After the Ahmad Rahami bombings in New York and New Jersey over the weekend, chalk up another jihadist strike on the homeland enabled by CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
David Petteys of Act for America, Denver chapter, and Michael Del Rosso of the Claremont Institute recently compared notes on the strange reluctance of Republicans running for office to identify our jihadist enemy in plain language. Here is their exchange: PETTEYS: Our friend Michael Del Rosso recommended that the following question be asked of every candidate: “In your opinion, what is the greatest threat to our country and what would you do about it?”
Recently I had the opportunity to actually ask this question of Jane Norton, the front running GOP Senatorial candidate here in Colorado. I am happy to say her response was this:
“Islamic Terrorism, and we need to get over this idea that the rights of terrorists have priority over the lives of American citizens.”
Although I would prefer the term “Islamic Jihad” as opposed to Terrorism, it is a step forward. Certainly preferable to the answer you’d get from most Democrats who would talking needing to "save the planet from climate catastrophe by cracking down on the evil oil companies”.
I’m also happy to report my Congressman Mike Coffman’s office notified me today that he was joining Sue Myrick of North Carolina’s “Counter Terrorism Caucus” as a result of my suggestion.
DEL ROSSO: Dave, I would NOT accept Terrorism as an answer from this candidate.
A couple of weeks ago I put the following query to three of the seven Republican candidates attempting to reclaim Virginia's 5th District US House of Representatives seat for the GOP: "America has been in a shooting war for over 8 years with over 5,000 KIA, tens of thousands wounded, and a trillion dollars spent, with no end in sight. Who is our Enemy, what is their Doctrine, and what is their Objective?" Each time the exchange went generally this way:
Candidate: “We’re fighting Terrorists.”
Me: That makes as much sense as saying “Our Enemy is Tanks.” Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy.
Candidate: “We’re fighting Muslim Extremists.”
Me: “How do you know their Extremists? How do you know they are not actual Mainstream Muslims?”
Encountering a bewildered look and no response I further asked “Have you ever read the Quran? Any book on Islamic jurisprudence and doctrines? Have you read the 9-11 Report?”
Every time, the candidate's answers to all three were “No.”
So I informed each of them: “You just admitted that you have no basis in fact, you have no knowledge, in making any claim about who are enemies are. How can you presume to ask me to vote for you to be my Representative when you have not even taken the trouble to identify our enemy 8 years into a war?”
When the President vows to “get to the bottom of all this and bring these violent extremists to justice”, he is telegraphing the following: 1. He is NOT connecting the violence to Islamic Jihad, which IS the main ideological threat to the United States. Islamic Jihadists generate markers that fit the facts on the ground. With these markers, we can proceed to watch the Mosques where Jihadist groups are formed, we can read their literature and understand their doctrine, we can listen to the Imams and anticipate their actions. But “violent extremists” generate nothing! How do you define one? You can’t! The media continues their apologist approach, describing the million and first “disturbed young man”, and of course Islam has nothing to do with it. They also strive for “balance” and are sure to mention “right wing extremists” in the same breath, even though there has been a weekly Islamic Jihad incident since July of this year, and nothing from “right wing extremists” since Oklahoma City.
2. The President, by avoiding the mention of Islam, is also letting us know he buys into the false narrative about Islam perpetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood and its front organizations such as CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, MAS, and all the rest. This false narrative would have us believe that Islam is the “religion of peace”, that all Muslims are moderate, and only a “fringe” are violent, owing to our policies. The reality is, Jihad is built into the faith. Jihad is the solemn duty of ALL believers. Jihad can be waged four ways: with the mouth, the pen, the money and the sword. Note that our misdirected “War on Terror” only deals with Jihad by the sword, leaving the other three modes unattended!
3. Also, to “bring violent extremists to justice” reveals a view that the war with Islamic Jihad is a police problem. A question: how to you deter suicide attacks with the threat of fines and imprisonment? The legal straitjacket we have put ourselves in is this: everything is legal until a crime has been committed. What happens when this “crime” is the detonation of nuclear weapons in a half dozen cities? Also, we see Jamaa’t al-Fukra training thousands of soldiers for Jihad in the United States. A steady stream of young men are going to the Middle East to the battlefields of jihad and are gaining combat experience. They are returning to the United States as seasoned combat veterans and trained killers. They are becoming the training cadre and the backbone of a Muslim Jihad Army being built before our eyes right here in the United States! And we are turning a legalistic blind eye lest we “offend the Muslims”?
“Zero Hour” arrives, (and this is their term, not mine), and these thousands of combatants rise up in armed insurrection, what will the government do then? Threaten to file suit? Threaten to pull their 503c status?
By John Guandolo As we look at recent events, it becomes clear that the evidence points to the fact that these were not just acts of jihad linked by Islamic doctrine. They were also operations which drew on most or all of the key elements that we see in overseas operations, and which have we previously seen prior to or during operations here in the States. Here is what we might call their five-part planning matrix, along with a look at how it maps out for two homeland incidents this year as well as the strike in India last year.
Al Qaeda / Jihadi Op Planning:
1) A good target is a target until mission completion (World Trade Center 1993 = WTC 2001)
2) A good penetration location once is a good penetration location again (White House: Alamoudi)
3) The key operational guy always leaves before the Op (Ramzi Yousef: WTC 1)
4) Target preference is communicated via some medium (AQ discussing targeting US economic center)
5) Religious/Legal Approval for Op must be given (Blind Sheikh in US)
Hasan: FT HOOD
1) Military personnel are always a target (Sgt Akbar, et al)
2) Hasan was on DHS Taskforce (http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/old/PTTF_ProceedingsReport_05.19.09.PDF) see page 29 - odd.
3) The prior Muslim Chaplain at Ft Bragg left and put Hasan in charge as the lay Muslim Chaplain. Why did the Chaplain leave and when?
4) Target Preference Texas = http://armiesofliberation.com/archives/2009/10/10/yemens-al-qaeda-sets-targets-as-gulf-oil/
5) Email approval from Awlaki (see attached UNCLAS DHS reports)
2) Recce Team of David Headley and Tahawwur Hassan Rana (Lashkar-e-Toiba) arrested in US by FBI last month
3) Both lived and traveled extensively to locations attacked in Mumbai and left prior to attacks.
4) Individuals in Pakistan and UK provided leadership for operation - and Headley met with several LET guys in India and went to Pakistan afterwards. Team apparently (evidence still being collected) went and reconned all locations. Headley was at Nariman House (Jewish) where he posed as a Jew.
5) Approval from Pakistan for operational team.
Boyd et al: North Carolina
1) Targets were numerous overseas, no specific targets in US
3) Op didn't happen so unknown - also, this was a traveling jihadi roadshow...different from a singular attack
4) Bad guys traveled extensively and likely chose wide variety of targets (statements indicate they were to fight in Algeria, and conduct attacks elsewhere as well)
5) Unsure if approval was given in US or Pakistan. Group had direct ties to Gulbuddin Heckmatyar which means Pakistani ISI was giving guidance as well.
The author was a top counter-terrorism expert for the FBI before leaving the Bureau in 2008. He now works in the Washington area as a consultant and trainer, and is a fellow of the Centennial Institute in Denver.
Last week was truly remarkable. Republicans swept three state elections; then an Islamic extremist holding the position of an Army psychiatrist murdered 13 persons and wounded 31 others at Fort Hood, Texas; the House of Representatives defied the will of the American people by passing a comprehensive health insurance bill; and free people celebrated the 20th anniversary of the demise of the Berlin Wall back in 1989. These events reveal the contrast that exists in this country and throughout the world between those who value freedom and those who do not. The most encouraging development is the growing awareness of our citizens that the future is won only by doing the right thing.
Reversing the results in last year’s elections, voters gave solid margins of victory to Chris Christie in New Jersey and Robert McDonnell in Virginia in their gubernatorial races, but also Republican candidates for the remaining statewide offices in those states and in Pennsylvania. President Obama campaigned in the first two states, despite the growing unpopularity of his administration.
Democrats have tried strenuously to spin the dismal results as merely local contests, irrelevant to the debate over their health insurance and environmental "cap and trade" proposals. But there is no doubt that it gave the Blue Dog Democrats in Congress incentive to resist party pressure to support these budget-busting and tax-increasing measures.
All good Americans are appalled and horrified at the shooting rampage of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who shouted "Allahu Akbar" before he opened fire on his fellow soldiers and civilians prior to his scheduled deployment to Afghanistan. The news coverage has been remarkably vapid. The same articles which make it perfectly clear that Hasan is an Islamic extremist who could not bring himself to make war on his "fellow Muslims" and regards himself as a soldier in the radical Islamic cause, describe the shooter’s motives as unclear.
Sorry to say, the President himself has set the tone for this mindless and irresponsible attitude, asking people not to rush to judgment about a man and an incident that are as transparent as anything can be. We are learning, too, that "political correctness" or the blind indifference to if not covert sympathy with those who reject Western civilization, has infected the highest ranks of the U.S. Army.
No religion per se makes anyone ineligible for American citizenship or for participation in any civil government, but if the believer’s highest loyalty is to a doctrine that calls for the destruction of constitutional safeguards for human rights, there should be little doubt that he cannot be trusted with any responsibilities or respecting the rights of other citizens.
Notwithstanding weeks of polling date that reveal a solid majority of Americans opposed to government health care (AKA socialized medicine) and Republican election victories in three states that voted Democrat in 2008, the House of Representatives approved a bill of nearly 2,000 pages that would micro manage existing health insurance coverage and impose massive costs on the American people.
Despite considerable rhetorical blather about bipartisanship, the Democrat leadership managed to win over only one Republican representing a traditionally Democrat district in Louisiana and lost 39 Democrats representing traditionally Republican districts, passing the bill by a narrow margin.
It is evident that Democrats are desperate to pass some form of health care legislation, even if they lose seats or lose House control in 2010. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was not deterred by the strong indications that her Senate counterparts lack the votes to pass the legislation, even if it followed her lead in dropping coverage for abortions. She is unmoved despite the fact that she is defying the consent of the governed.
Meanwhile, celebrations are in order on the anniversary of the removal of the infamous Berlin Wall, an event which President Obama either feels is beneath his notice or perhaps understands as an achievement for which he cannot claim credit. No greater contrast exists between Presidents who steadfastly supported the freedom of Berliners and of all Europeans during the Cold War years and the current President who feels more comfortable talking to Asian and Latin American despots than supporting leaders of free nations long allied with the West.
One cannot imagine a President Obama making the courageous decision of Harry Truman to supply Berlin during a long Russian blockade or the uplifting defiance of President Reagan in demanding that Mikhail Gorbachev "tear down this wall!"
The future of freedom is best entrusted to its dedicated friends.