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.

Federal Judge Blasts CAIR’s “Inability to Efficiently Manage their Discovery” and Denies Motion to Extend Discovery in “Muslim Mafia” Case

MuslimMafiaLast Friday, Federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, sitting in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, denied the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ (CAIR) motion to extend discovery in the American Freedom Law Center’s defense of the Center for Security Policy (CSP) and several of its employees, who were sued by CAIR for conducting an undercover documentary designed to expose the Islamic organization’s corrupt activities.

Following the reasoning argued by AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi in an opposition brief that was filed on behalf of all defendants, Judge Kollar-Kotelly denied CAIR’s request to depose two non-party witnesses in the case, ruling that the request was untimely, without cause, and would “not only disrupt the Court’s management of its docket, but would also prejudice Defendants by necessarily stinting mediation efforts and delaying the potential resolution of this matter through dispositive motions.”

The Court, however, went even further and scolded CAIR and its in-house legal counsel for their “inability to efficiently manage their discovery in this matter and to comply with the Court’s Scheduling and Procedures Order.”  As the Court pointed out, even CAIR’s motion seeking more time for discovery was itself untimely and substantively deficient.

Yerushalmi, who is the lead counsel for all defendants, commented: “Not only did CAIR’s substantively deficient motion violate the Court’s orders in several pertinent respects; it was a blatant and patently false presentation of the discovery record in this case.  Indeed, this misrepresentation is just a part of CAIR’s pattern of taking a troubling and seemingly abusive approach to civil litigation.  Accordingly, Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling demonstrates that the Court is aware of CAIR’s unprofessional tactics, which in turn speaks to the failure of CAIR to meet its burden of proof and provide any probative evidence of wrongdoing by any of the defendants.”

In 2008, Dave Gaubatz, an experienced federal investigator, was hired as an independent contractor to assist with a field research documentary.  As part of this 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.

Subsequently, 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.

In its motion to extend the discovery period, which had been ongoing for over thirteen months, CAIR requested to depose Mr. Paul Sperry, David Gaubatz’s co-author of the book, and World Net Daily, which published the book.

Yerushalmi commented: “This litigation has been ongoing since October 2009.  As such, there is nothing to be gained and much to be lost by re-opening and extending discovery.  This case is ripe for summary judgment.”

The Court agreed with AFLC’s brief, denied CAIR’s motion, and will soon set a schedule for motions that could bring this case to a close by ruling in favor of Defendants and exposing CAIR as the center of a Muslim Brotherhood, mafia-like organization.

CAIR, a self-described Muslim public interest law firm, was previously named as a Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the federal criminal trial and conviction 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.  In addition, several of CAIR’s top executives have been convicted of terror-related crimes.  As a result, the FBI publicly announced that it has terminated any outreach activities with the national organization, which bills itself as “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization.”

The American Freedom Law Center is a Judeo-Christian law firm that fights for faith and freedom.  It accomplishes its mission through litigation, public policy initiatives, and related activities. It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations, and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  Visit our website at www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org or follow AFLC’s blog at www.blog.americanfreedomlawcenter.org.

Also see these key reports on CAIR:

A ‘see-no-jihad’-ist at the CIA?

-1109429251By Frank Gaffney:

On her way out the door, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the unsayable.  Literally.  Until last month, when she repeatedly warned in congressional testimony concerning the Benghazi debacle that we confront a “global jihadist threat,” the Obama administration did not allow the use of the words jihad and threat in the same sentence.

How ironic that the principal architect of this “see-no-jihad” policy is John Brennan, President Obama’s current Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Advisor and his choice to head the Central Intelligence Agency.  Setting aside the obvious questions about why Mrs. Clinton chose her swan song on Capitol Hill to state the obvious but impermissible truth, if she’s right, why on earth would the Senate want to entrust critical collection and analysis of intelligence to the very person who has epitomized and enforced a policy of willful blindness towards the central threat of our time: the supremacist Islamic ideology of shariah and the holy war, or jihad, its adherents are obliged to wage?

Read more at Center for Security Policy

Frank Gaffney is the Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. Under Mr. Gaffney’s leadership, the Center has been nationally and internationally recognized as a resource for timely, informed and penetrating analyses of foreign and defense policy matters.

A World Without America

flag distressCenter for Security Policy

By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly declared that “a world without America is not only desirable, it is achievable.”  While that sentiment won’t be embraced in President Obama’s inaugural address next week, all other things being equal, it seems likely to be the practical effect of his second term.

Of course, Iran’s regime seeks a world literally without America.  More to the point, Ahmadinejad and the mullahs in Tehran are working tirelessly to secure the means by which to accomplish that goal.  Specifically, they have or are developing the ability to engage in devastating electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks, biological warfare and other asymmetric terrorist strikes.

For his part, Barack Obama seems to have in mind bringing about a world without America in a geo-strategic sense.  As Mark Steyn notes in a characteristically brilliant essay in National Review Online, that would be “Obamacare’s other shoe.” It would amount to a “fundamental transformation” of America’s place in the world, evidently intended to be the President’s second-act counterpart to the socialist transformation of this country that dominated his first term.

That agenda is strongly evident in Mr. Obama’s choices for key national security cabinet positions: John Kerry at the State Department, Chuck Hagel at Defense and John Brennan at the CIA.  The three are, like the President, imbued with a post-American, post-sovereignty, post-constitutional, transnationalist outlook.  In his administration, it would appear that their mission would be, as the American Enterprise Institute’s Danielle Pletka puts it, to manage the United States’ decline.

Having addressed previously in this space the serious problems with the judgment, records and policy proclivities of Messrs. Hagel  and Kerry let’s consider those of John Brennan to further illustrate the syndrome.

Brennan is a textbook example of a U.S. official who has “gone native.”  He speaks Arabic and was formerly the top CIA officer in Saudi Arabia.  He has shown himself to be deeply sympathetic to Islamists — for example, excusing and dissembling about their commitment to jihad and the necessity of not offending them.

After President Obama himself, John Brennan is, arguably, the single most important enabler of the Islamic supremacists’ agenda in government today. In his role as Homeland Security Advisor to the President — a position that does not require Senate confirmation and that he was given as a consolation prize when it became clear that he might not be confirmable as CIA director back in 2009 — Brennan has helped legitimate, empower, fund, arm and embolden them abroad, and embraced and appeased them here at home.

Of particular concern is the fact that John Brennan has presided over: the policy of engaging the Muslim Brotherhood, which has consequently been portrayed by a politicized intelligence community as “largely secular” and “eschewing violence”; the shredding of training briefings and the proscribing of trainers that might upset Muslims by telling the truth about shariah and the jihad it commands; the penetration of U.S. agencies by Muslim Brotherhood-associated individuals as employees and/or senior advisors; and misrepresentations to Congress about the true, jihadist character of the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi last September 11th.

Of particular concern is the prospect that Team Obama’s second-term team will, if confirmed, be even more insistent than their predecessors on engaging Iran.  Make no mistake about it:  The practical effect will be to buy the regime in Tehran the last few months it evidently needs to achieve what it has sought for decades: the means to have the world not only bereft of America’s leadership and stabilizing force, but to neutralize and perhaps eliminate the United States as a 21st Century society.

Ordinarily, a president should be given wide latitude by the Senate to appoint those he wants to staff his administration.  This is no ordinary time, though, and this is no ordinary president or administration.  The circumstances are such that a Team Obama that is pursuing so dangerous a policy course must be challenged and impeded, not encouraged and abetted.

The Senate’s constitutional responsibility to confirm senior executive branch appointees is one of the few it hasn’t compromised, or allowed the president to expropriate.  It must exercise its authority to assure “quality control” with respect to his picks for top national security cabinet posts.

Indeed, the fact that President Obama seeks not one or two, but three individuals who share his determination to achieve the radical and dangerous national security transformation he seeks in his second term demands that Senators defy him.  After all, should the Senate fail to object to this trajectory by rigorously debating and defeating any — and preferably all — of these problematic choices, its members risk not only allowing, but becoming party to, the realization of a world without America.