreign countries dictate the domestic policy of the United States.”

 

 

Other analysts say it is unlikely the Saudis will follow through on their threats.

All of the presidential candidates support the bill, expect John Kasich, who has not commented on it to date.

 

+++

IPT’s Hoekstra: Public Deserves to See Full 2002 Congressional 9/11 Report

 

Relevant Radio ‘The Drew Mariani Show’
April 19, 2016

Investigative Project on Terrorism

 

[Blog Editor: To listen to the audio, you can either go to the IPT post or go to this podcast link: http://relevantradio.streamguys.us/DM%20Archive/DM20160418c.mp3]

 

[Start transcript]

 

Drew Mariani: Hey, when the planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon back on 9/11, remember that, Osama bin Laden was revealed as the mastermind behind it. We knew at the time that there was an obvious Middle Eastern terrorism link. What we didn’t know was what countries were involved and to what extent. We went into Afghanistan, well, because you know that’s where bin Laden was holed up and why we sent troops into Afghanistan, and you know we didn’t know about the rest. The most disturbing was that we didn’t know that Saudi Arabia, where bin Laden was born and raised, could have played a role in this. You know Congress investigated the events surrounding 9/11; they came up with a 400-page report, and that was released to the public. And I should say most of it was released to the public. I think they held back about 28 pages and they’re still labeled as classified. But what’s contained on those pages is really fodder for a lot of conversation right now. It’s suspected to contain information on Saudi Arabia’s role on that fateful day. Right now Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it’s going to sell off hundreds-of-billions of dollars’ worth of American assets, it will be a huge asset dump held by their kingdom, if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government basically to be held responsible in American courts for any role in September 11th in 2001, when those attacks took place. The Obama administration has lobbied Congress to block the bill, according to some officials. But the Saudi threats have been of course the subject now of intense discussion in recent weeks between both lawmakers and officials from the State Department and the Pentagon. And a number of officials have warned basically senators of diplomatic and economic fallout from you know any sort of legislation. So what’s going to happen? And what is the truth behind all this? Joining me right now is Pete Hoekstra. He’s the Shillman Senior Fellow with the Investigative Project on Terrorism, the former Chairman of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee, and former member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. And Peter, thank you for your time. It’s good to have you back. I know you just came out with a book, I want to plug that for you too. It’s called ‘Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya. It came out about four months ago, folks, you may want to check that out. And you can learn more about him at investigativeproject.org. This is a big story. How do you know how do we know Saudi Arabia is involved and you know what do you think’s going to happen ultimately with you know Congress and possible legislation?

 

Pete Hoekstra: Well a couple of things, number one – I’ve been advocating for the last period of time that these 28 pages be made public, that if there need to be some redactions to protect sources, those redactions be made, but overall that the public 13 years after this report was completed, now almost 15 years after 9/11, you know they, the public deserves to see all of this information. And so it should move forward. In regards to the legislation that Senator Cruz is pushing, I’m not quite sure about a couple of things. I’m you know I’m not sure why we need to just highlight Saudi Arabia. Any country –

 

Mariani: Right.

 

Hoekstra: – that is identified with terrorism should be able to be held accountable; I’m thinking of Iran, should be able to be held accountable. So just singling out Saudi, I’m not sure that that is appropriate. There’s a number of countries that may in one form or another be somewhat supporters of terrorism against U.S. property, U.S. goods or U.S. persons. So let’s make sure that they can be held accountable. I think that the action that Saudi Arabia is talking about, and they’re not talking about disinvesting in the United States to punish the United States, the explanation that they’re giving is – we’ve got to disinvest in the United States because if we actually become liable and the courts find for some defendants that we are liable and you know hold us accountable or hold a judgment against us for X-hundreds-of-millions or a billion dollars, at that point in time the U.S. courts may come and seize U.S. assets that we own. And so what we want to do is to protect ourselves. We’re going to disinvest in the United States so that a U.S. court can’t freeze any of our assets. Oh, I think their economy and our economy and their, the assets they hold in the United States are so significant that they could never actually pull that off, pull it off successfully. If they did they’ve have to do it at a fire sale.

 

Mariani: Yeah.

 

Hoekstra: And they wouldn’t want to do that.

 

Mariani: Yeah, I read earlier today that they would be forced to sell about 750-billion dollars in Treasury securities and other assets. Again, I want to go back to you know what would happen if this did take place. Let’s take a worst-case scenario, say this is pushed and it goes through, what happens if the information is exposed and we find out Saudi Arabia had a, had something to do with 9/11?

 

Hoekstra: Well you know I’ve had access to those 28 pages. I think that this will, it will raise more questions than what it will answer. OK? I don’t think that someone will read through there and they will find, or again, who knows – some people may read it and they will see a smoking gun, others will read it and they will see something different, but I think what it, you know my belief is that what it will show is that you know this is not classified or a secret or whatever, you know. The Saudis have for years been funding radical jihadism in the form of funding radical mosques, believers in Wahhabism, where much of this hatred and doctrine of jihadism comes from, and they’ve been funding these mosques around the world. And so you know many of us have called for them to stop the funding of these kinds of mosques for an extended period of time.

 

Mariani: And let me just ask you, because you’ve had access to those 28 pages, are there other nations in addition to Saudi Arabia? It’s kind of the sense that I’m getting from you, it’s not just Saudi Arabia, there may be other nations involved?

 

Hoekstra: No, I don’t think if you go through there that you would see a litany of a number of different countries; I’m just saying from my experience with terrorism –

 

Mariani: Right.

 

Hoekstra: – is that you know there are a number of countries that are involved in terrorism and, or you know certain state governments, you know everything from the Palestinian Authority –

 

Mariani: Right.

 

Hoekstra: – to Iran, and these types of things, that you know any type of legislation like what Senator Cruz is proposing –

 

Mariani: Right.

 

Hoekstra: – shouldn’t be limited to just Saudi. That’s two very different issues.

 

Mariani: And your mindset right now is that they should be released, the American public has a right to know.

 

Hoekstra: Yeah. And we ought to just make sure that, you know it’s been 13 years since I’ve seen them, that if there is any sensitive information in there regarding sources or individuals that may have been the source of some of these information, make sure you redact that information. But other than that, let the information become public. It’s been a long time.

 

Mariani: Yeah, great. Before I let you go, because I only have a minute or two left –

Hoekstra: Sure.

 

Mariani: – you just came out with a book too, ‘Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya.’ I have not gotten the book or read it, but I would love to maybe have you back to talk about it. Fill me in, what was your book about?

 

Hoekstra: It’s about what happened in Libya. We had a tremendous success story in Libya. [Muammar] Gaddafi after years of being on the outside, you know supporting terrorism against the United States and the West, culminating really with the take-down of Pan Am 103. In 2004, he gave up his nuclear weapons program, he gave, he paid reparations to the victims of his terrorist attacks, and he became a partner in fighting radical jihadism with the United States, a bipartisan success of a consistent policy for 20 years and finally Gaddafi changed sides.

 

Mariani: Wow.

 

Hoekstra: In 2011, Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama decided that Obama needed, or excuse me, that Gaddafi needed to go, they partnered with radical jihadists, and they were successful in getting rid of Gaddafi. And what we now have is you know for the last four years we’ve had a failed state. It’s now part of the caliphate. It’s exporting ideology, it’s exporting fighters, and it’s exporting weapons to Africa, to the Middle East and to Europe. It’s been a disaster. It’s, you know and for eight years there it was a rock of stability and certainty in northern Africa. And now it is the disaster of Libya, the destruction of Libya.

 

Mariani: Yeah, the book is called ‘Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya.’ It’s available at all major bookstores. And Pete, I want to thank you for your time. Thank you for your service to the country and for the insight you’re able to offer. I always enjoy your, our conversations.

 

Hoekstra: Hey, thanks for the invite.

 

Mariani: Thank you.

 

Hoekstra: I enjoyed being with you.

 

Mariani: Check him out too, the website is investigateproject.org [sic], investigativeproject.org, great site to check out.

 

[End transcript]

 

 

_____________

The 9/11 Civil Litigation and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA)

 

About Just Security

_____________

Saudis Warn US of Economic Retaliation Over 9/11 Bill

 

Copyright © 2016 Clarion Project, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

ABOUT CLARION PROJECT

_______________

IPT’s Hoekstra: Public Deserves to See Full 2002 Congressional 9/11 Report

 

About The Investigative Project on Terrorism

Obama v. 9/11 Families


911 Terrorism by frames

Blog Editor Intro to: Obama v. 9/11 Families

John R. Houk, Editor

 

I suspect President Barack Hussein Obama will continue to betray the American citizens and the U.S. Constitution by bowing to the wishes of Saudi government pertaining to Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act:

 

JASTA allows terrorism victims, like victims of the September 11th attacks, the right to pursue foreign states and sponsors of terrorism in federal court. The bill allows Americans to direct financial damage claims against those who funded the attacks. The legislation would also afford this right to families of other American victims of terrorism, that have occurred since September 11, 2001.

 

The following is a summary of the bill:

 

  • First, JASTA amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSA) so that foreign sponsors of terrorism cannot invoke “sovereign immunity” in cases arising from a terrorist attack that kills an American on American soil.

 

 

If JASTA becomes law and President Obama declassifies 28 pages of sealed documents that many in-the-know have hinted, links Saudi Arabia to financial involvement in the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers. The Saudis have threatened to sell off their USA Treasury Securities if JASTA becomes law. A Fox News story says the Saudis believe that amount is in the area of 750 BILLION bucks.

 

I suspect President Obama will continue to heinously betray America by fighting and preventing JASTA from becoming law. After all, BHO simply needs to veto JASTA and not declassify the 28 documents that may indeed implicate Saudi Arabia in some manner to 9/11.

 

Alisa Flatow & scene of terrorist bombing

Alisa Platow

 

JRH 4/19/16 (Hat Tip Donald Moore of Blind Conservatives)

Please Support NCCR

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

Obama v. 9/11 Families

 

By Editorial of The New York Sun 

April 18, 2016

 

President Obama owes Americans a public explanation for why his administration is lobbying Congress to protect Saudi Arabia from lawsuits by families of those killed in the attacks of 9/11. The lobbying was disclosed Friday in a scoop by the New York Times. It reported that the kingdom threatening to sell hundreds of billions of dollars in American assets if Congress exposed it to suits related to the attacks, most of whose perpetrators, including Osama bin Laden, were Saudis.

 

Alisa Flatow Memorial in Israel

Gilabrand / via Wikipedia commons

NEVER FORGET: The Obama administration owes America an explanation for why it is fighting against a bill in Congress that would allow 9/11 families to pierce Saudi Arabia’s sovereign immunity from civil suits and be brought to book for its role in the terrorist attacks of 2001, most of whose perpetrators, including Osama bin Laden, were Saudis. The use of tort law against terror was pioneered by the Estate of Alisa Flatow, slain by Iran in 1995; her campaign to seize Iranian assets was also opposed by the State Department. She is remembered widely, including at a memorial, above, in the Jewish state.

 

Mr. Obama’s administration isn’t alone. Its truckling to the Saudis, its siding against Americans, is part of a long scandal going back to the Clinton administration, which fetched up in court on the side of Iran against the estate of Alisa Flatow. She was the Brandeis coed who was slain in 1995 by Iran in a bus bombing at Israel. Her heroic father, Stephen Flatow, pressed her case in an early test of whether American tort law could be used in this war.

 

The estate of Alisa Flatow won that case, and was awarded something like $247 million dollars. Come time to collect, however, the Clinton administration appeared in court against Alisa Flatow’s estate. In the settlement that followed, the Flatows got a pittance of the court’s award — only $16 million. The government, using taxpayers’ money, essentially bought the Flatows’ claim, giving it the right to keep whatever it can wrest from the Iranians. It’s unclear as yet what that will be.

 

Saudi Arabia can’t be sued under the same law that the Flatows used against Iran, however; that law, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, covered only certain nations officially listed by our State Department as sponsors of terror. The families suing Saudi Arabia tried to pierce its sovereign immunity under more traditional law, but they lost in United States district court and are now appealing. The law the administration opposes would end the sovereign immunity defense for the Saudis.

 

It may well be that Mr. Obama could make a case for what it is doing. The administration argues that by piercing sovereign immunity in these kinds of cases we would open ourselves and our allies to a reciprocal strategy. It wouldn’t surprise us were the State Department animated by baser instincts, including a notorious pro-Arab bias. In any event, despite the danger of reciprocity State has been warning against, no one has laid a legal glove on us in a generation.

 

Whatever case the administration wants to make, though, will be difficult to advance while skulking around Capitol Hill — or bowing to Saudi Kings in their opulent tents. Mr. Obama is scheduled to visit Saudi Arabia this week. The measure Mr. Obama opposes passed early tests in the Congress by overwhelming votes. We’d like to think that this reflects growing ire in a Congress the administration has attempted over and over again to sideline from foreign policy.

 

It’s been more than 20 years since Alisa Flatow was slain, and the only thing Iran has received is Obama’s appeasement. It’s been 15 years since 9/11 and our government still won’t come clean on what it knows about the Saudi role. The bill to which the administration objects is called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. It’s a marker of the American retreat that the battle in the Middle East is being left to the tort lawyers — and that the administration opposes even that.

__________________________

Obama v. 9/11 Families

 

© 2002-2016 TWO SL LLC, New York, NY. All rights reserved.

Making America Muslim through “Refugees”


Islamic Dualism applied

A Muslim refugee will not ever be a long term friend as long as that Muslim is dedicated to the inerrancy of the Quran and reveres the Hadith and Sira which are essentially a collection of witness accounts of the actions and words of Mohammed. Paul Sutliff says a Muslim will act your as your friend – especially if he lives in a location in which Muslims are a significant minority. Islam tells its adherents to fool the non-Muslim (kafir) until he/she converts or the Muslim can assert an eventual majority stake in the population. Sutliff shows this Islamic fool than dominate paradigm is ethical in Islam theologically in English is called duality or dualism.

 

VIDEO: Dualism – Why is Islam puzzling?

 

 

Posted by CSPI International

Published on Aug 4, 2015

 

Islam is puzzling because it seems so contradictory. With contradictory statements in the Koran in regard to beating women, compulsion in religion, peace and jihad, torture and brutal punishments, one asks the question which statements are correct. The answer is that both are right. Islam is dualistic. It has whichever answer it needs when it needs it.

 

This another reason not to allow Muslim refugees or immigrants into America ESPECIALLY if those Muslims are devoted to Islam.

 

JRH 4/17/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Making America Muslim through “Refugees”

 

By Paul Sutliff 

April 16, 2016 3:10 PM

Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad

 

Ambassador Wells and Secretary Kerry welcome refugees

Ambassador Wells and Secretary Kerry welcome
Syrian Refugees they want to see in America

 

On April 14th, the State Department issued a press release headlining that “The United States Contributes $421 Million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.” The press release reveals the willful nature of the Obama administration to remake the United States into a Muslim country through outward hostility to its Department of Homeland Security and the FBI.

 
According to the State Department, the U.S. Government has now contribution to UNHCR to nearly $698 million to date in 2016. In 2015, the United States contributed more than $1.3 billion to UNHCR to support continuing and emergency programs around the world. This included nearly $352 million to UNHCR for the continuing role it plays in responding to the Syria crisis.
 

In addition, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) published How to Screen 600 Syrian Refugees a Day: A “Surge Operation” by Nayla Rush that tells you what the State Department is not telling you!

 

U.S. ambassador Alice Wells said…The temporary processing center… will run until April 28 and will process 10,000 refugees. It is part of “our effort to reach President Obama’s directive to send 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States by September 30, 2016, while also ensuring that every refugee accepted by the United States has been thoroughly screened and vetted through our rigorous security process.”

 

Six hundred interviews will take place at the center every day to meet that goal. Most of the 10,000 refugees will be resettled from Jordan despite the fact that all Syrian refugees are covered by the surge.

 

According to Ambassador Wells this expediting system to rush Syrian “refugees” to America began on February 1st.  This means that they have had all of February, March and April to interview 600 persons a day, 5 days a week. 53 days since Easter and Presidents’ Day are two Federal holidays equates to 31,800 interviews to date as of April 15th.

Will America be flooded with Syrian Muslims as most of Europe is enduring today if President Obama keeps his promise to take a minimum of 10,000 Syrian Muslims as refugees? What will this like? What will it mean to American culture?
 

We can answer that question by examining what is happening in Europe today.  This is what we can expect:

1.  Islamic Enclaves will be created where sharia is enforced.The United Kingdom’s former head of Equalities and Human Rights Commission said this week that  Muslims are establishing “nations within nations” throughout Europe for the purpose of not assimilating into the culture of their new countries.

 

Guy Millière pointed out in his article for the Gatestone Institute this week, Europe: Suicide by Jihad” the inconvenient fact that:

 

One of the organizers of the Paris bombings, Salah Abdeslam, was able to live peacefully in Molenbeek for four months until police decided to arrest him. Belgian police knew exactly where he was, but did nothing until French authorities asked them to. After his arrest, he was treated as a petty criminal. Police did not ask him anything about the jihadist networks with which he worked. Officers who interrogated him were ordered to be gentle. The people who hid him were not indicted.

2.  Muslims will portray themselves as good “Americans to non-Muslims.” Brussels jihadist attacker Osama Krayem was featured in a 2005 documentary, “Without Borders — A Film About Sport And Integration.” In this documentary Osama was shown to be an excellent example of integrations into Western Switzerland culture. However, just 10 years later he became one of the jihadists who attacked Brussels, Belgium. The reason for this “change” is that the duality in Islam requires saying and appearing one way to non-Muslims while supporting your Muslims Brothers and Sisters. The Koran reveals this duality when it says to the Muslim:

 

O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends, they are but friends of each other. And whoever befriends them, then surely, he is one of them. (Surah 5: 51)

 

This order is given and backed up with other Islamic scriptures. The Tafsir Ibn Kathir vol. 3 pages 203-206 cover this in depth. Reading what Muslims tell other Muslims reveals a whole other world about Islam than what they tell us they believe. That is the duality. In Islam Allah is the “Great Deceiver” and war is won through deceit.

 

This means they will appear to be the greatest of friends but will stab the non-Muslim in the back when they feel safe to do so. When they move from a minority to a majority they will feel free to do what their Allah commands.

 

A British TV program ran a program that was created from an ICM poll that revealed many disturbing things about the growing population of Muslims in the UK.

3.  Muslims plan to commit Civilization Jihad They plan to take over through overpopulation by having more wives and babies than other Americans. This concept is so prevalent in Europe that people are now predicting that Denmark will soon cease to exist as a democracy in Europe and will be proclaimed an Islamic country soon.

 

This means infiltrating every level of government, schooling and society to prevent the truth about Islam from being told. (Read my Book: Civilization Jihad and the Myth of Moderate Islam)

 

4.  Muslims will work to take away your free speech beginning with your ability to insult Allah and Muhammad. The White House was caught censoring another head of state on this issue last week! This action simply put the word Islamic and terrorism together!

 

VIDEO: Did the Obama Administration Censor French President Hollande? (David Wood)

 

 

Posted by Acts17Apologetics

Published on Apr 2, 2016

 

http://www.acts17.net

Recently, President Obama met with French President François Hollande to discuss matters of international security. When footage posted on the White House website was discovered to be missing portions of Hollande’s audio, the White House replied that a technical problem had led to the gap in audio. However, a closer examination of the footage shows that the audio footage was not accidentally missing and then restored; instead, it was deliberately removed and then replaced when the censorship was exposed. David Wood discusses the evidence.

 

This is the reality we face today!

_______________________

About Paul Sutliff

 

I am writer and a teacher. Here is a link to my publisher and my latest book portraying the truth about Civilization Jihad! https://www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=978-1-68237-562-4

 

Europe: Suicide by Jihad


EU Multicultural Effect

Author Guy Millière writes about how European leaders are killing Europe by a suicidal policy of promoting Multicultural diversity as a new cultural era that is destroying a European cultural heritage that has a foundation of a couple thousand years of building blocks.

 

In essence Islamic culture is stuck in the days of its founder Mohammed and Europe (as all influenced Western culture) has moved from intolerant politics to tolerant representative government (for the most part). Islam is stuck in a 7th century mindset and Europe – for all its current plusses and minuses – is at a 21st century stage. As Islam is allowed to infect Europe with Islamic 7th century thinking, it will be inevitable that a return to an intolerant ruling political principle will return to Europe. If allowed to continue Europe will experience its second Dark Ages – all thanks to Islam.

 

As you read Millière’s essay, you should think of some similarities America is even now in the beginning stages of experiencing under the Multicultural guidance of President Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic Party. In my God! A significant amount pro-Dem Party voters are seriously considering to have a bald-faced liar or an open prominent of socialism! AND there is actually a statistical possibility that American voters will select a liar or a socialist (or both for that matter) as the President of the United States of America ensuring a likelihood of a European-style cultural regression.

 

JRH 4/16/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Europe: Suicide by Jihad

 

By Guy Millière

April 16, 2016 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • In the last two decades, Belgium has become the hub of jihad in Europe. The district of Molenbeek in Brussels is now a foreign Islamist territory in the heart of Belgium. It is not, however, a lawless zone: sharia law has effectively replaced Belgian law.

 

  • One of the organizers of the Paris bombings, Salah Abdeslam, was able to live peacefully in Molenbeek for four months until police decided to arrest him. Belgian police knew exactly where he was, but did nothing until French authorities asked them to. After his arrest, he was treated as a petty criminal. Police did not ask him anything about the jihadist networks with which he worked. Officers who interrogated him were ordered to be gentle. The people who hid him were not indicted.

 

  • Europe’s leaders disseminated the idea that the West was guilty of oppressing Muslims. They therefore sowed the seeds of anti-Western resentment among Muslims in Europe.

 

  • Hoping to please followers of radical Islam and show them Europe could understand their “grievances,” they placed pressure on Israel. When Europeans were attacked, they did not understand why. They had done their best to please the Muslims. They had not even harassed the jihadists.

 

The March 22 jihadist attacks in Brussels were predictable. What is surprising is that they did not take place sooner. What is also surprising is that more people were not killed. It seems that the authors of the attacks had larger projects in mind; they wanted to attack a nuclear power plant. Others may succeed in doing just that.

 

In the last two decades, Belgium has become the hub of jihad in Europe. The district of Molenbeek in Brussels is now a foreign Islamist territory in the heart of Belgium. It is not, however, a lawless zone: sharia law has effectively replaced Belgian law. Almost all the women wear veils or burqas; those who do not take risks. Drug trafficking and radical mosques are everyplace. The police stay outside and intervene only in cases of extreme emergency, using military-like commando operations. Other areas of Belgium, such as Shaerbeek and Anderlecht have the same status as Molenbeek.

 

The Belgian authorities have allowed the situation to deteriorate. The situation in the country now is virtually equivalent to a surrender.

 

They seemed to hope that willful blindness and accepting the unacceptable would permit the country to be spared. It did not.

 

The attack on Belgium’s Jewish Museum on May 24, 2014 should have served as a warning. It did not. That “only” Jews were the target led the Belgian government to underestimate the threat. The jihadi who wanted to kill passengers on train from Amsterdam to Paris, on August 21, 2015, prepared his attack in Brussels. That three American heroes neutralized him before he could start shooting again led the Belgian government to think the danger was not large.

 

The jihadis who struck Paris on November 13, 2015 had also organized their attacks from Molenbeek, but the blood was not spilled in Belgium. Belgian authorities perhaps assumed that Belgium would be spared. They spoke of “imminent danger” for a day or so, but never increased security.

 

One of the organizers of the Paris bombings, Salah Abdeslam, Europe’s most wanted terrorist criminal, was able to live peacefully in Molenbeek for four months until police decided to arrest him. Belgian police knew exactly where he was, but did nothing until French authorities asked them to. After his arrest, he was treated as a petty criminal, not a jihadi terrorist. Police did not ask him anything concerning the jihadist networks with which he worked. Because he was hurt during police operations, officers who interrogated him were ordered to be gentle. The people who agreed to hide him for so long were not considered suspects and were not indicted.

 

The Brussels jihadist attacks took place two days later.

 

Despite the worst attacks on Belgium soil since World War II, Belgian authorities do not seem ready to change their behavior.

 

Abdelhamid Abaaoud (left) - Philippe Moureaux (right)

Abdelhamid Abaaoud (left), one of the planners of the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, was — like many terrorists in Europe — from Molenbeek, Belgium. Philippe Moureaux (right) was mayor of Molenbeek for 20 years, thanks to his alliance with radical Islamists.

 

After the attacks, Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel denounced “violent and cowardly acts” and stressed his “determination,” without saying what he intended to do. He did not speak of the necessity of changing the Belgian laws to make them more effective. He did not mention any enemy. He never used words such as “jihad” or “radical Islam.”

 

He behaved and talked as most of his European counterparts did. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls used more courageous words and said many times he is fighting “radical jihad” and “Islamism.” The French parliament passed laws allowing what is still impossible in Belgium: police searches at night. But France stands alone, and effectively the situation in France is no better than in Belgium. Islamist enclaves exists in many suburbs. Whole cities are controlled by thugs and radical imams: cities such as Roubaix, Trappes, Aubervilliers and Sevran in the northeast of Paris.

 

Islamist enclaves also exist in other European countries: Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom and Sweden.

European leaders have been making choices. After World War II, they decided Europe would be a region of the world where war would be banished and all problems solved through diplomacy and appeasement. They gradually abandoned financing defense and security activities. Instead, they built welfare states. They thought that taking care of people from cradle to grave would suppress anger and conflicts. They denied the existence of totalitarian dangers and the necessity of showing strength. To this day, their statements indicate that European leaders think both the Berlin Wall and the Soviet empire fell thanks to the benevolence of Mikhail Gorbachev, not thanks to the determination of Ronald Reagan. To this day, they seem to think that Islam is essentially a religion of peace and that the jihadis belong to a tiny, marginal sect.

 

Decades ago, Europe’s leaders adopted a general policy of “openness” to the Islamic world in general, and the Arab world in particular. They decided to welcome migrants from the Muslim world by hundreds of thousands but without asking them to integrate. They made cultural relativism and multiculturalism their guiding principles. They acted as if Islam could mingle in the Western world harmoniously and without difficulty. Europe’s leaders disseminated the idea that the West was guilty of oppressing Muslims and had to pay for its sins. They therefore sowed the seeds of anti-Western resentment among Muslims in Europe.

 

When in the Muslim world jihadis started to kill, Europe’s leaders wanted to believe that the attacks would take place in the Muslim world only. They thought that by not interfering with what European jihadis were planning, they would not risk jihadi attacks on European soil.

 

When Jews were attacked, Europe’s leaders decided that the problem was not jihad, but Israel. They stressed the need not to “export Middle East conflict in Europe.” Hoping to please followers of radical Islam and show them Europe could understand their “grievances,” they placed increasing pressure on Israel. They also increased their financial and political support for the “Palestinian cause.”

 

When Europeans were attacked, they did not understand why. They had done their best to please the Muslims. They had not even harassed the jihadists. They still do not know how to react.

 

Many of them now say privately what they will never say in public: it is probably too late.

 

There are six to eight million Muslims in France, and more than thirty million in Western Europe. Hundreds of jihadis are trained and ready to act — anytime, anyplace. European intelligence services know that they want to make “dirty bombs.” Surveys show that tens of thousands of Muslims living in Europe approve of jihadi attacks in Europe. Millions of Muslims living in Europe keep silent, behave as if they see nothing and hear nothing, and protest only when they think they have to defend Islam.

 

European political leaders know that every decision they make may provoke reactions among the Muslims living in Europe. Muslim votes matter. Riots occur easily. In France, Belgium, other European countries, Islamists are present in the army and police forces. In the meantime, Islamist organizations recruit and Islamic lobbies gain ground.

 

European governments are now hostages. The European media are also hostages.

 

In most European countries, “Islamophobia” is considered a crime — and any criticism of Islam may be considered “Islamophobic.” People trying to warn Europe, such as the Dutch MP Geert Wilders, despite an apparently biased judge and forged documents against him, are now on trial.

 

Books on radical Islam are still published but surrounded by silence. Books praising the glory of Islam are in every bookstore. When Bat Ye’or’s Eurabia was published in Europe, she was denounced and received hundreds of death threats. Bruce Bawer’s While Europe Slept, published in the U.S., was not even available in Europe. Ten years later, the situation is worse.

 

Political movements expressing anger and concerns are rising. All are demonized by political power holders and the media. They have almost no chance of gaining more influence.

 

Populations are gnawed by fear, frustration and impotence. They are looking for answers, but cannot find them. A few hours after the attacks on Brussels, a man on Belgian television said that Europe is on the verge of suicide.

 

Europe looks like a dying civilization. European governments created a situation that can only lead to more attacks, more massacres, and maybe unspeakable disasters. Europe’s leaders continue to react with speeches and a few police operations.

 

If some European governments decided to restore their abolished borders, it could take years, and most European leaders would probably disagree with such a policy. Meanwhile, millions more “migrants” will enter Europe, and among them many more jihadis. In spite of the mayhem created in Germany by “migrants” who arrived in 2015, Angela Merkel said she would not change her decisions. No Western European government dared to disagree with her, except Viktor Orbán in Hungary, a lone voice of dissent.

 

In Brussels, as in Paris earlier, people gathered where the attacks took place. They brought candles and flowers to mourn the victims. They sang sentimental songs. They cried. There were no shouts of revolt against jihad. Members of the Belgian government called on the Belgian people to avoid reactions of violence, and declared that Muslims are the main victims of terrorism.

 

In Europe’s near future, more people will bring candles, flowers and songs to mourn victims. Another two or three jihadists will be arrested. But nothing will be done.

 

_____________________

Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.

 

© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor: In full disclosure I have cross posted this fantastic essay without permission. If someone at Gatestone emails me and instructs me to take it down I will comply. Ergo you should note if you choose to cross post without Gatestone permission you are taking a risk.]

 

About Gatestone Institute

 

“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.”
— John Adams

 

Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:

 

  • Institutions of Democracy and the Rule of Law;

 

  • Human Rights

 

  • A free and strong economy

 

  • A military capable of ensuring peace at home and in the free world

 

  • Energy independence

 

  • Ensuring the public stay informed of threats to our individual liberty, sovereignty and free speech.

 

Gatestone Institute conducts national and international conferences, briefings and events for its members and others, with world leaders, journalists and experts — analyzing, strategizing, and keeping them informed on current issues, and where possible recommending solutions.

 

Gatestone Institute will be publishing books, and continues to publish an online daily report, www.gatestoneinstitute.org, that features topics such as military and diplomatic threats to the United States and our allies; events in the Middle East and their possible consequences, and the transparency and accountability of international organizations.

 

Gatestone Institute is funded by private donors and foundations. We are grateful for your support.

 

Ambassador John R. BoltonChairman

 

Nina RosenwaldPresident
Naomi H. Perlman, Vice President

 

Board of Governors (in … READ THE REST

 

Contribute to the Gatestone Institute

Muslim Refugees to U.S. Accelerated


Pamela Geller

John R. Houk

© April 15, 2016

 

In my post “Islam is Dangerous to America” I shared the CSP promotion of the book “See No Sharia: ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ and the Disarming of America’s First Line of Defense”. Then I found a video at the Anti-Islam Alliance Google Community speaking of Obama bringing in his promised 10,000 Islamic refugees from the Syria-Iraq area in a quick stealth mode.

 

Now I use the word “stealth” not because it is a big secret, rather because our lame duck President Barack Hussein Obama said he was bringing these poor disenfranchised by ISIS Muslims into the USA. Obama made it clear it was the American duty to bring in Western-hating counter-culture Muslims into the USA. The reason I use “stealth” is because the Mainstream Media is not reporting this Muslim influx and the horrendous lack of vetting potentially allowing Islamic terrorists in with the Muslim refugees. It is already proven that ISIS is slipping terrorists into the even greater influx of refugees entering Europe (Reuters, AC News, Freedom Outpost and The Economic Times).

 

Actually the ONLY duty Americans should feel about ISIS displaced refugees are the Christians experiencing a brutal genocide in the Syria-Iraq area.

 

You will hear an amazing amount of West-hating Muslims coming to America on a weekly basis. A substantial amount of the video is the OAN newscaster interviewing Pamela Geller about the Obama refugee idiocy.

 

Incidentally, in case you are interested the OAN newscaster tells you that four main U.S. States are being targeted for this crazy influx:

 

  • Michigan

 

  • California

 

  • Pennsylvania

 

  • Illinois

 

JRH 4/15/16

Please Support NCCR

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

VIDEO: Pamela Geller on The Daily Ledger: Obama’s Surge of Muslim Syrian Refugees into US

 

 

Posted by Pamela Geller

Published on Apr 15, 2016

 

PamelaGeller.com for more.

 
Follow Pamela Geller on Facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/pamelageller/

 
The overwhelming majority of the refugees who have been admitted are Muslim. Yet the real victims – the real refugees in Syria – are largely Christian. Obama has a clear preference for the Muslim refugees.

 
There is no way to vet these refugees. Records in many cases don’t exist – and ISIS doesn’t recruit people with criminal records.

 
ISIS has threatened to flood Europe with 500,000 refugees. To bring these people in is civilizational suicide.

 
Last February, the Islamic State boasted it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. And the Lebanese Education Minister recently said that there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in camps in his country. 80% of migrants who have recently come to Europe claiming to be fleeing the war in Syria aren’t really from Syria at all.

_______________________

Muslim Refugees to U.S. Accelerated

John R. Houk

© April 15, 2016

_____________________

Pamela Geller on The Daily Ledger: Obama’s Surge of Muslim Syrian Refugees into US

 

Pamela Geller Biography

 

Pamela Geller is the founder, editor and publisher of Atlas Shrugs.com and President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and Stop Islamization of America (SIOA). She is the author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America, with Robert Spencer (foreword by Ambassador John Bolton) (Simon & Schuster) and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance (WND Books). She is also a regular columnist for World Net Dailythe American Thinker, Breitbart.com and other publications.

 

Geller’s activism on behalf of human rights has won international notice. She is a foremost defender of the freedom of speech against attempts to force the West to accept Sharia blasphemy laws, and against Sharia self-censorship by Western media outlets. Her First Amendment lawsuits filed nationwide have rolled back attempts to limit Americans’ free speech rights and limit speech to only one political perspective, and exposed attempts to make an end-run around the First Amendment by illegitimately restricting access to public fora. Her free speech event in Garland, Texas led to the capture or killing of several murderous jihadists, smoking out terror cells, leading to an increase in the threat level to BRAVO and to the consequent arrests of jihadists in several states.

 

Geller has also led awareness campaigns in U.S., Europe, and Israel on behalf of the victims and potential victims of honor killing, for the human rights of apostates from Islam, for the freedom of speech, and more. She has placed ads nationwide on buses, taxicabs, billboards, and in subway stations, calling attention to the plight of victims of Sharia and countering the deceptive and misleading ad campaigns of the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Islamic supremacist groups.

 

In May 2013, she was awarded the Guardian of Freedom award by the Nassau County Federation of Republican Women. The Queens Village Republican Club, the oldest Republican club in America, honored Pamela Geller as the “American Patriot of the Year” in February 2013. That same month, the Creative Zionist Coalition gave her the Queen Esther Award for Jewish Heroism. Pamela Geller also received the Annie Taylor Award for Courage in 2010 from the David Horowitz Freedom Center. In October 2011, the United States Marine Corps presented her with the flag flown on September 11, 2011 over Camp Leatherneck, “amid the battlefields of Afghanistan during READ THE REST

Islam is Dangerous to America


Frank Gaffney

Clare Lopez - CSP VP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John R. Houk

© April 15, 2016

 

I found an email in my inbox promoting a new book written by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. and Clare Lopez of the Center for Security Policy (CSP) entitled “See No Sharia: ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ and the Disarming of America’s First Line of Defense”.

 

The email breaks down the book to how Radical Islam has been creeping into America due to government policies that are designed to show favoritism to all Islam. And when I say “all Islam” I am saying government policies are looking at Islam as peaceful in general hence believing the lies that Radical Muslims are advocates of Moderate Islam.

 

This gullibility by the U.S. government was actually began by one of my hero Presidents in G.W. Bush. After the 9/11 attack on American soil by al Qaeda Bush accurately described the act brutality as the work of Islamofascists and that we will find and bring down those who were responsible. Thus began our invasion of al Qaeda’s protectors the Taliban then ruling Afghanistan.

 

American Patriotism made many Americans angry. Many Americans joined the U.S. Military to do their part in a war effort against Islamofascism. Other Americans had no intention of serving militarily but were still incensed. Angry Americans have a tendency to operate in spontaneous acts of vengeance against people perceived as Muslims.

 

Thus many Americans and resident aliens that had a Middle Eastern look about them were treated as Islamofascists rather they were non-violent Muslims or Muslim look-alikes such as Sikhs who as a part of their faith wear turbans.

 

So very soon after President Bush’s hunt-the-Islamofascists down promise, Bush went public with the meme that not all Muslims are Islamofascists to head off the American emerging revenge mindset against all people appearing to be Muslim. President Bush went public with the semi-falsehood that “Islam is peace” statement implying that good Muslims are Moderates in their faith of a true Islam.

 

Let’s be truthful. A majority of Muslims that are religious indeed believe that Islam is peace because that is what they are told by their religious leaders (Clerics, Mullahs or whatever). Shoot even Radical Muslims believe Islam is peace at least between Muslims that follow Sharia Law.

 

The reality is that if you read the Quran, Hadith and Sira through unfiltered lenses will see that Islam is violent theopolitical religion against those that refuse to believe in Islam and even against Muslims if they don’t follow the rules of Sharia or the writs of their revered writings.

 

It is my opinion unwittingly promoted the Islam is peace meme to prevent violent chaos against peaceful people. However, it is also my opinion that President Barack Hussein Obama took this peace meme to the next level that has welcomed Radical Muslims into sensitive jobs in the U.S. government. With most of these Radical Muslims sympathetic or even in collusion with the Radical Islamic paradigm of a global Caliphate.

 

This is where Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. and Clare Lopez come into the picture exposing Islamic infiltration into America and offering a scenario to defeat Islamic terrorism. I have not read this book myself yet, but I do intend to pick a copy up. Below is the email promoting the book “See No Sharia”.

 

JRH 4/15/16

Please Support NCCR

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

BOOK RELEASE: SEE NO SHARIA: How Our First Lines of Defense Have Been Disarmed

See No Sharia book jacket

Sent by Adam Savit | savit@securefreedom.org

Sent: April 14, 2016 1:52 PM

Sent from: Secure Freedom – (CSP link to email)

 

(Washington, D.C.): For much of the past fifteen years, the United States government has failed to understand, let alone decisively defeat, the enemy that, under the banner of its al Qaeda franchise, murderously attacked our country on September 11, 2001.  The reason why that has been so – notwithstanding the bravery and skill of our men and women in uniform and the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars – has been unclear to most Americans, including some in government.  Until now.

 

With the publication by the Center for Security Policy of a new book by two of its leaders, President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. and Vice President Clare Lopez, See No Sharia: “Countering Violent Extremism” and the Disarming of America’s First Lines of Defense, the case has been forcefully made that this sorry state of affairs is a product of a sustained and highly successful influence operation by Islamic supremacists. Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, Islamists in general and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular have gained access to and considerable sway over policymakers in the White House, the FBI and the Departments of State, Justice, Defense and Homeland Security.

 

[Blog Editor: The email at this point has a photo of Frank Gaffney with a link to a Youtube video associated to the photo. In place of the photo here I am posting the Youtube video.]

 

VIDEO: See No Sharia: ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ and the Disarming of America’s First Line of Defense

 

 

Posted by securefreedom

Published on Apr 14, 2016

 

For more information visit: http://bit.ly/1T6Dcta

 

See No Sharia describes the trajectory that has flowed from such penetration and subversion.  It traces how fact-based counterterrorism and law enforcement have inexorably been supplanted by an approach defined by accommodations demanded by Islamists – purged lexicons and training programs, limitations on surveillance, case-making and rules of engagement and above all, eschewing anything that gives “offense” to Muslims.

 

In addition to showing the perils associated with such policies and practices as America faces the growing threat of global jihad and its animating doctrine of sharia, this book provides specific recommendations as to how to restore our first lines of defense – the FBI and other law enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security, the military and the intelligence community – whose effective service is needed today more than ever.

 

Frank Gaffney noted,

 

“Americans expect government officials to fulfill their oaths of office by protecting the Constitution, the Republic it established and its people from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  The vast majority of our public servants yearn to do their duty. Yet, as See No Sharia makes plain, for at least a decade and a half, they have been obliged to conform to policies that greatly diminish their chances for success.  We simply cannot afford to disarm those in our first lines of defense against Islamic supremacism and its jihad – both the violent kind and the stealthy sort the Muslim Brotherhood calls ‘civilization jihad.’”

 

Clare Lopez added,

 

“As a career intelligence professional, the extent to which our policymaking apparatus has been penetrated and subverted by Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist operatives is deeply problematic.  This book is meant to expose their handiwork – and to impel the urgently needed and long-overdue policy course-correction.”

 

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present this monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series.  “The Gulen Movement: Turkey’s Islamic Supremacist Cult and Its Contribution to Civilization Jihad in America” is available for purchase in kindle and paperback format on Amazon.com.

 

Click here for a full PDF of the newly released monograph.

______________________

Islam is Dangerous

John R. Houk

© April 15, 2016

____________________

BOOK RELEASE: SEE NO SHARIA: How Our First Lines of Defense Have Been Disarmed

 

About The Center for Security Policy

 

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.securefreedom.org

 

Donate to CSP