Category Archives: Legislation

Obama, don’t let secrecy be your legacy

Posted on by

Imagine what Congress does NOT know and then imagine what we, don’t know. Terrifying right?

Mr. Obama, don’t let secrecy be your legacy: Republican chairmen

Shrouding government action on everything from the environment to veterans health in darkness is a big step backwards.

USAToday: When President Obama took office, he vowed to run “the most transparent administration in history.” As his presidency draws to an end, those words would be laughable if the issue were not so serious.

At nearly every turn, this administration has blocked public disclosure and ignored almost every law intended to ensure open and accountable government.

Hillary Clinton’s private email server is just the latest, most public example. Numerous other incidents involve the concealment of documents, providing only partial information, slow-walking congressional requests and using private email accounts and secret meetings to avoid official records-keeping laws. These sorts of tactics have become common practice for this administration.

The most brazen examples occasionally get media attention: Former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson created a fictitious email address under the alias name “Richard Windsor,” hiding official actions from public scrutiny. But more typically, the pervasive stonewalling does not make headlines.

Congress isn’t alone on the Obama administration’s enemies list. According to an analysis of federal data by the Associated Press (AP), the Obama administration set new records two years in a row for denying the media access to government files. According to the AP, “The government took longer to turn over files when it provided any, said more regularly that it couldn’t find documents and refused a record number of times to turn over files.”

Moreover, in an unprecedented letter to several congressional committees, 47 inspectors general, who are the official watchdogs of federal agencies, complained that the Justice Department, EPA and others consistently obstruct their work by blocking or delaying access to critical information. Worse yet, the White House and Secretary Clinton refused to install an Inspector General during her tenure at the State Department.

It is the job of Congress and our agency watchdogs to ensure the federal government is efficient, effective and accountable to the American people. But time and time again, this administration has dismissed Americans’ right to know.

When Department of Veterans Affairs bureaucrats place themselves ahead of the veterans they are charged with serving, it’s Congress’ job to get answers. But VA’s stonewall tactics are interfering with this vital task. It’s been more than 18 months since the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs revealed VA’s delays in care crisis to the nation, yet the department is sitting on more than 140 requests for information from the committee regarding everything from patient wait times to disciplinary actions for failed employees. VA’s disregard for congressional oversight was on full display Oct. 21, when committee Democrats and Republicans voted unanimously to subpoena five bureaucrats VA had refused to make available to explain their role in a scheme that resulted in the misuse of more than $400,000 in taxpayer money. Later, at a Nov. 2 follow-up hearing, two of the subpoenaed VA employees invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

When the Internal Revenue Service improperly targets conservative organizations, it’s Congress’ job to get answers. When the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives runs a failed and flawed sting operation intentionally providing hundreds of firearms to Mexican cartels, it’s Congress’ job to get answers. When events surrounding terrorist attacks in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11 are hidden from the public, it’s Congress’ job to get answers.

But Congress cannot do its job when an administration refuses to turn over information. That’s why Congress has increasingly resorted to the power of the pen and has issued numerous legally-binding subpoenas to various Obama Administration agencies, including the Department of Justice, the State Department, the Treasury Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Office of Management and Budget, among others.

Whether it is the necessity of holding agency heads in contempt of Congress or pursuing civil litigation to gain access to clearly relevant material or the improper invocation of executive privilege or a new “confidential communications” privilege this administration made up out of whole cloth, Congress has been forced to spend far too much time and resources gaining access to documents which it is clearly entitled to.

 

But perhaps the honor of the least transparent agency in the federal government belongs to the EPA.

Everyone wants clean air and water. But Americans want environmental regulations to be based on sound science, not science  fiction or radical political manifestos. When the EPA refused to release the data it uses to justify its proposed air regulations, the historically bipartisan House Science Committee was compelled to issue its first subpoena in 21 years to retrieve the information.

Last year, the House passed the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 to require the EPA to base its regulations on publicly-available data, not secret science. This allows independent scientists the opportunity to evaluate EPA’s claims and check their work.  Who could argue against using open and transparent science to support regulation? Answer: the Obama administration.

It’s not surprising that the non-partisan Center for Effective Government gave the EPA a grade of “D” in its most recent report for poor performance in providing access to information.

This administration has created an unprecedented culture of secrecy that starts at the top and extends into almost every agency. While Congress is being thwarted in its efforts at oversight, it is really the American people who lose when those entrusted to enforce the law believe and act as if they are above it. It’s time to come clean, Mr. President. Don’t let a lack of transparency be your legacy.

Obama’s Final Cyber Offense, Einstein?

Posted on by

Sheesh, just the name points to a misguided failure since 2008. Einstein has a price tag, $ 5 billion. There are other questions to be asked like what does the NSA have to offer or the countless cyber security professionals in the private sector?

From the White House, there has been a 12 point plan and it has not advanced at all.

In May 2009, the President accepted the recommendations of the resulting Cyberspace Policy Review, including the selection of an Executive Branch Cybersecurity Coordinator who will have regular access to the President.

Meanwhile, hacks are real, dangerous and coming at mach speed. Using old software language such as COBOL speaks volumes as to how antiquated protections are and how dysfunctional all agencies are in maintaining crack-proof.

The Department of Homeland Security appears to be the lead agency for Einstein compliance, what could go wrong and has? The fact sheet from DHS is here.

Obama makes final push to cement cyber legacy

TheHill: President Obama on Tuesday made what is likely his last major push to bolster the government’s digital defenses before leaving office.

As part of the annual White House budget proposal, the Obama administration rolled out a sweeping plan to inject billions of extra dollars into federal cybersecurity funding, establish a new senior federal cyber official and create a presidential commission on cyber that will establish a long-term road map.

The move is likely to complete Obama’s cyber legacy, which will include an historic attention to digital security, unprecedented executive orders on the topic, and shepherding through Congress the largest-ever cyber bill, as well as numerous bruising hacks at federal agencies and allegations that government networks were woefully outdated.

In a release, the White House called the plan “the capstone of more than seven years of determined effort.”

“[Obama] is the first president that is making a big cybersecurity push and I think that’s tremendously important,” Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), one of Congress’s most prominent cyber voices, told The Hill.

The proposal aims to inject more than $5 billion in new funding across the government to strengthen network defenses that have been repeatedly infiltrated by suspected foreign government spies.

The ask is a 35-percent increase over last year’s allotment of $14 billion, and would put overall federal cyber spending at over $19 billion.

The budget request earmarks $3.1 billion for an “Information Technology Modernization Fund” that the White House described as a “down payment on the comprehensive overhaul” of federal IT systems.

Lieu said this fund could help solve one of the inherent budgeting problems when it comes to defending interconnected networks from hackers.

“What’s important about [the fund] is it can go across agencies and upgrade systems that touch more than one agency,” said Lieu, who sits on both the House Budget and Oversight committees.

Currently, each agency has its own individual cybersecurity budget that can be spent on its network, but that cannot necessarily be expended on portions of the agency’s IT infrastructure at other agencies.

Hackers have exploited this balkanized budgeting process.

Over the summer, suspected Chinese cyber spies cracked into the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), pilfering over 22 million people’s personal information in two separate hacks. The initial intrusion — which exposed roughly 4.2 federal workers’ personnel files — occurred at an OPM database that was housed at the Interior Department.

The OPM hacks also exposed the antiquated legacy systems the government relied on to run its networks.

Congress bashed OPM officials for not fully encrypting all their sensitive data. But the agency’s systems were simply too old to even accept modern encryption, they repeatedly explained.

The network also relied on the dated COBOL programming language, which initially became popular in the 1960s and is now eschewed by younger programmers.

A new federal official will oversee much of these update efforts.

As part of its proposal, the White House is establishing a federal chief information security officer, or CISO. The official will be housed within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and report to federal chief information officer, Tony Scott, who oversees government technology.

“This is the first time that there will be a dedicated senior official who is solely focused on developing, managing, and coordinating cybersecurity strategy, policy and operations across the entire federal domain,” the White House said.

Centralizing cybersecurity oversight is an attempt to help overcome the lack of agency-to-agency communication on the subject.

“For a while, I’ve seen the argument that there are too many lines of authority in the federal government on cybersecurity,” said Lieu. “Sometimes it’s not clear who is responsible for what.”

The CISO will also help monitor the government’s digital defense spending, which has been knocked as cost-ineffective.

Recently, a federal watchdog report concluded that the government’s main cyber defense system, known as “Einstein,” was largely ineffectual at thwarting sophisticated hackers. The report echoed long-standing criticism from security experts who say the program is a much-delayed boondoggle that is already obsolete.

Federal officials insist the system is in its final phase of implementation and will soon serve as a platform to add on leading cyber tools.

This budget infusion and new federal CISO will with these technology updates, the White House said.

The proposal also includes a robust research and public awareness component.

In a bid to build a bridge to the next administration, Obama is launching a “Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity.”

The administration is directing a bipartisan group of lawmakers to appoint top industry representatives and leading technologists to the commission. The group will be tasked with taking the long view.

“The commission will make recommendations on actions that can be taken over the next decade to strengthen cybersecurity in both the public and private sectors while protecting privacy,” the White House said.

Security experts almost unanimously agree that one of these actions will be eliminating the traditional online password.

Since 2011, the White House has been trying to push people away from passwords. Tuesday’s plan includes a last bid to encourage stronger people to adopt stronger login practices.

The proposal creates a new public awareness campaign that includes leading tech firms such as Google, Facebook and Microsoft.

“By judiciously combining a strong password with additional factors, such as a fingerprint or a single-use code delivered in a text message, Americans can make their accounts even more secure,” the White House said.

The proposal is likely Obama’s concluding statement on cybersecurity.

During his presidency, cybersecurity has gone from a fringe issue to one that most leaders acknowledge is vital to national and economic security. The topic received an increasing amount of attention in all but Obama’s final State of the Union address.

In recent years, the U.S. has seen the dramatic rise of global cyber crime syndicates that have pillaged banks, department stores and hotels.

According to an October report from Hewlett Packard and the Ponemon Institute, cyber crime costs the average American firm $15.4 million annually, up 82 percent over the last six years. By 2019, it’s believed the cost of data breaches will reach $2.1 trillion globally.

Digital adversaries such as China, Russia, Iran and North Korea have also swooped in unexpectedly, plundering health insurers, airlines, nuclear plants, government agencies and, most memorably, a major movie studio.

Even terrorist groups such as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) are causing fears by hijacking high-profile twitter accounts and digitally defacing websites around the world.

These trends are bound to continue after Obama leaves the White House, but this ultimate cyber thrust could help cement his reputation as the first president to actively address the digital security challenge.

“If we can get this through, the funding, I think that would be very positive for his legacy,” Lieu said. “This is not just a federal government problem, it’s endemic in the private sector.”

Obama Going for it All Including Moon Shot

Posted on by

There are organizations out there trying to get some great bills passed. Too bad they wont affect Obama himself. But when it comes to Congress wanting a pay raise, how about a Fiscal Responsibility Act first?

Obama’s go-for-broke budget

Congress has already dismissed the proposal, sight unseen.

Politico: President Barack Obama may be a lame duck, but his aggressively liberal final budget request coming Tuesday will show he’s far from a mute one.

Even as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders quarrel over who’s a “progressive” and who’s not, the president will propose a sweepingly progressive policy agenda that includes a $10-a-barrel oil tax, an expensive Medicaid expansion, a $4 billion initiative to promote computer science in public schools and the first down payment on a “moon shot” research initiative to cure cancer led by Vice President Joe Biden.

Never mind that Congress, in a break with tradition, said it won’t even hold hearings on this year’s budget request. That’s because the request “will continue to focus on new spending proposals” instead of tackling “our $19 trillion in debt,” Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) said last week. Complete details on proposed total spending, projected deficits and other information will be released Tuesday morning.

Given Congress’ sight-unseen dismissal, the president’s go-for-broke strategy makes sense, said Peter Orszag, who was White House budget director during Obama’s first term and director of the Congressional Budget Office before that.

“If the document is legislatively irrelevant,” Orszag said, “you might as well use it to expand the policy dialogue and lay out sensible proposals even if they will not become law this year or next.” This year’s budget proposal “lays the groundwork for Democrats to refine and embrace a more ambitious legislative agenda over time.”

Lame-duck presidential budget requests nearly always receive catcalls from Congress, especially when it’s controlled by the opposite party.

In February 2008, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi scored President George W. Bush’s “misguided” final budget for cuts in health care and energy assistance and a too-large budget deficit. The final product was a mashup from Congress, the outgoing Bush administration and the incoming Obama administration. It yielded a $1.4 trillion deficit — the largest in U.S. history, in large part because of the financial crisis. The current deficit is an estimated $544 billion.

President Bill Clinton’s final budget, submitted in February 2000, was less contentious, in part because it adhered to a 1997 agreement with the Republican-controlled Congress on debt reduction. Clinton had the opposite problem: His budget’s spending levels were judged too high, and its budget surplus — which ended up being $1.3 billion — drew sharp criticism from Republicans, including candidate Bush, who wanted to return it to the public in the form of tax cuts. The novel problem of a budget surplus proved short-lived; it vanished the following year, and hasn’t been heard from since.

Where Obama’s lame-duck policy agenda differs, suggests presidential historian Michael Beschloss, is in the scope of its ambition. “Modern presidents have tended to focus on a particular project” in their last year, Beschloss said — “for instance, Eisenhower and Reagan trying to wind down the Cold War, or Johnson trying to find peace in Vietnam.” But Obama is different. He’s “looking for ways in his final year to pursue an agenda on many fronts” in hopes not only of “getting something done” but also “nudging his successor to do certain things.”

It is the policy, perhaps, of a departing president who — given this year’s unusually chaotic GOP primary race — feels more confident than most that his party will keep the White House.

The boldest of all the budget proposals is the $10-a-barrel crude oil tax. Energy taxes are always a hard sell — nobody’s raised the federal gasoline tax, for instance, since 1993 — and although consumers may be less resistant because of low pump prices, oil companies will be more so because falling gas prices have them reducing exploration and laying off workers.

The revenues would go not toward deficit reduction, but toward more green forms of transportation such as subways, buses and light rail. House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady immediately denounced the plan as a “horrible idea” and a “waste of time,” and even some congressional Democrats will likely oppose it. But environmentalists are greeting it as an overdue down payment on reducing emissions that contribute to climate change. Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said it “underscores the inevitable transition away from oil.”

The president’s proposed Medicaid expansion would extend the Affordable Care Act’s promise of three years’ full federal funding for ACA-created Medicaid coverage, which expires this year. The proposal is an inducement to the 19 states that continue not to participate in the program, which was created for families whose incomes were too low to qualify for federal subsidies to purchase private insurance plans through Obamacare exchanges.

Under the budget proposal, states would still get only three years’ full federal funding, after which they would gradually have to pick up 10 percent of program costs. The carrot is that they would no longer have to act by the end of 2016. A stick originally envisioned by the ACA’s authors — that states could not refuse the ACA Medicaid expansion without withdrawing from Medicaid entirely — was itself swatted away in the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling that otherwise upheld Obamacare. The new extension is a rebuke of sorts to House Republicans who have voted repeatedly to repeal Obamacare and who last month sent to the White House a repeal bill that for the first time passed both the House and Senate — which the president promptly vetoed.

The budget’s new K-12 computer science program isn’t intrinsically partisan — both Democrats and Republicans favor enhancing school kids’ computer skills, not to mention big tech companies like Microsoft. But its $4 billion price tag raises GOP hackles, as does the notion of attaching more strings to federal aid to schools. “Rather than calling for additional federal programs or new funding streams,” an aide to Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) complained, “the president can help students by using his bully pulpit to highlight states working in innovative ways to help their children succeed.”

The “cancer moon shot” is similarly uncontroversial in theory; after all, it was President Richard Nixon, a Republican, who proposed waging a federal “war on cancer” back in 1971. But the down payment of nearly $1 billion that the White House seeks is high, and congressional Republicans won’t like that the plan would largely bypass the appropriations process and give Vice President Joe Biden a relatively free hand in allocating some of the funds. In addition, the plan would compel medical researchers to quicken the pace at which they share data, an idea that is already receiving considerable pushback in academia. Jeffrey Dazen, editor of the esteemed New England Journal of Medicine, publicly decried the use of medical research by “data parasites.”

The likelihood of legislative action on any of these agenda items is virtually nil.

Still, observes Rutgers historian David Greenberg, author of a new book about presidential spin: “No one wants to admit that the last year will be an uneventful one.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obamas-radical-final-budget-218944#ixzz3zbtYLPAO

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obamas-radical-final-budget-218944#ixzz3zbtQUHcX

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obamas-radical-final-budget-218944#ixzz3zbtHTeC9

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obamas-radical-final-budget-218944#ixzz3zbt9O7NB

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obamas-radical-final-budget-218944#ixzz3zbt2eChp

Obama’s Paris Climate Agreement to Cost Trillions

Posted on by

Obama’s Paris Global Warming Treaty Will Cost At Least $12.1 Trillion

A.Follett/DailyCaller: The United Nations Paris agreement to stop dangerous global warming could cost $12.1 trillion over the next 25 years, according to calculations performed by environmental activists.

“The required expenditure averages about $484 billion a year over the period,” calculated Bloomberg New Energy Finance with the assistance of the environmentalist nonprofit Ceres.

 

That’s almost as much money the U.S. federal government spent on defense in 2015, according to 2015 spending numbers from the bipartisan Committee For Responsible Federal Budget. The required annual spending is almost 3.7 times more than the $131.57 billion China spent on its military in 2014.

Bloomberg’s estimates are likely low, as they exclude costly energy efficiency measures. The amount spent to meet global carbon dioxide emissions reduction goals could be as high as $16.5 trillion between now and 2030, when energy efficiency measures are included, according to projections from the  International Energy Agency. To put these numbers in perspective, the U.S. government is just under $19 trillion in debt and only produced $17.4 trillion in gross domestic product in 2014.

American taxpayers spend an average of $39 billion a year financially supporting solar energy, according to a report by the Taxpayer Protection Alliance. The same report shows President Barack Obama’s 2009 stimulus package contained $51 billion in spending for green energy projects, including funding for failed solar energy companies such as Solyndra and Abound Solar.

Solyndra was given a $535 million loan guarantee by the Obama administration before filing for bankruptcy in 2011. Abound Solar got a $400 million federal loan guarantee, but filed for bankruptcy in 2012 after making faulty panels that routinely caught fire.

Despite relatively high levels of taxpayer support, in 2014 solar and wind power accounted for only 0.4 and 4.4 percent of electricity generated in the U.S., respectively, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Ironically, solar and wind power have not done much to reduce America’s carbon dioxide emissions. Studies show solar power is responsible for one percent of the decline in U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions, while natural gas is responsible for almost 20 percent. For every ton of carbon dioxide cut by solar power, hydraulic fracturing for natural gas cut 13 tons.

*** Really dude?

Protect the health of American families. In 2030, it will:

  • Prevent up to 3,600 premature deaths

  • Prevent 1,700 non-fatal heart attacks

  • Prevent 90,000 asthma attacks in children

  • Prevent 300,000 missed workdays and schooldays

Boost our economy by:

  • Leading to 30 percent more renewable energy generation
    in 2030

  • Creating tens of thousands of jobs

  • Continuing to lower the costs of renewable energy

Save the average American family:

  • Nearly $85 a year on their energy bills in 2030

  • Save enough energy to power 30 million homes
    in 2030

  • Save consumers $155 billion from 2020-2030

*** Climate Action Plan

Explore the infographic to learn about the progress we’re making to combat climate change, and read President Obama’s full Climate Action Plan here.

 

Terror Ties Vetting Prison Chaplains

Posted on by

Federal Prisons Using Groups With Terror Ties To Vet Islamic Chaplains

DailyCaller: As Fox News and other news organizations have reported, America’s federal prisons are a “breeding ground” for potential Islamic terrorists — and have been so for years. Despite this disturbing trend, the Obama administration has enlisted Islamic organizations with known terror ties to review and endorse chaplains to work in federal prisons.

In response to an inquiry from Republican Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Federal Bureau of Prisons provided a list of Islamic Chaplaincy Endorsers, which Grassley has since posted online. Included on the list is the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which has long-standing ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and was named by the Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror financing case.

In an open letter to the director of the Bureau of Prisons Thomas Kane, Grassley pointed out that “A 2009 federal district court ruling concluded that ample evidence exists showing the Islamic Society of North America’s ties to Hamas, which is designated by the State Department as a terrorist organization.”

Writing about ISNA, Grassley noted: “It appears, therefore, that the BOP is relying on an organization with associations to terrorist organizations and one that the DOJ named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorist financing case to confirm credentials of those attempting to provide religious services to federal inmates. If accurate, this information is deeply troubling.”

And ISNA isn’t even the only organization with radical ties on the list of chaplaincy endorsers. The Islamic Education Center, located in Walnut, Calif., also has ties to terror organizations through its founder, Dr. Ahmad H. Sakr.

In addition to founding the Islamic Education Center, Sakr — originally from Lebanon — was a founding member of both ISNA and the World Council of Mosques, the latter of which has “a long history of providing financial support to terrorist groups,” according to the Anti-Defamation League. Sakr, who passed away just a few months ago, is listed as the contact person on the BOP’s list of chaplaincy endorsers.

“It is imperative that the BOP take every measure possible to ensure the safety of its personnel within federal prisons and take all reasonable measures to ensure that Islamic extremism is stopped at the gates of each prison,” Grassley noted in his letter to Director Kane. “Currently, it is not clear whether the BOP is doing so.”

As a result of the apparent shortcomings, Grassley is asking the Bureau of Prisons to provide further information about “the process by which someone becomes a religious endorsing organization,” in addition to an explanation for why the BOP chose ISNA as a chaplaincy endorser.
Grassley is also seeking the number of currently employed religious contractors from the 2014-15 year with still incomplete background checks.

According to a 2013 article from the Huffington Post, anywhere between 35,000-40,000 inmates convert to Islam every year, presumably with the assistance of the chaplains provided by the prisons. In a 2014 op-ed in The Daily Caller, author Joy Brighton argued that the nation’s prisons have been churning out thousands of radicalized inmates every year. Brighton’s calls were echoed in a Fox News article just last month that cited experts on the subject who called federal prisons a “breeding ground” for potential terrorists.

*** 

In 2003 for the Inspector General:  On March 10, 2003, Senator Charles Schumer wrote a letter to the OIG requesting that we examine the BOP’s process for selecting Muslim chaplains based on concerns that the BOP relies solely on two Islamic groups to endorse its Muslim chaplains, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences (GSISS). Schumer noted that the ISNA and the GSISS allegedly are connected to terrorism and promote Wahhabism, which some consider an exclusionary and extreme form of Islam. In addition to Senator Schumer, Senators Jon Kyl and Dianne Feinstein expressed similar concerns and asked the OIG to examine these issues as they relate to the BOP.

In response to these requests, we reviewed the recruitment, endorsement, selection, and supervision of Muslim chaplains and other Muslim religious services providers who work with BOP inmates. We also examined the roles the ISNA, the GSISS, and other organizations have in the endorsement of chaplain candidates.

During this review, the OIG interviewed the BOP’s ten Muslim chaplains, the BOP detailee to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Joint Terrorism Task Force (NJTTF), and officials at BOP Headquarters who are responsible for religious services providers, including the Chief of the Chaplaincy Services Branch and the Senior Deputy Assistant Director (SDAD) of the Correctional Programs Division. We also interviewed FBI counterterrorism officials and representatives of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom at the U.S. Department of State (Commission). Full report here.

From GatesStone: The number of Muslim prisoners in Britain has doubled in the last decade to nearly 12,000. Many of these prisoners, the media reports, are at “significant risk” of radicalization. The solution, authorities claim, lies with the Islamic prison chaplains. Or are they, in fact, part of the problem? Where do these chaplains come from? What sort of Islam are they espousing?

On May 12, the BBC broadcast its own investigation into the radicalization of prison inmates. The documentary featured interviews with former inmates such as Michael Coe, who “went into prison as a gangster and left as Mikaeel Ibrahim, a convert to Islam.” Coe attributes his conversion to his friendship in jail with al-Qaeda terrorist Dhiren Barot, jailed for life by a British court in 2004 for plotting to blow up limousines by packing them with gas canisters. Full article here.

For more facts on the matter: Why Extremist Chaplains Have Access to U.S. Prisons