Report: Sen. Sessions Exposes 12 Refugees Linked to Terrorism This Year

Senator Jeff Sessions press statement on Obama plan for Syrian resettlement to America-media-1NumbersUSA

Refuting claims suggesting that no refugees had been linked to terrorism, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., released a list of 12 refugees who had links to terror plans in 2015, according to Breitbart News. These claims went viral in the main stream media just as President Obama came under increasing fire for his plan to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees in the U.S. this fiscal year.

Below are excerpts from Breitbart’s report concerning several of the refugees sought, indicted or sentenced on terror grounds.

“On January 29, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, a federal warrant was unsealed for the arrest of Liban Haji Mohamed – a native of Somalia who sources indicate came to the United States as a refugee, adjusted to Lawful Permanent Resident status, and subsequently applied for and received citizenship – for allegedly providing material support to Harakat Shabaab Al-Mujahidin, also known as Al-Shabaab and Al-Qaeda. Mohamed is believed to have left the U.S. on July 5, 2012, with the intent to join Al-Shabaab in East Africa.

“On February 5, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Abdinassir Mohamud Ibrahim – a native of Somalia who came to the United States as a refugee in 2007 at the age of 22 and subsequently adjusted to Lawful Permanent Resident status – was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison for conspiring to provide material support to Al-Shabaab…and for making a false statement in his immigration paperwork. Ibrahim knowingly lied in his application for citizenship, and previously lied on his request for refugee status, by falsely claiming that he was of a member of the minority Awer clan in Somalia and subject to persecution.

“On February 5, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Armin Harcevic – a native of Bosnia who came to the United States as a refugee, and subsequently adjusted to Lawful Permanent Resident status – was charged with conspiring to provide material support and resources to terrorists, and with providing material support to terrorists. According to the Indictment, Harcevic collected money from third parties and wired it and his own funds to terrorists abroad.

“On February 5, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Mediha Medy Salkicevic – a native of Bosnia who sources indicate came to the United States as a refugee, adjusted to Lawful Permanent Resident status, and subsequently applied for and received citizenship – was charged with conspiring to provide material support and resources to terrorists, and providing material support to terrorists. According to press accounts, Salkicevic was formerly an employee with a cargo company that deals with items coming in and out of Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport.”

Breitbart reports a congressional staffer said the following about Sen. Sessions’ list: “This list — which only covers 2015 and not the many jihadis from prior years — illustrates just how incapable our government is of vetting refugees or predicting post-entry radicalization. Yet the president wants a completely blank-check [in the appropriations bill] to fund not only all of these existing refugee programs from across the globe, but to add a permanent Syrian resettlement program to it — funded directly out of Americans’ paychecks and retirement accounts.”

Congress will determine funding for Obama’s refugee programs as part of an appropriations bill that must pass by December 11, the expiration of the continuing resolution that is currently funding the federal government.

Read more about Sen. Sessions’ list in Breitbart News, or a related story about refugee involvement in terror plots.


Examining the Tactics Used in the Mali Attack


Editor’s note: Stratfor has produced this supplemental edition of the Security Weekly to amplify readers’ understanding of the Nov. 20 terrorist attack in Mali. The Security Weekly publishes regularly each Thursday.

The Nov. 20 attack on the Radisson Blu hotel in Bamako, Mali, that killed at least 22 people has been claimed as a joint operation by a group known as al-Mourabitoun, led by prominent jihadist Mokhtar Belmokhtar, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Another group, the Macina Liberation Front, also claimed responsibility on Nov. 22. The Macina Liberation Front is a relatively new group that emerged in January, but the jihadist milieu in Mali is fluid: Groups frequently cooperate (or fight) with one another, and militants can drift from group to group. In this type of environment, it would not be unusual for gunmen from multiple groups to work together on a large operation.

The tactics used by the attackers before and during the operation — along with those of security forces responding to the scene — highlight a number of narratives that Stratfor has observed across the militant landscape over the past several years.

First, it serves as a reminder that hotels are popular targets for militant organizations. When striking an international hotel in a major city, militants can make the same kind of statement against the West as when striking an embassy. The hotels typically targeted are often full of Western business travelers, journalists, diplomats and intelligence officers — rich environments for militants seeking to kill Westerners and gain international media attention without having to penetrate the extreme security of a hardened target like a modern embassy.

In response, major hotels have done a commendable job increasing security, and today it is harder to attack them than it was a decade ago. These enhanced security measures have saved lives on several occasions in recent years, such as in the massive vehicle bomb attack against the Marriott in Islamabad in September 2008.

However, as Stratfor has long noted, security measures and personnel alone can never provide absolute protection for a target. Quite simply, if proficient attackers are allowed to conduct preoperational surveillance at will, they will be able to assess security measures, observe patterns and identify ways to either exploit gaps in security coverage or launch an attack powerful enough to defeat the protective measures in place. It appears that the Bamako attackers observed that vehicles with diplomatic license plates were given preferential treatment at the Radisson’s security checkpoints. They reportedly took advantage of that fact to tailgate a car with diplomatic license plates passing through security to penetrate the hotel’s outer ring of security.

The lesson is not only that security checks should be applied uniformly, but also that measures should be taken to deny attackers the freedom to identify such deficiencies in the first place.

Another trend highlighted in the Bamako attack was the use of an armed assault to penetrate a target and kill people inside rather than the use of a vehicle bomb to attack the outside of a building. For several years now, hotels and similar targets such as shopping malls have increasingly hardened their outer perimeter security to render large vehicle bombs less deadly. Consequently, attackers have increasingly turned to smaller suicide bombs and armed assaults, both of which also require fewer resources than a large vehicle bomb, to circumvent or penetrate hotel security and create higher body counts among their intended victims.

From a security angle, the case in Mali also exemplifies certain best practices employed by those responding to attacks. First, the Malian security forces and their French partners did not merely sit back and establish a perimeter to wait out the attackers, as security forces did in past attacks such as the 2008 hotel attacks in Mumbai. In Bamako, security forces recognized that the goal of the attackers was to create maximum carnage rather than, say, hold hostages for ransom. The authorities quickly moved on the hotel and engaged the attackers rather than permitting them the freedom to move from room to room to find and execute guests. This undoubtedly saved lives, as have similar responses in past attacks against targets such as the Serena hotel in Kabul, which has been targeted multiple times. The rapid reaction and the lack of looting by security forces at the hotel indicate that training provided by French and U.S. advisers is bearing some fruit.

Finally, many of the guests in the hotel are alive today because they took appropriate action in the face of danger. Several guests quickly fled the hotel, while others barricaded themselves in their rooms and hid from the attackers — two steps of the “run, hide, fight” mantra we encourage people to employ in active shooter situations. Sadly, attacks like the one in Bamako will continue to overcome protective measures, for the reasons we’ve outlined above. But when security forces take timely and decisive action, and when victims respond appropriately, the carnage inflicted during an attack can be considerably reduced.

Examining the Tactics Used in the Mali Attack is republished with permission of Stratfor.”

The Intifada Comes To Austin

Islam on Campus

Phyllis Chesler | Front Page Magazine

The hateful disruption of a professor’s lecture and its litigious aftermath may signify a new kind of “uprising” on the American campus.

Earlier this month, on November 13th, twelve members of a group calling itself the “Palestine Solidarity Committee,” descended, lynch-mob style, upon an American campus in Austin, Texas. What happened next makes the grossly objectionable Apartheid Week follies slightly pale in comparison.

Here’s why.

The ringleader, Mohammed Nabulsi, is a law student and presumably an American citizen. He is educated, not illiterate; he is not living in a Jordanian refugee camp; presumably, he has options. This suggests that his rage and his motivation are coming from other sources.

Political tracts, religious texts, perhaps? Or, does he believe that this will advance him personally in some way? That’s been known to happen.

Perhaps what’s new about the intifada in Austin is this:

Such anti-Israel anger is no longer merely yelling itself hoarse outside on the campus pavement. Nor are the protestors conducting brief “aktions” and then fleeing the scene. Now, they are holding forth at great length instead of scheduled lecturers.

The non-invited Nabulsi claimed that he was there to give a speech—and not Professor Ami Pedahzur’s invited guest, Dr. Gil-Li Vardi from Stanford University. Nabulsi said he would not leave until he, too, was heard.

What exactly are Nabulski’s credentials? Well, he had a grandfather who…

Such entitled aggressiveness, this pure example of Islamist supremacism, is being tolerated (is that because it is so familiar?) for longer periods of time in the American classroom.

In addition, whoever is behind this political act-up/act-out theater, has circulated a heavily edited video meant to vilify Professor Ami Pedazhur.

Professor Pedazhur had invited an academic to deliver a lecture. He had not publicized a debate or an open mic or a Speak-Out. However, increasingly, all classes that touch on the Jewish presence in the Middle East become shouting matches unless the discussion is a completely anti-Zionist presentation. Then, there are no disruptions and no debates.

This apparently unaffiliated group unfurled the Palestinian flag, accused Israel of “ethnic cleansing,” and shouted “Long live the Intifada” which, by definition, is a genocidal call for Israel’s destruction.

Why is this group even allowed on campus? They are not an academic group. They are a goon squad, the 21st century equivalent of the Hitler-era fascist Brownshirts. They are trespassers with hate in their hearts and on their lips.

What is the University of Texas administration planning to do about harboring such haters in its midst?

Precious little, it seems. Both the President and the Dean have released mealy-mouthed statements.

But how will UT-Austin handle the lawsuit that Nabulsi and others in his group are now threatening to bring? Yes, the aggressors are potentially suing for having been…”offended?” “Violated?” Predictably, Nabulsi’s group is not only threatening to sue, they are whining that they—the bullies-in-chief—no longer feel “safe” on campus.

They are enacting the role of both the persecutor and the victim, just as Palestinian Jihadists do. They—the Jerusalem jihadists and the American students in their image—initiate the violence and then insist that the world count them as “victims.”

Here’s what we must wrestle to the ground: The continued claim that such angry, highly propagandized disruptions are intrinsic to learning in the West; that deeply “felt” propaganda is equivalent to objective facts; that such in-your-face false “equivalencies” are what academic freedom and free speech are supposed to protect.

This must change. Someone has got to legally “unpack,” as the deconstructionists might say, the difference between free speech, hate speech, academic freedom, and the First Amendment–and the difference between a civilized learning environment and intimidation which permits no independent thought to flourish or survive.

Neither President Greg Fenves nor Dean Randy Diehl at UT-Austin seem to understand that a lecture is not supposed to be interrupted; that debates can be civil and carefully planned; that a political rally is not the same as an academic lecture.


EPA’s “Clean Power Plan” Hikes Prices in All 47 States That It Regulates


According to a recent study by NERA Economic Consulting, EPA’s regulation of carbon dioxide from power plants, the so-called “Clean Power Plan” (CPP), will hike electricity prices in all 47 states that are subject to the regulation. Of those 47 states, 41 states are projected to see double-digit “peak” electricity price increases and 28 states are projected to see “peak” electricity price increases greater than 20 percent.[i] The plan’s projected cost of at least $29 billion annually is three times greater than the cost of EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics rule, to which the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “It is not rational … to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in … benefits.” The benefits of the CPP are miniscule, reducing global carbon dioxide emissions by less than 1 percent and global temperatures by 0.02 degrees Celsius by 2100, according to EPA’s own models.[ii]

Screen Shot 2015-11-20 at 9.47.49 AM


NERA projects much higher costs than EPA because[iii]:

  • EPA projects that the upfront cost of energy efficiency will decline over time and that electricity prices will also eventually decline as investments in energy efficiency pay off. In contrast, NERA assumes that the lower cost options will be accomplished first and the more costly ones later, resulting in higher electricity prices over time.
  • EPA underestimates the amount of coal-fired capacity that will be prematurely retired due to the CPP. EPA assumes about 100,000 megawatts of coal — about one-third of the nation’s fleet — will be retired due to other EPA regulations before the CPP goes into effect. NERA, however, projects that 47,000 megawatts of coal will be prematurely retired due to the CPP. Because EPA assumes more coal retirements before the CPP takes effect, fewer coal plants are left to prematurely close, making EPA’s analysis of the CPP less costly.

The NERA Study

NERA evaluated 2 scenarios, using an energy economic model, evaluating the impacts relative to a base case without the CPP, which is calibrated to the Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2015. The scenarios differ based on the amount of trading assumed: either intra-state or regional. Regional trading is based on the 6 regions developed by EPA and depicted below:

Screen Shot 2015-11-20 at 4.13.43 PM

Source: NERA,

The analysis determines the least cost compliance options from those the CPP allows, including end-use energy efficiency. For each scenario, two different assumptions are evaluated based on the allocation of allowances to local distribution companies (LDCs):

  • No LDC allocation where all allowances are auctioned
  • 50% LDC allocation where half of the allowances are auctioned and the other half are distributed at no cost to LDCs and used as credit to retail rates

It is assumed that the LDCs pass free allowances to electricity consumers by lowering rates. However, regardless of the case, the revenue from the allowances is returned to households either through lower rates or through other means.

The impacts are:

  • Average U.S. electricity rate increases range from 11 percent per year to 14 percent per year between 2022 and 2033
  • Losses to consumers range between $64 billion and $79 billion on a present value basis over the same time period
  • Energy sector expenditure increases range from $220 to $292 billion (spending from 2022 through 2033, brought to present value in 2016), averaging between $29 and $39 billion per year. Energy expenditures include changes in electricity generation costs, energy efficiency costs, and natural gas costs to non-electric consumers. Expenditures do not include increased costs for transmission and distribution and natural gas infrastructure.
  • Carbon dioxide emissions are reduced between 19 percent and 21 percent from the emissions in the base case and are projected to be 36 percent to 37 percent lower than they were in 2005 by 2031.

Most Costly EPA Rule for Power Plants

At $29 to $39 billion per year, the CPP is the most costly rule ever promulgated by EPA for power plants. All of EPA’s clear air regulations for power plants cost less than $7 billion in 2010. In 2011, the Mercury and Air Toxic Standard was projected to cost $10 billion per year. In 2015, the CPP is projected to cost as much as $39 billion per year. (See graph below.)

Screen Shot 2015-11-20 at 9.50.06 AM



According to the NERA analysis, the EPA has severely underestimated the cost of compliance with its regulation of carbon dioxide from power plants, and by doing so it is trying to make Americans believe that the government can force the electric generating sector to eliminate a massive amount of low-cost coal-fired generation for little or relatively no cost. U.S. consumers of electricity will pay for prematurely retiring coal-fired plants through substantially higher electricity prices. Because EPA has set emission reduction targets by state, the impact of the higher costs will not be borne equally, but 40 states (out of 47 affected) could see average electricity prices rise by 10 percent or more and 27 states could see average electricity prices increase 20 percent or more.

The CPP, if allowed by the courts to proceed, will be the costliest EPA regulation affecting the U.S. generating sector and all Americans consumers. With no real impact on temperature – 2/100ths of one degree celsius in 2100 – the EPA’s regulation seems more consistent with President Obama’s campaign promise to make “electricity prices necessarily skyrocket” than to moderating global climate change. Policymakers should know that this costliest of electric power regulations actually achieves meaningless progress towards the goal that EPA uses to justify it.

[i] NERA Economic Consulting, Energy and Economic Impacts Of EPA’s Clean Power Plan, November 7, 2015,

[ii] Institute for Energy Research,

[iii] Watch Dog, A big financial hit for the Clean Power Plan? Study claims price hike in 47 states, November 11, 2015,

Warning: If You Live Anywhere Near Chicago, Brace Yourself For Massive Rioting

Warning: If You Live Anywhere Near Chicago, Brace Yourself For Massive Rioting-media-2

Michael Snyder

A video is going to be released that shows a white police officer shooting a 17-year-old African-American young man named Laquan McDonald 16 times.  Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez says that this video is “graphic”, “violent” and “chilling”, and it is expected to provoke a very strong emotional reaction from Chicago’s very large African-American community.  Over the past few years, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Freddie Gray have all become household names because of the way that they died, and now it looks like Laquan McDonald’s name will be added to that list.  But the situation in Chicago is potentially even more volatile what we witnessed in either Ferguson or Baltimore.  More than a million African-Americans live in the Chicago metropolitan area, and the crime rate in the city has already been skyrocketing.  In fact, it is being projected that Chicago’s murder rate will increase by 20 percent in 2015.  This is a city that is always living on the edge of chaos, and now the case of Laquan McDonald could be the spark that sets Chicago ablaze.

After everything that has happened over the past few years, the last thing that we need is another incident that will make racial tensions in this country even worse.  Unfortunately, that appears to be exactly what we are going to get.  Cook County Judge Franklin Valderrama has ordered the city of Chicago to release the video of the death of Laquan McDonald to the public by November 25th.  The following comes from CNN

Laquan McDonald was walking down a Chicago street the night of October 20, 2014, carrying a four-inch knife and behaving erratically, authorities say.

A police officer told him to drop the knife. He didn’t listen, and the officer fired on him out of fear for his life, according to a police union spokesman.

McDonald, 17, died. He was shot 16 times.

Now, more than a year later, the public will be able to see what happened.

This video is reportedly extremely disturbing.  For African-American activists that have already had their patience stretched to the maximum by similar cases over the past few years, this horrifying video could prove to be the final straw.

Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez specifically moved up the announcement of murder charges against the white police officer that shot McDonald to November 24th in a desperate attempt to defuse the reaction to the video that will be released on the 25th.  This next excerpt comes from USA Today

Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez described the video, which shows Van Dyke unloading 16 shots on 17-year-old Laquan McDonald, as grim.

“It is graphic, it is violent, it is chilling,” Alvarez told reporters after Van Dyke appeared in court Tuesday.

Alvarez said she made her decision weeks ago to charge Van Dyke, but had delayed announcing while federal authorities completed their parallel investigation of the incident.But after a judge ordered the release of the dashcam video by Wednesday, Alvarez said it was necessary to move up her office’s timeline even as her federal counterparts continue to their investigation.

“I felt compelled in the interest of public safety to announce these state charges today, ” Alvarez said.

And needless to say, this is the kind of thing that could easily cause the city of Chicago to erupt in unprecedented violence.

In fact, Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass is already fearing the worst

John Kass, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, said the videocould tear Chicago apart.”

Dean Angelo, the president of the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police, told CNN affiliate WBBM he is concerned protesters from outside the city may converge to “disrupt and cause problems.”

“This is my city. We all live here,” Angelo said. “I’m concerned about the safety of my officers. I’m concerned about the safety of the civilian population. … I think local people don’t want to see their neighborhoods damaged.”

And even the governor of Illinois seems quite alarmed that we could see riots.  Here is more from USA Today

Gov. Bruce Rauner announced Tuesday that his office had been debriefed on the video and that he expected public reaction to “strong,” the Associated Press reports. The governor directed Illinois State Police to work with Chicago Police to make sure the public remains safe following the release of the video. The governor, however, declined to say whether he has deployed any additional state troopers or put the National Guard on standby.

Even at the best of times, Chicago seems to be dealing with turmoil.  Poverty is a persistent and growing problem, the city is teetering on the brink of insolvency, and it has become a central hub for some of the largest criminal gangs in the entire nation.

According to a CBS News article that was published back in 2012, there are 100,000 members of criminal gangs living in the city of Chicago alone…

Sgt. Matt Little leads one of the teams in Chicago’s Gang Enforcement Unit. There are about 200 such officers in the city– versus 100,000 gang members.

“Almost all the violence we’re seeing now is from the gangs,” Little said. “When there’s a shooting we’ll respond to the shooting. We’ll figure out where we believe the most likely area for retaliation is and we’ll work that area trying to both prevent retaliation and possibly build a case on offenders.”

And thanks to unchecked illegal immigration, more gang members are pouring into Chicago every single day.

So if there were 100,000 three years ago, how many are there now?

Back in early April, I warned about the civil unrest that was coming to America, and I specifically named three cities that would be flashpoints: Baltimore, Chicago and Washington D.C.

I issued this warning before any of us had ever even heard the name “Freddie Gray”, but by the end of April the city of Baltimore resembled a war zone.

And now Chicago appears poised to descend into chaos.

If you live anywhere near Chicago, you need to prepare yourself and your family for what could happen next.

If this video is anywhere close to as bad as we are hearing, it could set off anger unlike anything we have seen up to this point, and that would not be good for any of us.

Source: End of the American Dream

Congress Needs to Demand Return of Every Dollar Spent on Failed Obamacare Exchanges

Congress should make sure taxpayer money spent on failed Obamacare exchanges is recovered

Congress should make sure taxpayer money spent on failed Obamacare exchanges is recovered

After spending at least $3.2 billion of the $5.5 billion allocated for the creation of state-based exchanges under the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, some states are now seeking to get some of that money from lawsuits involving the failure of those exchanges. In the instances of the Maryland and Oregon state-based exchanges failing, both states have sued contractors involved and are seeking to get some of the money should they win settlements and judgments. All of the funds spent on the state-based exchanges came from federal taxpayer money. This has raised questions about whether some states are seeking to cash in on the failure of these exchanges.

The issue has been questions by members of both houses of Congress, including House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), how has expressed interest in investigating the spending of the money on the state-based exchanges, and three senators who have also looked into this issue. Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and John Barrasso (R-WY) sent a letter to the acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Andrew Slavitt, seeking answers about how this money was spent and will be recovered by the federal government.

The failure of the “Cover Oregon” Obamacare exchange in that state is perhaps the most notable example of the failure of the state-based Obamacare “health care marketplace” web sites. More than $300 million of federal taxpayer money was spent building the site before Gov. John Kitzhaber pulled the plug on the site and sued Oracle for its failure. A settlement in the case of the failed Obamacare exchange in Maryland has lead to the firm involved there, Noridian Healthcare Solutions, agreeing to pay $45 million to CMS and the state of Maryland.

While the state-based exchanges were disastrous failures because this was an effort by the federal and state governments to re-invent something the free market does far more effectively, it is clear that federal taxpayer money funded these enterprises and any money recovered from their failure should go directly back to CMS and the federal government where it came from. As much so as possible, taxpayers should be refunded this money rather than state governments obtaining it, who hadn’t paid for these failed state-based exchanges when they were created.

Congress needs to fully investigate the failed exchanges and hold the federal and state government agencies fully accountable for this failure and the spending of billions of dollars of federal funds on these state Obamacare web sites. Congress should demand that all the money be accounted for, that was spent, and as much of it recovered as possible.

We should learn the lesson from the epic failure of Obamacare. Legislators, governors and candidates for president alike should realize how badly government fails when it attempts to manage and regulate such a large sector of the economy, like healthcare, that the free market does so much more efficiently and effectively. We should not have had to learn this lesson again, if Obamacare hadn’t been enacted, because we already know big government never succeeds with policies like this. The epic failure of Obamacare, and full accountability for it, are what the taxpayer deserve and should receive.