Obama Releases 15 More Jihadists From #Gitmo

Obama-Jihadi-Seed

Source: Pentagon releases 15 more Gitmo detainees

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has approved the release of 15 detainees from the prison camps at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United Arab Emirates, a move derided Monday night by a leading member of Congress as reckless.

Rep. Ed Royce, the California Republican who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, called the released detainees “hardened terrorists” who will be a threat for years.

“In its race to close Gitmo, the Obama administration is doubling down on policies that put American lives at risk,” Royce said in a statement. “Once again, hardened terrorists are being released to foreign countries where they will be a threat.”

The Pentagon, in a statement, said an inter-agency review board considered their potential threat to security and unanimously approved six of the 15 for release, A consensus was reached on release of the remaining nine. There are 61 detainees remaining at Guantanamo.

According to the Pentagon, the 15 prisoners are

  1. Abd al-Muhsin Abd al-Rab Salih al-Busi,
  2. Abd al-Rahman Sulayman,
  3. Mohammed Nasir Yahi Khussrof Kazaz,
  4. Abdul Muhammad Ahmad Nassar al-Muhajari,
  5. Muhammad Ahmad Said al-Adahi,
  6. Abdel Qadir al-Mudafari,
  7. Mahmud Abd Al Aziz al-Mujahid,
  8. Saeed Ahmed Mohammed Abdullah Sarem Jarabh,
  9. Mohammed Kamin,
  10. Zahar Omar Hamis bin Hamdoun,
  11. Hamid al-Razak (aka Haji Hamidullah),
  12. Majid Mahmud Abdu Ahmed,
  13. Ayub Murshid Ali Salih,
  14. Obaidullah, and
  15. Bashir Nasir Ali al-Marwalah.

Six of the 15 — al-Busi, Sulayman, Kazaz, al-Muhajari, al-Adahi, and al-Mudafari — were unanimously recommended for release by the inter-agency Guantanamo Review Task Force, the Pentagon said.

The other nine were recommended for release by the periodic review boards monitoring Guantanamo prisoners, the Pentagon said.


CNN reported three are from Afghanistan and twelve from Yemen. None can be returned to their countries due to ongoing terrorism but won’t be far from the jihad in the UAE. Or to the refugee flow into Europe.

The media won’t tell the world who these Muslim jihadis are, but readers can look up the backgrounds and recommendations on these terrorists. Most contain the phrase, “likely to pose a threat to the U.S.”

A few samples courtesy of @CounterJihadUS:

Cp8RnDNVUAE58Gs Cp82bWtUsAE-Lfz Cp8Ui9qVYAEtye2


Update:  Former Al Qaeda Detainee Promises ‘Creative And New’ Attacks On US

As the Obama administration released 15 more high value Al Qaeda detainees from Guantanamo (GITMO), former detainee Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud Al Qosi — who was released in 2012 as part of a plea deal after pleading guilty to conspiracy and supporting terrorism and joined and immediately hooked up with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in December 2014 – this week vowed attacks in the US by English-speaking jihadis with Western names not on CIA or FBI terrorist lists.

 “[Attacks] will continue but will be [in] a creative and new way by men of your own [who] carry your names, speak your language, and did not receive training in Afghanistan, and whose names are not on the CIA and FBI black list – men who might have in the past drunk alcohol, eaten pork, or been soldiers in your army,” Al Qosi, a member of AQAP’s Shura council, vowed in an article published by Al Marsa, a weekly newspaper affiliated with AQAP.

 

Why did non-coalition Pakistani officials attend the burial of Khizr Khan’s son?

Pakistan was not a member of the U.S. coalition in Iraq, which begs the question of why the Pakistani embassy’s ISI chief attended Captain Humayun Khan’s funeral at Arlington?

Humayun-Khan-Arlington

Source: August 1-2, 2016 — What the media isn’t reporting about Khizr Khan – Wayne Madsen Report

The official notification of Khan’s death stated:

“Captain Humayun S. M. Khan, 27, of Bristow, Virginia, died June 8, 2004, in Baquabah, Iraq, after a vehicle packed with an improvised explosive device drove into the gate of his compound while he was inspecting soldiers on guard duty.  Khan was assigned to Headquarters, Headquarters Company, 201st Forward Support Battalion, 1st Infantry Division, Vilseck, Germany.”

Khan was actually an Army intelligence officer, fluent in Arabic, who worked with Iraqi civilians in a program called the United States-Iraq Sponsorship Program, which was actually an operation designed to recruit Iraqis to work as police and in other “capacities” for the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S. occupation government of Iraq. Khan’s home base of Vilseck is a center for U.S. intelligence operations involving units of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command. When Khan was killed, oversight of Iraq “transition” programs, such as the U.S.-Iraq Sponsorship Program, had just come under the control of General David Petraeus, the first commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq.

Members of the Pakistani embassy, including deputy chief of mission (DCM) Mohammad Sadiq, attended Captain Khan’s burial at Arlington National Cemetery. The DCM of large embassies are almost always the embassy intelligence chief of station. In the case of Sadig, this would be the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). In 2008, Sadiq, who paid his respects to Captain Khan at Arlington, was defending ISI as the Pakistan Foreign Ministry’s chief spokesman. India accused the ISI of bombing its embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. The bombing killed four people, including two Indian diplomats.

It was not only India that blamed the ISI for the bombing in Kabul. CIA officials said that intercepts of communications showed ISI involvement. Pakistan was so incensed by the statements from U.S. intelligence that it summoned CIA official Stephen Kappes to Islamabad for a chewing out session.

Pakistan was not a member of the U.S. coalition in Iraq, which begs the question of why the Pakistani embassy’s ISI chief attended Captain Humayun Khan’s funeral at Arlington? Was Khan working, through his Saudi- and Pakistani-connected father with the ISI? If so, was the contact “sanctioned” by the CIA? If not, was Humayun Khan freelancing and feeding information from Iraq to the ISI, which then passed it to their close allies in the Saudi General Intelligence Department?

Khizr Khan claims he is a “legal consultant” in Charlottesville, although he is not a member of the Virginia Bar. Given the nature of Charlotteville’s status as a sanctuary city, Khan’s legal background and his work with the Muslim community in Virginia, it is likely that Khan offers help to Muslims who have overstayed their student visas in the university and sanctuary city to obtain permanent residence. It should be recalled that seven of the 9/11 hijackers obtained Virginia driver’s licenses, three of which were used as official identification to check in for flights on September 11, 2001.

More:

Khizr Khan practices law in New York and is a member of the New York Bar. Khan’s Manhattan law office is next door to the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, which also happens to house the residence of the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power. Power’s husband is Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s former information czar who excels in the art of disinformation, propaganda, and cognitive dissonance. But more interesting is the fact that Khan and his wife are residents of Charlottesville, Virginia, a home to a number of foreign Muslims, many of whom are students at the University of Virginia who wish to change their student visa status to permanent residency, or “green card” status. Charlottesville is a so-called “sanctuary city” that welcomes those who either enter the United States illegally or overstay their limited residency visas.


The war-hero son was born in UAE, not Pakistan. It seems that Khizr Khan might be a lot more connected and a lot less American than he portrayed himself at the DNC.

Now he’s run back to Pakistan where he continued interfering in a U.S. election from abroad.

khizr-pakistan

When it comes to Big Lies about Islam, nothing much has changed except the administrations

But it has gotten worse and more obvious. Diana West writes:

I am struck anew by how very long this official effort to suppress the facts about Islam (not, not, not “Radicalislam”) has been going on — throughout the Obama administration, of course, but long before it began. This battle of suppression was already being waged when on September 17, 2001 President George W. Bush told the nation, “Islam is peace.” Soon he would send armies into that Islamic world of peace to do battle, wholly ignorant of Islamic war, or jihad.

Read the excerpt below from American Betrayal

Source: The Death of the Grown-Up | Home – See-No-Jihad = Homeland Insecurity

Once upon a time, about a decade ago …

… in this long-drawn-out post-9/11 era, this admiral received a lengthy, extensively documented briefing on the Islamic doctrine of jihad (Islamic war) from Maj. Stephen C. Coughlin, U.S. Army Reserves. Coughlin is an expert on the legal-religious doctrine that Islamic terrorists claim as the justification for campaigns of violence against infidels and rival Muslims.3 His briefings, which I’ve attended multiple times, are legendary in security circles in Washington and elsewhere for their comprehensive, if not overwhelming, compilation of factual, Islamic-sourced evidence, which demonstrates, for example, that Islamic terrorists are not “hijacking” Islamic law (sharia) when they engage in jihad. On the contrary, they are executing it. Nor are they “twisting” the foundational principles of Islam as codified in each and every authoritative Islamic source. They are exemplifying them.

For reasons that should become clearer over the following pages, this briefing on these basic facts of jihad doctrine is typically our top military leaders’ first exposure to what is known in Pentagon parlance as the “enemy threat doctrine.” I am not exaggerating. Years of battle—even worse, years of battle planning—have passed without our leadership having studied, or even having become acquainted with, the principles and historic facts of Islamic war doctrine. Four years into the so-called war on terror, then–Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace even pointed this out in a speech at the National Defense University on December 1, 2005.4

Notwithstanding Pace’s concern, the study and analysis of Islam and jihad remained de facto forbidden in policy-making circles inside the Bush White House, which even codified a lexicon in 2008 to help government officials discuss Islamic jihad without mentioning “Islam” or “jihad.”5 The Obama administration would carry this same see-no-Islam policy to its zealous limit, finally mounting a two-front assault on the few trainers and fact-based training materials that were sometimes (sparingly) used by law enforcement agencies and the military to educate personnel about Islam and jihad. What history should remember as the Great Jihad Purges of 2012 began at the Justice Department, affecting domestic law enforcement agencies, and spread to the Pentagon, affecting the entire U.S. military.

First, the FBI eliminated hundreds of pages of “anti-Islam” educational material from its own training programs and those of other law enforcement agencies. Several Muslim advocacy groups applauded these purge results at the briefing at the bureau on February 15, 2012, “unexpectedly” attended by FBI Director Robert Mueller himself.6 Next, on April 24, 2012, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin E. Dempsey ordered a similar scrub, calling on the entire U.S. military to “review” its educational and training classes, files, and rosters of instructors to ensure that no members of the armed services were studying material “disrespectful of the Islamic religion.”7

What exactly does the U.S. government and its Muslim advisers consider “anti-Islam” or “disrespectful,” or, as a Pentagon spokesman put it on Al Jazeera TV, “warped views”?8 One trophy of this so-called Islamophobia that made it into Wired.com (whose reportage seems to have energized if not triggered these government purges) was a PowerPoint slide created by Stephen C. Coughlin about the “permanent command in Islam for Muslims to hate and despise Jews and Christians and not take them as friends.”9

Pretty disrespectful and warped for sure—but only if Coughlin’s premise and supporting documentation were untrue. The statement and the documentation, however, are incontrovertible. There is a permanent command in Islam for Muslims to hate and despise Jews and Christians and not take them as friends. The slide in question includes citations of the most authoritative Islamic texts, the Koran and the hadiths (the sayings and deeds of Mohammed, which Muslims hold sacred) to document its veracity.10

Veracity is not the issue here, though. Evidence is not the issue here. Reality is not the issue here, either. The issue is a commandment from on high in government—“Islam is a religion of peace.” It is the Big Lie that is the basis of the prevailing ideology, and, above all, the Big Lie must live. No one in the leadership contradicts it “because then,” as Hans Christian Andersen tells us, he would be “unfit for his job or very stupid.”

Admiral X certainly didn’t want anyone to think that. So what did he make of his Coughlin briefing, an introduction to the central Islamic doctrine of jihad and its role in driving global jihad? How did he react to the spectacular if not shattering array of information contained in the authoritative Islamic texts and books of authentic, mainstream Islamic jurisprudence before him, which shattered the Islam-is-peace mantra?

He said, and I quote, “I’ll have to check with my imam on that.”

I was staggered when I first heard this story, and, in a way, I still am. Was the admiral kidding? Did he not have the wit to make up his own mind based on the ample, annotated, inconvenient evidence before him? Witlessness, however, wasn’t the admiral’s problem, just as witlessness wasn’t the problem in the Justice and Defense Departments. If the admiral was announcing that he would be deferring to “his imam”—in other words, to an Islamic interpreter of things Islamic—on the matter of Islamic war-making doctrine, there was a reason for this, and it had nothing to do with IQ. Similarly, if FBI Director Mueller and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dempsey were deferring to the wishes of an array of Muslim advocacy groups—including groups designated by the U.S. government as Muslim Brotherhood front groups11—regarding education about Islam, something else had rendered them, and countless others like them in military, security, and civilian leadership, incapable of assessing facts and passing judgment.

What was it?

This is the leading question that guided the research going into this book. What, in a nutshell, throughout eight years of George W. Bush and four years of Barack Obama, caused our leadership to deny and eliminate categorically the teachings of Islam from all official analysis of the global jihad that has wracked the world for decades (for centuries), and particularly since the 9/11 attacks in 2001? This omission has created a scrupulously de-Islamized, and thus truly “warped,” record for future historians to puzzle over. What will they make, for example, of a 2007 ninety-slide briefing on “the surge” in Iraq presented by counterinsurgency guru David Kilcullen that failed to mention Islam (let alone jihad war doctrine) once? Instead, the militarily, politically, and aca- demically elite audiences for whom the presentation was created were asked to “think of the [Iraqi] environment as a sort of ‘conflict ecosystem.’ ”12 How will they explain Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s 2009 “assessment” of the war against Islamic jihadists in Afghanistan, which, in sixty-six pages, contained not one discussion of Islam, jihad, or how they fit into both the Taliban struggle and the Afghan people’s antipathy for Western forces? How will they explain why “everyone” agreed to fight blind?

To be fair, there is one passing reference to Islam in the McChrystal assessment. Calling for an improved communications approach, the commander demanded that insurgents and jihadist militias be “exposed continually” for their “anti-Islamic” use of violence and terror. The report elaborates, “These include their causing of the majority of civilian casualties, attacks on education, devel- opment projects, and government institutions, and flagrant contravention of the principles of the Koran” (emphasis added).13

It would be easy to toss off a derisive quip at this point and move on, but it’s well worth mulling over how it could be that eight years after 9/11, a West Point–trained, battle-hardened, and by all accounts capable commander fighting jihad forces in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan could assume the role of an apologist for Islam rather than an expert analyst of holy war as waged against his own forces. Flagrant contravention of the Koranic principles of jihad? Au contraire. Between the Koran’s teachings against befriending Christians and Jews (noted above) and its teachings that it is a “grave sin for a Muslim to shirk the battle against the unbelievers,” as the scholar and critic Ibn Warraq explains (“those who do will roast in hell”), it is also perfectly Islamic to wage jihad against any and all infidel “education, development projects,” not to mention against Muslims not actively fighting or supporting jihad.14

Don’t just take my word for it. Back in 2003, the man who used to be described as Osama bin Laden’s “spiritual guide” castigated President Bush along similar lines, and rightly so. In response to Bush’s repeated slander of the religion of jihad as the “religion of peace,” Abu Qatada said, “I am astonished by President Bush when he claims there is nothing in the Koran that justifies jihad or violence in the name of Islam. Is he some kind of Islamic scholar? Has he ever actually read the Koran?”15

If Bush, or McChrystal for that matter, ever did crack the book, he read only the “good parts”—the 124 verses of tolerance—that are rendered meaningless according to the rule of “abrogation.” The rule of abrogation is the key that Islamic scholars use to resolve contradictions within the Koran. By means of this doctrine, Koranic passages are “abrogated,” or canceled, by any subsequently “revealed” verses that convey a different meaning. In other words, when there is a contradiction (e.g., don’t kill the infidel vs. yes, kill the infidel), whatever was “revealed” to Islam’s prophet, Mohammed, more recently trumps whatever was “revealed” before it. This technique comes from Mohammed himself at the Koran’s sura 2:105: “Whatever verses we [i.e., Allah] cancel or cause you to forget, we bring a better or its like.”

It’s a simple concept, unforgettable once taught—but our elected officials, our military and other security providers, our pundits and other public voices seem never to have learned it, much less explained it to the rest of us. Or worse, they are ignoring it on purpose. In this ignorant morass, then, We, the People are left on our own to make sense of misinformation and disinformation. Why? Why haven’t they sought and told the truth?

There are reasons. In his book What the Koran Really Says, Ibn Warraq explains that while abrogation resolves the abundant contradictions to be found in the Koran, it “does pose problems for apologists of Islam, since all the pas- sages preaching tolerance are found in Meccan (i.e., early) suras, and all the passages recommending killing, decapitating and maiming, the so-called Sword Verses, are Medinan (i.e., later).” His conclusion: “‘Tolerance’ has been abro- gated by ‘intolerance.’”16 Just to be clear: Islamic tolerance in the Koran has been canceled by Islamic intolerance in the Koran.

Like Coughlin’s slides and presentations, this fact contradicts the Big Lie at the root of the prevailing ideology: “Islam is a religion of peace.” Therefore, our leaders don’t want us to know it. They also don’t want to know it themselves. So they don’t, as the Kilcullen “surge” presentation and the McChrystal Afghanistan “assessment” demonstrate. Such knowledge would collapse their deceitful balloon of “universal” values, which rises on the hot air of “Kum-bay- a”-interchangeable sameness. Such a collapse would, in turn, doom the relativism, moral and cultural, that currently drives these same utopian fantasists to undermine liberty in their quest to order or even rule our world and beyond.

Suppression of the facts, then, becomes the only way to keep this enterprise of lies buoyant, something for which there is ample precedent in our past, as the pages ahead will show. Under both the Bush and Obama administrations, then, any fact-driven discussion of Islamic religious, legal, and historical imperatives to make holy war until the world is governed by Islam threatened this same enterprise and had to be, in effect, outlawed and later officially forbidden. “Cultural sensitivity” had to become the name of the game. Thus, as Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey wrote in April 2012, U.S. military programs must “exhibit the cultural sensitivity, respect for religion and intellectual balance that we should expect of our academic institutions.”17 In plain English: Whitewash Islam or else.

Why? And how did the whitewashing of Islam become the business of the United States government? This is another question that inspired this book. It is also a question which, true confession, has driven me to distraction for more than a decade. Sometimes I despair. Sometimes I play it for laughs, or at least revel a little in the absurdity. You have to. Imagine the following scenario coming across your desk: Kifah Mustapha, a known Hamas operative and unindicted coconspirator in the landmark Holy Land Foundation trial, gets invited into the top secret National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and then to the FBI’s training center at Quantico.18 The auspices were a six-week “Citizens’ Academy” hosted by the FBI in 2010 as part of the agency’s “outreach” to the Muslim community.

You look at the story and rub your eyes. A Hamas operative? An unindicted coconspirator? Must they “reach out” quite so far? Here we see the U.S. offi- cials charged with fending off the jihad that Mustapha’s activities supported (as laid out in court documents filed by federal investigators) flinging open the doors to this man on their own terror watch lists. How could this even be happening?

“The plugs had to be pulled” on the watch system just to get Mustapha in the NCTC door, Patrick Poole wrote online at PJ Media, quoting a Department of Homeland Security official. After all, “the NCTC has Kifah Mustapha on the highest watch list we have.”19

Unbelievable. So who pulled those plugs? Wouldn’t it be great to get a bunch of national security pooh-bahs into one room and ask them?

It would be—and so it was. In September 2010, at a Washington conference on domestic intelligence, I took the opportunity to ask as many of these officials as possible this very question. First up was James Clapper, director of national intelligence, who would later make history, or, rather, antihistory, by proclaim- ing the Muslim Brotherhood to be a “largely secular organization.”20 During a question-and-answer session, I asked him about FBI “outreach” to Mustapha. “I think the FBI will be here later,” Clapper boldly punted (laughter in the room). Meanwhile, he continued, there is “great merit in outreach, to engage as much as possible with the Muslim community.” Subtext: Bringing a Hamas op into a top secret security installation is no big deal.

Between panels, I buttonholed panelist Sean Joyce, a senior official with the FBI. What did the FBI executive assistant director for national security think about the Mustapha incident?

“We don’t comment on individuals,” he told me.

OK. How about commenting on a blanket policy regarding FBI tours of sensitive installations for unindicted coconspirators and terrorist group operatives?

“Again, we don’t comment on individuals.”

It’s not every day that you notice a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency standing around, so I asked Michael Hayden for his overall opinion of the speak-no-Islam policy that let jihadists through the door. “People I trust”—uh-oh—”say to be careful not to use the term ‘jihadist’ because it does have a broader use across the Islamic world,” he said, referencing the definition of jihad as “inner struggle.”

Oh, please. This is another Grand Pulling of Wool over Infidel Eyes. Why? There is precisely one explicit reference in the Koran to jihad (“ja-ha-da”) “as an inner, spiritual phenomenon, not as an outwardly (usually military) phenome- non.” So writes Tina Magaard, a Sorbonne-trained linguist specializing in tex- tual analysis. “But,” she continues, “this sole reference does not carry much weight against the more than 50 references to actual armed struggle in the Ko- ran (and even more in the Hadith).”21

Unfortunately, I didn’t have a Magaard cheat sheet with me when I hap- pened on the former CIA director, so I just erupted, politely: So what? That doesn’t affect the accuracy of “jihadist” as a description of the enemy!

Then again, not using the word “Islamic,” he continued, “obfuscates the is- sue (and) neuters our understanding” of Islamic terrorism “however perverted it might be.” Hayden continued, meaningfully: “This is in no way a comment on the Islamic faith.”

Heaven forfend. The Islamic faith can inflict censorship, death for leaving Islam, marital rape, polygamy, and slavery on the world, but please, none of the above is in any way a comment on the Islamic faith. Or so the American “intelligence” community has determined. What we inadequately label “political correctness” has obfuscated and neutered fact-gathering and conclusion- drawing powers to the point where the “political correctness,” too, is obfus- cated. To wit: NCTC Director Michael Leiter next took the podium to address the conference and declared “there was no PC-ness” on his watch. “If someone is inspired by Islamic ideology—” he began, then stopped. “Let me rephrase that: al Qaeda ideology . . .”

Poor baby.

Later, I had an opportunity to ask Leiter what he thought about the FBI bringing Mustapha into NCTC. “Ask the FBI,” he suggested helpfully.

Isn’t NCTC your shop? I asked.

“Actually,” he explained, “the building isn’t owned by us. Three organiza- tions have offices there.”

When I picked myself up off the floor, he was still talking. “It’s more complicated—talk to the FBI. They’ve got a lot more information than I do.”

The FBI better be good, right? They should be prepared, anyway. Indeed, on taking my Mustapha question, FBI Director Robert Mueller, the confer- ence’s final speaker, said he’d been briefed to expect it. His response? “I’m not sure I agree with the predicate of your question, and we’re not going to debate it here.”

He continued discussing the Citizens’ Academy program, which he described as “exposing the FBI to a variety of communities.”

“Exposing” is right.

He, too, wouldn’t discuss individuals, he said, but added, “We do look into the individuals that we invite into the Citizens’ Academies.” The man who pulled the plugs had spoken, but he explained nothing. Soon, the FBI director would make his way out of the conference hall, his security detail in tow. And he drew himself up more proudly than ever, while the chamberlains walked behind him, bearing the train that wasn’t there.


West adds to the evidence of Muslim infiltration in our security agencies with this montage:

 

 

 

 

Is Govt Paying Security Firms to Hire Muslim Immigrants to Guard Critical Infrastructure?

vetsecLogo

Source: Dave Hodges – The Common Sense Show

Critical Infrastructure Being Guarded by Muslim Immigrants – DHS Paying Security Firms $1200 for Each Muslim Hired

I was having a casual conversation with an old friend the other day and this casual conversation drifted into the area of national security.

He told me a firm that he works for called Veterans Security, or Vet/Sec for short. They are tasked with providing security for some America’s most sensitive infrastructure (e.g. power plants, etc).

Historically, the firm hired almost exclusively American veterans. However, that demographic is changing. According to an anonymous inside source that works for this security firm, they are increasingly hiring unvetted Muslim immigrants to provide security at these sensitive locations. Amazingly, the firm is receiving $1200 from the government to hire these workers. According to my source, some of these employees barely speak English.

If there anyone anything wrong with hiring Muslims to guard American infrastructure? No, so long as they are citizens and have passed an extensive background check and they certainly should not be part of a program that hires Muslims and then the government pays the employer $1200 to hire them. And if the government cannot screen these immigrants, neither can this firm.

With God’s providence and timing, I received this communication in yesterday’s email.

Dave,

I did an assignment at Kirkland AFB / Sandia National Labs.  The trucking company we used was xxxx Trucking.  xxxx xxxx used to quip they were the only NM [New Mexico] truckers that could  get onto the base.

Note, you have to have a serious background check to get inside the gates.

The last time I talked to xxxx (~16 mos).  He was called to the Sandia main gate. Where he was to transport a load from inside the base to the front gate to a 3rd party trucker who could not get a security clearance to get inside the gate.

He related his story about the cargo:  He drove deep onto the base into a uber secure facility.  Where and AP put a weapon to the back of his head and told him to follow the painted foot prints on the floor.  He was then instructed to face the wall. (SOP for this facility) After the cargo was loaded, the AP came back, they did the reverse procedure and Hayes then delivered his cargo to outside the front gate where this 3rd World trucker, who should not been within 10 miles of Kirkland AFB took charge of the cargo.

Apparently, our beloved FedGov.Inc (note domain suffix) has been importing 3rd World types and:

  • Paying for their CDL license training
  • Giving / leasing them Commercial trucks
  • Giving them lucrative Gummint hauling contracts for hauling TS and above components..
  • Taking contracts from US contractors capable of getting needed clearances.

Not a recipe for success.

Regards

This closely parallels what my inside source said about Vet/Sec. I believe we are seeing just the tip of the iceberg.


We cannot confirm or deny any of this information but hope that by bringing it to light other resources (Breitbart, WND, Daily Caller, Alex Jones/Prison Planet, etc.) will.

It is all too believable.

Tennessee: Friends, family knew Muslim who killed Marines wanted jihad, failed to alert authorities

Staff photo by Doug Strickland / Sophia Ensley, right, and Barbie Branum hug in front of an Amnicola Highway memorial for victims of the July, 16 shootings on Saturday, July 18, 2015, in Chattanooga, Tenn. U.S. Navy Petty Officer Randall Smith died Saturday from wounds sustained when gunman Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez shot and killed four U.S. Marines and wounded two others and a Chattanooga police officer at the Naval Operational Support Center on Amnicola Highway shortly after firing into the Armed Forces Career Center on Lee Highway.

Staff photo by Doug Strickland /
July 16, 2015 Chattanooga, Tenn. Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez shot and killed four U.S. Marines, one Navy officer and wounded two others and a Chattanooga police officer at the Naval Operational Support Center on Amnicola Highway shortly after firing into the Armed Forces Career Center on Lee Highway.

What kind of nondescript headline is this in the Times Free Press? WTF? Source: FBI: People knew July 16 shooter was radicalized, failed to alert authorities | Times Free Press

The 24-year-old Muslim man who carried out the July 16 terrorist attack in Chattanooga was radicalized for at least a year before he opened fire on two military sites and killed five U.S. service members, an FBI agent told the Times Free Press today.

The FBI believes people who knew Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez knew he was becoming radicalized before the attack, but failed to report Abdulazeez to authorities, Special Agent Ed Reinhold said.

Abdulazeez was radicalized online before he took a July 2014 trip to the Middle East to visit family and discussed committing jihad before he carried out the attack in Chattanooga, Reinhold said.

“He had discussed committing jihad; he had not taken any affirmative action toward it,” Reinhold said.

Reinhold declined to say where those discussions took place, or with whom. He said the FBI was not aware of the discussions before the attack, and added that Abdulazeez did not espouse his beliefs or intentions online.

Abdulazeez definitely planned the attack and intended to kill as many people as he could, Reinhold said, but the planning was relatively short-term.

“I know he wanted to commit jihad and commit jihad here in the United States, but I don’t think the specific target was necessarily picked out too far in advance. There was some planning involved, but not years-worth.”

Reinhold declined to say whether the FBI intends to pursue charges against the people who failed to report Abdulazeez’s radicalization.

He also would not say whether anyone is currently under surveillance in Chattanooga in connection to last year’s attack, but emphasized there is no threat of an imminent follow-up attack and that the investigation is active and ongoing.

“We have to be much more cautious with the information we release, in the event that we’re able to show others were involved, we don’t want that information released because it could create problems when it comes to potential prosecutions,” he said. “I’m not saying we’re looking at any prosecutions, I’m just saying we have to be careful with any evidence we collect in the event that it does lead to somebody or something else.”


One more reason why Muslims should be banned from emigrating to America.

Former DOD Official Warns America On Wrong Track Fighting War On Terror

The right track starts by banning Muslims from migrating to the United States. Any other plan may slow the inevitable but will be futile in the long run. 

Source: Rich Higgins: Terrorists ‘Weaponizing Political Correctness’ | The Daily Caller Continue reading

Video: Pentagon Celebrates Islamic ‘Month of Jihad’

An update on the Pentagon’s taxpayer-funded but invitation-only Ramadan feast, thanks to reader Martin for this video in which the Pentagon not only celebrates Ramadan but seems to promote Islam and rewrite history. They even had the gall to publish this video on Independence Day, July 4. Check out this slide:

screen-pent-ift

And while we haven’t yet translated the transcript, it appears that someone at the Pentagon is trying to claim two African-American slaves who fought in the Revolutionary War were Muslims…although there is no evidence whatsoever that they were.

salem-poor

Unlike many Muslims now occupying U.S. territory, Salem Poor was a patriot

Video below.

Your tax dollars at work promoting Islam and as one Muslim in the video states, “now they [the U.S. military] accommodates Ramadan.” The month of jihad.


The Pentagon has been infiltrated at the highest levels:

Pentagon submits to Islam, forces Air Force to remove video that might offend Muslims

Pentagon brass crush career of Army officer who warned of jihadists

Pentagon Purged Military Instruction “Offensive to Islam”

Pentagon orders Islamic sensitivity training for U.S. troops after Afghans murder them

Pentagon submits to Hamas-linked CAIR, SEAL training range removes Islamic images as targets

Pentagon bows to Islam, suspends course for military officers exposing Islam

Many more posts in the archives including:

DoD and Pentagon blocking Creeping Sharia blog


Obama used the end of the month of jihad to lecture non-Muslim Americans about Islam too:  Obama Encourages Americans to Fast on Ramadan

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 60,087 other followers

%d bloggers like this: