Saudi Arabia: The Golden Chain and The Missing 28 Pages


Golden Chain

There are a lot of voices on both the Left and Right side of aisle calling for Obama to declassify the infamous 28 pages of a report that may link Saudi Arabia in some fashion or another to the al Qaeda attack on American soil on September 11, 2001. The Saudis are now saying they either don’t want the declassification or at the very least not allow the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) Bill to become law. JASTA would allow surviving victims of the 9/11 attack to sue Saudi Arabia in civil court for any culpability in financing the al Qaeda attack.

 

Authors Millard Burr and Rachel Ehrenfeld of the American Center for Democracy (ACD) have posed further incrimination against Saudi Arabia that beyond the 28 pages. Evidently a Bosnian police raid on a Muslim charity group in Sarajevo turned up some evidence of fund raising for Usama (or Osama – depending who you read) bin Laden’s al Qaeda. That Burr and Ehrenfeld suggest that evidence points to numerous Saudi families of wealth that were sugar-daddies to al Qaeda. Al Qaeda called these sugar-daddies the Golden Chain. The problem: The U.S. Government has made much of that evidence classified just as the 28 pages. Here is a teaser paragraph from the Burr-Ehrenfeld essay:

 

How much of the Sarajevo material remains classified and unpublished is debatable. However, like the missing Congressional report, substantial material that covers the genesis and expansion of al Qaeda in the 1990s has never been released. What we do know is that one note taken from the Sarajevo hoard that surfaced at the trial is a bin Laden note saying: “we took very huge gains from the country’s people in Saudi. We were able to give political power to the Mujahideen, gathering donations in very large amounts…”

 

Just think if there are some names on the 28 classified pages that are also on the Golden Chain. That could finally reveal just how involved the Saudi government or policies that can be associated with wealthy Saudis that are today considered legitimate global business partners. A civil trial could then open some cans of worms that the Intelligence communities of both the USA and Saudi Arabia that might lead to some criminal investigations. AND there you have it – My guess is neither the U.S. Government nor the Saudis want those cans of worms opened. What do you think?

 

Bosnia-Herzegovina map 1-1995

 

Just a brief aside: I heard on Fox News that Obama might declassify some of those 28 pages today. However, Google is fairly silent on the today thing. Google searches do point to former Senator Bob Graham reporting that a partial declassification of the 28 pages (e.g. AP, Fox News and Esquire) Hmm … Do you think the U.S. Intelligence community might be pressing Obama on what the public can see?

 

JRH 4/24/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Saudi Arabia: The Golden Chain and The Missing 28 Pages

 

By Millard Burr and Rachel Ehrenfeld

April 23, 2016 6:32PM

American Center for Democracy

 

Bin Laden Golden Chain al Qaeda list - Arabic

Arabic UBL-al Qaeda writing discovered at Bosnia-BIN office

 

The American media, which continues to concentrate on a bill making its way through Congress that would allow American citizens to sue the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for losses suffered as a result of the 9/11 attacks, paid no attention to the Golden Chain.

 

The victims claim that the release of the 28 pages missing from the 9/11 Commission Report is of crucial importance to their case. Those pages, they say, would show the interrelationship that ties the hijackers to the Saudi regime itself and therefore would offer a damning indictment of the Kingdom. But President Obama, like President Bush before him, refuses to make it public. And the Saudi Royal Family that vehemently denies funding al Qaeda threatened that if the 28 pages are released, they would sell more than $750 billion of Saudi investments in the U.S.

 

Of equal if not of greater importance than the missing 28 pages, is the forgotten investigation of the Bosnia-BIF office. Crucially, among the boxes and files was found a note ostensibly written by Osama Bin Laden that lists a “Golden Chain” of twenty Arab plutocrats who were and remain suspected of financing international terrorism, including the funding of al Qaeda.

 

—-

 

The Golden Chain was established about the time of al Qaeda’s founding in 1988. Bin Laden’s notes on efforts to recruit wealthy Saudi Arabian families who could fund his group were also found at Sarajevo. Much of the information derived from the Sarajevo came to light during the 2003 trial of an al Qaeda financier, Enaam Arnaout, in Chicago.

 

In March 2002, a search of the Benevolence International Foundation (the Bosanska Idealna Futura, or BIF) in Sarajevo, Bosnia, would provide the West with the most significant trove of information ever to be found on the Genesis and growth of the al Qaeda organization.

 

In fact, Bosnian investigators unearthed an intelligence mother lode: Not only did they seize weapons, false passports, plans for making bombs, jihadist videos and literature, their search also yielded material of great historic value. On a computer file titled “Tareekh Osama” (Osama’s History), there were found documents, letters, and photos relating to the birth and early days of al Qaeda, some of it in bin Laden’s handwriting. Included in the haul was an organizational chart, and notes on al Qaeda activity reportedly prepared by bin Laden, and his mentor Sheikh Abdallah Azzam. The file had been kept by Bin Ladin confidant Enaam Arnaout, who clearly obviously thought the BIF office in Bosnia was safe from intrusion. Ironically, before 9/11 Arnaout and the BIF were under investigation in the United States for operating the charity as a racketeering enterprise. One that provided material support to al Qaeda. Following 9/11, it seemed only a matter of time before Arnaout would be indicted.

 

Why the raid took place when it did, and who sponsored the raid (in Sarajevo and Washington), remains something of a mystery. As a result of the Dayton Accords, Bosnia-Herzegovina had been governed by a unique tripartite power-sharing arrangement since 1996; a rotating presidency allowed Muslim Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats to share power. Importantly, in 2002 Alija Izetbegović, the powerful Islamist Muslim Brother, was no longer first among equals. The West’s bete-noire had stepped down after serving as Chairman of the Presidency from October 1996 through October 2000. Thus, given the power structure that existed in Sarajevo in early 2002 (and in the aftermath of 9/11 2001), it is posited that the CIA either took part in or at least was instrumental in, the raid on the BIF location.

 

Incredibly, the trove of information discovered in that raid was given publicity in Bosnia itself. No effort was made by the Bosnia intelligence agency to tailor, redact, or eliminate information found in the Bosanska, and thus, the information itself proved to be a bombshell both inside and out of Bosnia. Unlike Washington where the most astounding intelligence is immediately classified secret and squirreled down some intelligence rat hole, the Bosnian services shared their find with the world. And in an order issued on 6 March 2003 by the Supreme Court of Bosnia, the computer files that had been seized were delivered to the U.S. Embassy. The documents were then translated into English. Later, some appeared in a trial of a BIF official Enaam Arnaout.

 

Included in the files were “scanned letters” between Arnaout and bin Laden (using their nom de guerre) and letters concerning other al Qaeda principals. The letters revealed that al Qaeda leaders were paid, and weapons for the group were purchased from funds provided by Muslim charities. There were also letters authorizing the purchase, and purchase orders for rifles, RPGs, mortars, and other weaponry, with instructions to distribute the weapons to camps operated by al Qaeda.

 

Other memoranda provided a chronology of events from the founding of al Qaeda in Khost to the movement’s activity in Peshawar, Pakistan, during its first months of existence. There were reports on al Qaeda activity in the various jihad on-going in Bosnia, the Sudan, and Chechnya. An article published in 1988 in Arab News outlined bin Laden’s activity and included a photo of Arnaout and Bin Laden walking together at “Masada”, an Arab-Afghan camp for mujahideen.

 

In the search of the BIF’s Sarajevo offices, “law enforcement authorities” discovered conclusive evidence that tied the BIF Chief Executive Officer Enaam Arnaout to al Qaeda, and to its leader Osama Bin Laden. One letter even allowed Arnaout to sign an authorization on bin Laden’s behalf. Though the Sarajevo documents remained secret for months, they included the minutes of an 11 August 1988 meeting during which bin Laden discussed the creation of what would then be known as the al Qaeda. It is recalled that in the decade following the founding of al Qaeda 1988 only a few hundred jihadists had been permitted to take the oath of allegiance (the baya’t) to Osama bin Laden. Arnaout was thus a member of a very select body of mujahideen.

 

The evidence unearthed in Sarajevo was sufficient to charge Arnaout with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists. Arnaout, who was born and raised in Syria and was a member of a Saudi family of Albanian heritage, was also an American citizen and had been a resident of the U.S. since 1992. Thus, in the end, there would be no escaping U.S. justice.

 

Concerning the BIF, a “charity” incorporated in the State of Illinois in March 1992, the arrest of Arnaout was soon followed by the closure of BIF operation in Canada and Bosnia, and then by most of its offices located overseas; namely, in Pakistan, Bosnia, Yemen, Sudan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Dagestan, Soviet Georgia, China, and Ingushetia (moved from Chechnya).

 

In December 2001, and shortly after 9/11 but before the indictment of Arnaout himself, BIF funds had been blocked in the USA, Canada, and Bosnia. At that time, it was reported that the US government had in its possession substantial evidence proving that the Arnaout-bin Laden intimate relationship dated from the mid-1980s. The relationship was in fact fixed well before the creation of the al-Qaeda organization in August 1988 in Khost, Afghanistan.

 

Given the evidence uncovered at the BIF office in Sarajevo (and, reportedly additional evidence of BIF’s terrorist ties discovered by Bosnian police in a later raid on local charities on 3 June), it was not surprising that Arnaout was soon indicated in the United States.

 

See UNITED STATES of America v. Enaam M. ARNAOUT, a/k/a “Abu Mahmoud”, a/k/a “Abu Mahmoud al Suri”, a/k/a “Abu Mahmoud al Hamawi”, a/k/a “Abdel Samia”, U.S. v. ARNAOUT, No. 02 CR 892, 231 F.Supp.2d 797 (2002), U.S. District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. November 22, 2002, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, et.al., United States Attorneys.

 

The Trial

 

On March 2003 the Chicago trail [sic] of Enaam Arnaout was truncated just before it began == much to the dissatisfaction of most observers. Arnaout had been charged with racketeering conspiracy, providing material support to organizations engaged in violent activities, money laundering, mail fraud and wire fraud. He faced a possible 90-year sentence. However, before the charges could be tried Arnaout pleaded guilty in federal court to a single count of illegally funding and supplying military assistance to mujahideen in Bosnia and Chechnya.

 

The federal case, which focused on the Arnaout-Bin Laden relationship, was blown to smithereens when a federal judge ruled that evidence was spotty at best. Prosecutors dropped all charges after Arnaout pled guilty to a single felony count. For reasons still not clear, the government settled for a penalty less than the twenty years that Arnaout could have received. As an editorial in the New York Sun put it, “The government’s decision to accept a plea to a single, and relatively minor, count [transpired] so as to avoid a risky trial.” Nonetheless, federal prosecutors were “unwilling to credit [Arnaout] for cooperating.”

 

True or false, and despite the congressional testimony of then-FBI Director Robert Mueller before a U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on 14 September 2006, the Arnaout imbroglio was not one of the FBI’s finest hours.

 

Indeed, in February 2006, a federal judge had reduced the Enaam Arnaout sentence from 11 years and four months to 10 years, after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that his original sentence was improperly enhanced.

 

The Golden Chain

 

The Golden Chain was established about the time of al Qaeda’s founding in 1988. Bin Laden’s notes on efforts to recruit wealthy Saudi Arabian families who could fund his group were also found at Sarajevo. Much of the information derived from the Sarajevo came to light during the 2003 trial of an al Qaeda financier, Enaam Arnaout, in Chicago.

 

How much of the Sarajevo material remains classified and unpublished is debatable. However, like the missing Congressional report, substantial material that covers the genesis and expansion of al Qaeda in the 1990s has never been released. What we do know is that one note taken from the Sarajevo hoard that surfaced at the trial is a bin Laden note saying: “we took very huge gains from the country’s people in Saudi. We were able to give political power to the Mujahideen, gathering donations in very large amounts…”

 

Within the Sarajevo trove, there was found the essential minutes of a meeting held on 11 August 1988 during which Bin Laden initiated actions that established a jihadist movement loyal to himself. A week later the organization was officially established, and a copy of the oath of allegiance taken by some 40 participants was included in the file. The minutes of that seminal conclave end on 20 August.

 

Also recorded were bin Laden’s “own statements on the efforts to recruit members from Saudi Arabia for his network and to raise money.” Also included in the Bosnia find was a letter on Saudi Red Crescent/Peshawar letterhead and with it a note added by Osama Bin Laden to his money-manager Wael Jalaidan citing “an extreme need for weapons.” (John Solomon, “Bosnia Raid Yields al-Qaida Donor List,” Miami Herald via AP, Feb. 19, 2003.)

 

Many questioned why bin Laden, a member of one of Saudi Arabia’s wealthiest family, searched for funds outside his fortune to fund al Qaeda. But Osama was not rich enough to fund the expensive jihad he had in mind. Though the bin Laden family was wealthy, Osama could not easily access the $300 million that some analysts felt he had squirreled away. His accounts were blocked in the United States and Saudi Arabia, and his family was watched closely and warned not to assist him financially. Still, during his stay in the Sudan (1991-1996) he probably invested more than $50 million (including $30 million deposited in the al-Shamal Bank). But when bin Laden departed the Sudan in 1996, he had little to show for his investments. By the admission of those al Qaeda members who knew him best, his personal wealth had been squandered. To carry out his jihadist agenda he had to continue to call on wealthy Gulf plutocrats, viz., the Golden Chain, to finance al Qaeda.

 

Included in the US government indictment of Enaam Arnaout on 9 October 2002 (02 CR 892) was an interesting memorandum, “Clarifying the Mujahideen’s situation to the world and keeping the spirit of Jihad alive.” (Exhibit 17, Department of Justice, “Government’s Evidentiary Proffer Supporting the Admissibility of Coconspirator Statements” in the case of USA v. Arnaout, USDC, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, filed 29 January 2003.) Of even more explosive power, however, was a memorandum that appeared as Exhibit 5: With regard to that piece of evidence the Justice Department noted: “Among the recovered files was a copy of a 1988 handwritten draft listing wealthy financiers of UBL’s mujahideen operation in Afghanistan, referred to within al Qaeda as the ‘Golden Chain.’” The information presented on lined paper and translated from the Arabic by the U.S. Department of Justice was headed by a verse in Arabic from the Koran: “And spend for God’s cause.” (“Government’s Evidentiary Proffer Supporting the Admissibility of Coconspirator Statements” in the case of USA v. Arnaout, USDC, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division) filed on January 29, 2003.)

 

The Golden Chain memorandum, it included twenty-five names, including twenty very wealthy Saudis. (N.B: at the time of the discovery only two names on the list remained unidentified.) Of the twenty Saudis, six were bankers, and they were tied to the big three of Saudi banking: the National Commerical [sic] Bank of Saudi Arabia, Riyadh Bank, and Al Rajhi Banking and Investment Corp. Ther[e] twelve Saudi businessmen on the list, and the bankers owned or controlled sixteen of the top 100 Saudi companies. The list included eight individuals charged by the families of victims of 9/11 with being complicit in aiding and assisting al Qaeda. Also included were the names of two former government Ministers.

 

After each name, there was a second name, in parenthesis, of the al Qaeda operative who received money from the donor. “Osama” appeared after seven entries. The donors [sic] names included Saudi Arabia’s most prominent citizens including the bin Laden family, the al Rajhi, Sharbatly, al Naghi, bin Mahfouz, and Adel Faqih. The corporate net worth of the Golden Chain, as calculated more than a decade later accounted for more than $85 billion, or approximately 42% of Saudi Arabia’s GDP.

 

Whether or not bin Laden personally wrote the Golden Chaim memo, it is indisputable that he was in a position to know the family fortunes of the individuals named. In some cases, they were allied directly or tangentially with his family. They included Saleh Kamel, head of third largest Saudi company, and Suleiman Abdulaziz al Rajhi, head of 4th largest Saudi commercial bank. The “bin Mahfouz” family was in charge of Saudi Arabia’s most important bank. Also on the list, Abdel Qader Faqeeh (Adel Faqh) head of Savola Group, the 13th largest Saudi company. Mohammed al-Issa was head of the powerful al-Issa group, itself the 20th largest Saudi Company. Issa himself was a board member of the Saudi Research & Marketing Company (along with Mohammed Hussein al-Amoudi, Saleh Abdullah Kamel, Abdullah Bin Khaled bin Mahfouz, among others.) He was also Deputy Chairman of the Arab Cement Company whose shareholders included the Binladin Group, the bin Mahfouz and the al Rajhi, and whose chairman was Turki Bin Abdulaziz al Saud. That the individuals listed would be asked to assist Osama bin Laden in his jihadist mission is not surprising. It was all one big happy family.

 

Wael Julaidan, the al Qaeda moneyman and former Secretary-General of the Muslim World League, and of the well-funded Rabita Trust of Pakistan, was charged with collecting donations from four wealthy individuals. Mohammad al-Amin Khalifa, Osama’s wealthy brother-in-law, was another collection agent, who was known to have close ties to bin Laden’s two money men, Julaidan, and Yasin al-Qadi.

 

As could be imagined, the list which included such luminaries as “bin Mahfouz,” created a furor in Saudi Arabia, where the memorandum appeared to implicate a score of the Kingdom’s wealthiest citizens. Nearly all were either indirectly or directly involved in the Royal Family’s charity organizations as founders or board members.

 

Years later, following the September 2001 attacks on the U.S., the “9/11 Commission” issued a report in which a chapter devoted to “The Foundation of the New Terrorism, acknowledged that Osama bin Laden sought financial assistance from wealthy Muslims in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, and that “the eventual success of the jihad in Afghanistan depended on an increasingly complex, almost worldwide organization.” Unfortunately, the report was long on implication and short on names.

 

The Golden Chain list included names of persons who were friendly to the Afghan-Arab movement and later to bin Laden himself. The Golden Chain gained importance after 1990 — when Osama bin Laden escaped house arrest in Saudi Arabia and a year later emerged in the Sudan. Indeed, the name al Qaeda came into vogue and the need for funding expanded after Osama move to the Sudan and al Qaeda’s expanding activities first in Somalia, and later in the Balkans.

 

Why then should anyone believe that any individual whose name appears on the Golden Chain memorandum, and who, like Khalid bin Mahfouz, claims he “never knowingly made any donation to al Qaeda or any organization or person acting on al Qaeda’s behalf or to any other terrorist organization,” is telling the truth?

 

It is unknown if any of those whose names appeared on the Golden Chain memo has ever been interrogated, charged with a crime, or chastised by the Saudis. It is safe to assume that In the Dessert Kingdom, where jihad is paramount and ‘silence is golden,” the Golden Chain members have little to worry about.

________________________

Copyright © 2013 [Blog Editor: I wish people would keep their copyright up to date] | The American Center for Democracy is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Your contribution is tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law.

 

About ACD

 

OUR MISSION

 

The ACD is dedicated to exposing threats to our free speech rights, political and economic freedoms and national security.

 

ACD is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. All contributions are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law.

 

OUR DISTINCTION

 

ACD fills an important gap created by inadequate risk assessments of our cyberspace, GPS & UTC. We use our Threatcon programs, our multidimensional Terrorist Finance Network Tracker (TFNT), and our experts to better inform government, public and private sectors’ policy makers.

 

CONNECTING THE DOTS

 

  • ACD’s synergistic approach to connect the dots on emerging threats is facilitated by READ THE REST

Nuke Deal or Not, Iran Has Already Declared War on Us


Old ad: Think of the consequences of war with Iran: Fram Oil Filter Commercial- 1972


An Iran war is inevitable. We can fight a bloody conventional war now or fight a nuke war later with catastrophic results that will for future generations.

Has anyone noticed that as far as Iran is concerned they are in a state of war with the United States of America? From acts of terrorism conducted by client Islamic terrorist organizations who killed American civilians and military personnel, giving aid to U.S. enemies in Iraq causing deaths to American soldiers and harboring for a time al Qaeda operatives while the U.S. led an allied army invading Afghanistan whose Taliban government gave political sanction to the same al Qaeda organization.

AND YET media outlets and a significant amount of Dems do not want to rock Obama’s Titanic boat deal because the Obamasiah claims some deal with a nation not renouncing war against the USA while public railing for America’s and Israel’s death is better than no deal with a warmongering hate-America deceiving nation.

Obama’s Titanic will run into the iceberg Iran with dire consequences whether now or after Obama leaves Office. Lawrence Franklin below gives a picture of the idiocy of Iran Nuke Deal.

JRH 8/20/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Nuke Deal or Not, Iran Has Already Declared War on Us

By Lawrence A. Franklin

August 20, 2015 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

Iran has been at war with the “Great Satan” (USA) since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979. Its opening move was the regime’s seizure of the American Embassy and its taking U.S. diplomats hostage for 444 days in 1979-1980. Technically, the move was an internationally recognized casus belli, legitimate cause for war.

In addition, the Iranian regime’s proxy terrorist group, Hezbollah, engineered the murder of 241 U.S. soldiers, sailors, and marines in Lebanon on October 23, 1983. Iran also sponsored the truck bombing that murdered 19 US Air Force personnel at the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia on June 25, 1996,[1] in an attack allegedly executed by a Bahrain-based cell of Hezbollah, with the cooperation of a Saudi-trained Hezbollah cell.[2]

Iran was behind the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.[3] The Islamic Republic’s intelligence services facilitated travel across Iran by several of the hijackers in the weeks leading up to 9/11.[4]

Additionally, after the 9/11 attacks, Iran granted refuge, reconstitution, and a base of operations for several high-level al-Qaeda terrorists.[5]

After the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in April 2003, when Tehran activated its underground intelligence network in Iraq to target American troops, Iran was responsible either directly or indirectly for about a third of U.S. casualties in Iraq.[6]

The Islamic Republic also has given military assistance to the Afghan Taliban to kill U.S. and coalition troops in Afghanistan.[7]

Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) naval assets have repeatedly instigated confrontations with U.S. naval ships in Persian Gulf waters.

IRGC gunboats also have threatened commercial shipping, as well as U.S. and allied military assets in Persian Gulf waters, including the Strait of Hormuz. In late April 2015, Iran seized the Marshall Islands-flagged vessel Maersk Tigris, and detained the ship and crew for weeks. In July, several IRGC gunboats surrounded the U.S.-flagged Maersk Kensington.

The most recent Iranian provocation reportedly occurred this month, on August 4, when an Iranian Navy Vosper Class frigate pointed a deck-mounted machine gun at an American helicopter that had just landed on an allied warship.

Tehran’s assistance to the Shia Houthi tribesmen in Yemen has enabled Iran to expand its territorial control of the country. If the Houthi become the dominant force in Yemen, Iran would be in a position to threaten shipping in the Bab el-Mandab Strait, a maritime chokepoint between the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. A blockade there, as well as at the Strait of Hormuz on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula, would be a clear violation of freedom of navigation on the high seas, a vital international interest acknowledged by the U.S.

Iran has also taken its offensive against the United States to the Western hemisphere. Iran has forged intelligence relationships with several Latin American countries that do not have friendly diplomatic relationships with the U.S., such as Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Bolivia.

Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy terrorist group, has also infiltrated parts of the United States, with sleeper cells in Dearborn, Michigan; Charlotte, North Carolina; and several other locales.[8]

On a strategic political plane, Iran probably believes that it has been able to drive a wedge between the U.S. and its ally, the “Little Satan,” Israel, over the Obama Administration’s effort to forge a negotiated nuclear treaty with the Iran.[9]

This strategy has also been applied to America’s political and military alliances with the conservative Sunni Arab governments on the Arabian Peninsula.[10]

The IRGC also continues to manage several weapons-development projects, including intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) systems capable of launching nuclear-armed re-entry vehicles at the continental United States.[11]

It seems clear that despite the American political establishment’s failure to recognize that a state of war already exists between Iran and the United States, the Islamic Republic has no doubt with whom it is at war.

Left: Senior Iranian cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Movahedi Kermani, speaking on July 17 in Tehran, behind a banner reading “We Will Trample Upon America” and “We defeat the United States.” Right: Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, proclaims “Death to America” on March 2.

 

The diminution of American influence in the region, the destruction of the “Zionist Entity” (Israel), and challenging the legitimacy of Sunni Arab Gulf monarchies appear to be the main motive forces driving Iran’s foreign policy.

The regime’s hardliners use their hostility to the “Great Satan” (America) to demonstrate their loyalty to the Islamic Revolution.

U.S. policymakers who hope that the nuclear deal will help nudge the Islamic revolutionary state into becoming a normal member of the international community seem to forget the past. Policymakers, journalists, and intelligence analysts had all predicted that the era of former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami was a sure sign of the evolution of the revolution. Khatami was replaced by the even more hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve, where he was a Military Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Israel.

________________

Copyright © 2015 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved.

 

The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the [Gatestone] Editors or of Gatestone Institute.

 

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. Bolton, Chairman

 

Nina Rosenwald, President


Naomi H. Perlman, Vice President

 

Board of … READ THE REST

Benghazi Conspiracy Now Closer to Criminal Behavior


John R. Houk
© May 19, 2015
 
[Blog Editor: In case you missed the import of this info the Most Watched Videos poster repeats same interview twice]
 

 
Largely thanks to Judicial Watch (JW), the Barack Hussein Obama Administration is being exposed to a nefarious cover-up which includes the current Dem Party front runner Hillary Clinton. America’s Liar-in-Chief has been smoking gun proven he was aware that a Benghazi attack was imminent on September 11, 2012. And it is now proven by documentation the Obama Administration was secretly transferring deposed Qaddafi weapons from Libya to Syrian rebels fighting Bashar Assad. The unproven matter is whether those weapons ended up with American backed Syrian rebels or Islamic purist rebels related to al Qaeda and some of which evolved into ISIS.
 
This is a cover-up because BHO acted surprised about the Benghazi attacked and then proceeded to blame an obscure movie trailer showing Mo in a negative light. After the fake blame game the Obama Administration had the film maker (now-a-days known as Mark Basseley Youssef) arrested in 2012 for breaking probation from a previous prison release. Apparently Mr. Youssef (an Egyptian Coptic Christian by profession of faith) has a history of tax evasion and con artist fraud schemes. Perhaps Obama new a fellow fraudster to blame to take eyes off his 2012 campaign for President.
 
It is my personal opinion that Obama and his minions went to such an effort to cover-up the truth about Benghazi to make sure the American voters elected him to a second term as President. Although I suspect the same bumbling GOP campaign staffers that failed to emphasize Obama’s deficiencies in both campaigns that elected Obama to POTUS in 2008 would also have failed to push the fact that Obama and Hillary lied and people died. I mean the Dems had no problem in debasing Bush’s reputation with warped facts by saying Bush lied and people died. Dear God in Heaven I pray the next round of GOP campaigners are bright enough to expose the Obama lies against whoever ultimately wins the Dem nomination in 2016.
 
In order to properly disseminate the news on the Obama/Hillary lies below you will find several cross posts reporting the implications of the JW FOIA documents recently released for public consumption.
 
JRH 5/19/15 (Video Hat Tip: Sharia Unveiled)

Please Support NCCR

*****************************
New docs reveal administration knew about Benghazi 10 days before attack
Judicial Watch’s latest FOIA efforts pack a big punch
 
Posted By Kemberlee Kaye
May 18, 2015 at 7:30pm
hillary-gif-benghazi-FOI-dept-state-scandal-judicial-watch 
I’m struggling to concoct a scenario more damning than this.
 
After filing a FOIA suit, thanks to a court order Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Department of Defense and Department of State which indicate the Obama administration knew al Qaeda was planning the attack in Benghazi ten days before it happened. TEN DAYS.
 
Immediately following the 9/11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in 2012, the DOD had identified the culprits and indicated the attack had been planned “ten days or more” prior.
 
A Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), dated September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, details that the attack on the compound had been carefully planned by the BOCAR terrorist group “to kill as many Americans as possible.” The document was sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council. The heavily redacted Defense Department “information report” says that the attack on the Benghazi facility “was planned and executed by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR).” The group subscribes to “AQ ideologies:”
 
The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for U.S. killing of Aboyahiye ((ALALIBY)) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 atacks (sic) on the World Trade Center buildings.
 
“A violent radical,” the DIA report says, is “the leader of BCOAR is Abdul Baset ((AZUZ)), AZUZ was sent by ((ZAWARI)) to set up Al Qaeda (AQ) bases in Libya.” The group’s headquarters was set up with the approval of a “member of the Muslim brother hood movement…where they have large caches of weapons. Some of these caches are disguised by feeding troughs for livestock. They have SA-7 and SA-23/4 MANPADS…they train almost every day focusing on religious lessons and scriptures including three lessons a day of jihadist ideology.”
 
The Defense Department reported the group maintained written documents, in “a small rectangular room, approximately 12 meters by 6 meters…that contain information on all of the AQ activity in Libya.”
 
(Azuz is again blamed for the Benghazi attack in an October 2012 DIA document.)
 
But that’s not the end. Evidently, the administration was also aware of arms shipments from Benghazi to rebel troops in Syria.
 
The new documents also provide the first official confirmation that shows the U.S. government was aware of arms shipments from Benghazi to Syria. The documents also include an August 2012 analysis warning of the rise of ISIS and the predicted failure of the Obama policy of regime change in Syria.
 
Intelligence should be tracking who is shipping arms to whom, but according to Judicial Watch, this is the first documentation that shows the administration had constructive knowledge of the arms shipments.
 
Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.
 
During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the ((Qaddafi)) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to the small amount of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo.
 
Of course the State Department has yet to turn over any documents from Hillary’s secret email accounts, as Judicial Watch notes.
 
The release of this information ahead of Hillary’s Congressional hearing will certainly serve to draw even more scrutiny to the former Secretary of State’s involvement in the Benghazi cover-up. Revelations like these exposed by Judicial Watch’s FOIA suit underscore the necessity of a forensic investigation of Hillary’s private email servers.
 
If ever there was a time to unearth all of those “deleted” emails, that time is now.
 
Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter
_______________________________
Military intel predicted rise of ISIS in 2012, detailed arms shipments from Benghazi to Syria
 
Published May 18, 2015
 
Seventeen months before President Obama dismissed the Islamic State as a “JV team,” a Defense Intelligence Agency report predicted the rise of the terror group and likely establishment of a caliphate if its momentum was not reversed.
 
While the report was circulated to the CIA, State Department and senior military leaders, among others, it’s not known whether Obama was ever briefed on the document.
 
The DIA report, which was reviewed by Fox News, was obtained through a federal lawsuit by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch. Documents from the lawsuit also reveal a host of new details about events leading up to the 2012 Benghazi terror attack — and how the movement of weapons from Libya to Syria fueled the violence there.
 
The report on the growing threat posed by what is now known as the Islamic State was sent on Aug. 5, 2012.
 
The report warned the continued deterioration of security conditions would have “dire consequences on the Iraqi situation,” and huge benefits for ISIS — which grew out of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
 
“This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq) to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi,” the document states, adding “ISI (Islamic State of Iraq) could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.”
 
ISIS would, in June 2014, go on to declare a caliphate in territory spanning Iraq and Syria, in turn drawing more foreign fighters to their cause from around the world.
 
CLICK TO READ THE DOCUMENTS GIVEN TO JUDICIAL WATCH FROM THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND STATE DEPARTMENT.
 
Also among the documents is a heavily redacted DIA report that details weapons operations inside Libya before the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi. The Oct. 5, 2012 report leaves no doubt that U.S. intelligence agencies were fully aware that lethal weapons were being shipped from Benghazi to Syrian ports.
 
The report said: “Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the Port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s, and 125 mm and 155 mm howitzers missiles.”
 
Current and former intelligence and administration officials have consistently skirted questions about weapons shipments, and what role the movement played in arming extremist groups the U.S. government is now trying to defeat in Syria and Iraq.
 
In an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier broadcast May 11, former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell, deflected questions:
 
Baier: Were CIA officers tracking the movement of weapons from Libya to Syria?
 
Morell: I can’t talk about that.
 
Baier: You can’t talk about it?
 
Morell: I can’t talk about it.
 
Baier: Even if they weren’t moving the weapons themselves, are you saying categorically that the U.S. government and the CIA played no role whatsoever in the movement of weapons from Libya…
 
Morell: Yes.
 
Baier: — to Syria?
 
Morell: We played no role.  Now whether we were watching other people do it, I can’t talk about it.
 
While the DIA report was not a finished intelligence assessment, such Intelligence Information Reports (IIRs) are vetted before distribution, a former Pentagon official said.
 
The October 2012 report may also be problematic for Hillary Clinton, who likewise skirted the weapons issue during her only congressional testimony on Benghazi in January 2013. In an exchange with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who is now a Republican candidate for president, the former secretary of state said, “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody’s ever raised that with me.”
 
Referring to Fox News’ ongoing reporting that a weapons ship, Al Entisar, had moved weapons from Libya to Turkey with a final destination of Syria in September 2012, Paul responded, “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons.” He asked whether the CIA annex which came under attack on Sept. 11, 2012 was involved in those shipments.
 
Clinton answered: “Well, senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.”
 
In a follow-up letter, the State Department Office of Legislative Affairs provided a narrow response to the senator’s question, and did not speak to the larger issue of weapons moving from Libya to Syria.
 
“The United States is not involved in any transfer of weapons to Turkey,” the February 2013 letter from Thomas B. Gibbons, acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, said.
 
Heavily redacted congressional testimony, declassified after the House intelligence committee Benghazi investigation concluded, shows conflicting accounts were apparently given to lawmakers.
 
On Nov. 15 2012, Morell and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified “Yes” on whether the U.S. intelligence community was aware arms were moving from Libya to Syria. This line of questioning by Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, who is now the intelligence committee chairman, was shut down by his predecessor Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who said not everyone in the classified hearing was “cleared” to hear the testimony, which means they did not have a high enough security clearance.
 
An outside analyst told Fox News that Rogers’ comments suggest intelligence related to the movement of weapons was a “read on,” and limited to a very small number of recipients.
 
Six months later, on May 22, 2013, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, now chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, asked if the CIA was “monitoring arms that others were sending into Syria.” Morell said, “No, sir.”
 
The Judicial Watch documents also contain a DIA report from Sept. 12, 2012. It indicates that within 24 hours of the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty at the CIA annex, there were strong indicators that the attack was planned at least a week in advance, and was retaliation for a June 2012 drone strike that killed an Al Qaeda strategist — there is no discussion of a demonstration or an anti-Islam video, which were initially cited by the Obama administration as contributing factors.
 
“The attack was planned ten or more days prior to approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for the US killing of Aboyahiye (Alaliby) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center buildings.”
 
The DIA report also states a little-known group, “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman,” claimed responsibility, though the group has not figured prominently in previous congressional investigations. The document goes on to say the group’s leader is Abdul Baset, known by the name Azuz, “sent by (Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri) to set up Al Qaeda bases in Libya.”
 
“The Obama administration says it was a coincidence that it occurred on 9/11. In fact, their intelligence said it wasn’t a coincidence and in fact specifically the attack occurred because it was 9/11,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told Fox News.
 
Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.
__________________
BOMBSHELL: What Was Just Revealed About Benghazi Gives Gowdy EXPLOSIVE New Fuel Against Hillary
A potentially damning memo from the Defense Intelligence Agency…
 
May 19, 2015 at 9:27am
 
Given the bombshell revelation about Benghazi that’s just been pried loose from the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton’s anticipated appearance before the House Select Committee investigating the deadly attack in Libya could prove to be even more explosive and potentially damaging for the Democrats’ leading presidential contender. Mrs. Clinton is expected to testify sometime this summer before the panel headed by GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy, reportedly after the State Department has provided the committee with a number of requested documents relating to the former secretary of state’s tenure.
 
Now, a potentially damning new document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) — a memo obtained by Judicial Watch after a court challenge to obtain its release — clearly shows that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not disclose to the public credible intelligence that terrorists had planned for an attack on the Benghazi compound, even as she and other administration officials blamed the deadly assault on an amateur video. The Daily Caller provides details of the latest revelation showing that Clinton participated in an apparent cover up of believable intel while misleading the American people, and quite possibly congressional investigators as well:
 
A heavily redacted copy of a Sept. 12, 2012, Defense Intelligence Agency memo to Clinton, then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the White House National Security Council and the Joint Chiefs of Staff said “the attack was planned 10 or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for U.S. killing of Aboyahiye ((ALALIBY)) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 atacks (sic) on the World Trade Center buildings.”
 
And it wasn’t as though the DIA-provided intelligence was late in arriving on Mrs. Clinton’s State Department desk. The memo unearthed by Judicial Watch shows it was given to Clinton and other senior administration officials the day after the September 11, 2012, attack that took the lives of four Americans. As Breitbart News notes, “The details of the memo present an alternative explanation for the Benghazi attack that was given short shrift by the Obama administration after the attack. Instead, the State Department and the White House chose to emphasize a ‘demonstration’ (which it turned out had never happened) held in connection with a YouTube video critical of Islam.”
 
To understand why the Obama administration was so intent on pushing the anti-Islam video explanation of the Benghazi attack, one must remember that Barack Obama was running for reelection in September of 2012 in what seemed at the time to be a close race. For it to appear that his administration ignored or downplayed evidence that a coordinated terror attack had been in the works in Benghazi might have helped put Mitt Romney in the White House.
 
Ironically, considering the new information in the just-released DIA memo — and the potential it has for lighting an even hotter fire under Hillary Clinton when she is put on Trey Gowdy’s congressional hot seat — it may turn out that Benghazi drives a big, sharp nail in the coffin of Mrs. Clinton’s bid to be the next Democrat to occupy the Oval Office.
______________________________
Clinton email mess multiplies with allegations over 2nd email address
 
May 19, 2015
FoxNews.com’s Judson Berger contributed to this report.
 
The Hillary Clinton email mystery took yet another confusing turn Tuesday with accusations from Republicans that the former secretary of state “misled” the public about her email practices, by using multiple “secret” addresses despite claims to the contrary.
 
However, a spokesman with the House committee probing the 2012 Benghazi attack, and Clinton’s handling of it, would not go so far. Rather, he told FoxNews.com the confusion only further underscores the need to subject Clinton’s private server to a third-party analysis, saying that’s the only way to resolve this.
 
The questions over multiple Clinton addresses were raised after emails were published as part of a lengthy New York Times report on Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal’s memos on Libya before and after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi. The emails show Clinton writing from the address, hrod17@clintonemail.com. This is distinct from the other address she has acknowledged using as secretary of state, hdr22@clintonemail.com.
 
“Hillary Clinton misled public about the use of only one secret email address,” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus tweeted in reference to the documents, while promoting an RNC memo outlining the alleged discrepancies.
 
This, however, is not the first time the ‘hrod17’ address has turned up. The House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks earlier this year said it had records showing “two separate and distinct email addresses” from Clinton, and requested documents from both the ‘hrod17’ and ‘hdr22’ accounts.
 
At the time, Clinton’s lawyer and office attributed the appearance of two email addresses to a simple mix-up.
 
They maintained Clinton only used “one email account” as secretary of state, and that the ‘hrod17’ account did not exist during her tenure. They said she only launched that account in early 2013, after her prior address was published online.
 
As for why both email addresses were turning up in records, her office explained that the new email address (the ‘hrod17’ account) happened to show up on printed copies of old documents because it was the same account — but it did not exist at the time.
 
FoxNews.com has reached out to Clinton’s office asking if the emails published by The New York Times reflect a similar situation.
 
However, the spokesman for the Benghazi committee told FoxNews.com it’s simply not clear whether the multiple emails reflect a glitch — or prove Clinton really was using two email addresses, contrary to what her office claims. Spokesman Jamal Ware said in an email they need a neutral, third-party arbiter to investigate.
 
“There’s only one way to know that for certain,” Ware said in an email. “For Clinton to turn over the server for independent analysis.”
 
Clinton, a Democratic presidential candidate for 2016, so far has resisted doing so. But, taking the rare step Tuesday of answering reporter questions while on the campaign trail, Clinton said during a stop in Iowa that she wants the State Department to do all it can to expedite the release of her emails during her tenure as secretary.
 
“I have said repeatedly I want those emails out,” Clinton said.
 
Ware also referred FoxNews.com to a March 4 statement in which the Benghazi committee first revealed they had records with two distinct Clinton email addresses. At the time, the committee likewise said they need someone to have access to the server to determine why those two email addresses show up.
 
Amid the tug-of-war over the server, the State Department did propose, in connection with a separate court case, that they release part of the 55,000 pages of Clinton emails by January. A federal judge on Tuesday, though, rejected that plan and ordered the department to come up with a schedule by next week for releasing the emails on a rolling basis. A State Department spokesman said they would comply.
 
The New York Times story, meanwhile, covered much more than the existence of two email accounts. It detailed how Blumenthal sent multiple memos to Clinton during her State Department years on the situation in Libya, while he was advising business associates seeking contracts from Libya’s transitional government.
 
The venture reportedly was not successful. And it’s ultimately unclear what, if anything, Clinton and the State Department knew of Blumenthal’s involvement in any potential Libya projects.
 
Asked about the report on Tuesday, Clinton said she has “many old friends,” and it’s important to get “outside the bubble” to hear advice from other people. “I’m going to keep talking to friends,” she said.
___________________________________
Benghazi Conspiracy Now Closer to Criminal Behavior
John R. Houk
© May 19, 2015
_________________________________
New docs reveal administration knew about Benghazi 10 days before attack
 
© Copyright 2008-2015, Legal Insurrection, All Rights Reserved.
_______________________________
Military intel predicted rise of ISIS in 2012, detailed arms shipments from Benghazi to Syria
 
©2015 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
____________________________________
BOMBSHELL: What Was Just Revealed About Benghazi Gives Gowdy EXPLOSIVE New Fuel Against Hillary
 
Copyright ©2015. All rights reserved.
___________________________________
Clinton email mess multiplies with allegations over 2nd email address
 
©2015 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

The Sum of All Lies


Islamic Terrorist Cells in the US Map

Recall in his Senate testimony, Clapper stated that the direct links between ISIL and domestic terror networks have created “the most diverse array of threats and challenges I’ve seen in my 50-plus years in the [intelligence] business.” He added, “When the final accounting is done, 2014 will have been the most lethal year for global terrorism in the 45 years such data has been compiled. … I don’t know of a time that has been more beset by challenges and crises around the world. I worry a lot about the safety and security of this country. … The homegrown violent extremists continue to pose the most likely threat to our homeland.”
 
 
As for the Obama/Kerry negotiations with Iran, Flynn notes, “Iran is [not only] a state sponsor of terrorism. Iran has killed more Americans than al-Qa’ida has through state sponsors, through their terrorist network Hezbollah. … My sense of where the policy is – it’s almost a policy of willful ignorance. … Here we are talking to Iran about a nuclear deal with this almost complete breakdown of order in the Middle East.” – Mark Alexander Editorial “The Sum of All Lies
 
Mark Alexander has written an editorial that I pray goes viral on the Internet. His opinion piece is a damning indictment of Obama, Kerry and the Obama Administration in general in making a nuclear deal with Iran that is not verifiable and essentially will NOT prevent Iran from developing nuclear armed weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
 
As you read the entire Patriot Post editorial by Alexander keep in my mind some real facts:
 
The Foreign Ministers representing UK, France, Germany, Russia and China initially left after March 31 deadline; but I have to wonder what Obama is willing to promise to keep negotiations going until the end of June (Reuters – 4/2/15 1:45 PM ET and Newsweek – 4/2/15 1:50 PM ET).
 
The Islamic State (IS), though not recognized as a nation by anyone, and Iran are the two current state sponsors of transnational Islamic terrorism that is even now reaching the shores of America (HERE, HERE and HERE).
 
[Although I like a little supportive remuneration myself (at SlantRight 2.0 use the Paypal button toward top left of page or link below my initials), I highly encourage you to be a supporter of the The Patriot Post. The online service is totally advertisement free and depends on donations from its readers AND the quality of journalistic writing is quite superior.]
 
JRH 4/2/15
*************************
The Sum of All Lies
Terror Does Not Tolerate a Vacuum
 
Apr. 1, 2015
 
“There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.” –George Washington (1793)
 
 Sum of all Lies Kery-Obama foto
 
The “Sum of All Fears” was one of many well-written novels by the late Tom Clancy, whose fictional military, intelligence and terrorism plots were woven with fact-based tradecraft.
 
The title was inspired by a quote from Winston Churchill: “You may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together – what do you get? The sum of their fears.”
 
Clancy’s plot focused on an Islamist terror group’s endeavor to detonate a nuclear weapon in the U.S. A Syrian cell with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine reconstituted the nuke after discovering the necessary fissile material at an Israeli aircraft crash site.
 
True to Hollywood form, however, filmmakers grossly altered Clancy’s original plot, resulting in a much less plausible but more politically correct version. In the movie, the terrorists are not Islamists, but “right-wing” neo-Nazis conspiring to detonate a nuclear bomb in Baltimore harbor – and to start a war between the U.S. and Russia as a catalyst for cementing fascist alliances in the rest of Europe. Leave it to Tinseltown’s Left-coast libs to cast these murderous villains as right-wing white supremacists rather than expose the real Islam!
 
Despite Hollywood’s revisionism, Clancy’s original plot was close to reality back in 1992, and it’s much closer to the stark reality of today, given that Islamists may soon have fissile material from Iran to wage surrogate Jihad against the U.S.
 
The probability of al-Qa’ida and/or Islamic State actors gaining access to a nuclear weapon and then detonating it in the U.S. (most likely in an East Coast urban center) is increasing by the day.
 
That escalating threat is due solely to the “sum of all lies” being propagated by Barack Hussein Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, whose record of treasonous treachery dates back to his collaboration with our enemy during the Vietnam War.
 
 BHO- My Foreign Policy Awesome foto
There is another “Iran Hostage Crisis” unfolding here, but, unlike the one resolved minutes after Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, this time all Americans are being held hostage, and the current president is a collaborator.

The Middle East is devolving into an expanding theater of warfare between Iranian Shiites and Arab Sunnis, who could very well combine forces against Israel. Obama, with the help of Kerry and his predecessor, Hillary Clinton, have presided over the political disintegration of North Africa and the Middle East – that dissolution being the direct result of a series of deceptions promulgated to suit Obama’s domestic political agenda.
 
The first and foremost of those deceptions was rooted in Obama’s 2012 bid for re-election. Amid the cascading failure of his domestic economic and social policies, BO centered his campaign upon faux foreign policy “successes” built around two fraudulent pretexts. First: “Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq. I did.” Second: “Al-Qa’ida is on the run.”
 
In fact, Obama’s calamitous retreat from Iraq in order to create a campaign slogan bumper sticker left a regional vacuum for the resurgence of a far more dangerous manifestation of Islamic terrorism under the ISIL label, which, in conjunction with a thriving al-Qa’ida terrorist network, poses a dire asymmetric terrorist threat to the West.
 
In a strategic region where former President George W. Bush’s doctrine of preemption resulted in costly but significant strides toward regional stability and the protection of our critical national interests, Obama has managed to undo the hard-won success of Operation Iraqi Freedom and is doing his best to undermine Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.
 
And just six months ago, Obama declared that his counterterrorism policies “have [been] successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.”
 
Well, take a gander at the state of Obama’s poster-nations today.
 
How bad has it become?
 
Earlier this week, Obama’s former ambassador to Iraq, James Jeffrey, stated bluntly, “We’re in a g-ddamn free fall here.”
 
Stop for a moment and ponder that assessment fully.
 
 Memo to BHO Nukes real Climate Threat foto
Of course, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn have already affirmed Jeffrey’s appraisal.
 
Recall in his Senate testimony, Clapper stated that the direct links between ISIL and domestic terror networks have created “the most diverse array of threats and challenges I’ve seen in my 50-plus years in the [intelligence] business.” He added, “When the final accounting is done, 2014 will have been the most lethal year for global terrorism in the 45 years such data has been compiled. … I don’t know of a time that has been more beset by challenges and crises around the world. I worry a lot about the safety and security of this country. … The homegrown violent extremists continue to pose the most likely threat to our homeland.”
 
And Flynn is firmly on record regarding Obama’s failure to confront the Islamic threat: “You cannot defeat an enemy you do not admit exists. … I think there is confusion about what it is that we are facing. It’s not just what has been defined as 40,000 fighters in the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, it’s also a large [radicalized segment of Muslims] who are threatening our very way of life.”
 
As for the Obama/Kerry negotiations with Iran, Flynn notes, “Iran is [not only] a state sponsor of terrorism. Iran has killed more Americans than al-Qa’ida has through state sponsors, through their terrorist network Hezbollah. … My sense of where the policy is – it’s almost a policy of willful ignorance. … Here we are talking to Iran about a nuclear deal with this almost complete breakdown of order in the Middle East.”
 
In February, former Acting Director of the CIA Mike Morell said that negotiating over the number of nuclear-enriching centrifuges is futile. “If you are going to have a nuclear weapons program, 5,000 is pretty much the number you need,” Morell said. “If you have a power program, you need a lot more. By limiting them to a small number of centrifuges, we are limiting them to the number you need for a weapon.”
 
Just last week, current CIA Director John Brennan declared that Iran “is still a state-sponsor of terrorism,” but the CIA’s current Worldwide Threat Assessment no longer lists Iran and Hezbollah as terrorist threats.
 
Who’s in charge of this debacle?
 
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted during his recent address to Congress, Obama’s nuclear negotiations have “two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and, two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.” Netanyahu further warned, “Iran’s neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it’s been given a clear path to the bomb.”
 
“Free fall.” “The most diverse array of threats.” “Willful ignorance.” “The number you need for a weapon.” “[The deal] paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”
 
And now, after claiming al-Qa’ida’s demise, victory in Iraq and success in Somalia and Yemen, Obama and Kerry are trying to sell us on their nuclear weapons “deal” with Iran under the pretense that it will render the Middle East and our homeland safe from nuclear terrorism?
 
Negotiations with Iran were slated to conclude last night, March 31st, but it’s “April Fools’ Day,” and, accordingly, Obama and Kerry have announced yet another extension of negotiations with Iran. Apparently three is not the charm.
 
Make no mistake, this “deal” is not designed to prevent nuclear terrorism, and at best may just delay it. Of course, no deal is better than a bad deal.
 
Thomas Sowell notes that Obama’s motivation for this charade with Iran, despite robust objections from Senate and now 367 House Republicans and Democrats, is that “such an agreement will serve as a fig leaf to cover his failure to do anything that has any serious chance of stopping Iran from going nuclear. Such an agreement will protect Obama politically, despite however much it exposes the American people to unprecedented dangers.”
 
In the end, the central issue is not whether Iran can be trusted, but that Obama can’t be trusted. Clearly, Obama’s foreign policy malfeasance and his blinding Islamophilia pose the greatest threat to U.S. national and homeland security.
 
 BHO- Helps me Remember how Lies are Connected foto
 
Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
 
*PUBLIUS*
____________________________
The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2015 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.
 
REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/ )”
 
The Patriot Post
PO Box 507
Chattanooga, TN 37401
 
 
 
Mail this form and your credit card information or check, payable to:
The Patriot Fund
PO Box 507
Chattanooga, TN 37401-0507
 

Alton Nolen the Oklahoman Islamic Terrorist


Alton Nolen 2

Alton Nolen profile photos

 

John R. Houk

© September 27, 2014

 

African-American converted to Islam Alton Nolen beheaded 54 year old Colleen Hufford and stabbed 43 year old Traci Johnson 19 times at Vaughan Foods in Moore OK. Why?

 

More details are probably forthcoming but so far it appears Nolen was fired from Vaughan Foods for a combination of proselytizing Islam and expressing a demand that women should be stoned for certain offenses to Sharia Law. The logical conclusion is Nolen wigged out for being fired and apparently went after the two women in his eye-sights with a food processing knife sawing off the head of Ms. Hufford and stabbing Ms. Johnson times before COO and Reserve Deputy Sheriff Mark Vaughan shot Nolen to prevent more stabbings and murders.

 

I wonder if President Obama and outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder will notice that a white man from Oklahoma shot a Black man.

 

So far the local police is reporting this as workplace violence even though Nolen has definite associations with Radical Muslims and an adherence to Islamic terrorists caught promoting terrorism or participating in terrorism. O yeah, in local interviews Vaughan Food workers report hearing Nolen repeating Radical Islamic phrases while beheading Ms. Hufford and stabbing Ms. Johnson.

 

Classifying Nolen’s actions only as workplace violence is insane considering his vehement proselytizing, Clerics followed, Terrorist organizations followed and Islamic utterances on his attempted mass murder spree. To make politically correct Left Wing multiculturalists happy at best the description of this heinous crime must be both workplace violence and Islamic terrorism.

 

AND to address another issue. Mark Vaughan’s foresightedness to carry a weapon saved the day from Nolen executing an intended massacre in the name of Allah. This is yet another demonstration that Leftists’ attempt to confiscate guns from pro-2nd Amendment/pro-gun rights activists is a ludicrous plan. A gun saved more lives than a gun killed anyone.

 

VIDEO: Oklahoma Beheading 911 Call: Sacked Muslim Beheaded Woman And Stabbed Man

 

Now to seal the deal on the political correct moron Obamanites that refuse to associate Islam with violence here is some updated info I found at Liberty News.

 

JRH 9/27/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Uh Oh… Oklahoma Terror Beheader Linked to Al Qaeda Leader (Includes Updates on Beheading Story)

 

By Eric Odom

September 27, 2014 10:36 am

Liberty News

 

A plethora of new details are now available and paint a much clearer picture of what happened in the terror attack in Moore, Oklahoma last week. For those who don’t know, a Muslim man named Alton Nolen brutally attacked two individuals, severely injuring one and severing the head of the other.

 

What was Alton Nolen’s motive? McCurtain Gazette, a local print-only newspaper found details through one of Nolen’s classmates.

 

A classmate of Nolen’s, who didn’t wish to be identified, told this newspaper that he spoke to a close family member of Nolen’s today. He told this newspaper that according to the family member, Nolen was telling coworkers Thursday of an Islamic teaching that said women should be stoned for an offense, and that an argument followed the mark, Nolen was later fired and returned later Thursday, when he beheaded Colleen Hufford, the family member said.

 

So basically Nolan tried to force his fellow-workers that a woman should be stoned for certain minor offenses that violate Sharia law. The workers obviously didn’t take kindly to it and an argument broke out. As a result (not confirmed) Nolan was fired.

 

This suggest the firing is what set Nolan’s terror act in motion. Local police still refer to the beheading as workplace violence. This is likely because Nolan’s firing is what enraged him to the point of committing an act of terror. Where the workplace violence term is wrong, of course, is that Nolan was a Muslim who openly supported radical terrorist murders. Nolan admitted on his Facebook page that he believed Sharia law was coming and called for the death of America as well as Israel.

 

Workplace violence doesn’t include beheading “infidels” over religious disagreements. That’s called Jihad.

 

Speaking of Jihad, new evidence is available via Breitbart is now revealing a very, very ugly connection Nolan had through his Islam religion.

 

Suhaib Webb, an Imam with ties to former Al Qaeda mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki, had also previously been the leader of the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, which had been attended by Alton Nolen — the man who on Thursday beheaded a former coworker after recently converting to Islam, Breitbart News has learned. Webb now serves as Imam of the sister organization of the mosque attended by Boston Marathon bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

 

Imam Suhaib Webb has a history of ties to radicalism. FBI surveillance documents found that he was a known confidant of Al Qaeda mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki. Just two days before the September 11, 2001 attacks on America, Webb spoke at a fundraiser with Awlaki with hopes to raise funds for Atlanta-based H. Rap Brown, a man that shot and killed two police officers. The FBI documents also found that “Webb and Awlaki may be associated with the Muslim American Society,” which is a group described by the Investigative Project on Terrorism as being “founded as the United States Chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

 

It’s possible Nolan’s Imam had nothing to do with his radical Islam conversion. But isn’t it also highly suspicious that Nolan converts to Islam, attends a mosque with an Imam who had ties to Anwar al-Awlaki, and then goes on a rampage that ends in the beheading of an infidel?

 

In any event, it can no longer be questioned whether or not Nolan’s Muslim religion played a role in his act of terror via a beheading of an innocent American. The question now is, when and where will this happen next?

______________________

Alton Nolen the Oklahoman Islamic Terrorist

John R. Houk

© September 27, 2014

______________________

Uh Oh… Oklahoma Terror Beheader Linked to Al Qaeda Leader (Includes Updates on Beheading Story)

 

Eric Odom is Managing Director of LibertyNEWS.com, a liberty movement activist and self-described libertarian-minded political geek.

 

© 2014 LibertyNEWS.com

9/11: A Threat Assessment


al-Baghdadi- Our Appt in NY

This threat assessment by Justin Smith is an examination of the threat to America’s National Security from Islamic terrorism and Obama’s failure to address properly that National Security issue.

 

JRH 9/8/14 [Updated: 12:50 PM]

Please Support NCCR

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

9/11: A Threat Assessment

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 9/7/2014 7:22 PM

 

This September 11th America is once again under an intense terror threat from the Islamofascists and the Islamic State. While many Americans reflect on the horror of the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center attacks, innocent Americans falling 100 stories and trapped under burning rubble, and the violent and vicious attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, our leaders must now join together in several courses of action to defeat the ideology of Islam at home and abroad, especially in light of ongoing genocides against Christians in Iraq and Syria and the recent beheadings of two Americans.

 

Whether one believes our war is a cultural clash with Islam or, as Great Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron recently stated, “a poisonous ideology of Islamic extremism that is condemned by all”, in brief, history shows that ISIS is actually implementing Islam exactly in the manner of Mohammed; history also shows that the Wahhabist philosophy followed by ISIS and the members of Al Qaeda and al-Nusra has been supported by the House of Saud since 1740, all of which are directly involved in global terrorism, along with their Muslim Brotherhood allies from Egypt’s Al Azhar University.

 

Wafa Sultan is a Syrian psychologist who left the Alawite sect of Islam, and she flatly asks, “What is this ‘moderate’, this ‘extremist’ Islam? I never heard such a thing in Syria growing up. Islam is Islam.” Ms. Sultan has made the point in numerous writings that “moderates” and “extremists” are purely a western invention, a myth.

 

The ISIS threat was known to the Obama administration well over a year ago, and yet, on September 3rd Obama admitted “We don’t have a strategy yet.” And on the heels of this admission, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel stated, “… we are aware of over 100 U.S. citizens, who have U.S. passports, who are fighting with ISIL forces. There may be more. We don’t know.”

 

Last year, Moyer Abu Salha, a twenty-two year old American citizen from Florida, went to Syria for terror training. He subsequently returned to the U.S. for a visit, before he went back to Syria and conducted a suicide-bombing for al-Nusra in May 2014.

 

Abdirahmann Muhumed, a 29 year old Somali-American, worked for Delta Airlines before he left the U.S. to fight for al-Shabab, with 39 others, and was killed on the battlefield, just as Troy Kastigar, a close friend of Douglas McArthur McCain, was killed in 2009 after joining al-Shabab in Somalia. McCain was killed in Syria weeks ago, fighting alongside ISIS. All three were from an area in Minneapolis, Minnesota with a large Muslim population and a mosque tied to anti-American propaganda and advocacy for Islamic supremacy.

 

As Muslims increasingly press for concessions to Islamic norms in America, seeking to superimpose Sharia law doctrine over Western principles, the U.S. Congress must halt all Islamic immigration in a sensible, self-preserving measure for America. And common-sense dictates that the U.S. must also stop the ideological subversion by Saudi and the Council on American and Islamic Relations lobby groups that place spies in our military and the upper echelons of U.S. government and terror recruiters in our prisons, as they bribe our State Dept. officials and national security advisors; close your eyes and CIA Chief John Brennan sounds like a Saudi Muslim.

 

Recently, many Americans were appalled and angered to hear the British islamofascist Anjem Choudary tell FoxNews host Sean Hannity, “get ready _ America will be under Sharia law.” Choudary is suspected of recruiting scores of British Muslims to fight for ISIS.

 

Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) recently queried the FBI about American citizens fighting for ISIS and other terror groups. She asked, “Once they’re done fighting … what’s going to happen if they try to return?” The FBI replied, “Well, they’ll come into the country.” Bachmann continued, “Are you kidding me? We are not going to stop them from coming into the United States?” [Blog Editor: Bachmann-Beck interview]

Even though Findlaw.com and Senator Jim Rubens (R-NH) hold that “Natural born U.S. citizens may not have their citizenship revoked against their will” [Blog Editor: Rubens’ assertion], hasn’t one willingly abandoned their U.S. citizenship when they take up arms for an enemy of the U.S.?

 

One must certainly agree with Rep Bachmann, who made the following statement regarding her proposed legislation: “ISIS has declared the United States as their enemy. Once you join an enemy army … you should, by definition, lose your American citizenship, therefore your passport. You should have no ability to get back into the United States.”

 

But what about Obama’s open door policy? Isn’t this a severe national security breach and an impeachable offense?

 

According to Judicial Watch, intelligence officials believe a terrorist attack by ISIS and Al Qaeda, along the border between Juarez, Mexico and El Paso, Texas, is so imminent [Blog Editor: JW link] that Command Maj. Gen. Sean McFarland is being briefed at Ft Bliss. The DHS, Justice and Defense Dept. agencies have been placed on alert concerning this imminent threat and the mention of “car bombs and vehicle born improvised explosive devices.” [Blog Editor: NRO confirms]

 

What happens if the Islamic State acquires biological, chemical or nuclear weapon grade material?

 

Obama’s September 3rd message did not instill any further confidence that Obama and company would really do all that they could to ensure America’s national security, as Obama stated: “The primary U.S. objective is to degrade and destroy ISIS so that it’s no longer a threat not just to Iraq but also the region and to the United States.” This from the president whose policies created this crisis, who helped fund and arm ISIS from the beginning and who now says he will “shrink” ISIS “to the point where it is a manageable problem.” [Blog Editor: HERE, HERE & HERE]

 

Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) angrily retorted, “Terrorists who behead Americans are not ‘manageable’. They must be stopped, and we need President Obama to communicate a clear strategy … on how he plans to eliminate this threat.” [Blog Editor: Blunt retort]

 

The American people’s determination to defeat this new terror threat from ISIS and terror in general from the Islamofascists everywhere should not be underestimated. Americans remember the more than 3000 dead or missing and countless more lives devastated, as pregnant widows were left behind and two thousand children lost a parent on 9/11. Americans recall the images of our Ambassador Chris Stevens being dragged through the streets of Benghazi. Our leaders must resolve that we will not wait until there is another 9/11 before we destroy the Islamic State murderers and scatter their ashes before us.

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________

Edited by John R. Houk

All text or links enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

I Actually Received a Petition Response from Congress


Oklahoma District 1 Debate

 Senator Jim Inhofe 07-17-13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jim Bridenstine

 

Jim Inhofe

 

John R. Houk

© May 14, 2014

 

I sign a lot of petitions pertaining to Conservative issues (usually meaning anti-Leftist) and Counterjihad issues. Sometimes I get a response form my Congressman and one or both of my Senators. Typically the response runs something like, “Thanks for your concern, if you are ever in Washington DC don’t hesitate to contact my office.” I live in Oklahoma. I won’t being showing up anytime soon in our nation’s capital.

 

I actually received a response that was a bit more detailed from my Congressman Rep. Jim Bridenstine and one of my Senators in Jim Inhofe. Now I’d like to think these two Republican gentlemen actually took the time to compose the email with their own hand on their keyboard. That is probably wishful thinking, but I’ll pretend anyway. It was probably one of their staff that drew the short straw to answer email one day.

 

The Bridenstine email came yesterday and the Inhofe email came today. Both emails were canned enough that I can’t be exactly sure to which canned petition-email I signed. By the tone of Bridenstine’s email his was probably a response to an ‘Impeach Obama’ petition. And Senator Inhofe’s email was probably a response to either a Benghazigate petition or a ‘ban the Quran’ canned petition. In the case of Senator Inhofe I am thinking it was probably the ‘ban the Quran’ petition for I believe that was the latest petition I electronically signed.

 

I got to tell ya, if Senator Inhofe or a staff member responded to ‘ban the Quran’ I am a bit surprised.  That is a bit of a radical petition in this day of political correctness. So if it was Inhofe then kudos to him. If it was an Inhofe staff member then kudos to him as well and I am praying that staffer doesn’t get reprimanded for addressing ‘ban the Quran’.

 

At any rate I am going to post both the Bridenstine and Inhofe responses. It was smart politics on their part because at the very least there is the impression of listening to their constituents back home in Oklahoma.

 

JRH 5/14/14

Please Support NCCR

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

From the Desk of Jim Bridenstine

 

By (or attributed to) Jim Bridenstine

Sent: 5/13/2014 5:48 PM

1st District, Oklahoma

 

Dear Mr. Houk,

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding President Obama and the many recent government scandals casting serious doubt on the administration’s integrity.  I appreciate your opinion and value your input on these important issues.

I understand your frustrations with President Obama. As you may know, I recently gave a one-minute speech on the floor of the House of Representatives challenging his leadership.  I encourage you to view it by clicking on this link:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86UL9ekiXDk.


On March 12, 2014, the House passed, with my support, H.R. 4138, the Executive Needs to Faithfully Observe and Respect Congressional Enactments of the Law (ENFORCE) Act
[Blog Editor: Text to H.R. 4138].  If enacted, H.R. 4138 will authorize either chamber of Congress, upon adoption of a resolution, to bring civil action, when the President or any other federal officer has established or implemented a policy in violation of the constitutional requirement that the President faithfully execute the law.

I am also a cosponsor of H. Res. 442, the Stop This Overreaching Presidency Act [Blog Editor: Message from original sponsor Rep. Tom Rice and text].  This legislation directs the House of Representatives to bring civil action to challenge certain policies and actions taken by the Executive Branch in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  It was subsequently referred to both the House Committee on Rules and the House Committee on Administration, where it currently awaits consideration. 

With regards to impeachment, at this time I believe there are more constructive and effective means to challenge the President’s conduct and hold him accountable. Given the present composition of the Senate, impeachment would likely be an exercise in futility; at worst, it could allow the President and his supporters in Congress to distract the public from the very real and serious scandals the administration is facing. However, please know that I will continue to hold President Obama and his administration accountable and promise to keep your thoughts on this matter in mind at all times.

 

Thank you again for writing and expressing your thoughts on this important issue.  Please visit my website at http://bridenstine.house.gov to send me another message with your thoughts and opinions, read my positions on major issues, or sign up for my E-Newsletter. You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links below. I look forward to hearing from you again soon.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jim Bridenstine
U.S. House of Representatives

_________________________________

Responding to your message

 

By (or attributed to) Jim Inhofe

Sent: 5/14/2014 3:20 PM

U.S. Senator from Oklahoma

 

Dear Mr. Houk:

 

Thank you for your correspondence regarding Islamic extremism in the United States.  This is a critical issue, and as your voice in Washington, D.C., I appreciate being made aware of your concerns. 

 

Our ongoing war on terrorism is being fought both at home and abroad.  It is complex and interwoven as there are many different individuals and organizations who make it difficult to differentiate the extremists from the law abiding citizens.  However, we must be diligent to assess the true internal and external threats of any extremists, whatever their ideology may be.  Extremists have made it clear that they do not respect individual life, and we must remain committed to fight this battle against radical ideology. 

 

On the homeland security front, the United States has focused on law enforcement, prosecution, and improving the training and preparedness of first responders.  The Department of Homeland Security, established in November 2002, focuses on guarding our border and infrastructure, analyzing terror threats, and coordinating our nation’s response to future emergencies.  An important policy initiative was the enactment of the USA Patriot Act in 2001.  This law bolsters the government’s abilities to investigate, to bar and expel foreign terrorists from the United States, and to punish acts of terrorism. 

 

In response to the increased focus on homeland security, there have also been efforts to involve the Department of Defense (DOD) more closely with federal, state and local agencies in their homeland security activities.  On October 1, 2002, DOD activated a new combatant command, Northern Command (NORTHCOM), to combat terrorism abroad and to protect American citizens at home.  Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, these efforts have made it more difficult for terrorists to operate and to succeed in their attacks.  

 

In combating extremists abroad, the post-September 11 battle against Al Qaeda is worldwide and multifaceted, involving diplomatic and financial, as well as military actions.  On the law enforcement and intelligence front, the United States is working closely with its counterparts around the world to share information and arrest Al Qaeda operatives worldwide, with some successes. 

 

The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood is also of great concern to me. Unfortunately, as you may know, on June 24, 2012 the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Mohamed Morsi, won Egypt’s first democratic presidential election. Morsi had been the previous leader of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political party, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), and a member of parliament.  Although the election seemed to be free and fair, Morsi’s election is further evidence to me that Egypt will face further destabilizing times in the months and potentially years ahead.  Please be assured that I consider any threat by the Muslim Brotherhood internationally or here domestically as a supremely serious threat to our national security, and will investigate any allegations of their involvement in terrorist activities thoroughly. 

 

We are facing an enemy that has the weapons, skills, and mentality to strike at innocent civilians within our own borders.  I believe it is vital that we decisively end the chronic under-funding of our defense needs.  We also need to continue to invest in enhancing our intelligence capabilities, particularly in the area of human intelligence.  Moreover, we must push ahead with the development and deployment of a missile defense system.  The ultimate terror weapon would be a ballistic missile armed with a chemical, biological or a nuclear warhead.  The greatest trust placed upon Congress by the American people is to provide for their security by maintaining a strong national defense.  The U.S. must build and sustain military capabilities required to respond to possible future threats across the spectrum.

 

I will continue to do everything in my power to protect our nation and its citizens from domestic and foreign threats. We must continuously strive to protect the freedoms our servicemen and women fight for everyday. Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns.  Please do not hesitate to contact me again on this or any other important issue.

______________________

Blog Editor John R. Houk

 

About Rep. Jim Bridenstine

 

About Senator Jim Inhofe