SEPT. 11 TERROR ATTACKS: 17 YEARS LATER by Michael Cutler

SEPT. 11 TERROR ATTACKS: 17 YEARS LATER

The disturbing allegiances of the Democratic Party.

 

Preamble by the author:

My article for today is predicated on the undeniable fact that the Damoclean Sword of terrorism still hangs over America as we remember the terror attacks of 9/11.

Nevertheless, the “leadership” of the Democratic Party insist on ordering “Shields Down” by demanding the termination of immigration law enforcement.

The 9/11 Commission identified multiple failures of the immigration system as the vulnerabilities that terrorists, including the 9/11 hijackers exploited, enabling them to enter the United States in the first place and then embed themselves so that they could hide in plain sight as they made their deadly preparations.

 As you read my article you must not forget how Democratic politicians have created “Sanctuary Cities” and “Sanctuary States” that operate in open defiance of our immigration laws, create safe havens for foreign nationals, from all over the world, who would do America and Americans great harm.  This includes foreign criminals as well as international terrorists and so-called “sleeper agents.”  Sanctuary Cities create potential “staging areas” for such criminals and terrorists providing them with access to our entire country and all Americans from coast to coast and border to border.

Ignorance is not bliss.  Knowledge is power, so my article provides some cold hard facts for you to consider and hopefully share with others.

 

SEPT. 11 TERROR ATTACKS: 17 YEARS LATER

The disturbing allegiances of the Democratic Party.

By Michael Cutler

September 11, 2018

For me, writing about the terror attacks of 9/11 has become something of an annual ritual.

I don’t do this to rehash old news and old concerns but out of my burning desire to prevent future terror attacks by pointing out the vulnerabilities that undermine national security and public safety.  Those threats are as real today as they were on that sunny late summer morning 17 years ago.

Since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 I have testified before numerous Congressional hearings and provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission and have testified before state legislative hearings across the United States.

Wherever I participate in panel discussions and other public speaking engagements I am frequently asked essentially the same question by concerned members of the audience, “Are we safer today than we were on September 10, 2001?”

From the immigration perspective, my area of expertise, it is clear that we are not only not safer, but increasingly at risk.  In point of fact, today because of the Radical Leftist ideology that the Democratic Party has adopted, America’s threat level has risen precipitously.  I addressed this extreme danger in my recent article, Democrats’ Attack On ICE Agents Is Workingmaking more terrorism inevitable.

Let me be as clear about this as I can.  I am not being partisan, I am being pro-American!

I have been a registered Democrat for more than five decades.  The problem is that Democrats are no longer Democrats but have morphed into a political party of anarchists and seditionists.

The Democratic Party has been hijacked as certainly as were those four airliners on September 11, 2001 turning crowded passenger airliners into de facto cruise missiles.

Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary States have spread across the United States like a wildfire, obstructing the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.

The official report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel noted:

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

Mayors of Sanctuary Cities claim to be motivated by compassion but in reality, Sanctuary Cities Protect Crooked Employers and Human Traffickers.

Leaders of the Democratic Party have only shown utter contempt and disdain for immigration law enforcement personnel, thereby endangering the agents’ safety and the safety of their families.  New York’s Governor Cuomo, has referred to ICE agents as “thugs” and has threatened to prosecute these dedicated law enforcement professionals for carrying out their lawful duties.

This also has a chilling effect, dissuading folks who have actionable intelligence from reaching out to ICE.

The second largest continence of federal agent who are assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) are the agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  This is not by chance.  Alien terrorists all violate multiple provisions of our nations immigration laws.

Now the unthinkable has happened as the “leadership” of the Democratic Party has demanded that ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) be disbanded altogether and immigration law enforcement be terminated.

I addressed this suicidal seditionist call to arms of Americans by the now radicalized Democratic Party in my recent article, Immigration Anarchists vs National Security in which I noted that Dismantling ICE would lower America’s shields in a dangerous era.

In the days, weeks and months after the attacks of 9/11 our leaders warned us that for the terrorists to succeed in carrying out deadly terror attacks in the United States they need to “Get it right” only once while our officials needed to “get it right” 100% of the time.

Beyond that slogan, that became a virtual mantra, we must understand what that really means.

There was an old humorous riddle that asked “How many fools does it take to screw in a lightbulb?”  Where terrorists are concerned the equivalent question is “How many terrorists does it take to wreck havoc on America?”  Terrorism has been defined as “asymmetric warfare.”

Terror organizations certainly do not have access to the military firepower that the United States can bring to bear.  However, as we saw on 9/11, just nineteen terrorists inflicted a greater number of casualties on the United States’ mainland than was inflicted by the Japanese fleet on the U.S. at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Furthermore, the casualty count continues to climb and it is now estimated that more than 10,000 people continue to suffer grave consequences of the toxins that they ingested when the World Trade Center was reduced to rubble in lower Manhattan.

The horrifying reality is that every single alien who manages to enter the United States, either legally or illegally provides terrorists with that single opportunity that they need to carry out a deadly attack.

Every year tens of millions of aliens enter the United States legally and illegally.  This means that if only a fraction of 1% of the millions of aliens who enter our country annually came with the intentions of launching a massive terror attack, we are in deep trouble.

It was recently reported that last year some 700,000 nonimmigrant aliens who had been lawfully admitted through ports of entry failed to depart from the United States as required.

Annually more than 6 million applications for various immigration benefits are adjudicated by the overwhelmed and beleaguered adjurations officers of USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services).  Those benefits include political asylum, the conferring of lawful immigrant status and conferring U.S. citizenship upon resident aliens via the naturalization process.

The 9/11 Commission, to which I provided testimony, warned that immigration fraud was the key method of entry and embedding for terrorists.  These cases are investigated by ICE and are a component of what is known as “interior enforcement” of our immigration laws.

9/11 and  Terrorist Travel reported:

Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.

Therefore, each time an alien is granted any immigration benefit or even is able to file for such a benefit, terrorists among them may acquire that opportunity essential for them to be able to launch a deadly attack.

If only a fraction of one percent of the six million applicants for immigration benefits are terrorists, we are indeed in deep trouble.

Yet the leadership of the Democratic Party not only refuses to fund the construction of a wall to secure the southern border to the United States but has demanding that the agency charged with enforcing our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) be totally disbanded and enforcement of our immigration laws be terminated.

Let’s briefly consider more recent developments.

On November 20, 2013 ABC News reported, “Exclusive: US May Have Let ‘Dozens’ of Terrorists Into Country As Refugees.”  This is not a new problem, on July 13, 2011 the Washington Times published a truly disturbing article, “Visas reviewed to find those who overstayed / Aim is to find any would-be terrorists.”

On September 2, 2014 ABC News reported, “Lost in America: Visa Program Struggles to “Track Missing Foreign Students.”

Here is how this report began:

The Department of Homeland Security has lost track of more than 6,000 foreign nationals who entered the United States on student visas, overstayed their welcome, and essentially vanished — exploiting a security gap that was supposed to be fixed after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

“My greatest concern is that they could be doing anything,” said Peter Edge, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement official who oversees investigations into visa violators. “Some of them could be here to do us harm.”

My recent articles highlighted several cases involving alien terrorists who were fortunately arrested before they could do harm.

Here are a few of those articles that provide unequivocal evidence of the severity of the threats of terrorism that America and Americans face:

Iranian Agents charged With Targeting U.S. LocationsSleeper agents/assassins in our midst?

Somali Refugees Busted In Tucson:  Immigration fraud is at the heart of a terror case . . . again.

Jihadis And Drug Cartels At Our BorderA nightmare on the horizon.

Saudi Graduate Of Al Qaeda Terror Training Camp Arrested In OklahomaAlleged classmate of 9/11 hijackers attended US flight school in 2016.

The Democratic Party leadership has chosen sides.  They stand with transnational gangs and international terrorist organizations.  They stand with human traffickers and crooked employers.

Elections most certainly have consequences, arguably more so this year than any year since the founding of our great nation.

Michael Cutler is a retired Senior Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years. He served as an Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and spent 26 years as an agent who rotated through all of the squads within the Investigations Branch. He has testified before well over a dozen congressional hearings, provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission as well as state legislative hearings around the United States and at trials where immigration is at issue.

 

Article

 

a

 

Amazing Democrats read Kavanaughs 147,000 pages but Obamacare had to pass before anyone could read it

Amazing Democrats read Kavanaugh’s 147,000 pages but Obamacare had to pass before anyone could read it.

What is the DOJ and the FBI hiding?
When did the Democrats learn to read?

Kavanaugh documents take center stage in confirmation hearing: What do Dems want?

By Kaitlyn Schallhorn
Fox News

“Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing got off to a rocky start as multiple Democrats interjected and called for a delay – citing complaints that they haven’t seen all his records and only just received some of them.

Kavanaugh, 53, has served for the past 12 years on the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. He was involved with the independent counsel’s report in laying out the legal framework supporting then-President Bill Clinton’s impeachment and served in key positions in the White House when George W. Bush was president.

He faces questions about his opinions on presidential authority, particularly as Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation continues.

The contentious hearing has repeatedly been interrupted and fallen behind schedule as Democrats have called to pause the hearing due to document requests.

Sen. Kamala Harris, considered a potential 2020 Democratic presidential contender, raised objections to the recent release of some 42,000 documents just before the hearing kicked off; others called for a delay until the White House reverses course on its withholding of more than 100,000 pages of Kavanaugh’s record related to his time in the Bush administration.

Read on for a look at what lawmakers have had access to – and what Democrats want.

What documents does the committee have?

In all, about 267,000 pages of Kavanaugh documents from his Bush years have been made public with more than 147,000 pages given just to the committee.

Former President George W. Bush’s attorneys told the Senate Judiciary Committee Bush requested they “err as much as appropriate on the side of transparency and disclosure” in releasing documents to the committee. It said it withheld more than 46,000 documents – from both the public and the committee – because they were State Department records Kavanaugh possessed for consultation, did not fall within the time frame requested by the committee or were marked “protected by constitutional privilege” by the White House or Justice Department.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said the panel had been given access to more than 480,000 pages of emails and other documents from his service as an executive branch lawyer, more than 10,000 pages of judicial writings and 17,000 pages of speeches, articles, teaching materials and other items Kavanaugh attached to his 120-page questionnaire response.

Grassley, a Republican, also said the committee was able to review some 307 opinions he authored as well as hundreds more he joined.

“This is a half million pages of paper – more than the last five confirmed Supreme Court nominees combined,” Grassley, who has defended the document production as the most open in history, said.

Additionally, some 42,000 documents were made available to the committee relating to Kavanaugh’s work with past administrations just before the hearing’s start on Sept. 4.

Democrats vociferously argued for a delay in the hearing in order to have more time to review the documents. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, in particular, said it was impossible to go through them all in time for a fair hearing.

What do Democrats want?  

The White House blocked about 100,000 documents pertaining to Kavanaugh’s records from the Bush White House on the basis of presidential privilege – a point of contention for Democrats.

“We don’t know what is being hidden,” Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said during the hearing.

Schumer blasted President Trump ahead of the hearing for the withholding of certain documents.

“President Trump’s decision to step in at the last moment and hide [100,000] pages of Judge Kavanaugh’s records from the American public is not only unprecedented in the history of [Supreme Court nominees], it has all the makings of a cover up,” Schumer said in a tweet.

Democrats have also blasted Republicans for not requesting certain records, such as those pertaining to Kavanaugh’s time as a staff secretary.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., claimed Senate Democrats were not able to see records pertaining to “35 months of public service” as they “cannot even be considered.”

But Grassley, who has repeatedly rebuffed demands to postpone the hearing, said those documents “are the least useful in understanding his legal views and [are] the most sensitive to the executive branch.”

“What is being hidden and why?” Leahy asked Tuesday.”

Fox News’ Jennifer Earl and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Article

Article

Article

Brennan covers for the Deep State’s Trax.

The POS: John Brennan.

Trump’s full statement on revoking John Brennan’s security clearance

On Wednesday, President Trump announced he would revoke former CIA Director John Brennan’s security clearance. Below is the president’s full statement.

As the head of the executive branch and Commander in Chief, I have a unique, Constitutional responsibility to protect the Nation’s classified information, including by controlling access to it.  Today, in fulfilling that responsibility, I have decided to revoke the security clearance of John Brennan, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Historically, former heads of intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been allowed to retain access to classified information after their Government service so that they can consult with their successors regarding matters about which they may have special insights and as a professional courtesy.

Neither of these justifications supports Mr. Brennan’s continued access to classified information.  First, at this point in my Administration, any benefits that senior officials might glean from consultations with Mr. Brennan are now outweighed by the risks posed by his erratic conduct and behavior.  Second, that conduct and behavior has tested and far exceeded the limits of any professional courtesy that may have been due to him.

Mr. Brennan has a history that calls into question his objectivity and credibility.  In 2014, for example, he denied to Congress that CIA officials under his supervision had improperly accessed the computer files of congressional staffers.  He told the Council of Foreign Relations that the CIA would never do such a thing.  The CIA’s Inspector General, however, contradicted Mr. Brennan directly, concluding unequivocally that agency officials had indeed improperly accessed congressional staffers’ files.  More recently, Mr. Brennan told Congress that the intelligence community did not make use of the so-called Steele Dossier in an assessment regarding the 2016 election, an assertion contradicted by at least two other senior officials in the intelligence community and all of the facts.

Additionally, Mr. Brennan has recently leveraged his status as a former high-ranking official with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations – wild outbursts on the internet and television – about this Administration.  Mr. Brennan’s lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly inconsistent with access to the Nation’s most closely held secrets and facilitates the very aim of our adversaries, which is to sow division and chaos.

More broadly, the issue of Mr. Brennan’s security clearance raises larger questions about the practice of former officials maintaining access to our Nation’s most sensitive secrets long after their time in Government has ended.  Such access is particularly inappropriate when former officials have transitioned into highly partisan positions and seek to use real or perceived access to sensitive information to validate their political attacks.  Any access granted to our Nation’s secrets should be in furtherance of national, not personal, interests.  For this reason, I have also begun to review the more general question of the access to classified information by former Government officials.

As part of this review, I am evaluating action with respect to the following individuals:  James Clapper, James Comey, Michael Hayden, Sally Yates, Susan Rice, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr.  Security clearances for those who still have them may be revoked, and those who have already their lost their security clearance may not be able to have it reinstated.

It is for the foregoing reasons that I have exercised my Constitutional authority to deny Mr. Brennan access to classified information, and I will direct appropriate staff of the National Security Council to make the necessary arrangements with the appropriate agencies to implement this determination.

Article

Article

Article

“You mean there is more…”
Is that a printout in your hand?


“How come the lights went on before he clapped.”


a

The Deep State Covers for Feinstein…because there is more…Imagine if U will…


What are the FBI and the DOJ covering up?

 

You mean there is more…”
Is that a printout in your hand?


That Girl.


Explain the Chinese spy, Sen. Feinstein

By Marc Thiesen

Imagine if it emerged that the Republican chairman of the House or Senate intelligence committee had a Russian spy working on their staff. Think it would cause a political firestorm? Well, this month we learned that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) had a Chinese spy on her staff who worked for her for about 20 years, was listed as an “office director” on payroll records and served as her driver when she was in San Francisco, all while reporting to China’s Ministry of State Security through China’s San Francisco Consulate. The reaction of the mainstream media? Barely a peep.

Feinstein acknowledged the infiltration but played down its significance. “Five years ago the FBI informed me it had concerns that an administrative member of my California staff was potentially being sought out by the Chinese government to provide information,” Feinstein said in a statement — which means the breach took place while Feinstein was heading the Intelligence Committee. But, Feinstein insisted, “he never had access to classified or sensitive information or legislative matters” and was immediately fired. In other words: junior staffer, no policy role, no access to secrets, quickly fired — no big deal.

But it is a big deal. I asked several former senior intelligence and law enforcement officials how serious this breach might have been. “It’s plenty serious,” one former top Justice Department official told me. “Focusing on his driver function alone, in Mafia families, the boss’s driver was among the most trusted men in the crew, because among other things he heard everything that was discussed in the car.”

A former top CIA clandestine officer explained to me what the agency would do if it had recruited the driver of a senior official such as Feinstein. “We would have the driver record on his phone all conversations that Feinstein would have with passengers and phone calls in her car. If she left her phone, iPad or laptop in the car while she went to meetings, social events, dinners, etc., we would have the driver download all her devices. If the driver drove for her for 20 years, he would probably would have had access to her office and homes. We would have had the source put down an audio device in her office or homes if the opportunity presented itself. Depending on the take from all of what the source reported, we would use the info to target others that were close to her and exhibited some type of vulnerability.”

“In short,” this officer said, “we would have had a field day.”

It seems improbable that Feinstein never once discussed anything sensitive in her car over a period of years. But let’s assume that Feinstein was extraordinarily careful and never discussed any classified information in front of her driver or on any devices to which he had access. Even so, one former top intelligence official told me, “someone in that position could give an adversary a whole bunch on atmospherics and trends and attitudes which are from time to time far more important than the things we call secrets.” He added, “It’s like [having access to her] unclassified emails.” (And we all know no one everexposes classified information on unclassified emails).

Washington is understandably focused on the threat from Russia. But according to FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, “China from a counterintelligence perspective represents the broadest, most pervasive, most threatening challenge we face as a country.” It was China, after all, that hacked the Office of Personnel Management in 2015, stealing the SF-86 security clearance forms of many thousands of executive-branch employees in the most devastating cyberattack in the history of our country. Beijing has successfully recruited FBI agents and State Department employees as spies, and has used information from U.S. informants to kill more than a dozen CIA sources inside the regime. And now, we know China recruited a high-value Senate staffer who worked in immediate proximity to the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Feinstein owes the country a detailed explanation of how she let a Chinese spy into her inner sanctum. And the media should give this security breach the same attention they would if it involved Russia and the Republicans.

Marc Thiessen writes a twice-weekly column for The Post on foreign and domestic policy and contributes to the PostPartisan blog. He is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

Article

 

How The FBI Let A Chinese Spy Skate To Protect This Powerful Democrat

“For 20 years, California Senator Dianne Feinstein had a Chinese spy on her office payroll.”

“The Prime Directive was obviously to do nothing to embarrass Feinstein and that is exactly how the FBI handled the situation. Compare and contrast it with the scorched earth policy the FBI has used in regards to the Trump campaign and administration.”

Article

Feinstein’s Ties to China Extend Beyond Chinese Spy

“According to the article, “For many years, Ms. Feinstein has tried to promote friendship and trade with China, and she has countered critics of the Chinese human-rights record by emphasizing what she described in a Senate speech last year as ‘major improvements in human rights’ there.”

“One of Feinstein’s first acts on becoming mayor of San Francisco in January 1979, was to visit Shanghai to establish sister-city relations.

The next apparent priority was re-establishing passenger airline service between China and the United States. Service was restored on Jan. 8, 1981, after a “32-year hiatus when a Boeing 747 with 139 Chinese passengers arrived exactly on time at San Francisco International Airport,” according to The New York Times.”

“According to the San Jose Mercury: “He [Jiang] once invited her and her husband to see Mao Tse-tung’s bedroom in his old residence, the first foreigners to do so. Feinstein had entertained Jiang in San Francisco, dancing with him as he sang ‘When We Were Young.’”

“This relationship proved fruitful in 1999, when President Bill Clinton was pushing to bring China into the World Trade Organization.”

Interuptus…

“A visit to Washington that year by Chinese Prime Minister Zhu Rongji, which many had hoped would seal the deal, produced nothing. Relations got even worse after U.S. bombers accidentally destroyed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade that May.”


Beverly Hills 90210. GO figure.

Article

“How come the lights went on before he clapped.”

“What do you mean that you don’t remember the exact count?”

 

a