Why does the SPLC hate the Center for Security Policy?

2490052973

CSP, by Frank Gaffney, Feb. 4, 2015:

Why are the SPLC and its Islamist friends so determined to suppress the Center for Security Policy? The answer appears to be CSP’s effectiveness, which is, in turn, animated by our love of freedom:

  • CSP’s love of freedom — not a desire to hate — puts us in opposition to Muslims who adhere to the supremacist Islamic shariah doctrine, and therefore are freedom’s enemies. We have no quarrel with Muslims whose faith practice is not shariah-adherent. They have as much to fear from the jihadists among them as do the rest of us. We are proud to work with non-supremacist Muslims to expose and help defeat our mutual enemies.
  • The Center for Security Policy’s love of freedom – not some irrational fear of Islam or fictitious “Islamophobia” – prompts us actually to do as we are officially told we must: “See something, say something.” In fact, when we see evidence of encroaching shariah, particularly that being insinuated stealthily by the SPLC’s friends in the Muslim Brotherhood, we not only say something about it. We do something about it, by working to counter and ultimately eliminate this civilization jihad and its motivating Islamist
  • CSP’s love of freedom also obliges us to respond appropriately to what is – far from some unfounded “conspiracy theory” – proof of an actual and perilous conspiracy to destroy the Constitution that guarantees our liberties and the government constituted to defend them.

In defending freedom against such adversaries, the Center for Security Policy proudly and indefatigably stands with:

  • the untold millions of non-Muslims and Muslims oppressed by Islamists around the globe;
  • the families of those who have been slaughtered or brutalized world-wide in the name of shariah and its jihad;
  • women, who have the right be treated as human beings, not as animals or property;
  • homosexuals who have the right not to be thrown off roofs or hung for their sexual preferences;
  • Christian, Jewish and other religious minorities subjected to forced expulsions and expropriation, torture, rape and murder; and
  • Muslim reformers who share our determination to prevent Islamic supremacists from imposing their abhorrent “man-made” shariah doctrine in our country – whether through violent jihad, or the Muslim Brotherhood’s preferred, stealthy “civilization jihad” kind.

We have no doubt where the vast majority of Americans come down in any choice between freedom and its enemies, foreign and domestic. Those who thoughtlessly or maliciously repeat, promote and otherwise disseminate the hate-mongering of the Southern Poverty Law Center are on the wrong side of that choice. The Center for Security Policy is not.

Q & A

Is the Center for Security Policy “anti-Muslim”?

Absolutely not. The Center for Security Policy stands against enemies of the United States, its Constitution and the freedoms guaranteed thereby – without regard to their ethnicity, geography, ideology or religious associations. Foremost among such enemies at the moment are Islamic supremacists, also known as shariah-adherent Muslims, also known as jihadists.

This subset of the followers of Islam are the ultimate hate-group. They hate Muslims who do not adhere to shariah. They hate women. They hate gays and lesbians. They hate followers of other religions. They hate democracy and any “man-made” law or government not submissive to their Quran. They hate anyone – including authors, songwriters and artists – whose free expression defies their totalitarian program of thought control.

The Center for Security Policy stands in defense of the billions of people around the world who are endangered or victimized by these hateful “Islamist phobias.”

Is the Center for Security Policy “Islamophobic”?

Absolutely not. To be clear, the term “Islamophobia” was first coined twenty-years ago by Islamists and their leftist enablers for use as an instrument of political warfare. They wield it to suppress the freedom of expression of their adversaries.

Specifically, by falsely accusing those who are critical of Islamic supremacism, shariah and jihad of having an unreasoned fear (i.e., a “phobia”) of Muslims, the perpetrators of this smear are trying to impose what amount to shariah blasphemy restrictions – a prohibition on any expression that “offends” them. What is more, by threatening, explicitly or implicitly, violence against those who give such offense, the Islamists are actually trying to instill fear in their enemies – non-Muslim and Muslim alike – in order to terrify them into submission. To ignore that reality would be irrational, and quite possibly fatal.

The Center for Security Policy has no fear of law-abiding, patriotic, tolerant, non-shariah-adherent Muslims. To the contrary, it views them as potentially invaluable partners in opposing the jihadists – violent and stealthy – in their midst.

Does the Center for Security Policy believe there is an Islamist conspiracy to infiltrate and subvert the United States from within?

Eight years ago, the U.S. government established in federal court during the largest terrorism financing trial in the country’s history, U.S. v Holy Land Foundation, that, for more than fifty years now, the Muslim Brotherhood has engaged in a conspiracy with the mission – in the Brotherhood’s own words – of “destroying Western civilization from within.” (See:http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2013/05/25/an-explanatory-memorandum-from-the-archives-of-the-muslim-brotherhood-in-america/.)

It is national security malpractice to ignore this reality and maliciously deceptive and/or delusional to portray those who refuse to do so as “conspiracy theorists.”

The Center for Security Policy has comprehensively documented the extent to which the Islamic supremacists are succeeding in penetrating virtually every major civil society and governing institution in furtherance of this conspiracy. (Publications in the Center’s Civilization Jihad Reader Series may be downloaded for free at www.SecureFreedom.org.) We are determined to expose, root out and neutralize such subversive influence operations in America.

In light of these facts, how should responsible journalists, public policy professionals and the American people more generally regard criticisms of the Center for Security Policy issued by the likes of the Southern Poverty Law Center?

The SPLC’s assertions are utterly without foundation. They show a willingness to say and do anything to further a transparently political agenda. Such partisan, and often unhinged, criticisms are nothing more than efforts to incite hatred against, and thereby silence, their opposition.

Given the facts, those who cite or otherwise repeat such unfounded assertions are either witting partners in that odious, indefensible effort, or useful idiots who should know better – and desist.

Do We Really Need More Jihadists?

Raheem Kassam / Breitbart News

Raheem Kassam / Breitbart News

Breitbart, by Frank Gaffney, Dec. 10, 2015:

On Monday, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump created a political firestorm by releasing a statement, “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United Statesuntil our country’s representatives can figure out what’s going on.”

While it should be self-evident that allowing unvetted mass immigration from Muslim-majority countries is a formula for national security disaster (look no further than Europe for proof), Trump’s statement identifies an even more important problem: the fact that our leaders in Washington have not been able to “figure out what’s going on” with respect to the global jihad movement – and what it will take for us to defeat it, before the jihadists destroy us.

Mr. Trump has clearly picked up on a conviction increasingly shared by millions of Americans. They have begun to realize that the Obama administration has long been downplaying, misrepresenting and mishandling a threat more and more of us see plainly.

The killers who plotted and executed the massacre in San Bernardino are no different than Islamic supremacists the world over. For them, terror is one of the tools used to advance an agenda aimed at imposing worldwide the repressive politico-legal-military code they call shariah and establishing a global Caliphate.  Other techniques employed by the granddaddy of all modern jihadist groups, the Muslim Brotherhood, involve more stealthy efforts to penetrate and subvert from within our civil society and governing institutions.

We must understand shariah and the ideological impetus it provides for our enemies’ actions. We must also recognize its inherent and unalterable incompatibility with Western civilization. And we must take action to keep jihadis from threatening our lives – and our freedoms – in furtherance of their stated goal: installing shariah worldwide.

In his statement, Trump cited a poll of Muslims in America commissioned by the Center for Security Policy earlier this year, revealing the disturbing fact that large percentages of those who responded (51%) agreed that, “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”  

Even more troubling, nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

Those who don’t like the poll’s results have questioned its methodology. Yet, opt-in, online surveys are used routinely to gauge the views of populations like American Muslim that are relatively small and hard-to-reach. In particular, major survey organizations like SurveyMonkey & Harris Interactive that are relied upon and quoted extensively use the same approach.

For its part, the industry trade association, the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), has issued a study of online, opt-in survey panels. It states: “There are times when a nonprobability online panel is an appropriate choice, as there may be survey purposes and topics where the generally lower cost and unique properties of Web data collection is an acceptable alternative to traditional methods.”

Examples of other surveys using the same online, opt-in panel methodology include:

The AP-GfK Poll, which is widely reported on, including one finding increasing support for gay marriage and gun control.

NBC News, including a poll recently released on Americans’ divided attitudes ongovernment surveillance; and

A Cronkite News poll conducted as part of a project focused the Sikh religious community.

The Center’s poll of U.S. Muslims, however, seems to have touched a particularly sensitive nerve, perhaps because it asked questions that other polling firms seem reluctant to ask. In addition, the results could signal that a significant portion of American Muslims hold views that reflect mainstream Islam’s shariah. Such views conflict dramatically with the Constitution and concepts of civil rights, are nevertheless reflective of the way mainstream Islam is practiced in many Muslim-majority countries.

The United States govenment has every right to determine which immigrants enter this country. And the fact is that some would-be immigrant aliens present a far greater threat than others.

Here are some of the options available to try to ensure that this threat is mitigated:

Defund the Obama administration’s breathtaking decision to allow into the United States aliens who have engaged in “limited” material support for terrorism had “limited” contact with its perpetrators.

Deny any funding for the president to bring in not just refugees, but anyone coming in under any immigration program from Syria and Iraq, given that we cannot perform adequate screening on them, until such time as Congress reauthorizes such spending.

Likewise, deny any funding for the president to bring in via any immigration program from other nations whose traditions of Islamic supremacism makes the need for such vetting imperative. These would, presumably include those deemed by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be “Specially Designated Countries” (notably, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Libya, and Afghanistan). An exception could be made for aliens from Israel, provided the Israeli government deems them not to be a threat.

Defund the approval of further chain migration from such countries in the name of “family reunification” – a practice that could be used to expand exponentially the 10,000 Syrians President Obama intends to bring here and that was used to bring Tashfeen Malik to the country under a K-1 visa.

Require that funds provided to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) must be used to relocate more of its charges closer to home, which it systematically refuses to do –  causing it to run a deficit unnecessarily, since it costs 12 times more to support a refugee here than there.

Provide the funds necessary for both the southern and northern border states’ governors to deploy their National Guard to secure our land frontiers unless and until other means of denying unauthorized access across them can be assured.

Include some variation of Texas Rep. Brian Babin’s Refugee Accountability National Security Act, which would place a moratorium on refugee resettlement until Congress deems the program has been adequately reviewed, as well as a Government Accountability Office audit of its costs. Even simply defunding all refugee resettlement from Syria would be a start, though the problem of jihadis posing as refugees extends far beyond Syria.

Include some version of the bill sponsored by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, which would restore control over how many refugees the U.S. admits each year to the legislative branch, where it belongs.

Eliminate funding for the so-called “voluntary agencies” (a.k.a. VolAgs) that are paid by-the-head to resettle refugees and, therefore, have become, as a practical matter, self-interested lobbies for expanding the number of refugees ad infinitum.

Restore U.S. control over whom we deem a refugee, ending the practice of allowing the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees to dictate who is eligible for resettlement here. This is especially imperative in light of the extraordinary influence over the High Commissioner apparatus (and the U.N. more generally) enjoyed the proto-Caliphate, multinational Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). That influence has contributed to the fact that, by some estimates, nine out of 10 “refugees” being admitted here under the present arrangement are Muslims.

As previously recommended by then-Sen. Joe Lieberman, revoke the citizenship of those Americans who join foreign terror organizations by banning the expenditure of funds to admit such individuals back into the United States after they have traveled abroad.

Suspend funding for the Visa Waiver program unless and until the FBI designates that participant countries have given us sufficient access to the Passenger Name Record (PNR) data that the European Union has historically withheld from us.

Given the Islamist massacre in San Bernardino, not to mention the burgeoning growth of violent and stealthy jihadist activity around the world since 2011, America must admit what so many of its leaders refuse to say: Jihad and the hateful ideology of shariah that undergirds it are problems we must address, and must address now.

Gaffney: It’s Shariah, Stupid

Saul Loeb/Pool Photo via AP

Saul Loeb/Pool Photo via AP

Breitbart, by Frank Gaffney, Dec. 7, 2015:

Last night, President Obama used his third prime-time address from the Oval Office to try to allay widespread concerns in the aftermath of the San Bernardino attack that he neither understands the nature of the enemy that perpetrated that and similar acts of terror here and abroad nor has an effective strategy for defeating it.

Regrettably, those concerns were only reinforced both by what he said and by what hedidn’t say.

To his credit, the President made a leitmotif of his remarks a “destructive ideology” that must be confronted and defeated. Yet, he refused to name it, other than by association with the group he insists on calling “ISIL” – an acronym for what was once known as the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant, but that now simply calls itself the Islamic State (or IS).

If we are actually serious about defeating that ideology, we must be honest about its nature – and realistic about all its adherents.

In much of the Muslim world, the Islamic State’s ideology is known as “shariah.”  While IS has been particularly effective at branding itself as the world’s foremost enforcer of that brutally repressive, supremacist doctrine, the truth is that it animates every other jihadist group, as well – including Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, Boko Haram, the al Nusra Front, al Shabaab and the granddaddy of them all: the Muslim Brotherhood.

Our ability to acknowledge this reality, let alone act effectively upon that recognition, has been greatly hampered by another fact: Shariah is also regarded as the true practice of Islam by nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran, and by the religious authorities of Cairo’s Al-Azhar University.

This fact is particularly inconvenient since, according to Team Obama (among others): the Saudis are among our most important Mideast allies in the war on terror and a cornerstone of the President’s vaunted anti-ISIL coalition; the Iranians are our new-found strategic partners; and Islam is a “religion of peace” with which “we are not and never will be at war.”

To be clear, many millions of Muslims don’t practice their faith in accordance with shariah. Yet, many millions do. And the latter are obliged by shariah to engage in jihad or holy war.

Where practicable, shariah dictates they must do so through terrifying violence. Where not, they still must wage “holy war” through what the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad.”

This is not so much a non-violent form of the effort to force the rest of the world – Muslim and non-Muslim alike – to submit to shariah and the dominion of a global ruler known as the Caliph. Rather, it would be more accurate to describe it as pre-violent jihad, since it is about setting the stage for the final, decisive use of terrifying force to accomplish the entire planet’s ultimate submission.

The use of stealthy, seditious techniques to subvert non-Muslim Western societies like ours means that we face more than what is increasingly called “radical Islamic terrorism” by those who fault President Obama for his failure to name the enemy. Influence operations aimed at penetrating and subverting of our civil society institutions and governmental policy-making are in many ways just as dangerous as the violent jihad they enable.

Evidence of that reality is not hard to find in the wake of the San Bernardino attacks. For example, the shariah-adherent Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas front group known as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) launched one of its classic political warfare campaigns in the immediate aftermath of those murderous shootings of unarmed Americans. It transparently sought to mislead the public about this act of jihad and to promote the meme that Muslims risked being victimized in its aftermath. It is no coincidence that President Obama has assiduously conveyed basically the same message from his bully pulpit.

If we are to survive the collective effort of shariah-adherent Muslims and their enablers around the world to force “non-believers” to submit to that toxic ideology, we have to recognize that a) that we are not just confronting the Islamic State, but all those who embrace and practice the same ideology; b) we must counter both the violent and the pre-violent jihadists; and c) this will require a comprehensive, clear-eyed and patient strategy akin to that utilized decisively by President Reagan to destroy the last totalitarian ideology that sought world domination: Soviet communism.

The Center for Security Policy has adapted the Reagan play-book in what we call the Secure Freedom Strategy. If we really want to prevail over today’s most dangerous and “destructive ideology,” this is the strategy we need.

***

Listen to today’s Secure Freedom Radio podcast “Combating Modern Radical Islam” with Prof. MICHAEL WALLER, Senior Fellow at Center for Security Policy, and co- author of “Meeting the Ideological Challenge of Islamism: How to Combat Modern Radical Islam”:

Frank Gaffney on Breitbart News Daily: Cruz’s Muslim Brotherhood Bill Is the ‘Essential Issue of the Day’

Gaffney-getty-640x480

Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Nov. 9, 2015:

Frank Gaffney, the President of the Center for Security Policy, appeared on Breitbart News Daily on Monday to discuss Sen. Ted Cruz ’s bill that seeks to designate the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) as a terrorist organization. Gaffney also urged Republican nominees go on the record about Sharia-finance and Sharia law as a whole during Tuesday’s Republican presidential debate.

The bill “lays out the case” the add the MB on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations, said Gaffney, who served as acting Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan.

The Center For Security Policy president said that Republican candidates should not be asked whether they support the pending legislation, but instead what reasons they have not to advocate for it, given the Brotherhood’s extremism.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, has “engaged with them, enabled them, empowered them,” and has even in some cases, decided to “fund and arm them,” Gaffney told Breitbart News Daily host Stephen K. Bannon.

Sharia law, the Islamic doctrine advocated by the MB, is a “totalitarian, brutally repressive, misogynistic, homophobic, and” is part of a “downright dangerous agenda of Islamic supremacism,” Gaffney said.

The Muslim Brotherhood is deploying a “subversive agenda that they call civilization jihad that is designed to take us down,” he added, explaining that the group explained in its own words that it wants to “destroy civilization from within” with the goal to make their God’s religion victorious over all other religions.

Bannon, who leads Breitbart News as its executive chairman, asked Gaffney what question he would want each candidate to answer in Tuesday’s debate.

Gaffney offered as a question in the economy-themed debate that is scheduled to air on Fox Business channel: “Do you believe that it is in America’s interests to have Sharia-compliant finance adopted in our economic system as a parallel to our capitalist system?”

This would “set the stage” for a larger conversation on what the American people “think of Sharia law, period,” he added. “It’s not just the finance piece, it’s the idea that [Sharia] should be superior to our constitution and the freedoms” it entails, Gaffney explained.

The Cruz bill is “the essential issue of the day,” he added, going back to the bills brought to both the House and Senate recommending the listing of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist entity. There needs to be a “counter-jihad campaign,” Gaffney said.

Most leaders are completely “unaware” about the deceptive tactics utilized by the Brotherhood to influence western leaders, Gaffney said, commending Breitbart News for bringing this issue to the forefront.

Also see:

Alice Linahan and Frank Gaffney on Civilization Jihad and the Common Core

Alice Linahan is preparing to launch her book,”A Community’s Journey from #CANiSEE to I Can See”; a lecture series providing a comprehensive study of the 21st Century/Workforce Development/Common Core Take Over of Education. fundrazr.com/campaigns/0zsc8

418dd7fd10ab4ddebaa910c7b66a4d63

In this video Alice Linahan and Frank Gaffney share critical facts about Civilization Jihad and the Common Core.

As defined in the book “Sharia, a Threat to America”- “Civilization jihad is a form of political and psychological warfare that includes multi-layered cultural subversion, the co-opting of senior leaders, influence operations, propaganda and other means of insinuating shariah gradually into Western societies.”

In the West a fundamental shift is beginning to be felt, as the American idea of individual freedom clashes with the political purpose of control and submission. The outcome will depend on if individuals refuse to submit.

***

ALICE LINAHAN, Vice President of Women on the Wall speaks with Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio November 24, 2014:

  • Effects of Obama’s Common Core curriculum on the U.S. education system
  • Controversy regarding Islamists penetrating the U.S. educational system and advancing Sharia ideology through Common Core
  • Looking at Arabic-immersion schools in Texas and around the U.S.

Also see:

FREEDOM ISN’T FREE – Hausman Memorial Speaker Series

Hausman eventPublished on Aug 13, 2015 by theunitedwest

The Hausman Memorial Speaker Series is proud to host three extraordinary individuals for the “Freedom Isn’t Free” Security Briefing, at Ahavath Torah Congregation in Stoughton, MA. Frank Gaffney, president and founder of The Center for Security Policy, Clare Lopez, former CIA operations officer and current VP of Research and Analysis at The Center, and Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, former Commander of the USN Pacific Fleet and current President and CEO of Lions Associates LLC offer their insights on topics including jihad, the Islamic State and the dangers and consequences of a bad Iranian nuclear deal. This straight forward presentation will undoubtedly reveal aspects of the Obama Administration’s policies that will leave you shaking your head!

BOOK RELEASE: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech

4157972612HOW TEAM OBAMA HELPS THE ORGANIZATION OF ISLAMIC COOPERATION WAGE JIHAD ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Washington, D.C.: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the largest Islamic organization in the world – comprised of 56 UN Member states plus the Palestinian Authority — has long been trying to silence, and ultimately criminalize, all criticism of Islam, specifically targeting America and the West. What has largely gone unremarked is the help the OIC has received from the Obama administration to this end.

Deborah Weiss, attorney, author and expert on Islamist efforts to stifle free speech reveals in a new monograph published by the Center for Security Policy Press how the OIC is working through UN resolutions, multilateral conferences and other international vehicles to advance its agenda. The goal of these efforts, according to the OIC’s 10-year program of action, which was launched in 2005, is to combat so-called “Islamophobia” and “defamation of religions”. In practice, this means banning any discussion of Islamic supremacism and its many manifestations including: jihadist terrorism, persecution of religious minorities and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam.

Upon the publication of her monograph entitled, The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech, Ms. Weiss remarked:

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation is the largest and most powerful voting bloc in the United Nations and yet most Americans have never heard of it. Of particular concern is the OIC’s ten-year program which amounts to an international effort to suppress freedom of expression under the guise of protecting Islam from so-called “defamation.” This initiative, however, is in the service of OIC’s long-term mission: the world-wide implementation of Shariah, a legal-political-judicial-religious doctrine which favors Muslims over non-Muslims, men over women, and denies basic human rights and freedoms.

Ms. Weiss’ monograph documents how the Obama Administration has collaborated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in ways that, whether intentional or unwitting, have advanced the OIC’s supremacist agenda. As it happens, recently released State Department documents obtained by Judicial Watch through court-enforced Freedom of Information Act requests underscore the extent of Team Obama’s collusion with the OIC.

Specifically, these emails offer insights into how, in September 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the White House worked with the OIC to fabricate a narrative that falsely blamed an online video “Innocence of Muslims” for the violent uprising at the U.S. special mission compound and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the documents reveal that the Obama administration immediately went into damage-limitation mode, with a well-coordinated effort to scapegoat the video as the cause of the attack. Rashad Hussain, President Obama’s envoy to the OIC, reached out to the Organization’s leadership urging it to condemn the “anti-Islamic film” and “its related violence” and to respond in a way that is “consistent with Islamic principles.”

The OIC readily obliged, issuing a statement accusing the video of “incitement” – though nothing in the video called for violence against Muslims – and claiming that it “hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims” and “demonstrated serious repercussions of abuse of freedom of expression”.

The effect was to reinforce the OIC’s goal to protect Islam from “defamation” instead of supporting the US Constitutional principle of free expression.

In her monograph, Ms. Weiss elucidates examples of the escalating assault on freedom of expression that the OIC has launched against the West and their implications. She describes the critical role freedom of speech plays in preserving religious freedom, human rights and national security efforts. As she correctly points out, “If you look around the world, you will see that freedom is the exception, not the rule.”

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, observed that:

Deborah Weiss’ important new book is a clarion call to Americans and their federal representatives to end all cooperation with the Islamic supremacists of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, including cessation of participation in the anti-free speech “Istanbul Process” launched by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State. Citizens and policy-makers alike should, instead, commit themselves vigorously and unapologetically to freedom of expression – including to its employment as an indispensable weapon in the execution of a comprehensive strategy to defeat the Global Jihad Movement.”

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present Ms. Weiss’s monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech by Deborah Weiss, Esq. is available for purchase in kindle and paperback format on Amazon.com at:

http://www.amazon.com/Organization-Islamic-Cooperations-Speech-Civilization/dp/1511960590/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=1-1&qid=1435949110.

Or download the pdf: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/OIC_Free_Speech_Jihad.pdf

Frank Gaffney: Iowa National Security Summit Will Tackle Need to Defeat Jihad, Secure Border

frank-gaffney-AP-Photo-640x480Breitbart, by EDWIN MORA, May 14, 2015:

The Iowa National Security Action Summit this Saturday is expected to feature experts and leaders who will address the need to defeat jihad, border security, and the hollowing out of the U.S. military, among other topics, according to the organization hosting the event.

Frank Gaffney, Jr., the president of the Center for Security Policy, spoke to Breitbart News about what to expect from the conference, which is hosted by his organization in partnership with The FAMiLY LEADER Foundation and High Frontier.

The May 16 conference is the second National Security Action Summit hosted by Gaffney’s organization.

On March 14, Gaffney’s group hosted a conference in South Carolina that drew hundreds of participants as well as preeminent national security experts, senior federal officials, and individuals seeking to lead the nation.

“The national security action summits are issues forums designed to educate the public and their representatives about the critical security challenges we face and the imperative of addressing them decisively,” Gaffney told Breitbart News.

“They showcase the necessity of: defeating the global jihad movement and its ideology of shariah; securing our borders and fixing our dysfunctional immigration system; rebuilding America’s military; and securing America’s electric grid,” he continued.

The summits are aimed at “equipping and empowering state and local representatives and their constituents to engage constructively in the national security debate,” later added Gaffney.

Confirmed speakers include:

• Dr. Benjamin Solomon “Ben” Carson, Sr.

• Ambassador Henry (Hank) F. Cooper, Chairman, High Frontier

• Ann Corcoran, Refugee Resettlement Watch

•Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

• Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy

• Dan Goure, Vice President, Lexington Institute

• Peter Huessy, President, GeoStrategic Analysis

• Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

•Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

• Navy Adm. James “Ace” Lyons (Ret.)

• Rick Manning, Americans for Limited Government

• Iowa Republican State Rep. Zach Nunn

• Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, Executive Director, Task Force on National and Homeland Security

• Air Force Col. Al Ringgenberg (Ret.)

• Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

• Phyllis Schlafley, Founder, Eagle Forum

• Donald Trump

• Bob Vanderplaats, President, The FAMiLY Leader Foundation

“The Iowa National Security Action Summit is designed to ensure that our national security receives the attention it requires from elected officials and their constituents, alike – both at the federal level, AND the state level,” said a press release announcing Saturday’s event.

“Americans are increasingly aware that the world is becoming an ever-more-dangerous place.  They expect their leaders to protect them and our vital interests around the world,” explained Gaffney in the release. “The National Security Action Summit is a place where the best minds convene to lay out the best ideas for doing that.”

“Protocols of the Elders of …Islam”, Really?

512R2aJ0iLLFormer New York Times reporter David K. Shipler’s new book, “Freedom of Speech: Mightier Than the Sword” has a chapter called “Protocols of the Elders of Islam” in which he impugns the work of Stephen Coughlin on the Muslim Brotherhood’s Memorandum of Understanding. You really have to hear this:

Frank Gaffney and Stephen Coughlin discuss on Secure Freedom Radio:

History of the Soviet-Islam Connection

4261455653Listen to Frank Gaffny interview with Trevor Loudon at Center for Security Policy

TREVOR LOUDON, a New Zealand political activist, speaker, and author of “The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists, and Progressives in the US Congress”:

PART ONE:

  • The Soviet science of subversion from WWII to today
  • How agents of influence destroyed the Australian/New Zealand/United States military alliance
  • Was the European Peace Movement merely an instrument to destroy NATO during the Cold War?
  • Tracing the current Administration’s three greatest achievements back to the Communist Party USA, courtesy of Frank Marshall Davis

PART TWO:

  • The American Civil Liberties Union’s origins as the security apparatus of communist America
  • Using constitutional projections to empower enemies of the United States
  • The Council for a Livable World’s promotion of U.S. disarmament
  • The rise of George Soros and how the Center for American Progress continues to disseminate socialist ideals

PART THREE:

  • Is George Soros supporting radical attacks on the U.S. justice and economic system?
  • Threats from Islamists and their links to communism, as seen in the Palestinian Intifada Movement
  • Vladimir Putin’s anti-western propaganda now integrating radical Islam
  • Evidence that Pres. Obama has a foot in both the Islamist and Marxist camps

PART FOUR:

  • Is the U.S. internal security apparatus being destroyed from within?
  • Purging of anti-Islamist material from American military and law enforcement training manuals
  • Controversy over Rep. André Carson’s appointment to the U.S. House Select Committee on Intelligence

Texas Senator takes action to protect critical infrastructure

20141125_empattack

Published on Apr 22, 2015 by securefreedom

Texas Senator Bob Hall hears testimony on on Senate Bill 1398 from Kevin Freeman and Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy. SB 1398 sets scientific and security based standards for electrical grid protection higher than the self regulating industry standards. Under current regulations there is no goal to make the Texas grid withstand and recover from a catastrophic system wide event.

The Texas electrical grid is independent from two other major grids in the U.S. and is therefore able to protect itself independently from threats to and failures of the Eastern and Western grids.

***

guilty-knowledge-web-buy_now

Guilty Knowledge: What the US Government Knows about the Vulnerability of the Electric Grid, But Refuses to Fix (centerforsecuritypolicy.org)

On January 21, 2014, Fox News aired a segment describing the vulnerability of the U.S. bulk power distribution system, popularly known as the electric “grid.” The report described various dangers that could cause the grid to fail, possibly catastrophically. These range from physical and cyber attacks on its subsystems to space weather and a high-altitude nuclear detonation unleashing intense electro- magnetic pulses (EMP) that could afflict the grid across vast areas. Fox solicited a comment from the Department of Defense about these threats and their potential to imperil the very existence of the United States—and a large percentage of its present population. This was the Pentagon’s response: “The Department is unaware of any increase in the threat of a deliberate destructive use of an EMP device. Further, any reporting to the contrary by those without access to current threat assessments is both reckless and irresponsible.”

At the very best, this statement suggests that the Defense Department is ignorant of a yawning danger to the civilian critical infrastructure—upon which the military also heavily relies. At worst, it is actively and purposefully misleading the American people who will die by the tens of millions when one or the other of these threats eventuates. In fact, a blue-ribbon commission convened by the Congress to examine the EMP threat concluded that, if the power went out and stayed off for more than a year in large parts of the United States—a prospect it found was plausible—as many as nine-out-of-ten Americans would perish.

Even if it actually were the case that EMP threats are not intensifying— something that is highly debatable in light of evidence in the public domain about the North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons, ballistic missile and satellite programs—one thing is clear: U.S. civil society has been for many years so dangerously vulnerable to the take-down of the nation’s electric grid as to invite enemies to try to exploit our vulnerability.

Moreover, even if no enemies acted on this opportunity to bring about, in the oft-stated words of then-Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, “a world with- out America,” there is another menace that is certain to do that, somewhat later if quite soon: a massive geo-magnetic disturbance (GMD). Such a powerful GMD would distort the earth’s magnetosphere, unleashing what are known as E3 long- duration electromagnetic pulses that would, all other things being equal, be con- ducted by power lines into the backbone of the grid: the nation’s high-voltage trans- formers, seriously damaging if not destroying them.

In other words, the vulnerability of America’s grid does not have to become any more severe to pose a mortal danger. To pretend otherwise—and to encourage the public to believe a false narrative—is what is truly “reckless and irresponsible.”

In the interest of ensuring that the rest of us have ready access to this knowledge, the Center for Security Policy has compiled in one short reference book–Guilty Knowledge: What the US Government Knows about the Vulnerability of the Electric Grid–the executive summaries of these eleven studies. The full text of each may be viewed at the web site of the EMP Coalition, a group sponsored by the Center for Security Policy. Under the leadership of its Honorary Co-Chairmen, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Clinton Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, the Coalition is working to raise public awareness of the electric grid’s myriad vulnerabilities and to achieve the needed corrective action.

Our hope is that this compendium will make clear the abundant evidence distilled from authoritative sources that confirms America has a problem: We are at risk of unprecedented catastrophe from long-duration disruption of the electric grid—unless we take practical, near-term and relatively low-cost steps to prevent it. Equipped with this guilty knowledge, we hope you will recognize and act upon the duty to yourself, your family, your community and your country to ensure that the steps needed to make our grid resilient are taken, before it is too late.

***

Highlights from the Reports in Guilty Knowledge:

Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack (2004)

“Several potential adversaries have or can acquire the capability to attack the United States with a high-altitude nuclear weapon- generated electromagnetic pulse (EMP). A determined adversary can achieve an EMP attack capability without having a high level of sophistication.”

“The electromagnetic fields produced by weapons designed and deployed with the intent to produce EMP have a high likelihood of damaging electrical power systems, electronics, and information systems upon which American society depends. Their effects on dependent systems and infrastructures could be sufficient to qualify as catastrophic to the Nation.”

Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack (2008)

“When a nuclear explosion occurs at high altitude, the EMP signal it produces will cover the wide geographic region within the line of sight of the detonation. This broad band, high amplitude EMP, when coupled into sensitive electronics, has the capability to produce widespread and long lasting disruption and damage to the critical infrastructures that underpin the fabric of U.S. society.”

“Because of the ubiquitous dependence of U.S. society on the electrical power system, its vulnerability to an EMP attack, coupled with the EMP’s particular damage mechanisms, creates the possibility of long-term, catastrophic consequences.”

Severe Space Weather Events: Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts, A Report of the National Research Council of the National Academies (2008)

“The Carrington event is by several measures the most severe space weather event on record. It produced several days of spectacular auroral displays, even at unusually low latitudes, and significantly disrupted telegraph services around the world…. While the socioeconomic impacts of a future Carrington event are difficult to predict, it is not unreasonable to assume that an event of such magnitude would lead to much deeper and more widespread socioeconomic disruptions than occurred in 1859, when modern electricity-based technology was still in its infancy.”

The Final Report of the Congressional Commission On the Strategic Posture of the United States (Excerpts) (2009)

“We note . . . that the United States has done little to reduce its vulnerability to attack with electromagnetic pulse weapons and recommend that current investments in modernizing the national power grid take account of this risk.”

Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (IEMI) and Its Impact on the U.S. Power Grid, Metatech Corporation (2010)

“It is clear that the biggest threat is against the civil infrastructure, shutting down the control electronics associated with the power grid, the telecom network or other parts of the critical infrastructure…. The modern civil infrastructure is very dependent on computers, which operate at logic levels of a few volts. So an intentional interference can occur at a few volts in critical circuits, causing logic upset.”

High-Impact, Low-Frequency Event Risk to the North American Bulk Power System. A Jointly-Commissioned Summary Report of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and the U.S. Department of Energy’s November 2009 Workshop (2010)

“A class of risks, called High-Impact, Low-Frequency (HILF) events, has recently become a renewed focus of risk managers and policy makers. These risks have the potential to cause catastrophic impacts on the electric power system, but either rarely occur, or, in some cases, have never occurred… Examples of HILF risks include coordinated cyber, physical, and blended attacks, the high-altitude detonation of a nuclear weapon, and major natural disasters like earthquakes, tsunamis, large hurricanes, pandemics, and geomagnetic disturbances caused by solar weather.”

Large Power Transformers and the U.S. Electric Grid. Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy (2012)

“Large Power Transformers (LPTs) are custom-designed equipment that entail significant capital expenditures and long lead times due to an intricate procurement and manufacturing process…. Because LPTs are very expensive and tailored to customers’ specifications, they are usually neither interchangeable with each other nor produced for extensive spare inventories…. The average lead time for manufacture of an LPT is between five and 16 months; however, the lead time can extend beyond 20 months if there are any supply disruptions or delays with the supplies, raw materials, or key parts. The United States has limited production capability to manufacture LPTs.”

Buy Guilty Knowledge at Amazon.

Download Guilty Knowledge PDF

About the EMP Coalition

A group of the country’s top experts on this threat and what can be done to mitigate it have joined forces under the leadership of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and President Clinton’s Director of Central Intelligence, R. James Woolsey. The goal of this EMP Coalition is to raise awareness of the extreme peril associated with the sort of powerful electromagnetic pulse that could be caused literally at any time by space weather or a hostile power. The Coalition also seeks to ensure that practical, cost-effective and readily available steps are taken as soon as possible to protect the grid. The EMP Coalition is working to:

  • Engage the nation’s electric utilities and their customers-including, notably, those whose businesses depend critically upon reliable supplies of pow- er–about the imperative of eliminating our vulnerability to EMP and instituting the hardware and other changes necessary to do that.
  • Assist executive branch officials and legislators at both the federal and state levels to create the necessary statutory and regulatory environment to make the present bulk power distribution system and any future “smart” grids resilient against EMP.
  • Develop grassroots support for such measures and empower citizens to help.

To find out more about the EMP Coalition and how you can assist its vital work, go to StopEMP.org.

Grover Norquist book release overshadowed by ‘ethics investigation’ into Islamist ties

2096098934Center for Security Policy, April 8, 2015:

Grover Norquist, famed DC power-player and anti-tax advocate would prefer that you focus on the release of his new book this week. Unfortunately for him, talk show host Glenn Beck, informed by years of investigative work by Secure Freedom President Frank Gaffney, has launched a series of investigative reports detailing Norquist’s connections to dangerous Islamists.

On March 11, 2015, Glenn Beck announced on his popular nationally syndicated radio program that he might have to end his longstanding relationship with the National Rifle Association (NRA) if Grover Norquist were reelected to the NRA’s board of directors. For years, Mr. Beck has made clear that he has no problem with the anti-tax activism for which Mr. Norquist is best known, but that he is deeply troubled by evidence that the latter has long been involved with and enabled Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic supremacist influence operations.

The next day, Glenn Beck reported that he had received an hour-long call from NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre in the course of which Mr. LaPierre announced that the National Rifle Association would be conducting a “transparent” and “open” ethics investigation of Grover Norquist. On three consecutive days, March 25-27, Mr. Beck used his television and radio platforms to engage in his own investigation – including an hour-long interview with Norquist, himself.

The following are highlights of the Beck inquiry, drawn from his TV shows of March 25th and 26th, and his radio program of March 27th – including an illustrative exchange from Mr. Beck’s Norquist interview.

[CLICK BELOW FOR HIGHLIGHT REEL OF GLENN BECK’S EXPOSÉ]

 

Beck’s Characterization of Norquist

Glenn Beck introduced his audience to Grover Norquist at the start of his hour-long, two -chalkboard briefing on March 25th with the following statement:

“[Norquist] is really a power player who has managed to use his influence to evade any real scrutiny over his dangerous connections….Politicians listen to him. Many obey him. He has a long list of connections with radical Islamic organizations and in some cases actual terrorists. His alarming ties with groups hostile to America, who seek to destroy it from the inside out, those are the things that should worry every American.

“This is about national security. This is a danger to you, your family, and the republic.”

Beck’s Depiction of Grover Norquist’s Muslim Brotherhood Associates and Front Group – the Islamic Free Market Institute

In the course of his March 25 televised briefing, Glenn Beck made the following points:

“[Norquist has]…created this: The Islamic Institute. Which is trying to support the free market in Islam. That’s a good goal. Until you start to see how this thing has come together.

“Let me show you some of the people that he’s been working with and crossing paths with:

  • Abdurahman Alamoudi: “This guy is extremely disturbing….[He] was finally arrested at Heathrow airport with $340,000 in cash that was given to him by Muammar Gaddafi. The plot involved al-Qaeda operatives. He was a senior al-Qaeda financier. He funnelled at least a million dollars directly to al-Qaeda. He was sentenced in 2004. He’s serving a twenty-three year prison sentence for terrorist fundraising related to the plan to assassinate the Saudi crown prince Abdul[lah]. So, people [Norquist] trusts.
  • “Khaled Saffuri:…He is al-Amoudi’s right hand man. He was a deputy at the American Muslim Council, one of the Brotherhood front organizations. He was founder of the Islamic Institute. He was very influential in the Bush Administration. He led talks with the administration in opposition of Operation Green Quest, which we’ll talk a little bit about later. That was basically trying to go get the front groups. He didn’t want that to happen.”
  • “Sami al-Arian:…Former member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Former professor at [University of South Florida]. Campaigned against secret evidence method. He was caught soliciting donations for a Palestinian terrorist to kill an Israeli Jew. He paid respects to, quote, ‘the march of the martyrs and to the river of blood that gushes forth and does not extinguish.’ I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to hang out with him. He also said, ‘Let us damn America to death.’”
  • “Jamal al-Barzinji: He is the founder – the founding father, he’s the George Washington of the Muslim Brotherhood of the U.S. He played a crucial role in creating and organizing the web of Brotherhood front groups that followed: Islamic Society of North America, Muslim American Society, International Institute of Islamic Thought. He founded the radical mosque in Virginia. He’s known for ties to Islamic terrorists from Hamas to al-Qaeda. He’s an officer of the SAAR Foundation, which is suspected of funding terrorist groups.”
  • “Then we go to Suhail Khan. Suhail Khan is probably the cleanest of Grover Norquist’s friends. He campaigned against the DOJ’s secret evidence. His parents are really the trouble spot. They were prominent leaders in the Brotherhood front groups. And the annual award at ISNA, it is given every year in his father’s name. The mosque founded by his dad hosted the Blind Sheikh just a couple of months before he bombed the World Trade Center. He has a network of terrorist friendly organizations and he made it possible for Osama bin Laden’s number two, al-Zawahiri, to actually covertly visit the United States undetected in 1995. He played a key role in founding CAIR. He was praised by al-Amoudi at an awards ceremony.”

Norquist’s Defense

The following exchange is illustrative of the sort of explanation/deflection Grover Norquist presented in the course of his hour-long televised interview with Glenn Beck on March 26, 2015:

GROVER NORQUIST:

“…When we set up the Islamic Free Market Institute in the mid-90s, it was because I had seen in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the end of the war against the Soviet Union, this radical strain of anti-Americanism and statism in the Muslim community from people who you think would have been more supportive of the United States since we were helping these people fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

“And so I was looking around for how do we make the case for a reformation in Islam focused on something that I know something about, which is free market economics….

“My interest was not here in the United States. It was focused out. And so the work of the institute was trying to be a little light, a little beacon to make the case that…[in the Quran] property rights are strong, low taxes, free trade.”

GLENN BECK:

That sounds like an unbelievably noble goal. That sounds –

GROVER NORQUIST:

Well, it’s a small effort.

GLENN BECK:

Well, but I think it sounds like a noble goal.

GROVER NORQUIST:

Well, thank you.

GLENN BECK:

Now, here’s the question that leaps to mind. If that’s my goal, gosh, how do I take a check from a guy like al-Amoudi?

GROVER NORQUIST:

But I didn’t really have that much in contact with him, but I did hear from Khaled [Saffuri], he was sort of okay, if oldish school. But then in 2000 – so he wrote a ten thousand dollar check and ten thousand dollar loan to the institute, I think trying to make nice with Khaled. However, he – in 2000, late 2000, October or so, gave this speech at a rally and said that he supported Hamas –

GLENN BECK:

[OVERLAP] Hold on just a second. Hold on just a second. At a rally sponsored by you.

GROVER NORQUIST:

Oh, okay. I know what the concern is. No. There was an intern – this was written up in Insight at the time afterwards cause somebody had said so. We had an intern who had said that was okay. He was told that’s not okay. And there was no money involved. He just – I guess they had a bunch of people’s names attached to some rally in opposition to the occupation of the West Bank –

GLENN BECK:

[OVERLAP] Oh, so you didn’t sponsor that at all. That was an intern that made that mistake.

GROVER NORQUIST:

Yeah, that was written up at the time in Insight magazine –

GLENN BECK:

So is that a little like – because your firm was also lobbying for al-Amoudi, but then you said, once you found out that he was going to prison, you then came out and said that that was a clerical error. So was it the same intern or is it a different – is it a different problem?

GROVER NORQUIST:

No, the one was an intern. You’re not supposed to sign us up for other things. He just thought he was – I don’t know why he did it, but he shouldn’t have. He was told not to.

But just let me get back to the lobbying, because that’s I think very important also.

The – [al-Amoudi] gave this speech and Khaled heard about it and told me. And he said, “Look, I told the guy: One, he needs to grovel and apologize and denounce his statement.” Khaled felt he didn’t do that. And he said to him, “Look, you haven’t done anything with this. You haven’t asked us for anything. You haven’t gone to anything we’ve done. But from now on, you’re not allowed to go to anything we’re doing.” He never went to any of the conferences or worked with anybody there. He never asked for anything.

Beck Dissects Norquist’s Explanation of the Islamic Free Market Institute

During his radio program on March 27th, Glenn Beck performed a lengthy post-mortem on his interview the day before with Grover Norquist. At one point, he engaged in a Socratic colloquy with his executive producer, Steve Burguiere, better known as “Stu” about Norquist’s lengthy involvement with Muslim Brotherhood operatives, organizations and agendas. These excerpts capture the essence of their exchange:

GLENN BECK:

“Stu, let’s say that you want to stop the Klan, okay?…And you want to start a big foundation, billions of dollars will go into this, stopping the Klan. And that’s your zeal. You think you can help – and you’re way ahead of the curve, before the Klan is really even stringing people up, you’re ahead of the curve. Okay? What are some of the things that you do? When you’re looking for people to join you. What are the things you do?”

* * *

“Who do you put in next to you? Who do you have in? Who do you take money from? Who do you have as partners?”

STU:

“Well, you pick people fighting that cause, right? You pick people against the Klan who would be donating money to stop that.”

GLENN BECK:

“Right. And you would have people – if you had people who were members of the Klan, full fledged members of the Klan, would you take money from them?”

STU:

“No, I would not.”

GLENN BECK:

“Okay. Would you think it would be irresponsible of you to take money from people unknowingly when they were clearly in the Klan?”

STU:

“Yeah, that would be very irresponsible.”

GLENN BECK:

“Would you take other people’s word: ‘No, he’s a good guy. He’s a good guy.’ ‘Well, he seems to have a lot of Klan stuff at his house.’ ‘Nah, he’s a good guy.’ Or would you take it upon yourself as being a guy who’s setting up an institution, stoptheklan.org, you know, would you take it upon yourself – ”

STU:

“To do my own research – “

GLENN BECK:

“To do your own homework.”

STU:

“Yes, I believe his hoodie fell off. He just needed another hood.”

GLENN BECK:

“Correct. If you found that one of the guys you took money from and you thought was a good guy because everybody was telling you, would you then up your standards and say, ‘Wow, that was a close call.’”

STU:

“See, maybe, you know, you’re starting out, a little lazy on the specifics, but once it happens to you, you’re certainly going to step up your efforts.”

* * *

GLENN BECK:

“[Norquist] is lying. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you would convict on this if you were sitting in a court. This makes no sense whatsoever….

“Now my question to you is you didn’t accept any of this from the Obama administration. Now this guy is in, this guy agrees with you on much – he agrees, lower taxes, he’s helping people get elected and everything else. He’s on your side. Do you accept it now or are you consistent?

“Do you have the balls to have the courage of your convictions to say, yes, this might hurt in the short-term but this guy needs to be out of CPAC. This guy needs to be out of the GOP. Who is he meeting with every Wednesday in his Wednesday meeting of one hundred and fifty Republicans every single Wednesday? Who is he meeting? What is he saying? Where is he getting his funding from? Who else has he whitewashed and put into places that God knows Muslim Brotherhood should not be in? This guy is lying to you.”

Beck’s Conclusions About Grover Norquist and What to Do About Him

The following quotes capture the bottom line of Glenn Beck’s investigation of Grover Norquist (drawn, as indicated from his television and radio programs of March 25th and March 27th, respectively:

“I don’t know what Grover’s motivations are for working with people that range from Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer all the way to full-blown terrorists. It can only be one of two things. He is the most unlucky and naïve guy next to the president of the United States. And I hope it’s that.

“Because the only other option is that he strongly agrees enough with the Muslim Brotherhood’s mission. Or they’re just paying him enough cash to subvert America.

“Either way, somebody with this much power inside the Republican Party and inside the NRA with these connections is absolutely unacceptable. No person with any shred of integrity whatsoever would be within the same postcode of some of these people let alone at the same office or exchanging money with them. And so far, the explanations given for the connections are completely unacceptable as well.” (3/27 Radio Program)

“I am not telling you that Grover Norquist nor his allies want to destroy the United States of America. I don’t believe that. I don’t know what his motivation is. But I’m going to give what I believe his motivation is power and money. That’s it. Power and money. And so he’ll take the money and he’ll use that power anyway he has, anyway he can, to keep himself and others like him in power.” (3/25 TV Program)

“So the question is not about Grover Norquist. The question is about you. GOP members. NRA members. The people – and I’ve got to get the list, I’ll get the list when we come back of all the things that he’s on the board of directors of. That’s the way the Muslim Brotherhood does it. They launder people and then they get on the board of directors. This is the Tides Foundation. Except it’s on our side. Do you like it? Is this who you want to be?” (3/27 Radio Program)

***

Norquist sponsors terrorist Rally

Published on Apr 8, 2015 by theunitedwest

Glenn Beck reveals new documents that prove Grover Norquist Sponsored terrorists rally in front of Whitehouse in 2000.

Frank Gaffney joins Armstrong Williams and Alan Dershowitz on Iran negotiations

!cid_image004_jpg@01D06CDDCenter for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney joined the Armstrong Williams show alongside famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz to discuss the ongoing drama of the Iranian nuclear negotiations. Dershowitz held his fellow liberals’ accountable, challenging Senator Chuck Schumer, other Democrats, Jews and the Congressional Black Caucus.

Transcript

WAR Declared! Beck, Rove, Norquist, GOP

Glenn_Beck10-620x338

Breitbart, March 24, 2015:

(THE UNITED WEST) An all out knock down drag out media war has broken out between Glenn Beck vs. Grover Norquist and Karl Rove and the GOP. Glenn has threatened to revoke his NRA membership if Grover Norquist, a Muslim Brotherhood agent, is re-elected to the NRA board. Karl Rove, a 30 year friend and mentor to Norquist, unleashed a verbal attack on Bill O’Reilly. Beck replied, with the following, “If you want to rumble baby, c’mon,” and added, “You guy’s have the spine of a worm, the ethics of whores, and the integrity of pirates, with my apologies to worms, whores and pirates.”

Also see:

The Message Glenn Beck Got in the Middle of His Special on Grover Norquist That Will Affect the Rest of the Week (theblaze.com)

UPDATE March 26, 9:19 a.m. ET: Glenn Beck announced on his radio program that Grover Norquist would be on his television show this afternoon. He said his producer received an email saying Norquist would come on, and their email Wednesday did not mean he was backing out.

Beck described the email chain as “almost psychotic” and “bizarre,” adding that they have “never had this problem setting up a guest before.” But he reiterated his pledge to make his television program free that afternoon to anyone who wants to watch Norquist’s rebuttal.

Glenn Beck on Wednesday presented an hour-long special on Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, who he has described as an “agent of influence” for radical Islamists. In the middle of the show, Beck revealed an interesting twist involving Norquist’s previous commitment to come on the show to answer the charges. Norquist cancelled, saying Beck made the accusations in front of more than 7 million people on radio, which listeners can tune into for free, but invited Norquist to defend himself on a show that requires a subscription.

“If you have a problem with [my TV show] being paid, I will make this episode free,” Beck promised. “It will be free tomorrow to anyone who wants to hear your response.”

The email from Norquist’s representative also accused Beck of “never checking” any of his facts and “never reaching out” to Norquist’s team for a “reality check,” but Beck called both allegations “absolutely untrue.”

“I knew this would happen,” Beck said. “Grover has no interest in coming on the show.”

You can read the complete letter from Norquist’s representative, below:

No conservative should have to pay Glenn Beck to hear a grown up response to Frank Gaffney’s nonsense. Two weeks ago, March 11, Glenn had Frank Gaffney on his radio show for a lengthy interview in front of an audience of seven million Americans. Uncritically accepting Gaffney’s ten to fifteen year old nonsense, Glenn kept saying Grover was a “dangerous” and “bad” man. On the free public airwaves in front of seven million people, Glenn repeated Gaffney’s long discredited nonsense over the course of several shows. Never checking anything. Never reaching out to us for a reality check. And then, after repeating stuff from Gaffney over and over on the public airwaves, you invite Grover to a paid, subscription-only show with a different, and much smaller, audience. If you are now interested in the facts that dozens of reporters and most conservative leaders already know, the best way to proceed would be to hash through Gaffney’s attacks in front of the audience where Glenn gave Gaffney plenty of time to present them. If you are serious about fact checking Gaffney’s material, contact me to find a time to do something on the radio show, the same venue where Gaffney told his conspiracy theory.

Beck said the hour-long special “isn’t personal,” but the result of research into Norquist’s connections to radical Islamists.

“He is a power player who has managed to use his influence to evade any real scrutiny over his dangerous connections,” Beck said. “He has a long list of connections with radical Islamic organizations, and in some cases, actual terrorists. … I don’t know the man at all. I’m not going to try to figure out why he’s doing this. I don’t know. … [But] this is about national security. This is a danger to you, your family and the republic.”

Beck began by highlighting Norquist’s influence within the GOP and his close relationship with Karl Rove, whose organization Crossroads GPS reportedly gave Americans for Tax Reform $26.4 million in 2012 for “social welfare.”

“What other alliances is he making?” Beck asked. “Let me show you some people he’s been working with and crossing paths with.”

Beck introduced his audience to Abdurahman Alamoudi, who allegedly raised money for Al Qaeda in the United States and is serving a 23-year prison sentence on terrorism charges. Alamoudi was recorded saying that outside of the United States, it is acceptable to say “Oh Allah, destroy America,” but once inside the “mission” is to “change” America from within. Beck said Alamoudi donated at least $20,000 to the Islamic Free Market Institute, which Norquist co-founded.

Beck also spoke about Sami al-Arian, a former college professor in Florida who plead guilty to supporting a terrorist organization and was recently deported by the Obama administration. He was quoted saying, “Let us damn America, let us damn Israel, let us damn them and their allies until death.” Beck said Norquist worked with al-Arian to fight against the use of secret evidence.

“I don’t know what Grover’s motivations are for working with people that range from Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers all the way to full-blown terrorists. It can only be one of two things. Either he is the most unlucky and naive guy … and I hope it’s that, because the only other option is that he strongly agrees enough with the Muslim Brotherhood’s mission, or they’re just paying him enough cash to subvert America.”

“Either way, somebody with this much power inside the Republican Party and inside the NRA with these connections is absolutely unacceptable,” Beck continued. “No person with any shred of integrity whatsoever would be within the same zip code of some of these people, let alone at the same office or exchanging money with them. And so far, the explanations given for the connections are completely unacceptable as well.”

Beck discusses Norquist’s connections more in depth in the video below.

Glenn Beck and Grover Norquist Finally Meet for On-Air Battle Over Alleged Ties to Radical Islamists: ‘Not True’

Frank Gaffney dissects the interview here: 

The Defeat ‘Jihad Summit’

ISIS-black-flag-Iraq-AFP-640x480Breitbart, by Frank Gaffney, Feb, 5, 2015:

Later this month, leaders and other influential figures from around the world will come together to address in a realistic way the emerging – and potentially existential  threat facing our nation and its friends overseas, and to resolve how best to counter it.

I am not talking about President Obama’s “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Summit” that will be held on February 18. Like the latest mutation of his doomed “strategy” for countering “ISIL”, er “DAISH,” which the mendacious Susan Rice will be rolling out tomorrow, that official confab will an exercise in disinformation, deflection and deceit, both about the reality of Islamic supremacism and the effectiveness of the steps the United States and its allies are taking to contend with it.

The international conclave that actually holds promise for being illuminating, fact-based, and consequential is a counterpoint to the official event that will take place exactly a week before:  Its sponsors, including my own Center for Security Policy, have given it a clarifying title: the “Defeat Jihad Summit.”

Like Team Obama’s shindig, this meeting will be by invitation only and feature a number of eminent figures in foreign governments, as well as our own. Unlike the closed-door official function, however, ours will be live-streamed.

Among those participating in the Defeat Jihad Summit will be Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, Britain’s Lord Malcolm Pearson, former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra, Danish free speech advocate Lars Hedegaard, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, and roughly three dozen other freedom fighters.

The alternative summit’s roundtable will focus on three topics: 

1) the nature of the enemy we face – the Global Jihad Movement and its animating ideology of shariah, i.e., not something euphemistically and misleadingly called “violent extremism”;

2) the actual degree to which the present policy for addressing this threat has been successful or a failure – a realistic appraisal devoid of the cheerleading, wishful thinking, misdirection and worse that colors Ms. Rice’s every utterance (predicatably, to include those served up at Brookings tomorrow) and that will be the leitmotif of the CVE Summit, with its official/Muslim Brotherhood and fellow-traveling participants;

3) an alternative approach that is fact-based, non-submissive to jihadist threats and influence operations and, ideally based on a strategy proven to be successful in countering totalitarian ideologies bent on our destruction – i.e., the Secure Freedom Strategy modeled on the one President Reagan launched 32 years ago last month that sought, and achieved, the liquidation of Soviet communism and its “Evil Empire.”

Watch the live-stream of the Defeat Jihad Summit at Breitbart.com or SecureFreedom.org next Wednesday from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. for what promises to be an extraordinary event – and necessary corrective – to the failed Obama “strategy” and the insidious February 18 Counter-Violent Extremism fandango intended to dignify and promote it.