CAIR calls Frank Gaffney Islamophobe, demands that corporations stop donating to the Center for Security Policy

BuOTNR2IQAAzuea

Click here to send email to show your support to donor corporations.

Florida Family Association:

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued the following news release which announced they are demanding that several corporations stop financially supporting the Center for Security Policy.

2

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CAIR Asks Defense Contractors to Drop Funding for Islamophobe Frank Gaffney

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 10/1/14) – The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today called on defense contractors Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and General Electric to stop funding an organization headed by notorious Islamophobe Frank Gaffney.

In an expose published today by Salon, Eli Clifton wrote:

“Frank Gaffney has emerged as one of the DC-beltway’s most outspoken critics of American Muslims, purveying conspiracy theories about the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into the highest levels of the U.S. government and birther accusations about Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president. But even while drawing criticism from civil rights organizations, Gaffney. . .has continued to find sources of funding for his organization, the Center for Security Policy, managing a budget of over $3.5 million in 2013.”

A copy of the Center for Security Policy’s donor roll obtained by Salon lists six of America’s largest aerospace and defense contractors as supporters of Gaffney’s organization.

According to Salon:

“The document, which details contributions to the Center for Security Policy during the 2013 tax year, includes donations from: Boeing ($25,000); General Dynamics ($15,000); Lockheed Martin ($15,000); Northrop Grumman ($5,000); Raytheon ($20,000); and General Electric ($5,000).”

SEE: Look Who’s Backing Islamophobe Frank Gaffney (Salon)

“It is troubling that our nation’s top defense contractors would endorse an anti-Muslim hate group by offering it financial support,” saidCAIR Department to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia Director Corey Saylor.

Saylor notes that Gaffney is a key promoter of the bizarre conspiracy theory that Muslims in public service are infiltrating the government on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Gaffney has questioned “whether Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States,” claimed the Missile Defense Agency logo is part of a “worrying pattern of official U.S. submission to Islam,” claimed an aide to Hillary Clinton was a secret Muslim Brotherhood operative, and was a key witness for the plaintiffs in a controversial lawsuit seeking to block construction of a Tennessee mosque. He has also promoted the false belief that President Obama is a Muslim.

SEE: Southern Poverty Law Center’s Profile on Frank Gaffney

His staff attorney, David Yerushalmi, has advocated outlawing the practice of Islam in America and is the key promoter of anti-Islam bills in state legislatures nationwide.

CAIR details Gaffney’s and the Center for Security Policy’s role in America’s Islamophobia network in its report, “Legislating Fear: Islamophobia and its Impact in the United States.”

SEE: Legislating Fear: Islamophobia and its Impact in the United States

In letters to the named corporations, CAIR outlined Gaffney’s long history of Islamophobia and wrote in part:

“We believe this letter provides more than ample evidence that the Center for Security policy is a problematic choice for any corporation that seeks to avoid involvement in anti-Islam bias.”

Here’s some facts about what CAIR has already done to dumb down law enforcement and the public’s knowledge of Islamic terrorism and CAIR’s Jihadist history:

  • CAIR pressured the FBI in February 2012 to remove 876 pages and 392 presentations from their education resources that were offensive to Islamists.  NPR reported:  The FBI has completed a review of offensive training material and has purged 876 pages and 392 presentations, according to a briefing provided to lawmakers.
  • CAIR pressured the FBI in June 2013 to stop their Most Wanted advertising campaign which helped the FBI gain information regarding the whereabouts of dangerous terrorists.  
  • CAIR pressured Illinois Governor Pat Quinn to ban anti-terrorism training expert Sam Kharoba from instructing law enforcement officers throughout the state.
  • CAIR demanded that the Florida Department of Law enforcement (FDLE) ban anti-terrorism training expert Sam Kharoba from instructing law enforcement officers in the state.  Although the FDLE declined to adopt the policy requested by CAIR no law enforcement agency in Florida has contracted Sam Kharoba’s anti-terrorism training services following CAIR’s demands.
  • CAIR pressured Lane Community College to fire a professor for attempting to teach the truth about Islam in a course titled What is Islam.
  • CAIR pressured Brandeis University to cancel speaking engagement and human rights award planned for  Ayaan Hirsi Ali because of her criticism of Islamists.
  • CAIR pressured several networks to censor numerous programs including “Alice in Arabia,” “Executive Decision,” “24,” “The Siege,” “True Lies,” “Rules of Engagement,” “Obsession,” “The Third Jihad,” “Jihad in America,” “Tyrant,” and “The Sum of All Fears.”
  • Ghassan Elashi, founder of CAIR’s Texas chapter, in 2009 received a 65-year prison sentence for funneling over $12 million from the Islamic charity known as the Holy Land Foundation to the jihad terrorist group Hamas, which is responsible for murdering hundreds of Israeli civilians.
  • Mousa Abu Marzook, a former CAIR official, was in 1995 designated by the U.S. government in 1995 as a “terrorist and Hamas leader.” He now is a Hamas leader in Syria.
  • Randall Royer, CAIR’s former civil rights coordinator, in 2004 began serving a 20-year prison sentence for aiding al-Qaida and the Taliban against American troops in Afghanistan and recruiting for Lashkar e-Taiba, the jihadist group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai jihad massacres.
  • Bassem Khafagi, CAIR’s former community relations director, was arrested for involvement with the Islamic Assembly of North America, which was linked to al-Qaida. After pleading guilty to visa and bank fraud charges, Khafagi was deported.
  • Rabih Haddad, a former CAIR fundraiser, was deported for his work with the Global Relief Foundation (which he co-founded), a terror-financing organization.
  • CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case–so named by the Justice Department during the HLF trial.

CAIR’s agenda to dumb down law enforcement and the public can only weaken the national security of the United States of America. The one asset that America needs most for national security is adequately trained law enforcement in the area of Islamic terrorism given ISIS’s heightened threat to the homeland.  Yet, the Council on American Islamic Relations is pressuring every law enforcement agency they can to dumb down their knowledge on Islamic terrorism.

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to thank the officials at Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and General Electric for supporting the Center for Security Policy.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also change the subject or message text if you wish.

Please click here to send your email to Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and General Electric officials.

For contact information please click here.

Twitter and Facebook.  The following Heading Description in bold blue and Floridafamily.org Article Link have been prepared for you to share the article shown below with your Twitter and/or Facebook friends.  Simply copy the bold blue heading and associated article link and paste on your Twitter and Facebook page.  Please feel free to edit the heading.

Please thank Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and General Electric for supporting anti-terrorism efforts! http://floridafamily.org/full_article.php?article_no=393

Personal posts are more likely to be responded to by friends and acquaintances than posts from Florida Family Association.

The Boeing Company

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/companyoffices/aboutus/execprofiles/index.page

W. James (Jim) McNerney, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
jim.McNerney@boeing.com

Christopher M. Chadwick    Executive Vice President, The Boeing Company
President and Chief Executive Officer, Boeing Defense, Space & Security
Christopher.M.Chadwick@boeing.com

Thomas J. Downey, Senior Vice President, Communications
thomas.j.downey@boeing.com

General Dynamics

http://www.generaldynamics.com/about/executive-team/

Phebe N. Novakovic
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
PNovakovic@generaldynamics.com

Robert W. Helm
Senior Vice President – Planning and Development
RHelm@generaldynamics.com

Lucy Ryan, Media
lryan@generaldynamics.com

Lockheed Martin

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/who-we-are/leadership.html

Marillyn Hewson, CEO
Marillyn.A.Hewson@lmco.com

Gordon Johndroe, Media
gordon.johndroe@lmco.com

Northrop Grumman

http://www.northropgrumman.com/AboutUs/CompanyLeadership/Pages/CorporateLeadExecutives.aspx

Wes Bush, CEO
wes.bush@ngc.com

Darryl M. Fraser
Corporate Vice President, Communications
Darryl.fraser@ngc.com

Raytheon

http://www.raytheon.com/ourcompany/leadership/

comments-ethics@raytheon.com

Thomas A. Kennedy, Chairman, CEO
Tom.Kennedy@raytheon.com

General Electric

http://www.ge.com/about-us/leadership/corporate-executives

Jeffrey Immelt@ge, Chairman and CEO
jeffrey.immelt@ge.com

Beth Comstock
Senior Vice President, Chief Marketing Officer, GE
Beth.Comstock@ge.com

CAIR attacks the Center for Security Policy and Frank Gaffney

cair2bfundingTerror Trends Bulletin, by Christopher Holton:

Today we received more confirmation that we are locked in a war of ideas with Muslim Brotherhood organizations when CAIR launched a broadside at Frank Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy, one of the leaders in the counterjihad and counter shariah movement.

CAIR published the names of top defense contractors who donate to CSP, including Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman and others, criticizing them for supporting an “Islamophobic” organization.

In a perfect world, Boeing et al would react to this the same way they would have to the German Bund issuing a similar release in 1939.

But in today’s PC world in which hard Leftists control the Defense budget, one has to wonder what the reaction might be.

If any of these firms back off from supporting CSP they will have bowed their heads to the Ikhwan and complied with Shariah prohibitions against the Shariah definition of slander: namely saying anything to a Muslim that he does not like.

There are some things we can do about this:

1. Contact the following firms and (i) praise them for supporting the Center for Security Policy and (ii) urge them to ignore pressure from CAIR and continue to support the Center for Security Policy:

Boeing:

http://active.boeing.com/contactus.cfm?directed_to=BDS

General Dynamics:

Lucy Ryan

lryan@generaldynamics.com

Lockheed Martin:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/contact.html

Northrop Grumman:

https://apps.northropgrumman.com/RFIForms/Pages/CommunicationsRFI.aspx?PID=null&IsDlg=2

Raytheon:

comments-ethics@raytheon.com

General Electric:

http://defense.ge-ip.com/inforequestform

2. Contact the Center for Security Policy and let them know that you support them and will stand with them against the Muslim Brotherhood…

info@securefreedom.org

Finally, as a reminder, here is just who CAIR is, the organization that is attacking the Center for Security Policy:

CAIR in particular is a troubling organization that can only be described as a nefarious 5th Column unit.

Here are some concerns that thousands of Americans have about CAIR:

  • CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the US v. Holy Land Foundation, the largest terrorism financing prosecution in US history.
  • The Holy Land Foundation was a Texas-based charity whose officers were sentenced in May 2009 to between 15 and 65 years in prison for funneling over $12 million to Hamas. One of the sentenced officers, Ghassan Elashi, is the founder of CAIR’s Dallas chapter. Elashi’s illegal activities took place while he was affiliated with CAIR.
  • CAIR opened its first office in Washington, D.C. with the help of a $5,000 grant from the Holy Land Foundation.
  • In a formal letter to Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona dated 28 April 2009, the FBI stated that during the Holy Land Foundation trial, “evidence was introduced that demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders (including its current President Emeritus and its Executive Director) and the Palestine Committee. Evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestine Committee and HAMAS, which was designated as a terrorist organization in 1995. In light of that evidence, the FBI suspended all formal contacts between CAIR and the FBI.”
  • In March 2011, Muthanna al-Hanooti, one of CAIR’s directors, was sentenced to a year in federal prison for violating U.S. sanctions against Saddam’s Iraq.
  • In January of 2011, the CAIR California chapter published a poster promoting a conference called “Know Your Rights and Defend Our Communities.” That poster prominently featured the following slogan: “BUILD A WALL OF RESISTANCE DON’T TALK TO THE FBI.”
  • On March 22, 1994, During a panel discussion at Barry University in Florida, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad said: “I used to support the PLO, and I used to be the President of the General Union of Palestine Students which is part of the PLO here in the United States, but after I researched the situation inside Palestine and outside, I am in support of the Hamas movement more than the PLO.”
  • On February 2, 1995, U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White named CAIR Advisory Board member and New York imam Siraj Wahhaj as one of the “unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators” in Egyptian Islamic Group leader “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman’s foiled plot to blow up numerous New York City monuments.
  • On April 19, 1996, in its first published report on alleged anti-Muslim discrimination, titled “The Price of Ignorance,” CAIR cited the arrest of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the Blind Sheikh), the Egyptian cleric serving a life sentence for conspiracy to blow up New York landmarks in 1993, and the detention of senior Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzuq, as “incidents of bias and violence” against Muslims in the U.S.
  • On July 4, 1998, former CAIR chairman Omar M. Ahmad, told Fremont, California’s daily newspaper, The Argus, that “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant, he said. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”
  • In October 1998, CAIR demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as “the sworn enemy.” According to CAIR, this depiction was “offensive to Muslims.”
  • In 1993, CAIR spokesperson Ibrahim Hooper told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future. … But I’m not going to do anything violent to promote that. I’m going to do it through education.”
  • In September 2003, CAIR’s former Community Affairs Director, Bassem Khafagi, pled guilty to three federal counts of bank and visa fraud and agreed to be deported to Egypt. Federal investigators said that a group Khafagi founded, the Islamic Assembly of North America, had funneled money to activities supporting terrorism and had published material advocating suicide attacks against the United States. Khafagi’s illegal activities took place while he was employed by CAIR.
  • In 2004, CAIR-Northern Virginia director Abdurahman Alamoudi pled guilty to terrorism-related financial and conspiracy charges in 2004, which resulted in a 23-year prison sentence.
  • In 2006, the co-founder of CAIR’s parent organization, IAP (Islamic Association for Palestine), Sami Al-Arian, was sentenced to 57 months in prison on terrorism charges for financing Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a designated terrorist organization according to the US State Department.
  • On August 12, 2006 CAIR helped to coordinate a number of demonstrations in support of Hezbollah and “resistance” groups fighting American forces in Iraq.
  • Randall Todd Royer, who served as a communications specialist and civil rights coordinator for CAIR, trained with Lashkar-I-Taiba, an al Qaeda-tied Kashmir organization that is listed on the State Department’s international terror list. He was also indicted on charges of conspiring to help al Qaeda and the Taliban battle American troops in Afghanistan. He later pled guilty to lesser firearm-related charges and was sentenced to twenty years in prison on April 9, 2004.  Royer’s illegal activities took place while he was employed by CAIR.
  • Onetime CAIR fundraiser Rabih Haddad was arrested on terrorism-related charges and was deported from the United States due to his subsequent work as Executive Director of the Global Relief Foundation, which in October 2002 was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department for financing al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Haddad raised money for the Ann Arbor, Michigan chapter of CAIR.
  • On April 20, 2002: Nihad Awad addressed an anti-Israel rally in Washington D.C. while standing next to Hezbollah flag.
  • On October 12, 2001: Ghazi Kankan, executive director of CAIR’s New York office at the time, defended Hamas’s targeting of Israeli civilians. He told theJewish Week that, like Hamas, he considered all Israelis over the age of 18 to be “military” because “they are all reserves.”

Given the number of individuals associated with CAIR who have been convicted on terrorism-related causes, as well as the disturbing associations and statements from CAIR and its officials, the LAST people in the world who should be listening to them are defense firms.

In fact, one must wonder whether CAIR is pressuring these firms because they manufacture the weapons that stop and kill Jihadists in terrorist organizations, such as HAMAS.

Gingrich, Key Legislators, Experts Agree: One Year After an Attack on the Grid, It’s Still Dangerously Vulnerable – and So are We

1071364595

Center for Security Policy:

Washington, DC – On the first anniversary of a nearly devastating attack on the Metcalf Substation outside San Jose, California, the Secure the Grid Coalition convened a symposium on whether the electric grid has been made appreciably more resilient against this and other sorts of assaults, whether by enemies of this country or solar storms. Seven senior legislators and national security experts warned that, incredibly, the answer is “No.

The participants included: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; Rep. Pete Sessions, the chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee; and Rep. Trent Franks, the co-chairman of the House EMP Caucus. Each provided video-taped statements, as did Thomas Popik, the chairman of the Foundation for Resilient Societies.

Appearing as well and in person at the Reserve Officers Association venue were: Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, a former staff member of the Congressional EMP Threat Commission; Michael Del Rosso, former Chairman, IEEE Critical Infrastructure Committee; and Major General Robert Newman, the former Adjutant General of Virginia. The program was moderated by Frank Gaffney, the president of the Center for Security Policy.

Speaker Gingrich observed: “This is a very important topic. I believe it may be the most important topic in national security because an electromagnetic pulse event or a very, very large solar event are the only things I can think of that could literally cripple the society so decisively, barring a spasm nuclear war with hundreds of warheads.”

Highlights of the program included:

• The wake-up call represented by the narrowly averted disaster at Metcalf. Had the perpetrators of that attack – who have not been apprehended and must be assumed to be still at large – succeeded, they would likely have destroyed seventeen, and perhaps all twenty-one, of the facility’s absolutely vital, and effectively irreplaceable, extremely high-voltage transformers. The result would have been disruption of power to Silicon Valley and parts of the San Francisco Bay area for a protracted period.

• The fact that enemies of this country have as part of their cyberwarfare doctrine the use of attacks involving: direct physical assault, radio frequency weapons, cyber attacks and high-altitude electromagnetic pulses to destroy our grid.

• The certitude that, even if none of such threats eventuate, the grid will – if left unprotected – be devastated by a naturally occurring “Carrington event.” These are powerful solar flare-induced geomagnetic disturbances that occur roughly every 150 years. The last one occurred in 1859, one hundred and fifty-five years ago.

• The reality that eleven different studies have been performed or commissioned by the U.S. government over the past decade to examine threats to the electric grid. Each one – whether addressing man-caused or naturally induced dangers – arrives at the same conclusion: the protracted disruption of the grid that would result from such events would pose an existential threat to the nation. (A compilation of the executive summaries of these studies was recently published by the Center for Security Policy under the title, Guilty Knowledge: What the U.S. Government Knows about the Vulnerability of the Electric Grid, but Refuses to Fix, was disseminated at the symposium and can be downloaded at [ ].)

• The historical experience of the U.S. military with hardening its critical nuclear forces and command-and-control assets. As a result of this fifty-year long practice, the technology for grid protection is known, proven and in-hand.

• The reasons why electric utilities and what amounts to their trade association – which, incredibly, also happens to be their regulator at the federal level – the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, seem so indifferent to the evidence that their assets and infrastructure face potentially ruinous assaults. Evidently, they are more concerned about the immediate bottom line and regulatory restrictions than even their own long-term fortunes, to say nothing of the country’s.

• The peculiar outcome of a hearing convened last week by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to examine the question: “Keeping the Lights On: Are We Doing Enough to Assure the Reliability and Security of the Electric Grid?” It seems that – despite the readily available evidence to the contrary (well summarized by the Coalition’s symposium yesterday) – Senators were under the illusion that the answer is that we are doing enough, and that the only real problem is that information to the contrary has appeared in places like the Wall Street Journal.

Symposium moderator Frank Gaffney observed: “The U.S. government knows about the grid’s vulnerability. So do the utilities. And so do our enemies. In fact, the only folks being kept in the dark about this problem and the disaster that it invites are the American people. And, if something is not done swiftly to secure the grid, they may be kept in the dark permanently.”

Also see: Was 2013 sniper attack on CA power grid preparation for an act of war? by Allen West

Federal Judge Sending “Muslim Mafia” Case to Trial

seh_darn_CAIR_300x188

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) v. Gaubatz, Center for Security Policy (CSP)

American Freedom Law Center:

Late last week, Federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, sitting in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, denied the Council on American-Islamic Relation’s (CAIR) motion for partial summary judgment in a lawsuit CAIR filed against the Center for Security Policy (CSP) and several of its employees, thereby setting the stage for the case to go to a jury trial.

CAIR, which bills itself as “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization,” sued CSP – a national security policy think tank – and its employees for working on a documentary designed to expose CAIR’s Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas ties and other illegal activities.

While dealing a blow to CAIR, the court granted most of CSP’s motion for summary judgment, sending a few of the surviving issues to trial on the presentation of the slimmest of evidence by CAIR.  Based on this “evidence,” the court concluded that there were factual disputes that had to be resolved by a jury.

With regard to six of the claims advanced by CAIR, the court had these harsh words to say:

The Court finds that Plaintiffs [i.e., CAIR] have thus far been frustratingly unclear as to the injuries at issue for each of the claims.  In addition, Plaintiffs have not specified which injury, if any, corresponds to which of the Plaintiffs, and have made little effort to explain the proximate cause linking the alleged tortious conduct to the injuries at issue.  Instead, Plaintiffs speak in broad generalizations, asserting injuries and damages and proximate cause across multiple counts and multiple Plaintiffs.  As a result, the Court has received only opaque and largely unhelpful briefing. . . .  Plaintiffs are not specific as to these issues, making resolution of the threshold questions of injury and proximate cause next to impossible for the Court.

Robert Muise, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), which is representing CSP and its employees, commented:

“While we believe that the court incorrectly went to great lengths to find scant ‘evidence’ to conclude that there are material issues of fact to be resolved by a jury, CAIR is nonetheless in trouble not only with its few surviving claims, but also with the possibility of a public trial that will most certainly expose CAIR for what it is – a sharia-ist front group.”

AFLC is planning to file a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the court misconstrued both the law and the facts with regard to the few surviving claims.

David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented:

“We are certainly disappointed that the court did not rule entirely in favor of our clients, especially because CAIR manifestly abused the legal process in this litigation and because the facts uncovered clearly demonstrate that the documentary was undertaken legally and quite properly.  However, we are eager to prove in court what the documentary sought to prove in the public square: that CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group.”

In 2008, Dave Gaubatz, an experienced federal investigator, was hired as an independent contractor to put together a team of field researchers to assist in the documentary.  As part of the field research, Dave Gaubatz trained his son, Chris Gaubatz, to work undercover as an intern with CAIR, which required Chris to wear an audio-video recorder on his clothing to obtain recordings of the routine activities of a CAIR intern.  During this internship, it became clear that both a major fraud occurred within the organization and that CAIR officials were attempting to cover it up.  (AFLC represents five former CAIR victims in a federal lawsuit in the same court alleging fraud and a cover-up by CAIR.  AFLC has filed a motion for summary judgment in that lawsuit as well and is expecting a ruling from the court very soon.)

After the field research for the documentary was completed, Dave Gaubatz published a book entitled,Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America, which was an exposé on CAIR.  Shortly after the book was published, CAIR filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C., against Dave and Chris Gaubatz.  CAIR then amended its lawsuit to add CSP and several of its employees who were involved in the production of the documentary.  CAIR’s lawsuit alleges violations of various federal wiretap and hacking statutes as well as several common law torts, such as breach of fiduciary duty and trespass, among others.

The case has been ongoing for nearly four years.  At various times throughout the litigation, the court criticized CAIR and its in-house legal counsel for their inability to both efficiently manage the case and to comply with court procedures.  Furthermore, the court scolded CAIR’s in-house lawyers for filing untimely and substantively deficient motions.

CAIR, a self-described Muslim public interest law firm, was previously named as an unindicted co-conspirator and Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the successful prosecution of a terrorist funding cell organized around one of the largest Muslim charities, the Holy Land Foundation (HLF).  HLF raised funds for violent jihad on behalf of Hamas, and top CAIR officials were part of the conspiracy.  As a result, the FBI publicly terminated its outreach activities with CAIR.

CPAC’s Blind Spot

3235888515By Frank Gaffney:

What would you call an issue portfolio that is vital to the future of our country, central to conservatism’s past electoral success and compelling to significant parts of the demographics likely to determine the Right’s future competitiveness? If you were the American Conservative Union, sponsor of the recently concluded Conservative Political Action Conference, you would evidently call it taboo.

The rest of us would call it the national security.

To be sure, despite a palpable effort by CPAC organizers to low-ball topics addressing the defense and foreign policy challenges of our time, a few speakers nonetheless touched on them.  But the degree to which such issues deserved to be a central focus of the three-day meeting – but weren’t – was made palpable by a parallel, day-long event held on CPAC’s first day under the sponsorship of EMPAct America and Breitbart News Network. I was privileged to have had a hand in organizing and moderating the proceedings.

Dubbed the “National Security Action Summit,” the program featured remarks from nearly forty participants including Senators Ted Cruz and David Vitter and five Members of Congress – Representatives Louie Gohmert, Steve King, Trent Franks, Mo Brooks and Jim Bridenstein.

Among the other highpoints were: a keynote address provided by former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, remarks by Phyllis Schlafly, comments by undercover investigative journalist James O’Keefe and a rousing closing speech by Fox News’ Judge Jeanine Pirro.

Panels addressed topics that were largely ignored by CPAC, but should not have been.  These included: the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its “civilization jihad” and enablers; the dangers inherent in open borders and amnesty to both the country and the GOP; the need for truth-telling and accountability in the Benghazigate scandal; Obama’s endangering of the common defense, evident in and facilitated by his hollowing out of the military; the crisis in the Ukraine and what we should do about it; and the existential threat to our country posed by an electric grid dangerously vulnerable to attack and naturally occurring solar storms.  (Videos of the entire conference can be viewed at www.homelandthreats.com.)

Read more at Center for Security Policy

(Hover over menu item “Latest Events” to access videos of speakers and panels)

New publicity of attack on California transmission substation re-energizes efforts to protect the grid

download (70)

Sign the Petition to Protect the Grid!

For background see Jerry Gordon’s article at NER:

The Metcalf Incident: California Power Station Terrorist Attack Reveals Highly Vulnerable National Grid

 

Jeanine Pirro is helping to get the message out:

 

 

 

And Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney together with EMPact America and the Reserve Officers Association hosted a live webcast on Feb. 6

American Security and The Iranian Bomb: Analyzing Threats at Home and Abroad

 

Ted Cruz: Nuclear Iran greatest national security threat to US:

 

Woolsey: EMP catastrophe worse than effects of nuclear war:

 

The full video of the event can be viewed here

Obama on National Security: Serial Fraud

fraud

WASHINGTON, DC– Today the Center for Security Policy released a web ad and email campaign entitled, “Obama on National Security: Serial Fraud,” featuring former federal prosecutor, National Review columnist and bestselling author Andrew C. McCarthy.

The Center’s campaign focuses on what it calls “Obama’s national security fraud” and makes parallels from the president’s misrepresentations on Obamacare to our nation’s defense and security. The text Americans are urged to send to Obama, declares, boldly, that “We, the people, refuse to be lied to, especially about our national security. Too much is at stake – our children, our country, our lives. Your promises about health care and other domestic issues have seriously damaged your credibility.”

Send an email to President Obama

 

 

Transcript: Obama on National Security: Serial Fraud

Can we afford to leave national security to a president accused of fraud and repeatedly lying to the American public?

McCarthy: “‘You want your plan, you keep your plan’ is just the beginning. We’re talking about serial fraud on multiple levels…”

Now, he’s rushing to make a deal to leave Iran with nuclear weapons that Israel warns will make the entire world more dangerous and unstable. After what he did to healthcare, America cannot risk the same Obama train wreck… on national security.

Willful blindness, mortal peril

2250743340Center for Security Policy, By Frank Gaffney:

Diana West’s splendid new book, American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character, is an expose of a practice that she persuasively argues has cost us dearly in the past and endangers our future.  Former federal prosecutor-turned-pundit Andrew C. McCarthy calls it “willful blindness” and we indulge in it at our extreme peril.

Ms. West painstakingly documents how America’s government, media, academia, political and policy elites actively helped obscure the true nature of the Soviet Union.  She persuasively argues that such blinding began literally from the moment in November 1933 when Franklin Roosevelt normalized relations with the USSR in exchange for the Kremlin’s fraudulent promise to forego subversion against this country.

Ms. West came to this exhaustive research project by dint of her curiosity about the failure of such elites in our own time to recognize and counter today’s present danger: the Islamists and their shariah doctrine that some have described as “communism with a god.”  Several examples illustrate willful blindness in our time:

Army Major Nidal Hassan, whose trial for the Fort Hood massacre finally begins this week, repeatedly signaled his intention to engage in such an act of jihad prior to gunning down his comrades.  Testimony is expected to show that officers in his chain of command refused to entertain such a possibility – and actually threatened the careers of those who had the temerity to warn of the violent mayhem this Islamist believed he must inflict, pursuant to shariah.

Such dereliction of duty was compounded by a serious error by the nation’s first line of defense against such internal threats – the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Thanks to communications intercepts by the lately much-maligned National Security Agency (NSA), the FBI was aware that Hassan was being mentored about his duty under shariah by an al Qaeda-associated cleric then based in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki.  Yet, rather than move in on Hassan, the Bureau dismissed such counseling as nothing more than research for the major’s thesis at a U.S. military medical school.

The FBI’s performance against such jihadists has been further hampered by the influence operations of Muslim Brotherhood-tied individuals and organizations who are now “inside the wire” of the U.S. government – in a manner all-too-reminiscent of the penetration of our governing and other institutions by Soviet agents during the 20th Century chronicled so brilliantly by Diana West.  The training materials of not only the Bureau, but the military, the intelligence community and homeland security agencies, have been purged of information that would help connect the dots between the supremacist Islamic doctrine of shariah and terrorism.

Such self-imposed blinding about the enemy’s threat doctrine is dressed up as multicultural sensitivity and political correctness, aimed at not gratuitously giving offense to Muslims.  In fact, it amounts to submission to our enemy’s bid for what the U.S. military calls “information dominance.”  There seems little doubt that these sorts of imperatives contributed to the Bureau’s inability, despite some 14 hours of interviews with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, to discern the jihadist proclivities of a man who subsequently acted on them to perpetrate the Boston Marathon attack last April.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has throughout its tenure submissively aided the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, by legitimating, empowering, funding and even arming it.  While this public embrace has diminished somewhat since the Egyptian military responded affirmatively to popular demands for the overthrow of the Brotherhood regime of Mohammed Morsi, Team Obama insists that the avowedly anti-democratic Muslim Brotherhood nonetheless be allowed to participate in any future electoral process.

This has required a determined effort to ignore the true agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood, both there and here.  Particularly alarming are the findings of a detailed analysis by counter-terrorism expert Patrick Poole recently documented in the Middle East Review of International Affairs (http://www.gloria-center.org/2013/06/the-u-s-governments-disastrous-muslim-outreach-efforts-and-the-impact-on-u-s-middle-east-policy-blind-to-terror1/).  Poole documents how, time and again, one element of the U.S. government, under both this and previous presidents, “reached out” to Brotherhood figures and organizations, even as they or their associates were being investigated (and, in some cases, prosecuted) by other agencies for material support for designated terrorist groups, subversion or preparations for jihadist attacks.

A particularly glaring example of willful blindness involves the almost complete suppression of information about Huma Abedin’s extensive Muslim Brotherhood ties.  Despite the incessant coverage of Mrs. Anthony Weiner on many other scores, there has, for example, been scarcely any discussion of her role as the State Department’s Deputy Chief of Staff in the Benghazigate scandal.   Hopefully, the report last week by CNN that 35 witnesses to the jihadist attack on the CIA annex are being actively suppressed, intimidated and pressured not to tell the Congress or the American people what happened on September 11, 2012 will lead, at last, to a proper investigation.  It must illuminate, among other things, the Abedin connection and Hillary Clinton’s serious misjudgment in giving a woman with such associations a succession of positions of trust over the past 16 years.

Finally, the U.S. government has reportedly classified the thesis written by the new military leader and possible future president of Egypt, General Abdel Fatah Al-Sisi, during his time at the Army War College.  While Al-Sisi has, for the moment, routed the Muslim Brotherhood, according to an expert on the Egyptian armed forces, the Naval Postgraduate School’s Professor Robert Springborg: “[His] thesis goes beyond simply rejecting the idea of a secular state; it embraces a more radical view of the proper place of religion in an Islamic democracy.”  It won’t do to replace willful blindness about the tendencies of the past Egyptian leadership with self-imposed ignorance about those of its replacement.

Neither the American people nor those they entrust with their security can afford to engage in delusional fantasies about the enemies we face, at home as well as abroad.

A call to courage over Benghazi

-1156172513Center For Security Policy:

By Adm. James “Ace” Lyons (Ret.)

Five committees of the House of Representatives recently issued an interim report on the Benghazi tragedy, which clearly indicated that the highest levels of the State Department were involved in not only denying security resources but reducing them at our facilities in Libya, including the Benghazi Special Mission Compound. These were not “routine” security requests, as some have claimed. They were made by the Regional Security Office and also by Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens as well.

Why these legitimate requests were turned down remains an open question. There remains many other unanswered questions that were not addressed by the Accountability Review Board. For example, we still do not know what business was being conducted at the compound. Also, why was it necessary for Stevens to be in Benghazi with its out-of-control security situation on what should have been a high-security-alert day of Sept. 11? Why did the administration continue to lie to the American public for the better part of two weeks that it was a video that caused the attack when they knew it was a terrorist attack from Day One?

The American public — and certainly the families of the four Americans killed — need to know who gave the “stand-down order” and on whose authority. Former CIA Director David H. Petraeus has stated that no such order came from the CIA.

The lack of a military response remains another important unanswered question. Even though our military resources, particularly those of the U.S. Sixth Fleet have been drawn down to the point at which they’re essentially nonexistent, there were in-theater resources that could have responded and, most likely, would have saved America lives. These included F-16 fighter aircraft from Aviano, Italy, which could have been over the compound in about 90 minutes. There was also a 130-man Marine Force Recon Team at Sigonella, Italy, which could have been deployed to arrive at the compound in a matter of a few hours.

These resources would have made a difference, particularly since the attack went on for more than eight hours with no fear of interference or retaliation. Further, no one has yet been able to interview the 30-odd survivors about what actually happened during the attack. Why not?

Why has there been no effort to retaliate against the al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group Ansar al-Shariah, which carried out the attack? Their leaders today sit in outdoor cafes in Benghazi sipping tea.

Our U.S. Sixth Fleet military posture in the Mediterranean is a disgrace. Since World War II up until 2008, we maintained the dominant military force in the Mediterranean, consisting of at least one carrier battle group and an amphibious Ready Group with an embarked Marine battalion, along with logistic support ships and other units. Today, we have one unarmed command ship — my old flagship — the USS Mt. Whitney (LCC-20). This is symptomatic of President Obama’s relentless effort to disarm our military, which is clearly affecting our national security.

Compounding the disarming of our military forces is Mr. Obama’s destabilizing social engineering. The latest example is a directive promulgated by the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff that all flag and general officers will now be evaluated by the subordinates under their commands. Does this make any sense? Is this to make sure that our military leadership is complying with the president’s “diversity” agenda? Will any member of the Joint Chiefs find the courage to stand up and voice objection?

This politically correct directive by the chairman defies all leadership logic. It will destroy unit integrity and morale. It will destroy the fundamental principles of the chain of command concept, which has served this nation honorably for more than 238 years. The integrity of command is not obtained by running a popularity contest. Currying favors with subordinates is alien to military leadership. This nonsense must be stopped.

Our nonresponse to the attack on our Benghazi facilities is in part reflective of our military leadership’s politically correct mentality as well as the administration’s policies to disarm our military forces. The first action that needs to be taken is to get the facts out to the American public on the Benghazi cover-up. Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican, has sponsored a resolution (H. Res. 36) to establish a select committee to investigate and respond on the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. He has been joined by 122 members, at the latest count. The problem has been that House Speaker John A. Boehner has been stonewalling the establishment of such a committee, using the lame excuse that it will cost money and take a lot of time. Nonsense. The systematic causes that brought about the Benghazi debacle need to be unearthed now, as it will affect our national security in the future.

If the president were a Republican and Nancy Pelosi were the speaker, there would have been no hesitation on her part to find the courage to form such a committee. Hopefully, Mr. Boehner can find his.

Reject Perez: Experts Demonstrate Why Senate Should Repudiate Labor Nominee

192435887

Tell your Senators!

Center For Security Policy:

Washington, D.C.:  On the eve of a confirmation hearing on the nomination of Thomas Perez, President Obama’s pick to become the next Secretary of Labor, the Center for Security Policy released a 20-minute video featuring comments by six prominent public policy practitioners and experts urging the Senate to reject this selection.  This “virtual press conference” (VPC) offers a litany of extremely troubling behavior spanning the nominee’s career prior to and during his tenure in his current position as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.

 

The following participants and topics are featured in the “Reject Perez” video:

  • Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, hosts the VPC and addresses Perez’s leading role in the Obama administration-wide effort to embrace, legitimate and empower the Muslim Brotherhood and its operatives.
  • Chris Farrell, Director of Investigations at Judicial Watch, describes Perez’s radical political philosophy and conduct before and during his time in the Justice Department.
  • Anita MonCrief, who once was a member of the hard-left group, ACORN, and is now a voting integrity activist with True the Vote, discusses Perez’s troubling proclivities with respect to immigration and labor law stemming in part from his past-presidency of Casa de Maryland, an organization that helps illegal aliens violate federal statutes.
  • Hans von Spakovsky, former counsel to one of Perez’s predecessors as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, who decries the “toxic culture” and mismanagement inside that organization as a result of the incumbent’s leadership – and the prevarication he engaged in during the course of a highly critical examination of the Perez tenure by the Justice Department’s Inspector General.
  • Rosemary Jenks, Director of Government Relations at Numbers USA, who questions whether the Senate can responsibly entrust the U.S. Labor Department to an individual who has worked to enable illegal aliens to take jobs from American workers.
  • J. Christian Adams, a former career attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Voting Section details various actions – some taken personally by Perez and others by his organization on his watch – that have subverted the principle of equal justice under the law.

On the occasion of the release of the Reject Perez video, Mr. Gaffney observed:

Tom Perez is perhaps the most controversial of President Obama’s nominees to Cabinet positions in his second administration – and that is saying something in light of the competition for that dubious distinction.  His past record and present mismanagement, if not actual malfeasance, at the Justice Department should disqualify him from serious consideration for not only the job of Secretary of Labor, but for any position of responsibility in the U.S. government.

David Reaboi: Who’s Arming Syrian Jihadist Groups?

AS50pic

 
David Reaboi, Vice President for Strategic Communications at the Center for Security Policy, appeared on FoxNews.com to discuss the increasingly deadly weapons Syrian jihadist groups are using during the Civil War there. He notes the latest news about the sophisticated and expensive AS50 sniper rifle (or a copy) in the hands of a Hamas-run rebel militia called the Descendants of the Prophet Brigade, and argues against the US intervening in the conflict. Despite the heartbreaking casualties of civil war, now in its second year, there is no good outcome for the United States.

 
David raised some important points during the interview:

  • Recent NYT reporting reveals Qatar and Saudi money is being used to send arms into Syria from Croatia possibly with the cooperation of the CIA
  • The Independent Commission (ARB – Accountability Review Board) criticized the State Department for calling in the February 17th Martyrs Brigade for security at the consulate in Benghazi.
  • David says he doesn’t trust our intelligence bureaucracy to know who the good guys and the bad guys are because they have removed the study of ideology from the equation. “So once you take out what these guys actually believe, all you’re left with is competing personalities, and that doesn’t tell you very much about where they want to go in the long run.”
  • It is the position of the Center For Security Policy that the United States should not become involved in the Syrian war because we would be forced to support “the bad guys”. The choice being discussed in Washington is between “moderate” Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood versus more militant Salafi or al-Qaeda al-Nusra front type groups. There is no good outcome.

 

 

Shariah’s Assault on Free Speech: Warriors Who Refuse to be Silenced

CSP-hedegaard-web

The Center for Security Policy is pleased to broadcast Shariah’s Assault on Free Speech: Warriors Who Refuse to be Silenced, a program of the Irwin M. and H. Ethel Hausman Memorial Free Speech Speakers’ Series in Stoughton, Massachusetts on Wednesday, March 20, 2013. The event will begin at 7:00PM.

To attend in person, please purchase tickets and RSVP.

Also being made available live on youtube for free:

About the Speakers

12Lars Hedegaard is a portrait of courage, tenacity, and wit, under even the most trying circumstances.  Hedegaard is President of the Danish Free Press Society, a historian and a journalist. He is also the survivor of a recent assassination attempt on his life last month in his home in Denmark.
Lars Hedegaard in the Wall Street Journal Lars Hedegaard and the Enemies of Truthfulness

16 Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of twelve books, including two New York Times bestsellers, The Truth About Muhammad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (both Regnery). His latest book is Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam’s Obscure Origins (ISI).

19Tiffany Gabbay serves as Assistant Editor and Foreign Affairs Editor for TheBlaze and has been a writer for over a decade. Her passion for politics and expertise in Middle East affairs was fostered at an early age by her father, a successful entrepreneur and Israeli war hero. Previously, Tiffany worked as a journalist on Capitol Hill where she interviewed some of the Beltway’s biggest names including Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Rep. Michele Bachmann, Sen. Dick Durbin and many others.  She is a graduate of the National Journalism Center in Washington, D.C. and studied communications at the London Institute – University of the Arts, London.

21Andrew G. Bostom (MD, MS) is an author and Associate Professor of Medicine at Brown University Medical School. He is also well known for his writings on Islam as the author ofThe Legacy of Jihad (2005), and editor of 2008 anthology of primary sources and secondary studies on the theme of Muslim antisemitism,The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History. In October 2012 Bostom published his third compendium Sharia versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism (Prometheus Books).

Michael Graham is a talk radio host, writer, and conservative political commentator. The author of four books, including the first major publisher book on the Tea Party movement-”THAT’S NO ANGRY MOB, THAT’S MY MOM!” (Regnery, 2010)-Michael is also a columnist for the Boston Herald.

National Security Experts Warn: Reject Brennan

-348707709

Center For Security Policy:

Washington, D.C.: With the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence scheduled to vote tomorrow on John Brennan’s nomination to become the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, it has become clear that Senators simply do not have all the information necessary for an informed decision on so sensitive an appointment. In an effort to illuminate the nominee’s shortcomings that demand – but have yet to receive – close scrutiny, the Center for Security Policy convened avirtual press conference featuring video-taped comments by six of the country’s preeminent experts on, among other things, the threat of Islamism and Brennan’s blindness to it.

The video includes powerful statements by Steve Emerson, Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism; Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy;Chris Farrell, Vice President for Investigations and Research for Judicial Watch; Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, USA Ret., former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; Andrew C. McCarthy, former federal prosecutor and author of The Grand Jihad and Spring Fever; andStephen Coughlin, Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy and author of the forthcoming book, Catastrophic Failure.

The video, National Security Experts Warn: Reject Brennan, compliments the Center’s other efforts to educate the public, media and policymakers about the dangers of a possible Brennan tenure at the CIA, including a collection of Brennan-related resources and several investigative pieces.

Andrew McCarthy–who successfully prosecuted the Blind Sheikh who, twenty years ago yesterday, conspired to blow up the World Trade Center–said:

Making John Brennan the director of the Central Intelligence Agency is the most monumental mismatch of man and mission that I can imagine. The point of having our intelligence agencies is to make sure that we have a coherent, accurate idea of the threats that confront the United States. Unfortunately, Mr. Brennan’s career, and certainly the signature that he has put on the national security component of the Obama administration has been to blind the United States to the threats against us.

Steve Emerson, one of the country’s preeminent counter-terrorism experts added:

John Brennan, CIA director nominee, is uniquely unqualified to be the CIA director as evidenced by him being the architect of the outreach program to the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States as well as in the Middle East. In the course of the investigation conducted by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, we discovered that there were at least four hundred visits in the three years between 2009 and 2012 to the White House of radical Islamic groups, some of whom were unindicted co-conspirators in terrorism trials, but all of whom had been involved in establishing radical Islamic rhetoric, including support for Hamas, Hezbollah, denigrating the US, calling this a war against Islam by the United States.

Zuhdi Jasser, a leader of anti-Islamist Muslims in America, warned that:

…The reports put out from [John Brennan's] counter-terrorism office at the White House…did not recognize the [Islamist] ideology. They noted a “radical ideology,” but didn’t name what it was — even though the word ‘ideology’ was mentioned twenty times. Our American-Islamic Leadership Coalition, that includes over 20 different reform-based organizations that are anti-Islamist, were not consulted. And, you can see from the report, that it seems to be very similar to things put out by groups like the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Islamic Society of North America. Unfortunately, John Brennan has had a very cozy relationship to these groups and has often used their talking points when speaking out about Islam, Islamism, jihad, and the threat…. In every position Brennan has been it, he has been more a facilitator of Islamist groups rather than a counterweight to them, in order to oppose them and confront them.

The Center today also released a letter signed by fifteen conservative leaders – many of whom have extensive experience with national security policymaking and practice – calling on congressional leaders to launch a bicameral select committee to investigate the Benghazigate scandal. John Brennan’s involvement in the run-up to the murderous attack on September 11, 2012, his conduct during that seven-hour engagement and his role in the subsequent cover-up must be addressed before he is allowed, as Rep. Trent Franks recently put it “anywhere near the CIA, let alone running it.”

 

You can view the transcript at Center For Security Policy

 

Egyptian scholar: US pushing for Brotherhood victory

OBy David Reaboi:

Middle East analyst Walid Phares sends along the translation of an Arabic aricle in el Watan, in which Egyptian scholar Ahmad Abed Rabbo has some provocative comments:

An el Watan article reported that US ambassador to Egypt Ann Paterson is meeting all political parties in Egypt to convince them to accept the coming legislative elections rushed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Ahmad Abed Rabbo, an Egyptian scholar said the US wants the Brotherhood to win the coming elections. They want to consolidate the Ikhwan’s rule

ومن جانبه، اعتبر أستاذ العلوم السياسية الدكتور أحمد عبدربه، أن اللقاءات التي تجريها السفيرة الأمريكية نوعا من جمع المعلومات من ناحية ومن ناحية أخرى فهم كافة الأطراف السياسية. وأضاف أنه من صالح الولايات المتحدة إجراء الانتخابات البرلمانية وعدم المقاطعة لأنها تراهن على دعم نظام الإخوان لأخرة قطرة ونجاحه في العملية الديمقراطية.

An observer in Washington DC said “the Obama Administration is pressuring the seculars in Egypt to accept the early elections as devised by Morsi, so that the Brotherhood would win them. The Administration is now meddling in Egyptian politics on the side of the Islamists, using its political influence, its foriegn aid and the fact that there is no one in Washington opposing the Administration in its pro-Ikhwan stance, so far.”

The Obama administration’s view of the Middle East can certainly be considered pro-Muslim Brotherhood– and it hasn’t been the first time Egyptians themselves have noticed. Maybe the New York Times will, once again, blame Frank Gaffney for anti-Obama sentiment by Copts and moderate Muslims in Egypt.

Barry Rubin this week wrote the must-read piece on how their view of the region (and of potential ‘moderation’ of Islamist forces more generally) couldn’t be more disastrously wrong. He points out that, in order to arrive at the conclusion that Islamist groups will moderate once they’ve taken hold of the levers of power,  the administration– from the president to highly influential advisers like John Brennan– have had to ignore the most crucial facts about these groups:

Here is an important principle in studying the politics of this contemporary era: violence (including terrorism) is not the main measure of radicalism. Instead, the way to judge the extremism of a group is the organization’s ideology, goals, and seriousness in seeking total victory. Strategic and tactical flexibility should be taken into account, but do not mitigate the threat posed by the objective toward which any political force is striving.

Will LMITA Repeat the History of Other Gulen-Related Charter Schools?

images (4)Center For Security Policy:

On the evening of February 19, 2013, the Loudoun County (VA) School Board held it’s final public hearing on the Loudoun Math and IT Academy (LMITA), a proposed Gulen-related charter school.

Following the public comment portion of the hearing, Parents for Educational Accountability and the Center for Security Policy presented remarks by Mary Addi, a former Gulen charter school teacher from the Cleveland, Ohio area entitled: “Will LMITA Repeat the History of Other Gulen-Related Charter Schools ?”

She joined Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney to discuss the applicants, their associations and other reasons the LMITA application should be rejected:

 

via Loudoun charter school debate: Do applicants have links to Islamic preacher?

By Valerie Strauss , Updated: February 21, 2013 at The Washington Post

The Loudoun County School Board heard from some 20 speakers at a public hearing this week that they should not approve what would be Northern Virginia’s first charter school, with many of them alleging that the Turkish applicants are connected to a network of charter schools inspired by Turkish Islamic preacher Fethullah Gulen. Three people spoke in favor of the application.

The applicants, who operate the Chesapeake Science Point Public Charter School in Anne Arundel County, denied any connection to Gulen or the network of more than 135 charter schools in some 25 states that authorities suspect are run by followers of the reclusive Gulen. “The only affiliation this school will have is to the Loudoun County School Board, the Virginia Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Education,” said applicant Fetih Kandil.

The months-long application process for the proposed Loudoun Math & IT Academy is expected to end next Tuesday, when the school board will take a final vote. A select committee of the board voted recently to reject the request to open the school, not because of the Gulen allegations but because of numerous problems cited with the application itself, including over curriculum and student transportation.

The last public hearing on the application was held Tuesday night (you can watch it here if you have three hours and 32 minutes to spare), where each board member listed specific concerns about the plan to open the school, including an apparent preference indicated by the applicants — who will not only run the school but serve as the governing body — to hire many of the teachers from outside the United States. Asked about that, Kandil was quoted by Leesburg Today as saying:

   “There are certain areas that we have identified deficiencies in having qualified teachers in certain areas.” Those areas, he added, are science, math, technology and foreign language. “You cannot just go outside and find an IT teacher and expect them to offer cyber security courses to our students.”

The hearing began with a succession of public speakers talking about the proposed charter’s links to Gulen and described how the schools have functioned elsewhere. For example, the first speaker, Mary Addi, said she and her husband, Mustafa Emanet, had worked at a Gulen charter school in Ohio, which was opened in Dayton with the help of one of the Loudoun charter applicants, Fatih Kandil. She said her husband, a Turk, had been been involved in the Gulen movement and that Turkish teachers at the school had to turn over 40 percent of their salaries back to the movement to a secret fund.

Among those speaking in favor of the application was John Stevens, a former Loudoun School Board chairman who attacked the critics of the academy as “bigots.”

As it turns out, many charter schools suspected of being in the Gulen network have been the subject of probes by the FBI and the Departments of Labor and Education, who have been investigating whether some employees at some U.S. charter schools are “kicking back part of their salaries” to the Gulen Movement, the Philadelphia  Inquirer reported in this story. The New York Times and CBS News as well as PBS have reported on the Gulen charter  network in the last 18 months, citing problems such as whether these schools give special preference to Turkish companies when handing out contracts.

It is also the case that the applicants in Loudoun have had huge disagreements with Anne Arundel County officials over the charter school they run there, and are now suing the county. Last summer, the Anne Arundel school won a three-year extension of its charter, which has had academic success but has other major problems cited by the county superintendent, Kevin Maxwell. In a post last summer I noted:

Maxwell wants the school, among other things, to hire qualified and fully certified teachers, allow parents to elect the board of directors “to reflect the community it serves,” use appropriate procurement and bidding processes for outside contracts, use the same data system that other public schools in the country use, follow board policy for the hiring of foreign nationals, and agree not to allow any of its contractors or subcontractors to “knowingly employ” anybody who has been investigated for criminal activity.

 

Who is Gulen? He now now lives  in seclusion in Pennsylvania, having won a petition to emigrate to the United States, though he is believed to have strong influence in Turkey. When he first applied for a special visa to come into the country, the Department of Homeland Security denied it. A lawsuit  challenging the decision was filed in 2007 in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, and in it his attorneys wrote  that he was “head of the Gulen Movement,” and an important educational figure who had “overseen” the creation of a network of schools in the United States as well as in other countries,  the Philadelphia Inquirer reported in this story. He was granted a green card in 2008.

Now the big questions are whether the board will approve or reject the application, and whether Stevens knows anything about the Gulen network.