If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

PARTICIPANT IN TASK FORCE CONFERENCE FOR PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION WHICH ADVOCATED ADVANCE OF ISLAM IN AMERICA, CLOSING OF GITMO

(Nov. 10, 2009) — There is no denying it, except at the White House.  Not only did he FBI knew of his contacts to jihadists and did nothing, but the Ft. Hood terrorist, Nidal Hasan, associated himself with Obama’s cause, participated in a public event discussing Obama’s presidential transition and the opening up American to Islamic penetration, not to mention the closing of Gitmo.

These conclusions are not speculation, but found in the official report of the Homeland Security Policy Institute, Presidential Transition Task Force, at George Washington University.  What this panel advocated is the very policy employed by the FBI in doing nothing regarding the known threat Hasan posed: namely a hands-off approach on “religious Muslims” in America.

The Report was entitled ironically, “Thinking Anew — Security Priorites for the Next Administration” !

Background of Task Force shows that it was infiltrated by Saudi Arabian government agent

The Institute describes itself thus, in its report:

Founded in 2003, The George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) is a nonpartisan “think and do” tank whose mission is to build bridges between theory and practice to advance homeland security through an interdisciplinary approach. By convening domestic and international policymakers and practitioners at all levels of government, the private and non-profit sectors, and academia, HSPI creates innovative strategies and solutions to current and future threats to the nation.

Nidal Hasan is listed as a participant in the Task Force conference, on p. 32 of the report in Appendix C.

How a non-partisan panel on security can attract a terrorist-to-be, is the question of the day.  A question which can be easily answered by a detailed consideration of what this panel was advocating.

One crucial fact is that while the Task Force began in the spring of 2008, it contained only 1 religious representative:  Abdullah Ansary, Independent Scholar.  Ansary wrote a piece on Oct. 20, 2008, on reducing incidences of terrorism in Saudia Arabia, for a website on Saudi-US relations Information Service, a publication of the Saudi government.

From his biography at the bottom of that piece, it seems very likely that Ansary is an agent of the Saudi Government, tasked with promoting Islam in America, through infiltration of U.S. Government organizations:

Dr. Ansary currently provides legal consultancy and expertise to the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington DC. He also provides research and legal opinion to several U.S. governmental branches and scholarly communities, and has been a member of task forces charged with reviewing a key issues related to homeland security.

And such experts do not advise both sides of a diplomatic relation without the consent of both parties.  Which goes to show that the U.S. Federal government is currently under controlling influence of Saudi Arabia.

Political Views Contained in Report advocate Islamization of America

With an advisor like Ansary, it’s no wonder that the Report advocates the Islamic agenda in America, and takes Obama’s entrance into power as the golden opportunity to expand and promote that agenda.  As the Executive Summary of that Report, reads:

The nation is in the midst of a crossroads in its consideration of security policy. A coherent strategy to address 21st century threats to the United States, one that treats national and homeland security as a seamless whole, has yet to emerge. Washington is now marked by a new Administration, a new tone, and a new space – offering a rare opportunity to catch our collective breath, to think creatively and anew about the most vexing challenges this country faces, and to put the most powerful of those reasoned ideas into action.

A “Cross roads” means an opportunity to take another direction than the one in the Bush Administration, during which time there were no terrorist attacks on U.S. Soil following 9-11.

The evident implication is to reduce security protections, then.

The Task Force then uses doublespeak to say that it will advance the Islamic Agenda in America, under the guise of admitting the public and foreign nations into security policy decision-making:

The Task Force held internal deliberations, which included a number of briefings from subject-matter experts at the forefront of their fields. From these discussions and debates, four strategic priorities emerged that serve to inform the new Administration:

• development and implementation of a proactive security strategy at the federal level that integrates international and domestic aspects of security, is founded upon the concepts of resilience, and is effectively resourced;
• enhancement of a national approach to preparedness and response through the development of a risk-based homeland security doctrine that effectively draws upon and coordinates all available assets (governments, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and the public);
realistic public discussion of the threats the nation faces and constructive engagement of the American public in preparedness and response efforts; and
• re-invigoration of the United States’ role in the world, through a recognition that our security and that of our allies depends upon the stability and engagement of other nations.

Considering that the Task Force has a Saudi government agent on board, the meaning of these words takes on a whole new significance.

The Report then lists its “Findings”, or determines the problems it saw with the Bush Administration security policies:

Findings
The US has adopted reactive rather than proactive strategic approaches to homeland security and national security.
The US has not built sufficient resilience into its strategic security posture.
• Since 2003, homeland security and national security policy have been treated as separate and distinct enterprises.
• The budgeting process for homeland security investment priorities is opaque and oriented towards the short-term.

As one can see, “reactive” is a code word for “attending to Islamic terrorists” and “resilience” means not including policies which advance and invite the participation of Islamic proponents.

In it’s “Recommendations” it advocates, in effect, Muslim infiltration of the Federal Government, and removal of oversights from officials elected by the American people:

Recommendations
The President should:
• more closely align homeland and national security entities within the executive branch of government in order to get ahead of the threat;
• use the forthcoming Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) to leverage long-term planning and budgeting for homeland security and national security priorities; specifically, align the QHSR with the Quadrennial Defense Review;
streamline congressional oversight of homeland and national security entities by working with Congress to enact Department of Homeland Security authorization legislation;
embed privacy protections and due respect for civil liberties in homeland and national security program development; and
• invest in education and professional development training, to include rotation details, for the homeland security professional civilian corps.

If you doubt this interpretation, simply read the “Recommendations” under the heading of International Relations, on p. 12:

Recommendations
The President should:
employ a strategy that amplifies voices within the Muslim world that seek to counter radicalization and recruitment, and that exercises care regarding the use of lexicon;
foster respect for and adherence to international law in the form of longstanding, fundamental and widely accepted norms; and
• engage productively with international organizations and institutions to build security abroad

By international law it can be presumed that they do not mean to exclude Islamic or Shaira Law, which by Muslims is considered as binding internationally as it is religiously.  Evidently by “counter” the panel intended a meaning quite opposite of that used in the West.  By including a terrorist-to-be and a Saudi agent in their deliberations, they lacked completely any sensitivity to the policy that security measures should never be developed with personnel who are themselves security risks.  Otherwise you allow for the possibility that the enemy is advising you on how to defend yourself from him.

Which, in the light of the Ft. Hood Terrorist Attack, is obviously what happened.

And if there is any doubt that the NWO folks are in league with the agenda to open American to the Islamic agenda, read what Stephen Flynn, member of the Council for Foreign Relations, and the Institute’s Director, who chose Ansary to be a member of the Panel, had to say in the report itself:

Flynn urged the next administration to identify the things Americans value and to reinvest in them, because these are the same values that the rest of the world admires. Crowley specified, saying it was imperative for the next ad-ministration to practice transparency and the rule of law, which means closing Guantanamo Bay. HSPI Director Frank Cilluffo went further, stating that we ought to abandon the label “Global War on Terror”, which has the effect of elevating our adversaries and isolating our allies. In response, Crowley agreed and suggested the British term, “struggle against violent extremism,” as a more viable

“Fundamentally,” said Flynn, “We must step back and be an open society that engages the world.” The next president must help Americans to exercise greater confidence. When reassessing security strategy, we must think of it not as a cost, but as an investment in our future. Communities that can think anew about security priorities and that can best deal with disruptions—whether natural or man-made—will be more adaptable and viable in the 21st Century.

If one were to read the final sentence in the context of what has been said in the entire report, regarding advancing the Islamic penetration of America, one would be forced to consider that it is nothing less than a veiled threat and a demand to surrender.

Join the Conversation

2 Comments

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. It made me cringe just to see him at the Memorial Service at Fort Hood! this is an enlightening article – and further proof, in my eyes, of his plans to Islamicize this nation – which was Founded and grew strong on Judeo-Christian values…we MUST wake up the masses who are still drinking the Obama Kool Aid! There are far too many who are still blindly following this man who clearly plans to dismantle our Free Nation and our Sovereignty as a nation!

    He said, “Don’t jump to conclusions!” (about Hasan) – when many of us already know – without doubt – that this man is an Islamic terrorist.,..If I were in the service today, I’d be keeping a close eye on EVERY Muslim around me!

    LOOK at what has happened in England – “Londonistan”! and we’re supposed to do what they did? We need more Patriots WITH A SPINE to stand up and fight back! – ‘don’t call them terrorists’ – and there are NO “terrorist acts” there are now “man made disasters”???? DOES ANYONE IN THIS ADMINISTRATION HAVE A BRAIN? Those in Congress and in adminstration who CLAIM to be Christian — to be “Catholic” are NOT living their Faith, but are selling us out for their own profit! They will be Judged accordingly when they die, but in the meantime, WE are expected by God to stand and fight for Him – or WE, will be judged accordingly!
    “Can you not spend one hour with me?”