Muslim Brotherhood Poster Child Huma Abedin – The Enemy Within?

Tarek Fatah and Ezra Levant discuss Huma Abedin and her alleged links to the Muslim Brotherhood.  As a former Personnel Security Specialist and Adjudicator with the Department of Defense, I would love to know why this women has access to Hillary Clinton and most probably our national security secrets.  I hope the next administration takes our national security seriously, unlike the Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer currently in office.

The Muslim Students’ Association Pledge of Allegiance:  “Allah is my lord; Islam is my life; the Koran is my guide; the Sunna is my practice; Jihad is my spirit; righteousness is my character; and paradise is my goal. For I enjoin what is right; I forbid what is wrong; I will fight against oppression; AND I WILL DIE TO ESTABLISH ISLAM.”  As a member, Huma Abedin surely recited this pledge!

 

 

We need to be less politically correct and more defense oriented or we will soon be wondering ‘What the hell just happened?’

Islamists in the United States Government

Discover the Networks: via The Counter Jihad Report

This section of DiscoverTheNetworks features profiles of Islamists who have secured positions of influence in federal, state, and local government. Some of these individuals were elected to their offices by the voting public; others were appointed by elected officials. It is important to emphasize that the men and women profiled in this section are not included here merely because they are Muslims. Indeed, many Muslims in government positions perform their duties competently and in a manner that is consistent with America’s national-security needs. As journalist Andrew C. McCarthy, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and author of The Grand Jihad, puts it:

“I don’t know how many Muslims work in the U.S. government, but I feel pretty safe saying there are thousands. As a federal prosecutor on terrorism cases, I had the privilege of working with several of them. These were patriotic American Muslims, and a number of Muslims who may not be Americans but who have embraced America and the West. Without them, we could not have infiltrated jihadist cells in New York and stopped terrorists from killing thousands of people. Without them, we could not have translated, understood and processed our evidence so it could be presented to a jury as a compelling narrative. Pro-American Muslims serve honorably in government, in our military, in our intelligence services, and in our major institutions.”

Such individuals are to be distinguished from Islamists, who, to varying degrees, support and/or whitewash the radical and supremacist agendas of Sharia Law and jihadism, be it of the violent or the stealth variety, and of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations. A number of the Islamists featured in this section participate in events hosted and sponsored by organizations with ties to Islamic extremism, jihadism, and terrorism. They refuse to unambiguously condemn the actions and objectives of such entities as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood. And they are apt to ascribe Islamic terrorism not to any particular doctrines that are central to Islam itself, but rather, to objectionable Western “policies” that allegedly antagonize Muslims and constitute a veritable “war against Islam.” In June 2012, five Republican lawmakers (most prominently, Rep. Michele Bachmann) sent letters to the inspectors general at the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State, asking that they investigate whether the Muslim Brotherhood was gaining undue influence over U.S. government officials. One letter, noting that Huma Abedin‘s position as a close aide to Hillary Clinton “affords her routine access to the secretary [of state] and to policymaking,” expressed concern over the fact that Abedin “has three family members—her late father, mother and her brother—connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.” Few political figures of either major party were able to see, or were willing to acknowledge, the legitimacy of the concerns raised by Bachmann, et al. President Barack Obama, for one, defended Huma Abedin as “a good friend … who has worked tirelessly … in the White House, in the U.S. Senate, and most exhaustingly, at the State Department, where she has been nothing less than extraordinary in representing our country and the democratic values that we hold dear.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi likewise dismissed the “baseless accusations” against Ms. Abedin. Similarly, prominent Republicans such as John McCain and John Boehner firmly disavowed the concerns articulated in the aforementioned letters. This section of DiscoverTheNetworks was established to provide the pertinent facts about the influence on American policy of Muslims who argue that concerns over radical Islam’s inroads constitute “Islamophobia” that leads inevitably to violations of civil rights; who have Islamist commitments of their own, or sympathies for others who hold such views; or who seek to advance the agendas of groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

RESOURCES

Our Government and the Muslim Brotherhood By Andrew McCarthy August 9, 2012

PROFILES

* Huma Abedin

* Azizah Al-Hibri

* Arif Alikhan

* Andre Carson

* Mohamed Elibiary

* Keith Ellison

* Rashad Hussain

* Suhail Khan

* Mohamed Magid

* Dalia Mogahed

* Eboo Patel

* Louay Safi

* Kareem Shora

* Nawar Shora

ISLAMIST INFLUENCES ON PRESIDENT OBAMA:

OBAMA’S SIGNATURE MOVE: UNSEALING PRIVATE RECORDS (Just Not His Own!)

The Obama administration is once again showing Americans just exactly what they think of us!

 

 

One of the things that has always amazed me is the hypocrisy of the liberals – especially the liberal media.  If a Christian business owner makes a personal observation that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and believes homosexuality is morally wrong, he is vilified and the media is screaming ‘boycott’.  However, if that same business owner was Muslim and he publicly stated that he believed homosexuality is morally wrong the same liberal media would be defending his freedom of speech.

Then we have the recent kerfuffle regarding Dirty Harry Reid’s allegations that Mitt Romney paid no taxes in ten years.  I believe Reid is the puppet and David Axelrod is the ventriloquist.  Otherwise Dirty Harry would have made his unfounded statement in a more public forum and not hide behind the protection of voicing whatever you want without consequences from the Senate floor.  If similar possible libelous allegations had been made against Obama using the Senate floor for cover the press would have been screaming abuse of power.

The same bias applies to sealed records.  Why isn’t the press demanding the Obama campaign release a real, as opposed to a falsified, birth certificate; health records; and academic records?  Instead, at the behest of David Axelrod and the Obama Senate campaign, they pushed for the release of sealed documents of Obama opponents in order to destroy them.  Sleazy Chicago politics strike again.

In the following article by Ann Coulter, we learn there is no limit to the means in which Obama campaign and staffers will go to spread rumors and smear their opponents but scream foul when their own records are requested.

Mitt Romney presents one enormous problem for Barack Obama’s campaign: No divorce records. That’s why the media are so hot to get their hands on Romney’s tax records for the past 25 years. They need something to “pick through, distort and lie about” — as the Republican candidate says.

 Obama’s usual campaign method, used in 100 percent of his races, has been to pry into the private records of his opponents.

Democrats aren’t going to find any personal dirt on the clean-cut Mormon, so they need complicated tax filings going back decades in order to create the illusion of scandal out of boring financial records. 

Romney has already released his 2010 tax return and is about to release his 2011 return. After all the huffing and puffing by the media demanding those returns, the follow-up story vanished remarkably quickly when the only thing the return showed was that Romney pays millions of dollars in taxes and gives a lot of money to charity.

 Let’s take a romp down memory lane and review the typical Obama campaign strategy. Obama became a U.S. senator only by virtue of David Axelrod’s former employer, the Chicago Tribune, ripping open the sealed divorce records of Obama’s two principal opponents.

 One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader. But then the Chicago Tribune leaked the claim that Hull’s second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.

 Those records were under seal, but as The New York Times noted: “The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had ‘worked aggressively behind the scenes’ to push the story.” Many people said Axelrod had “an even more significant role — that he leaked the initial story.”

Both Hull and his ex-wife opposed releasing their sealed divorce records, but they finally relented in response to the media’s hysteria — 18 days before the primary. Hull was forced to spend four minutes of a debate detailing the abuse allegation in his divorce papers, explaining that his ex-wife “kicked me in the leg and I hit her shin to try to get her to not continue to kick me.”

After having held a substantial lead just a month before the primary, Hull’s campaign collapsed with the chatter about his divorce. Obama sailed to the front of the pack and won the primary. Hull finished third with 10 percent of the vote.

 As luck would have it, Obama’s opponent in the general election had also been divorced! Jack Ryan was tall, handsome, Catholic — and shared a name with one of Harrison Ford’s most popular onscreen characters! He went to Dartmouth, Harvard Law and Harvard Business School, made hundreds of millions of dollars as a partner at Goldman Sachs, and then, in his early 40s, left investment banking to teach at an inner city school on the South Side of Chicago.

 Ryan would have walloped Obama in the Senate race. But at the request of — again — the Chicago Tribune, California Judge Robert Schnider unsealed the custody papers in Ryan’s divorce five years earlier from Hollywood starlet Jeri Lynn Ryan, the bombshell Borg on “Star Trek: Voyager.”

Jack Ryan had released his tax records. He had released his divorce records. But both he and his ex-wife sought to keep the custody records under seal to protect their son.

 Amid the 400 pages of filings from the custody case, Jack Ryan claimed that his wife had had an affair, and she counterclaimed with the allegation that he had taken her to “sex clubs” in Paris, New York and New Orleans, which drove her to fall in love with another man.

 (Republicans: If you plan a career in public office, please avoid marrying a wacko.)

 Ryan had vehemently denied her allegations at the time, but it didn’t matter. The sex club allegations aired on “Entertainment Tonight,” “NBC Nightly News,” ABC’s “Good Morning America,” “The Tonight Show With Jay Leno” and NBC’s “Today” show. CNN covered the story like it was the first moon landing.

 (Interestingly, international papers also were ablaze with the story — the same newspapers that were supposed to be so bored with American sexual mores during Bill Clinton’s sex scandal.)

 Four days after Judge Schnider unsealed the custody records, Ryan dropped out of the race for the horror of (allegedly) propositioning his own wife and then taking “no” for an answer.

Alan Keyes stepped in as a last-minute Republican candidate.

 And that’s how Obama became a U.S. senator. He destroyed both his Democratic primary opponent and his Republican general election opponent with salacious allegations about their personal lives taken from “sealed” court records.

 Obama’s team delved into Sarah Palin’s marriage and spread rumors of John McCain’s alleged affair in 2008 and they smeared Herman Cain in 2011 with hazy sexual harassment allegations all emanating from David Axelrod’s pals in Chicago.

 It’s almost like a serial killer’s signature. Unsealed personal records have been released to the press. Obama must be running for office!

Read more here.

H/T to my friend Libby Harding who not only knows but lived Chicago politics!

Suppose Michele Bachmann is right? (Islam seeks Supremacy, not Coexistence)

By Cal Thomas via WORLD Magazine

Like the ghosts of Shakespeare’s Banquo or Dickens’ Jacob Marley, the  specter of the late commie-hunting congressman from Wisconsin, Joseph  McCarthy, will always be with us. It is summoned up today, by some on  the left, who use it as a tool to thwart legitimate questions about  people and ideologies that seek to destroy America.

According to many commentators, the McCarthy spirit has inhabited Rep.  Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. In several letters to high-ranking government  officials, Bachmann has raised questions about Huma Abedin, a  Muslim-American, who is deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State  Hillary Clinton. Bachmann’s concern is Abedin’s relatives in the Middle  East, some of whom—such as Abedin’s mother—she claims “are  connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.”  Abedin’s job, according to Bachmann, “affords her routine access to the  secretary and to policymaking.” And, as a result of that access, says  Bachmann, “The State Department, and in several cases, the specific  direction of the secretary of state, have taken actions recently that  have been enormously favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood and its  interests.”

Sen. John McCain says Abedin is “a dedicated American.” Even if he is  correct, the larger issue is being obscured. Many in government and the  media don’t want to face the possibility that infiltration is a tactic  of Islamic extremists who repeatedly say they want to destroy not only  Israel but the “Great Satan” America. Such objectives should be taken  seriously, given their violent history.

If you revile Rep. Bachmann, perhaps former British Prime Minister Tony  Blair is more to your liking. Charles Moore of the London Daily  Telegraph writes that Blair “… now thinks he underestimated the power  of the bad ‘narrative’ of Islamist extremists. That narrative—that  ‘The West oppresses Islam’—’is still there; if anything, it has  grown.’ It seeks ’supremacy, not coexistence.’” Blair also expressed  fear that “The West is asleep on this issue.”

Blair’s view is echoed in Battle for Our Minds: Western Elites and the  Terror Threat, a new book by Michael Widlanski, a specialist in Arab  politics and a former journalist for mainstream publications such as The  New York Times, the Cox Newspapers-The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and The  Jerusalem Post. Widlanski’s main point is that political correctness has  stifled the West’s ability to understand and fight terror.

Among Widlanski’s criticisms is that the West “came to rely on ‘experts’  without field experience in, or scant knowledge of, the Middle East:  people who do not speak the languages, did not study the cultures, and do  not know the history. Even worse, some ‘experts’ have been forgiving  and even sympathetic to the terrorists and their aims.”

National Public Radio reported last month that “The FBI has conducted  more than 100 investigations into suspected Islamic extremists within  the military.”

What else would infiltration look like? It’s more than an academic  question, or a subject for spy novelists. Those who attack Michele  Bachmann should answer it.

It might look like CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations,  which sent a nasty letter to Bachmann concerning her comments about Ms.  Abedin. CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad, wrote, “We remain  eternally grateful that, like Sen. Joseph McCarthy before you, your  power is limited, enumerated, and constrained by our nation’s  constitution.”

According to The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report (GMBDR), “an  intelligence digest covering developments in the worldwide Muslim  Brotherhood network,” documents released in the 2007 Holy Land trial in  Dallas, in which federal prosecutors brought charges against the Holy  Land Foundation for funding Hamas and other “Islamic terrorist  organizations,” revealed the founders and current leadership of CAIR  were part of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood. A recent  post on the GMBDR website discussed an interview with the deputy leader  of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, in which he confirms a relationship  between his organization and CAIR.

Investigative research posted by the GMBDR “has determined that CAIR had  its origins in the U.S. Hamas infrastructure and CAIR and its leaders  have a long history of defending almost all individuals accused of  terrorism by the U.S. government, frequently calling such prosecutions a  ‘war on Islam.’”

In 2009, according to GMBDR, a U.S. federal judge ruled, “The government  has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA  (Islam in North America), and NAIT (North American Islamic Trust) with  (Holy Land Foundation), the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with  Hamas.”

This is what infiltration looks like.

Government and media elites may not like to hear it from Rep. Bachmann,  but suppose her concerns are valid? If people are uncomfortable with  her, they can listen to Tony Blair. All ties between Americans and  Islamic extremist groups need further and serious investigation.

Read more here.

Top Ten Things Obama Has Not Released

By Joel B. Pollak via Breitbart

As the Obama campaign and the media continue to press Mitt Romney to release more of his tax returns, and to suggest–without a shred of evidence–that he is a “felon,” it is worth noting how much critical information Barack Obama has withheld from view–both as a candidate in 2008, and during his term in office. Here is a Breitbart News top ten list of things that Obama has refused to release (a complete list would fill volumes):

10. State senate papers. In the 2008 primary, Obama criticized Hillary Clinton for not releasing papers from her eight years time as First Lady–but failed to produce any papers from his eight years in Springfield. “They could have been thrown out,” he said.

9. Academic transcripts. His supposed academic brilliance was a major selling point, but Obama (by his own admission) was a mediocre student. His GPA at Occidental was a B-plus at best, and his entering class at Columbia was weak. Can he prove his merit?

8. Book proposal. Obama’s literary agent claimed he was “born in Kenya”–for sixteen years. His original book proposal exists–biographer David Maraniss refers to it–and seems to have embellished other key details of his life. Yet it has never been released.

7. Medical records. In 2000, and again (briefly) in 2008, GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain released thousands of pages of his medical records. Obama, who had abused drugs and continued smoking, merely provided a one-page doctor’s note.

6. Small-dollar donors. In 2008, the McCain campaign released the names of donors who had contributed less than $200, though it was not required to do so. But the Obama campaign refused, amidst accusations it had accepted illegal foreign contributions.

5. The Khalidi tape. In 2003, Obama attended a party for his good friend, the radical Palestinian academic Rashid Khalidi. The event featured incendiary anti-Israel rhetoric. The LA Times broke the story, but has refused to release the tape–and so has Obama.

4. The real White House guest list. Touting its transparency, the Obama White House released its guest logs–but kept many visits secret, and moved meetings with lobbyists off-site. It also refused to confirm the identities of visitors like Bertha Lewis of ACORN.

3. Countless FOIA requests. The Obama administration has been described as “the worst” ever in complying with Freedom of Information Act requests for documents. It has also punished whistleblowers like David Walpin, who exposed cronyism in Americorps.

2. Health reform negotiations. Candidate Obama promised that health care reform negotiations would be televised on C-SPAN. Instead, there were back-room deals woth millions with lobbyists and legislators–the details of which are only beginning to emerge.

1. Fast and Furious documents. After months of stonewalling Congress, Attorney General Eric Holder asked President Obama to use executive privilege to conceal thousands of documents related to the deadly scandal–and Obama did just that.

In addition to the above, Obama and his campaign have lied about many facts about his past–his membership in the New Party; his extensive connections with ACORN; and his continued relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, among other examples. Obama’s own memoir is filled with fabrications. And now he is lying about his opponent’s honorable record in business. He–and the media–have no shame.

For more click here.

Pattern of White House Leaks Threatens Nation’s Security

Ronald Kessler via Newsmax 

English: A March 2009 meeting of the United St... News reports on Tuesday disclosed that the FBI is probing the leaking of information about a classified U.S. cyberattack program aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities, but a close look at recent developments uncovers a broad and disturbing pattern of leaks of some of the nation’s most guarded secrets by the Obama administration.

John Brennan, Obama’s counterterrorism chief, set the tone a year ago when he went on national television immediately after the killing of Osama bin Laden and gave a highly detailed account of the top-secret operation.

Defense Secretary Bob Gates, for one, was shocked.

“Too many people in too many places are talking too much about this operation,” Gates said, adding that the level of disclosures and blabbing violates an agreement reached in the White House Situation Room on May 8, 2011, to keep details of the raid private.

“That lasted about 15 hours,” Gates said with chagrin.

Then came disclosures that directly revealed secrets helpful to the enemy, that could endanger lives, and undermine trust by other countries and potential informants in U.S. intelligence operations.

Soon after the bin Laden raid, word began leaking to the press that a Pakistani doctor had helped the CIA operation.

In fact, Dr. Shakil Afridi reportedly provided critical intelligence on the location and identify of the al-Qaida leader. He had set up a fake vaccination program to obtain DNA during a visit by bin Laden.

Following the leaks, Afridi was arrested and on May 23 he was sentenced to 33 years in prison on a charge of conspiring against the state.

“The blame has been placed on my brother because of America,” Shakil’s brother Jamil told Fox News.

The protection of secret sources of the United States is not only good sense, it is vital for continuing operations and getting new sources that could improve our security and prevent the loss of American lives. But who will trust us if we leak sensitive information?

And critics of the Obama administration point to a pattern of leaks over a long period:

  • On May 9, The Associated Press reported that a CIA asset from Saudi Arabia had infiltrated al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and thwarted a planned “underwear bomb” attack on an airplane bound for America. As a result of that disclosure, the asset had to be extracted and brought to the United States, possibly precluding opportunities for obtaining future inside information from within the terrorist group.
  • On May 29, The New York Times ran a detailed account of how President Obama directs U.S. drone attacks based on a classified “kill list” of terror suspects. The story rightly credited Obama with killing top al-Qaida leaders. Sen. John McCain has charged that the kill list leak was politically motivated.
  • On June 1, The New York Times ran a story revealing an alleged U.S. covert action program called Olympic Games, designed to thwart Iran’s nuclear program with computer virus attacks utilizing first the Stuxnet computer worm and later the Duqu malware. Thanks to the Times article, which cited U.S. government sources, details of the previously unknown operations are now public, including how the programs were supposed to operate and the involvement of Israeli intelligence. Up to that point, the possibility that the U.S. or Israel was behind the cyberattacks on Iran’s computers was pure speculation. In effect, the Times story provided Iran with a roadmap on U.S. efforts to defeat its nuclear bomb efforts.
  • Another front-page New York Times article in 2011 disclosed that the Obama administration had agreed to sell to Israel bunker-buster bombs capable of destroying buried targets, including suspected nuclear weapons sites in Iran.

The Bush administration had rebuffed Israeli requests for the bombs. But word of Obama’s sale to Israel came soon after Republican Bob Turner captured the U.S. House seat vacated by the resignation of scandal-marred Anthony Weiner in a Queens, N.Y., district with a large Jewish population.

Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch cited Turner’s election in a Newsmax column explaining why he had decided to back Obama for re-election in 2012. He referred to a New York Times article reporting that the United States had agreed to back Israel’s call for a return to negotiations with the Palestinians without preconditions, saying the agreement was “affected” by Turner’s win, and stating that “the president should be praised” for “providing the Israeli military with bunker buster bombs” — a clear reference to the Times story about the bombs that had the effect of bucking up Jewish support for Obama.

The leaks — which have accelerated as Obama’s re-election efforts have stumbled — have provoked bipartisan outrage.

“In recent weeks, we have become increasingly concerned at the continued leaks regarding sensitive intelligence programs and activities including specific details of sources and methods,” said a joint statement released by the top members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

“The accelerating pace of such disclosures, the sensitivity of the matters in question, and the harm caused to our national security interests is alarming and unacceptable,” said the statement from Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga. — the chair and ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee — and Reps. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger, D-Md. – the chair and ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

“These disclosures have seriously interfered with ongoing intelligence programs and have put at jeopardy our intelligence capability to act in the future. Each disclosure puts American lives at risk, makes it more difficult to recruit assets, strains the trust of our partners, and threatens imminent and irreparable damage to our national security in the face of urgent and rapidly adapting threats worldwide.”

Republican Rep. Peter King of New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told the New York Post that the leaking of vital secrets reflects an “amateur hour” style of management at the White House.

“It’s a pattern that goes back two years, starting with the Times Square bomber, where somebody in the federal government, probably the FBI, leaked his name before he was captured,” he said.

“They mentioned we had DNA, which is how the Pakistanis focused on the doctor they arrested.

“It puts our people at risk and gives information to the enemy. And it gives our allies a reason not to work with us because what they do might show up on the front page of The New York Times.”

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, directly accused the Obama administration of leaking sensitive intelligence information to make Obama look good.

“This is the most highly classified information and it has now been leaked by the administration at the highest levels of the White House. That’s not acceptable,” McCain said on CBS, referring to several of the recent stories.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney rejected McCain’s claims.

“This administration takes all appropriate and necessary steps to prevent leaks of classified information or sensitive information that could risk ongoing counterterrorism or intelligence operations,” Carney told reporters.

“Any suggestion that this administration has authorized intentional leaks of classified information for political gain is grossly irresponsible.”

By inserting the phrase “for political gain,” Carney avoided denying outright that Obama had authorized the leaks. Obama could have authorized the disclosures without admitting to himself that his intent was to help him win re-election. In that case, since the president can declassify information, the disclosures would not technically be considered leaks — but they would be just as harmful.

The FBI has begun an investigation of at least two of the leaks. In addition to the probe of the cyberattacks against Iran, FBI Director Robert Mueller disclosed on May 16 that the bureau has launched an investigation into who leaked information about the al-Qaida “underwear bomber” plot to place an explosive device aboard a U.S.-bound airline flight.

Overlooked in most of the coverage is the role of the press. When Valerie Plame was exposed as a CIA operative, the press turned the disclosure into a scandal and blamed the George W. Bush administration. Plame was technically undercover but not in any danger.

Yet The New York Times ran 521 stories suggesting it was wrong for the White House, and specifically Karl Rove, to divulge her name. Only 27 of the articles mentioned the person who actually leaked her name to columnist Robert Novak, former State Department official Richard Armitage, who ironically was critical of the Bush administration.

In contrast, the press now is silent on leaks that genuinely impair national security and whether the Obama White House is behind the disclosures. Nor are journalists examining the legitimacy of publishing such information in the first place.

It’s one thing to disclose classified information to expose an abuse — meaning an illegal act for political or otherwise improper purposes.

It’s another to disclose secrets for the sake of revealing secrets, when agencies are doing their jobs properly and when uncovering how they perform them prevents them from carrying out secret operations in the future.

The U.S. won World War II in part because America could intercept and decode German and Japanese military transmissions. That remained a secret until long after the war was over. Back then “loose lips sink ships” was the operative slogan.

If another major terrorist attacks occurs because foreign intelligence services and potential assets no longer want to risk cooperating with the CIA, papers like The New York Times will be the first to condemn the intelligence agencies for failing at their mission.

In their joint statement, the congressional leaders said they plan to “press the executive branch to take tangible and demonstrable steps to detect and deter intelligence leaks, and to fully, fairly, and impartially investigate the disclosures that have taken place.”

In particular, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, called for Capitol Hill hearings about the cyberattack leak.

“I am deeply disturbed by the continuing leaks of classified information to the media, most recently regarding alleged cyber efforts targeting Iran’s nuclear program,” Feinstein said.

“We plan to move legislation quickly, to include possible action in this year’s intelligence authorization act,” the lawmakers said. “We believe that significant changes are needed, in legislation, in the culture of the agencies that deal with classified information, in punishing leaks, and in the level of leadership across the government to make clear that these types of disclosures will not stand.”

Said Rep. Ruppersberger: “These leaks can be dangerous to our country, they can hurt us with our allies, and they could have very serious consequences. They’ve got to be stopped.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Pattern of White House Leaks Threatens Nation’s Security

Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. He is the New York Times bestselling author of books on the Secret Service, FBI, and CIA.

Related articles

Allen West: Syrian Intervention Could Trigger World War III

By Paul Scicchitano and Kathleen Walter via Newsmax

(Kasey’s Note: The Muslim Brotherhood is threatening to bring Sharia law to Egypt since we helped depose Mubarak, Libya is in chaos and facing rule by radical Muslims since the death of dictator Moammar Gadhafi, Iraq is home to jihadis and terrorists since we ousted Saddam Hussein, and Iran has been building nukes to kill us since the Ayatollah took power decades ago.  Our interventions seem to have done more harm than good and we need to learn from these past mistakes.  However, I will support Israel in whatever methods they choose!)

Amid pressure for the United States and other western countries to intervene in Syria’s bloody 14-month uprising, Florida Congressman and retired U.S. Army officer Allen West warns in an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV that the troubled nation represents a smoldering powder keg that could trigger World War III.

International outrage over Syria has continued to mount since forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were blamed for last week’s massacre in the town of Houla, which resulted in the deaths of 108 people, including many women, children, and families — most of whom had been shot at close range.

West said that Assad’s father, Hafez, who ruled the country for decades before his son took power in 2000 upon his death, had been blamed for a similar massacre in another Syrian town.

Watch our exclusive interview.

“That’s how they do business, and so if we’re going to go in there, we need to go in with very clear rules of engagement if we’re going to get Bashar al-Assad out of there,” warned West, who had been posted in several combat zones.

“But understand, you’ll be starting World War III.”

While diplomatic sanctions do not appear to be effective, there is also not a clear alternative to Assad’s government. The Syrian freedom fighters are widely considered by Middle East experts to be fractured and disorganized.

“On one side you have the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Russia and also Bashar al-Assad,” West explained. “On the other side, you have freedom fighters. You have al-Qaida and radical Islamists. And also you have the backing of the state of Turkey.”

He pointed to recent experiences with Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood, is now threatening to bring Sharia law to the country, and Libya, which has been plunged into chaos since the death of dictator Moammar Gadhafi late last year.

“If you start to interject yourself in a means other than diplomatic who’s side are you on? We don’t need to put our military in a situation where they’re caught in a cross-fire,” insisted West.

GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney favors arming the rebel forces while Arizona Sen. John McCain, the party’s 2008 nominee, would like the U.S. to conduct air strikes against Assad’s forces.

“I think that we should be listening to our greatest ally in the Middle East — Israel — as far as what are their concerns, and what would they like to see happen because they share that border with Syria,” said West.

While he does not favor military intervention in Syria — at least not for the time being — West said that time may be running out to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons in the region’s other hot spot.

“The longer we allow them to have time, it works on their side, not ours,” he explained. “They continue to go forward with their nuclear program. They continue to harden the facilities, which . . . can protect their nuclear program.”

The Congressman, who was elected in 2010, and is a member of the House Tea Party Caucus, said that the U.S. will be forced to act at some point to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

He criticizes President Obama’s handling of the Middle East.

“I know that he is very good with his little own personal target list, which reminds me of Lyndon Johnson approving bombing targets during the Vietnam War,” charged West. “That is not the business of the president. He is supposed to be more strategically minded.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: West: Syrian Intervention Could Trigger World War III