DECLARE WAR ON SHARIAH

iraq-machine-guns-held-aloft-afpBreitbart, by FRANK J. GAFFNEY, JR., Aug. 24.2014:

The National Journal called earlier this week for the United States to “declare war on ISIS.” The magazine is right to argue for a new authorization for the use of military force (AUMF), a legislative vehicle that passes these days for a congressional declaration of war. It is wrong, however, to urge that the existing AUMF, which targets al Qaeda and “associated forces,” be replaced by one that focuses just on the Islamic State (also known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Sham/Syria, or ISIS, or the Islamic State in the Levant, or ISIL).

Nearly thirteen years after 9/11, it is past time to recognize that we are at war not with one group of “terrorists” or another. Rather, adherents to a doctrine or ideology they call shariah are at war with us. Shariah is, at its core, about power, not faith. While some small percentage (some estimates suggest ten-percent) of its dictates prescribe the religious practices, the rest of it defines comprehensively how every relationship must be ordered – between individuals, families, neighbors, business associates, all the way up to how the world is governed.

Most importantly, shariah obliges its followers to engage in jihad (or holy war). Don’t be misled by those who argue jihad means “personal struggle.” The Koran makes clear that jihad is “holy war.” And for shariah-adherent Islamists that war has two goals: the triumph of shariah worldwide and the establishment of what is, for want of a better term, a theocratic government to rule the entire planet according to that doctrine.

The jihadists may disagree among themselves about some points of theology (notably, differences that divide Sunnis and Shiites). They may be committed to the use of terrifying violence under all circumstances. Or, as in the case of the Muslim Brotherhood, they may believe it is to be used where practicable, but insist on employing not so much non-violent as pre-violent, subversive techniques where terrorism will be counterproductive.

Whatever the banner under which these shariah-adherents wage jihad – for example, the Islamic State, al Qaeda, Taliban, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, Ansar al-Shariah or Muslim Brotherhood – all these Islamists are our avowed enemies. That is not because of how we view them. That is because of their own doctrine which is endlessly reinforced in their mosques, via the Internet, through social media and other vehicles.

We can no longer kid ourselves, or otherwise avoid a harsh reality: While perhaps hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world – including it seems the majority of those in America – practice their faith without regard for shariah (they don’t want to live under it themselves and they do not seek to impose it on others), the authorities of Islam regard shariah as the true faith and consider these co-religionists to be apostates.

At the moment, fortunately, only a relatively small number are actively engaged in violent jihad. Many more, though, are doing what shariah demands of those unable or unwilling to wield the sword in holy war: underwriting those who do, through the practice of zakat (Islam’s obligatory contributions to approved charitable causes, one of which is jihad).

Unless and until we understand that shariah-adherent Muslims are inherently dangerous, we will be unable to define our enemy correctly. Unless and until we hold such Muslims accountable, we will not only restrict unduly the focus and effectiveness of our countervailing efforts.

Worse yet, we will actually encourage Muslims – whether states like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, organizations or individuals – to associate with, underwrite, or in other ways enable deadly foes of freedom.

Some will respond that an AUMF focused on shariah is a formula for a “clash of civilizations.” The truth is that enemies of civilization – namely, those who adhere to and seek to impose, whether through violence or by stealth, brutally repressive, totalitarian, misogynistic, homophobic, intolerant and anti-constitutional shariah on others – have made no secret of their determination to conquer and destroy us and the rest of the civilized world.

Only by making clear that we are determined to fight back in defense of freedom will we have a chance of protecting our civilization against these enemies. By identifying the political-military-legal ideology of shariah as the defining ideology of those with whom we are at war – much as we did in the past against Nazism, Fascism, Japanese imperialism, and communism – we have a chance of prevailing. And that chance will be greatly enhanced if we bring to bear now, as in the past, not only military but all other instruments of national power.

We will also incentivize Muslims who do not conform to this doctrine to join us in fighting those who accuse them of apostasy, a capital offense under shariah. If they do so, the likelihood of our early success improves still further.

So, by all means, let’s have a new authorization for the use of military force. Or better yet, a proper declaration of war approved by the Congress, authorizing the use of the full array of our economic, political, intelligence, strategic and military means of waging war. But for the sake of our civilization and freedoms, we must ensure that it correctly defines the object of our defensive war: those who adhere to and are trying compel us to submit to shariah.

Frank Gaffney: “Obama Administration Involved In Setting Up the PA/Hamas Unity Government”

Frank GaffneyBy Michael Beckman  at Tales From a Tribble:

Frank Gaffney, who is a national security and Middle East expert, and is the founder of the Center for Security Policy, and also a columnist and radio host of the Secure Freedom Radio show, was a very interesting and important guest on the Hugh Hewitt radio show on Wednesday afternoon.  Hugh and Frank were discussing the disturbing crisis Israel is facing from the constant Hamas rocket attacks on it’s cities.

In one of the more stunning moments of the interview, Hugh asked Frank Gaffney if it was true what a listener who has children in Israel asserted that the United States was the first country to recognize the unity government that included the Islamist terrorist group Hamas.  Frank Gaffney said it was worse than that.  He said that the Obama administration, via the special envoy for the peace process from the State Department, was actively involved in setting up the unity government that included Hamas. That was disturbing and shocking news to me that our government was working to aid a terrorist group to be a part of a government that they actually want Israel to negotiate with.

 

Read more

How Barack Obama Ends Wars

barack_michelle_salute_APBreitbart, By Frank Gaffney, Jr.:

In discussing last week his decision to eliminate essentially all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the time his term of office ends, Mr. Obama declared:  “This is how wars end in the 21st Century – not through signing ceremonies but through decisive blows against our adversaries, transitions to elected governments, security forces who are trained to take the lead and ultimately full responsibility.”

Actually, how Barack Obama ends wars is by what amounts to surrendering to our undefeated adversaries, undermining elected governments by emboldening those determined to destroy them, and abandoning local security forces who lack the capability to prevail.

The President’s exchange this weekend of “prisoner of war” Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five of the world’s most dangerous jihadists is a microcosm of his way of waging–and losing–wars. Consider the following features of this odious act of appeasement and its roll-out.

  •          The exchange was unbalanced:  We purchased at exceedingly high cost the freedom of an American described by his comrades as a deserter. It appears that by abandoning his sentinel’s post in the dark of night, he not only jeopardized their lives, but he set in train searches and tactical situations that cost the lives of numerous other servicemen.

Treating Bergdahl as some sort of heroic figure because of his five years in self-induced captivity is a further assault on the principles of integrity, discipline, and honor that have been central to the character and culture of the U.S. military for generations. This is not an accident. Destroying that culture happens to be a well-established feature of Team Obama’s social engineering of the armed forces.

  •         The price paid to achieve Bergdahl’s freedom was to release no fewer than five of the Taliban’s senior commanders to the custody of Qatar. Let’s take what’s wrong with this picture, piece by piece:

First, the Qatari government is on the other side in the War for the Free World. It is a bankroller of al Qaeda in Syria (and perhaps elsewhere): the enabler of the Muslim Brotherhood, the underwriter of the enemy’s propaganda arm, al Jazeera, etc. Trusting the Qataris to be helpful to us with regard to anything having to do with jihad is worse than willful blindness; it is national security malfeasance.

Second, the best case is that these guys will be out of the fight for one more year. Since the administration won’t say what restrictions will be imposed on them in the interim, however, it is a safe bet they will be doing whatever they can to contribute to their terrorist organization’s return to power as soon as possible. But even if that were not the case, in the long war the United States is abandoning, a year is nothing for those determined to defeat us.

  •          To complete this exchange, President Obama violated the law, something he has done relentlessly in the course of his presidency.  (To appreciate just how often, see Andrew C. McCarthy’s splendid new book, Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.) The fact that Eric Holder’s Justice Department gave Chuck Hagel’s Defense Department a fig-leaf for doing so by claiming extenuating circumstances–namely, concerns about Bergdahl’s deteriorating health–does not alter the reality that Obama and Company did not conform to the statute requiring a 30-day pre-notification to Congress.
  •          Adding insult to injury is the fact that Bergdahl does not seem to be ill, let alone near death’s door. National Security Advisor Susan Rice said on Sunday the he is “in good health” and he has reportedly been released from the hospital in Germany where his medical condition was assessed post-release. Of course, he may have lingering psychological problems, but then that may have been the case before he deserted. Either way, there is no justification there for the president ignoring the law.
  •         Speaking of Susan Rice, her interviews on two Sunday talk shows this weekend vividly called to mind the notorious, serial appearances she turned in on five such programs in September 2012. Now, as then, she was the dutiful–almost robotic–spinner, relentlessly sticking to her misleading, if not patently fraudulent talking points.

Two years ago, Rice engaged in what amounted to lying about the murderous attacks in Benghazi, by insisting they were the result of a video, not jihadist attacks.  This meme, we recently learned, was manufactured by a man who is now her Deputy National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes.  It was explicitly designed by him to deflect politically problematic attention in the run-up to the 2012 election from questions about the President’s claims that al Qaeda was on the path to defeat, and other national security frauds.

This weekend, Rice reprised her role as untrustworthy flack by relentless insisting we have a “sacred duty not to leave anyone behind”–a duty that neither she nor any other senior Obama administration official seemed to feel while the Benghazi attacks were underway. All the while, she deflected questions that would have illuminated the reality of the Bergdahl exchange–the exorbitant price we paid, how the exchange was conducted under false pretenses, the dire implications with respect to strengthening our enemies and the lack of real justification for violating the law.

With the Bergdahl exchange, Americans are on notice: Unless this episode proves to be a very costly one for Team Obama, the President is on a trajectory not only to lose Afghanistan, as we previously lost Iraq. He will also ignore statutory inhibitions on releasing the rest of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay and close that facility, foreclosing its use by a successor. The upshot of all this will be to establish that the way Barack Obama “ends wars in the 21st Century” is going to get a lot more of us killed.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. formerly acted as an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan.  He is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for Breitbart News Network and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio.

Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner?

670876846CSP, By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

The International Center for Religion and Diplomacy (ICRD) is a Washington-based non-profit organization that, like many working these portfolios, happens to have worrisome ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. It is, moreover, engaged in a top priority of what the Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad” – namely, interfaith dialogue. The Brothers cynically engage in such “bridge-building” in order to induce individuals and institutions of other creeds to provide them with political cover, thereby enabling subversive Islamist efforts to insinuate into this country the supremacist shariah doctrine – all in the name of religious freedom.

On May 30th, the ICRD will further display its true colors. It will have as its guests of honor at a gala fundraising dinner two preeminent stealth jihadists – Faisal Rauf and his wife, Daisy Khan. The couple gained international notoriety in 2010 when they sought to build a 15-story mosque complex in a building so close to Ground Zero that it was badly damaged in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.

The only surprise in all of this is the dinner’s keynote speaker: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI).

Now, I am personally fond of Rep. Rogers. In the land of the blind that is our Congress – which is almost completely bereft of lawmakers who focus on national security, let alone provide leadership in that portfolio – he is the one-eyed man, for sure. He has been willing to tell the truth about the world becoming more dangerous when few in his party, let alone the Democrats in Washington, have done so. A former Army officer and FBI special agent, he has championed a strong defense and sought to stave off the throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater impulses of legislators determined to dismantle the NSA in the wake of the Snowden treachery.

So, I wrote the chairman last week laying out the ties between the ICRD and various American Muslim Brotherhood fronts and leaders. These include: one of the Brotherhood’s preeminent fonts of ideological purity, the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT); the American Muslims for Constructive Engagement (AMCE), whose stated mission is to secure “the deliberate appointment of qualified Muslims to key advisory bodies and policy-relevant positions in government in order to shape U.S. policy choices”; and, through the AMCE, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). ICNA, ISNA and CAIR were listed as unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history: U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation, et.al.

Consequently, I urged Chairman Rogers in my 21 May letter to withdraw from the ICRD fundraiser: “While there is certainly no objection to qualified Americans, of any religion, serving in U.S. policy-making positions, it appears that members of the Muslim Brotherhood, a subversive terrorist organization with intimate ties to terrorism, are using the ICRD as a venue for an ongoing influence operation to manipulate U.S. policy. Your attendance at this event would risk further legitimizing this event to the detriment of U.S. national security.”

Unfortunately, this is not the first time Rep. Rogers has evidenced an inadequate appreciation of the civilization jihad the Muslim Brotherhood is waging inside the United States. (To read the Brotherhood’s secret plan for this jihad, see here.). Notably, in July 2012, he joined Senator John McCain and House Speaker John Boehner in criticizing Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other legislators. They had quite properly written five federal agencies’ inspectors general requesting investigations of the roles being played in shaping U.S. policies by individuals shown to be associated with the Muslim Brotherhood in this country (see: see Part 8 of the free, online course atwww.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com).

This is a particularly bad time for the chairman of the House intelligence oversight committee to have a blind spot with respect to Islamist influence operations. After all, the Obama administration appears determined to admit more Muslim Brothers into this country as they are being rolled up in Egypt. That would be the practical effect of its recent decision to rewrite unilaterally and extra-constitutionally federal immigration statutes by allowing individuals to apply for refugee status if they have only engaged in “limited” material support for terrorism. Last week, a young Egyptian Brotherhood sympathizer, if not member, appears to be the first to have put this opportunity to the test.

In addition, as Adam Kredo observed at the Washington Free Beacon, the Obama State Department is continuing the embrace of Islamists begun while Hillary Clinton was in charge:

The State Department’s Counter Terrorism (CT) Bureau promoted on Friday a controversial Muslim scholar whose organization has reportedly backed Hamas and endorsed a fatwa authorizing the murder of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

The CT bureau on Friday tweeted out a link to the official website of Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah, the vice president of the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS), a controversial organization founded by a Muslim Brotherhood leader “who has called for the death of Jews and Americans and himself is banned from visiting the U.S.,” according to Fox News.

Mike Rogers is right that the world is becoming more dangerous thanks to the rising capabilities and malevolence of global jihadists. The reality, however, is that the threat is growing in no small part because of the success jihadists are having in undermining our situational awareness and subverting our policies. We need Chairman Rogers for the remainder of his tenure in Congress to be part of the solution to that problem, not compounding it with his own case of willful blindness.

Frank Gaffney to Rep. Mike Rogers: Withdraw Your Appearance Before MB-tied Group

445582704

Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan are being honored by the International Center for Religion & Diplomacy for their pioneering efforts in promoting peace, understanding and cooperation among people of all faiths, particularly between Islam and the West. In 2010, Imam Rauf proposed to build an Islamic Community Center in downtown Manhattan, which created an intense national conversation about Islam in America.

Center releases letter from President Frank Gaffney to Rep. Mike Rogers urging him to withdraw appearance before Muslim Brotherhood-tied group

(Washington, D.C.): Today, the Center for Security Policy released a letter previously sent from CSP President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., to Rep. Mike Rogers (Michigan, 8th), Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, urging the Chairman to withdraw from his scheduled upcoming appearance as keynote speaker at the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy’s (ICRD) Faith-in-Action Award Dinner on May 30th, 2014.

In the letter, Mr. Gaffney details the ICRD’s extensive and troubling ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist entities, including:

  • The ICRD Vice President for Preventative Engagement AbuBaker Al-Shingieti’s previous service as a spokesperson for the Sudanese regime of indicted war criminal Omar Bashir – a particularly worrisome link in light of the Sudanese government’s recent sentencing of a young pregnant woman to death for refusing to recant her Christian faith and for her marriage to her Christian husband, a U.S. citizen;
  • Al-Shingieti’s previous service as regional director for the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), an organization subject to a federal grand jury probe for terrorism finance due to its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad;
  • The ICRD’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed by ICRD President Douglas Johnston and IIIT President Jamal Barzinji – the latter of which, according to testimony by a federal law enforcement officer, has been connected to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad organizing and fundraising efforts in the U.S.;
  • Al-Shingieti’s current service as President of the American Muslims for Constructive Engagement (AMCE), an organization whose Directors, Steering Committee, and Advisory Council includes leaders of multiple organizations named in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing case as unindicted co-conspirators and members or affiliates of the North American Muslim Brotherhood.

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

“I commend Chairman Rogers for his years of service to our country, both in and out of Congress. His record of steadfastness on numerous issues of national security makes it especially regrettable, however, that he has chosen to go forward with his speaking engagement at the ICRD, an organization with troubling ties to both Omar Bashir’s Sudanese regime and the Muslim Brotherhood. It is my hope that Chairman Rogers will reconsider his decision to keynote the ICRD’s event, and decline therefore to give the ICRD any appearance of legitimacy in light of its past and present activities.”

A copy of the letter, along with accompanying fact-sheet can be found here:http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Frank-Gaffney-Letter-to-Chairman-Rogers.pdf

Unsafe Places: Islamist Mosques

mosque-American-flag-ReutersBreitbart, by FRANK J. GAFFNEY, JR.

The contempt that America’s enemies have for the United States these days is palpable. The most obvious current example is Vladimir Putin’s disdain for President Obama, whom he regards as little more than a speed-bump on the road to his conquest of Ukraine and perhaps other nations in what the Kremlin calls Russia’s “near-abroad.”

Not content with snatching Crimea and preparing reprises elsewhere, Putin has a jet buzz one of our ships in the Black Sea for ninety minutes then launches a new multiple-warhead intercontinental ballistic missile. By contrast, Team Obama is busily dismantling what’s left of our navy and strategic forces.

Then there’s the back of the hand treatment China showed Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel when, during his recent visit to the People’s Republic, the Pentagon chief had the temerity to lecture his hosts about how to behave internationally. They took him to see their just-refurbished aircraft carrier and unveiled a new fighter aircraft to operate from it. The best Hagel could do was announce that the U.S. was going to respond to Beijing’s increasing belligerence in the region by sending there a grand total of two more anti-missile destroyers–by 2017.

A more subtle, but no less in-your-face kind of contempt has just been served up by Muslim Brotherhood operatives and other Islamists in this country.

To mark the occasion of the first anniversary of two of their fellow jihadists’ murderous attack at the Boston Marathon, the leaders of several Brotherhood fronts have launched something called the “Safe Spaces Initiative.” They evidently think we are so stupid, or at least now so submissive, that they can try to put mosques off-limits to law enforcement. This is all the more astounding since we know that the perpetrators of the terrorism of a year ago used the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge to become versed in the ways of the supremacist Islamist doctrine known as shariah and the jihad it commands.

A chief proponent of this Safe Spaces gambit is Salam al-Marayati, the president of an Islamist influence operation out of California with extensive access to the Obama administration, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). In an opinion piece posted by altmuslim blog on March 28, al-Marayati actually makes plain the true purpose of his Safe Spaces Initiative.

Notwithstanding the portrayal of this proposal as a means of preventing radicalization in mosques, in the words of al-Marayati: “Safe spaces are needed so that government informants and extremist recruiters are prevented from violating the sanctity of the mosque. In essence, we want to enhance both a spiritual safety and public safety.” (Emphasis added.)

Unfortunately, the latest announcement by William Bratton–the former police commissioner recently re-appointed by New York’s new, Islamist-friendly mayor, Bill de Blasio–would sure seem to justify the Brothers’ low regard for us. As the New York Timesreported today “The New York Police Department has abandoned a secretive program that dispatched plainclothes detectives into Muslim neighborhoods….Plainclothes detectives looked for ‘hot spots’ of radicalization that might give the police an early warning about terrorist plots.”

The Times quoted the NYPD’s chief spokesman, Stephen Davis, who made clear the completeness of the department’s submission to the Islamists who style themselves as the “leaders” and “representatives” of all Muslim Americans: “‘Understanding certain local demographics can be a useful factor when assessing the threat information that comes into New York City virtually on a daily basis,” Mr. Davis said. “In the future, we will gather that information, if necessary, through direct contact between the police precincts and the representatives of the communities they serve.”

I discussed the folly of making mosques surveillance-free zones in an interview on Secure Freedom Radio this evening with former federal prosecutor and best-selling author Andrew C. McCarthy. Here’s part of our conversation (for the entire podcast, click here):

FRANK GAFFNEY: The Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, who’s a Muslim Brother fellow-traveller jihadist type, has a rather poetic turn of phrase for it. He says, “The minarets are our bayonets, the domes our helmets, the mosques our barracks, and the faithful our army.” And, Andy, this gives rise to a concern that I’m sure you share about an initiative that some of these Muslim Brotherhood types, notably Mohamed Magid, the president of the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in the United States, the Islamic Society of North America–and, oh, by the way, a frequent visitor at the Obama White House and prominent source of counsel to him and others in his Administration–

ANDY MCCARTHY: And another unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation.

FG: Indeed. These guys have cooked up something called the “Safe Spaces Initiative.” I wonder what you make of that idea, particularly as it seems their purpose is to, as one of them put it, “keep government informants…from violating the sanctity of the mosque.”

AM: Yeah, well, you know, it’s unfortunate that with this particular Justice Department and this Administration they’re probably pushing on an open door.

FG: It’s probably a wired game, let’s be honest. These guys have almost certainly got this rigged with the Justice Department.

AM: But the amazing thing is for all of Obama and Eric Holder’s caterwauling about, you know, how we’ve proved again and again that the civilian justice system is the best way to prosecute terrorism cases–well, why don’t they ever check into what was proved in those prosecutions that they like to tout around? Because if they open the transcripts…what they would find is that mosques were used as recruitment centers, they were used for conspiratorial conversations and agreements, they were used to house weapons, they were used to transfer weapons, and they really were used to light a fire under people who might have been fence-sitters but who were powerfully influenced by some of the imams, particularly the guy who I prosecuted in the 1990s, the Blind Sheikh.

It was in the mosques that [Omar Abdel-Rahman] did most of the damage that he did to the United States. So this is not something we speculate about, Frank. This is something that’s actually been proved in court, and proved again and again and again. So, if you’re going to say that a mosque needs to be a safe space, then what you’re really saying is we’ve taken willful blindness, which was a problem, and we’ve now codified it, so it’s not just willful blindness; it’s just mulish, absolute refusal to come to terms with what we’re up against.

FG: Yeah. And to speak to the other subject of your trilogy there, it is a formula for more of the grand jihad, not less. It is a certainty that you will find more Tsarnaev boys being recruited, or being trained, or being armed, or in other ways being enabled. It simply is mindboggling, Andy, and I think the American people couldn’t comprehend what’s going on here, or believe it if told it.

We can’t afford more of the sort of willful blindness that will give rise to more unsafe mosques and other places, and more jihad.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. formerly acted as an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan.  He is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for Breitbart News Network and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio. 

Deadly Life-Support for a Threatening Iran

emCenter for Security Policy, By Frank Gaffney:

In his State of the Union address last month, President Obama committed national security fraud.  He claimed to have “halted the progress of Iran’s nuclear program and rolled parts of that program back.” Unfortunately, it is becoming ever more apparent that the only thing he’s actually “rolled back” is the sanctions regime meant to halt that program.

For example, the Washington Free Beacon reported Monday that Iranian oil exports have increased by roughly one-quarter in the last month alone. China, Japan, South Korea and India are set to provide what amounts to life-support for the mullahs’ regime by buying vast quantities of the once-off-limits product.  The Indians say they would like to purchase oil “exclusively from Tehran through 2015.”

According to the Free Beacon’s Adam Kredo, “exports of Iranian crude oil jumped to 1.32 million barrels, up from December’s high of 1.06 million barrels, according to data from the International Energy Agency…. The increase runs counter to a promise by the Obama administration that ‘Iran’s oil exports will remain steady at their current level of around 1 million barrels per day.’”

This statistic provides fresh evidence that the Obama administration perpetrated another fraud by declaring that the value to Iran of the deal’s sanctions relief would amount to no more than $7 billion.  In fact, it appears that, thanks to increased oil sales, the mullahs will actually receive cash infusions of over $20 billion.

Since there are no restrictions on the use of even the $4.2 billion in frozen Iranian funds we are obliged under the deal to give back to Tehran – including on March 1st $450 million and a further $550 million on March 7th – and since money is, after all, fungible, it is likely that these windfalls will wind up financing activities that endanger us.

For one thing, Tehran is making plain that its nuclear program is not halted.  Notably, Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif declared last month, “The White House tries to portray [the deal] as basically a dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program. That is the word they use time and again. If you find a single, a single word, that even closely resembles dismantling or could be defined as dismantling in the entire text, then I would take back my comment. We are not dismantling any centrifuges, we’re not dismantling any equipment, we’re simply not producing, not enriching over 5%.”

According to another senior Iranian negotiator, Abbas Aaraghchi, it would “take less than a day” to return to enriching uranium to the 20% level.  In other words, the undoing of the sanctions regime – which is, as a practical matter, effectively irreversible – has been bought in exchange for what amount to gestures by the mullahs that can be immediately negated at will.

It is bad enough that Team Obama was completely snookered on the nuclear program.  But Iran is deliberately adding insult to injury by its simultaneous and increasingly threatening behavior on other fronts.

Notably, Iranian ballistic missile capabilities continue to grow.  Last week, Tehran tested two indigenously produced long-range Bina missiles. U.S. intelligence is said to believe Iran can have a missile capable of reaching the United States within two years. And, thanks to its extensive collaboration with North Korea on nuclear and missile developments – including so-called “space-launch” vehicles, we may face such a threat even sooner.

Meanwhile, Iran’s mullahocracy is ramping up the ominous presence and activities of its operatives in our hemisphere. Iranian agents conduct espionage, influence operations and collaboration with enemies of this country – from the region’s dictators to narco-traffickers – under diplomatic cover, the banner of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and that of Hezbollah. No good can come of an emboldened adversary acting with impunity in what should rightly be thought of as our front yard.

The latest addition to this combustible mix is Iran’s announcement that it will begin deploying warships off America’s coasts.  It would be a mistake to discount this development as a symbolic act of no strategic import.  At a time when U.S. naval resources are declining, the task of monitoring and, if necessary, countering such hostile warships may not receive the priority it deserves.

Alternatively, the presence of Iranian naval combatants may distract such attention as the Navy can provide from another threat: tramp steamers equipped to perform the sort of “Scud-in-a-tub” attack of which the blue-ribbon congressional Electromagnetic Pulse Threat Commission warned years ago. Iran has put in place nearly all the required elements of such a strike – specifically, missiles capable of being launched from sea-going platforms, tested to deliver a device to apogee where a nuclear detonation would trigger a burst of electromagnetic energy that could have devastating effects on our electric grid and country.  The one missing ingredient would appear to be a serviceable nuclear weapon. And, thanks to Team Obama, that may also be in the mullahs’ hands in short order.

America is being put at risk by Barack Obama’s serial national security fraud. Will he be held accountable for it, and corrective actions taken, before we are afflicted by the predictable consequences?

 

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

Now Bob Gates Tells Us

3667505510Center For Security Policy, By Frank Gaffney:

For most of the past five years, President Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of American national security policy, practice and capabilities has largely gotten a pass from the public, the press and even his political opponents. Indeed, his reelection in 2012 was made possible in no small measure by Team Obama’s substantially uncontested claims that his leadership had put al Qaeda “on the path to defeat,” “ended the war in Iraq” and successfully set the course for doing the same in Afghanistan.

Two developments last week may mark the beginning of a far more realistic view of the Obama record – and the opportunity, at last, for the sort of corrective actions that are long overdue.  Afghanistan features prominently in both.

First, selected pre-publication leaks of a new memoir by Mr. Obama’s first Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, offered authoritative insights into the politicized nature of the administration’s decision-making on Afghanistan and other security issues. The Commander-in-Chief is shown to profoundly distrust the military. He and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledge playing politics with U.S. policy on Iraq. And Vice President Biden and the recently departed National Security Advisor Tom Donilon are shown to be seriously lacking in judgment, at best, and utterly incompetent at worst.  Of Biden, Gates correctly points out that he has been “wrong about every major foreign policy issue for forty years.”

Gates’ book, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, rocketed to the best-seller lists as pundits and politicians parsed its criticisms of his former boss and colleagues. Particularly noteworthy are his accounts of the fury he claims to have felt at White House officials’ “aggressive, suspicious and sometimes condescending and insulting questioning of our military leaders.” Team Obama’s micromanagement led to “breaches of faith” with the armed forces that have, in turn, contributed to the unraveling of our position in Afghanistan at the hands of a President who lost confidence in the mission and undermined those responsible for carrying it out.

Such behavior at the highest levels of the U.S. government is even more appalling in light of the second major Afghan-related event of the week: the release of “Lone Survivor,” a powerful account of the courage, skill and valor of American warriors in the crucible of a 2005 special operations mission gone bad.  What makes this film so impactful is not merely its vivid portrayal of the ruthless and relentless Islamist foes we face in that theater (and elsewhere), but its recounting of the decency and morality of the forces we ask to defend us against them.  Those qualities cost all but one of the SEAL reconnaissance team and many others who tried to rescue them to be killed in action.

As it happens, the Gates book and new movie appear just as the consequences of President Obama’s preposterous claim to have unilaterally ended the war in Iraq become palpable.  Cities and regions of that country that were secured from jihadists at enormous cost in the lives of American servicemen and national treasure have, in our absence, once again fallen to the enemy.

Worse yet, the same outcome is now in prospect with respect to Afghanistan.  With strong support from Joe Biden, Mr. Obama is planning to withdraw all U.S. combat forces from that country by year’s end.  It remains to be seen whether the Afghans agree to allow some vestigial presence thereafter. But the die is cast:  A lack of presidential confidence in and support for the mission of preventing the Taliban, al Qaeda and other jihadists from once again enjoying safe haven in that country will ensure that those like the fallen in Lone Survivor’s ill-fated Operation Red Wings will have died in vain.

It didn’t have to be this way.  Had President Obama not serially communicated weakness and irresolution, hollowed out the U.S. military, undermined it further with social engineering on matters ranging from gays in the military to women in combat and embraced some of the most dangerous of our Islamist enemies – including the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and even representatives of the Taliban, America’s security interests might not be in free-fall around the world today.

There is, therefore, no small irony in the current rap on Bob Gates’ book – from some Republican savants as well as the predictable Democratic partisans – namely, that he shouldn’t have published it until after the end of the Obama presidency in 2017.

To the contrary, it would have been far better if Mr. Gates had exposed his insights into what was happening to the common defense far earlier.

Indeed, one wonders:  If Bob Gates had resigned over the practices and conduct we are now told infuriated him, instead of staying in office and accommodating them, might his warnings have prevented, or at least substantially reduced, the wrecking operation that is currently devastating our all-volunteer force and putting our country and the rest of what’s left of the Free World in ever-greater jeopardy?

Secure Freedom Radio with John Guandolo: Raising a Jihadi Generation

CLICK HERE FOR AUDIO

download (65)John Guandolo discusses his new book, RAISING A JIHADI GENERATIONJohn is a former Marine Reconnaissance Officer who served as a commissioned officer and Platoon Commander in both the 2nd Force Reconnaissance Company and 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marines, leading his infantry unit through combat operations in the Persian Gulf War.  He has also served the FBI as a Subject Matter Expert in the Counter Terrorism Division (CTD), SWAT Team Leader, and a Special Agent for 12 years.   From his perspective in the national security community, John recounts the pervasive political correctness that that inhibits Federal law enforcement from understanding and strategically responding to the threat of Islamist terrorism in the United States.

Visit his website at Understanding The Threat

 

We’re here to kill Americans

2036408811 (1)CSP, By Frank Gaffney:

On October 27th, CBS News’ “60 Minutes” led its program with a fresh look at what happened in the run-up to and during the nighttime attack on two U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya.  The leitmotif of the report was a statement made by the jihadists as they beat hapless unarmed Libyans who were, somehow, supposed to have protected the interior of the so-called “Special Mission Compound”:  “We’re here to kill Americans.”

And kill they did.  Four Americans were murdered, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, who had warned superiors repeatedly about the inadequate security of the installation in which he died, by some accounts after being tortured and raped.  More of our countrymen would likely have met a similar fate but for the unauthorized intervention and heroics of two former Navy SEALS, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, who subsequently were killed in action.

Amb. Stevens was not the only one who had warned about the dangerous vulnerability of an American outpost in a city increasingly manifesting the presence of al Qaeda elements – including by the flying of the terrorist group’s black flag on government buildings.  In fact, similar warnings were also sounded by several others interviewed for the 60 Minutes segment, notably: a British security contractor tasked in the five months leading up the September 11th with managing the impotent Libyan “security force” inside the wire; Amb. Stevens Number 2 in Tripoli, Deputy Chief of Mission Greg Hicks; and Lieutenant Colonel Andy Wood, a Green Beret who was charged at the time with protecting U.S. personnel in Libya.

As Col. Wood put it: “We had one option: Leave Benghazi or you will be killed.”  He told 60 Minutes that he had recommended to the embassy’s senior staff known as the “country team” in Tripoli that they “change the security profile [in Benghazi]…Shut down operations. Move out temporarily. Or change locations within the city.  Do something to break up the profile because you are being targeted.”  The reason: “You are gonna be attacked in Benghazi.”

Mr. Hicks added that a “particularly frightening piece of information” compounded his concerns about security when the embassy learned, as 60 Minutes put it, that “senior al Qaeda leader Abu Anas al-Libi was in Libya, tasked by the head of al Qaeda to establish a clandestine terrorist network inside the country.”

The 60 Minutes report adds texture to the astounding malfeasance of the Obama administration as it ignored these warnings in the months leading up to the attack and set up Americans for murder at the hands of jihadists.  But it failed to even ask, let alone answer, several of the most pregnant outstanding questions.  These include:

  • Why were the Special Mission Compound and CIA annex in Benghazi in the first place, let alone in such an insecure status?  Was it to facilitate the collection and onward shipment to Syrian “rebels” – known to include al Qaeda and elements loyal to it – of arms recovered after Muammar Qaddafi’s weapons caches were “liberated” by jihadist “rebels” in Libya?
  • Why was Amb. Stevens in that exposed facility in a city awash with al Qaeda on a particularly dangerous day for Americans?  Why especially since al Qaeda’s leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had called on his followers the day before to retaliate for a U.S.- engineered assassination of a top member of the group, Libyan jihadist Abu Yahya al-Libi?
  • If, as has been widely reported, Amb. Stevens was in Benghazi because a gun-running operation from there to Syria had been compromised and he needed to do damage-control, why would al Qaeda have attacked the facilities from which it was being armed?  The Iranians would have had a motive, but not al Qaeda.  Was the attack initiated by Tehran and the Sunni jihadists went along with it just so they could “kill Americans”?
  • Who was responsible for the false narrative that the Benghazi “consulate” (actually the Special Mission Compound) was sacked and set afire by a mob angry about an internet video?  Could it have been the same person(s) who prevented security from being upgraded in the interest of showing the success of Team Obama’s toppling of Qaddafi and perhaps the one(s) who thought it a good idea to help arm “the opposition” – including al Qaeda-linked militias – first in Libya, then in Syria?
  • Where were Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton during this seven-hour battle in Benghazi?

These are the sorts of questions that will, at this point, probably only be answered by a select House committee – something sought by Rep. Frank Wolf (Republican of Virginia) and 176 other members of the House of Representatives.  It is scandalous that they have not been satisfactorily addressed before now by the five standing committees that have, to date, been conducting desultory and inconclusive inquiries.  Since the jihadists are “here to kill Americans,” we are on notice that persisting in such willful blindness and a lack of accountability is an invitation to disaster.

Worse yet, as Representatives Bill Goodlatte and Jason Chaffetz (Republicans of Virginia and Utah, respectively) have learned, the Department of Homeland Security is preparing to “lift the longstanding prohibition on Libyans to come to the U.S. to work in aviation maintenance, flight operations, or to seek study or training in nuclear science.”  Why on earth would they do that? Evidently, to show that U.S.-Libyan ties have been “normalized.” Sound familiar?

If we don’t want jihadists literally here to kill us, we better stop them elsewhere.  And getting to the bottom of Benghazigate is a necessary step towards doing that.

Frank Gaffney, Pamela Geller, Prof. Matusitz, Bill Murray- Islamic Doctrine Vs. U.S. National Security

download (3)

 

This is a VERY GOOD panel discussion with an excellent question and answer period. Set aside some time to watch the whole thing. A wide number of issues are discussed.

 

 

Published on Apr 28, 2013

Panel Discussion – Radical Islam and U.S. National Security – Orlando, FL 4/20/2013

Frank Gaffney – Moderator, Pamela Geller, Jonathan Matusitz, and William J. Murray.

The Liberty Counsel at their annual Awakening event brought together the most recognizable names in the country on Islamic Doctrine and Theology together for a panel discussion that will impact every American.

America is still processing the Boston Marathon Jihadi attacks and exactly what happened. The Mainstream press has done a disservice to the American people in they’re reporting of this attack on America. Many would also say the Boston Marathon operation was an act of war.

Frank Gaffney – Former Asst under Secretary of Defense
Pamela Geller – nationally known activist, author, and critic of Islamic docrine.
Dr. Jonathan Matusitz – UCF Professor and expert on Terrorism
William J. Murray – Religious scholar

These four individuals will give you four different perspectives from their unique life experiences on Jihad, Islam, Capitalism, and American exceptionalism.

You will learn that Islam is a political ideology like communism, socialism, totalitarianism, and Nazism. Islam also has a small religious element with set rituals that creates much confusion for the Western mind.

You will learn that in Islam there is No Separation of Mosque and State rendering the ideology incompatible with our secular separation of Faith and State at its basic foundation.

Listen to Gaffney, Geller, Matusitz, and Murray as they will give you an advanced degree on Islamic Doctrine and Theology you will not get anywhere else.

The New Islamic Republic of America?

-2132718691Secure Freedom Radio with Frank Gaffney:

Listen to the Podcast here

Lieutenant General (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, former US Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, joins Frank for the entire show to help shed some light on the most important issues that the United States is currently faced with, including the very real and immediate threat that has befallen Americans with the ongoing Islamization of America, and the current administration’s policy of ignorance towards the dangers that radical Islam pose. Gen. Boykin reflects on the Extortion 17 case, a tragic incident that befell Seal Team Six that killed several of the team’s members, and also gives Frank and his listeners a look at the past with his sobering personal account of what happened the last time the Armed Forces were hollowed out.

 

Also see:

LYONS: Dereliction of duty – Obama policy of ‘leading from behind’ looks like switching sides (washingtontimes.com)

Connecting the Dots 101

-213433477By Frank Gaffney:

The dramatic events in Boston last week have given rise to what President Obama would call a “teachable moment.”  The question is, will we “connect the dots”?  And, more to the point, will our leaders, the media and the rest of us have the intellectual integrity and courage to learn the evident lessons?

The initial indicators are not encouraging. We now know that, despite the unconcealed hopes of some elected officials, elite journalists and most especially the self-appointed arbiters of “hatred” – the hate-mongering Southern Poverty Law Center, the perpetrators of murderous attacks at the Boston Marathon and in the days that followed turned out not to be white Christian or anti-tax extremists, but Caucasians of a very different stripe.  Yet, their true character and motivations continue to be obscured.

In fact, Timerlan and Dhozkhar Tsarnaev were jihadists, born in the turbulent Russian republic of Chechnya – a honing fire for terror-wielding Islamists – and named, respectively for prominent figures in that movement’s distant and more recent past.

Here’s what we have learned from this episode that is highly instructive about the wider war we are in:

  • The Tsarnaev brothers became “radicalized” as they embraced their Muslim faith.  The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that their mother encouraged this course, that the elder boy brought along his younger sibling and that they attended the Islamic Society of Boston/ISB.  As a powerful video produced by Americans for Peace and Tolerance makes clear, the ISBCC is closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood – a group that seeks to impose its supremacist Islamic code of shariah worldwide.  Shariah commands its adherents to engage in or otherwise support jihad (or holy war).
  • Sources at the Tsaraevs’ mosque are spinning the press with stories that Timerlan was ejected at one point for challenging an imam’s endorsement of Martin Luther King. Also, shortly after the Marathon bombings, the ISBCC issued a press statement condemning the terrorist attack.  Yet, these deflections cannot be allowed to obscure the reality that this mosque – like many others in America – promotes shariah and jihadism.  (See the peer-reviewed study published in 2011 by the Middle East Quarterly in which a random sample of one hundred such institutions found that 80% of them are associated with both shariah and jihad.)  As such, mosques like the Islamic Society of Boston must be considered to be part of the problem.
  • The FBI interviewed Timerlan Tsarnaev in 2011 at the request of a Russian government evidently concerned about the jihadist inclinations of this Chechen expat.  The Bureau says it “did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign, and those results were provided to the [Russian] government in the summer of 2011.”  Unfortunately, this statement seems to say more about the politically imposed limitations on the Bureau’s ability to understand and identify the roots in jihad of such terrorism than provide an accurate assessment of the elder Tsaraev’s behavior.
  •  Among such political constraints is President Obama’s assiduous rejection of any  association between terrorism and Islam.  In fact, his administration has gone so far as to characterize the former as “violent extremism,” “man-caused disasters” and “workplace violence.”  In response, the FBI has purged its files of training materials that might “offend” Muslims. That would, it seems, include any information about the direct connection between shariah, jihad and “terrorism.”  Like other government agencies, moreover, the Bureau has been directed to consult with “community partners” – which seems to mean Muslim Brotherhood front organizations – before engaging trainers or their curricula.
  •  Then there is this:  In 2012, the FBI adopted “Guiding Principles” that say, among other things, that “mere association with organizations that demonstrates both legitimate (advocacy) and illicit (violent extremism) objectives should not automatically result in a determination that the associated individual is acting in furtherance of the organization’s illicit objective(s).”  In other words, Timerlan Tsarnaev could not be considered dangerous as long as his jihadist affiliates also engaged in “legitimate” (that is, non-violent) efforts to bring about the triumph of shariah.
  • This absurd justification apparently underpins as well the Obama administration’s engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood, both at home and abroad, resulting in the latter’s legitimation, empowerment, funding, arming and ascendancy – with our help – throughout the Sunni Muslim world.  The strategically disastrous consequences of this policy are now becoming manifest.

Given the foregoing problems, it is hardly surprising that the American people are largely uninformed about the true nature of the threat we are facing.  As a result, they are not being engaged, as they must be, in the defense of our republic against enemies foreign and domestic.

Read more at Center For Security Policy

Frank Gaffney: Is North Korea Planning to Launch EMP Attack?

emp-596x283


Frank Gaffney appeared on the Kudlow Report on CNBC to discuss North Korea. Amid heightened tensions on the Korean peninsula, the North Korean government told foreign governments to leave South Korean territory for their safety. Today, Kim Jong Un’s government may launch missiles in a provocative test.

Gaffney points out that Obama’s actions and rhetoric toward American nuclear disarmament is dangerous, and has contributed to North Korea’s aggressiveness. In addition, what’s the possibility of North Korea’s use of Electromagnetic Pulse attack?