Caroline Glick: A realistic alternative to the failed “Two-State Solution” (With Q&A)

Caroline Glick, Senior Contributing Editor, The Jerusalem Post; Author, The Israeli Solution: A One State Plan for Peace in the Middle East (Crown Forum, 2014); Adjunct Fellow, Center for Security Policy speaks at the Center for Security Policy’s National Security Group Lunch on Capitol Hill regarding a realistic alternative to the failed “Two-State Solution”

With introductions by Rep. Doug Lamborn (Colorado, 5th District), Member, House Armed Services Committee; Co-Chairman, Israel Allies Caucus; Co-Chairman, House Republican Israel Caucus; Co-Chairman, House Missile Defense Caucus

WATCH: ‘JEWS, BACK IN THE OVENS,’ ‘NUKE, NUKE ISRAEL’

Paris-Gaza-Protest_AFP

Breitbart: Operation Protective Edge: On today’s show, Jew-haters assemble all around the world to preach their “religion of love,” and sing, “from the river to the sea,” as a marching song to destroy Israel.

We look back at past Jew-hatred and hear loving chants like, “Jews go back in the ovens.” Barry Shaw runs into a bomb shelter in Netanya. Dr. Martin Sherman explains why the Israeli military policy is illogical and irresponsible. Tom Trento has some words of advice for Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The United West and Center for Security Policy present “Operation Protective Edge – An Inside Look: Destroy HAMAS.”

 

Washington Post Engages in Propaganda Exercise against Benghazi Conference

timthumb (7)Accuracy in Media, June 17, 2014, By James Simpson:

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank wrote a column on Monday titled “Heritage’s ugly Benghazi panel,” portraying a forum held the same day at the Heritage Foundation, hosted by the newly formedBenghazi Accountability Coalition, as nothing more than an anti-Islamic hate-fest. This was a serious panel with numerous, widelyrecognized experts, a couple of whom were also members of Accuracy in Media’s Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. CCB’s April report, “How America Switched Sides in the War on Terror,” madeinternational headlines.

That report took some serious skin. Diane Sawyer, Bob Woodward, and other stalwarts of the mainstream media, have taken Hillary Clinton to task over Benghazi. With Heritage and others now picking up the baton, something clearly needed to be done. They can’t have Hillary’s chances in 2016 threatened by that Benghazi “old news.” As Hillary herself said, “What difference, at this point, does it make!?”

Enter Dana Milbank, WaPo’s hit “journalist,” who sees Joseph McCarthy, and racist bigots behind every conservative door. He could not, and did not, dispute the facts raised during this afternoon-long forum. Instead he used a now-standard device of the left when confronted with uncomfortable truths. The discussion and topic was discredited by simply describing what was said in a presumptuous and mocking tone. It is a clever way to discredit facts in the reader’s mind without actually disputing the facts. So for example, he wrote:

“The session, as usual, quickly moved beyond the specifics of the assaults that left four Americans dead to accusations about the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrating the Obama administration, President Obama funding jihadists in their quest to destroy the United States, Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton attempting to impose Shariah blasphemy laws on Americans and Al Jazeera America being an organ of ‘enemy propaganda.’”

Most of the above, of course, is true. President Obama did fund the Libyan opposition, which was known to have al Qaeda ties, and those same jihadists turned around and attacked the Benghazi Special Mission Compound, killing Americans. He blatantly supported the Muslim Brotherhood in the misnamed Egyptian “Arab Spring” where one of America’s most reliable Muslim allies, Hosni Mubarak, was deposed.

Obama and Clinton are certainly doing nothing to stop the spread of Shariah in America, and the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the Obama administration.Another report out Monday quoted Mohamed Elibiary, an advisor to the Homeland Security Department and Muslim Brotherhood supporter, writing in a tweet, “As I’ve said b4, inevitable that ‘Caliphate’ returns…” Finally, anyone even remotely familiar with Al Jazeera knows it is an Islamist propaganda organ. The fact that it occasionally does a better job of reporting news than the American mainstream media is simply a reflection of just how bad the American media have become.

But apparently Milbank’s job is not to delve into the facts. Instead, his job is to discredit Obama’s detractors. So he used another standard leftist device as well. He found a convenient straight man to play the victim, innocently asking questions and making statements designed to provoke a predictable response, which could then be attacked with the usual leftist rhetoric. In this case, he utilized a Muslim woman named Saba Ahmed. He wrote, “Saba Ahmed, an American University law student, stood in the back of the room and asked a question in a soft voice…” He quoted her as saying:

“We portray Islam and all Muslims as bad, but there’s 1.8 billion followers of Islam… We have 8 million-plus Muslim Americans in this country and I don’t see them represented here.”

So, of course, the fact that the forum was not packed with Muslims implies it had to be biased. Substitute “white privilege,” “racism,” “McCarthyism,” or any of the other familiar leftist shibboleths. If you can’t discredit the message, smear the messengers. Ahmed also performed another, perhaps more important service, she changed the subject away from the disaster that was Benghazi and forced the panel to make it all about her bogus concerns.

As described by Milbank, one of the participants, Brigitte Gabriel, immediately “pounced” on Ahmed. Gabriel, who grew up in Lebanon during the civil war and saw first hand what the Islamists did there, founded Act for America to educate Americans on the threat from radical Islam.

Except that Gabriel didn’t pounce. She didn’t even respond. A partial video of the forum, posted at Media Matters of all places, and reposted at Mediaite.com revealed that instead, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney gave a very measured, careful and respectful response. Then Gabriel “pounced.” But even then she didn’t pounce at all. Finally, Milbank selectively edited Ahmed’s question as well. He mischaracterized the entire exchange, which was very respectful. Here is the video.

Milbank described Gabriel’s response to Ahmed as though it was the height of absurdity. He selectively reported her response that “180 million to 300 million” Muslims are “dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization,” that the “peaceful majority were irrelevant in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001… Most Germans were peaceful, yet the Nazis drove the agenda and as a result, 60 million died.”

This is all true as well. The peaceful Muslims—and there are no doubt many—are just as passive and impotent as everyday Germans were while the Nazis were killing Jews during WW II, but Milbank made it sound as though she had committed a crime: “she drew a Hitler comparison,” he gasped. What is wrong with that? It is a good analogy. He didn’t mention all the other analogies she drew, including mass murder committed by Japanese and Soviet communists, where the people were similarly powerless.

But we must ask a larger question. What was Saba Ahmed, the innocent, soft-spoken American University “student,” doing there? It turns out Ahmed is more than just a “student.” She has a lobbying firm in Washington, DC. She once ran for Congress while living in Oregon, where she went missing for three days over a failed relationship, according to family members.

She came to the aid of a family friend, the Christmas tree bomber, who attempted to set off a vanload of explosives in a downtown Portland park where Christmas revelers were celebrating. The bomb was actually a dummy, part of an FBI sting investigation.

After losing the Democratic primary, she even switched sides, becoming a registered Republican. But she never switched loyalties. She spoke against the war in Iraq at an Occupy rally in Oregon, has worked on the staff of Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy (VT) and has been a Democratic activist for a long time—not exactly the innocent “student” portrayed by Milbank. A 2011 article describing her odd Congressional campaign stated:

Ahmed, who says she’s been recently lobbying Congress to end U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, said that ‘Obviously I am not a traditional politician.’

Saba-AhmedObviously… Gabriel saw right through her act and confronted her. “Are you an American?” she asked, and told her that her “political correctness” belongs “in the garbage.”

Milbank characterized it all as a pile-on against this one meek, lone voice of reason. He went on to further ridicule the forum and its participants, observing among other things:

“[Talk show host and panel moderator, Chris] Plante cast doubt on whether Ambassador Chris Stevens really died of smoke inhalation, demanding to see an autopsy report.

(Many claim he was raped and tortured. An autopsy report would settle the issue, but of course the Obama administration won’t release it.)

“Gabriel floated the notion that Stevens had been working on a weapons-swap program between Libya and Syria just before he was killed.”

(That was apparently the real reason behind the entire fiasco.)

“Panelist Clare Lopez of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi said the perpetrators of the attack are ‘sipping frappes with journalists in juice bars.’”

This last comment was particularly outrageous. Milbank makes Lopez’s statement sound absurd, worthy of ridicule, but in fact CNN located the suspected ringleader of the terrorists involved in the Benghazi attack and interviewed him for two hours at a prominent hotel coffee bar in Benghazi. FBI Director James Comey was grilled in a Congressional hearing about it. Congressmen Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) demanded to know how CNN could locate the terrorists so easily while the FBI couldn’t. Just today it was reported that that same suspected ringleader of the attack on the compound in Benghazi, Ahmed Abu Khatallah, was captured in Libya and is being brought to the U.S. on a ship.

Lopez is a former career CIA case officer and expert on the Middle East. Yet here is Milbank trying to make her look like some kind of yahoo. But one doesn’t have to dig too deep to discover who the real yahoo is.

Milbank’s trump card was Ahmed. It was almost certainly a setup. Milbank found an activist he knew could play her part well. She feigned a humble, meek, ignorant college student who made a single observation and became the “victim,” whose harsh treatment Milbank could then excoriate, while discrediting a panel of distinguished experts that included Gabriel, Lopez, Andrew McCarthy—who prosecuted the case against the Blind Sheikh, the World Trade Center bombing mastermind—and many others.

Even Politico’s Dylan Byers and CNN’s Jake Tapper are calling foul:

Dylan Byers tweet

Tapper tweet

Meanwhile, the pink elephant in the room was the massive intelligence, military, foreign policy and leadership failure that Benghazi represents for the Obama administration, and by extension, the absolutely inexcusable incompetence—or worse—of Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

Like most of the Democrats’ media shills, Dana Milbank lies quite well, but they are lies nonetheless. We are well advised to recognize them as such. Hillary Clinton should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. She, along with Obama and many other Democrats, should instead find themselves under the microscope in a serious criminal investigation. I won’t hold my breath, however.

James Simpson is an economist, businessman and investigative journalist. His articles have been published at American Thinker, Accuracy in Media,Breitbart, PJ Media, Washington Times, WorldNetDaily and others. His regular column is DC Independent Examiner. Follow Jim on Twitter & Facebook

*************

 

Clare Lopez on – Barack, Bowe, Bin Laden

Published on Jun 6, 2014 by  J. Mark Campbell:

“CenterVision” is a new micro-series produced by The United West
which airs weekly. “CenterVision” will present a short, insightful
video analysis of critical national security issue featuring
subject-matter experts from the preeminent national security
think tank in Washington DC, The Center for Security Policy,
thus the name, “CenterVision.”

This week’s segment is entitled “Barack, Bowe, Bin Laden”
focusing on the absolute national security debacle occurring
in warp-speed at the White House. Our subject-matter expert
is the indefatigable, Clare Lopez, Vice President of
Research and Analysis at The Center for Security Policy.
In a former life, Clare retired from the Central Intelligence Agency
after an extremely successful, exciting and…errr…
let’s just say “spooky” twenty-year career.
Watch and listen carefully as Clare and Tom provide
a unique look into another of President Obama’s overt
efforts to transform America into the vanquished “colonizer”
he wants her to be!
Be sure to catch the somewhat humorous end of this short video where Tom (as President Obama) “Red Teams” the Bergdahl White House

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

CSP Intel Brief: helping Egyptians shut down the Muslim Brotherhood

Secure Freedom, Published on May 14, 2014

Center for Security Policy Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin joined a delegation to Egypt for a fact-finding tour where he met prominent anti-Muslim Brotherhood figures.

Stephen discussed his findings with Senior Fellow Fred Fleitz.

 

On the Ground in Egypt: Patrick Poole and Stephen Coughlin

Secure Freedom, Published on May 13, 2014

Recorded at Center for Security Policy’s National Security Group Lunch on Capitol Hill on Friday, 9 May, 2014

Patrick Poole, National Security and Terrorism Correspondent for PJ Media; and Stephen Coughlin, Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy

Topic: US Policy and Egyptian Counter-terrorism Efforts: Report on Recent Travels to Egypt

Intel Brief: the Obama administration “switched sides” in War on Terror

3895003860Center for Security Policy Senior Fellows bring of wealth of skills and experience to Center programs and initiatives. Two of those, Fred Fleitz and Clare Lopez, have applied their expertise to a continuing video project. Fleitz served in U.S. national security positions for 25 years at the CIA, DIA, Department of State and the House Intelligence Committee staff, while Lopez is a former 20-year career operations officer with the CIA, and a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies. Find their latest intelligence brief below:

Clare Lopez of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi: Obama Administration “Switched Sides” in Global War on Terror

See also Clare’s article at Accuracy in Media (AIM)Material Support to Terrorism: The Case of Libya 

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

1071364595

Center for Security Policy:

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

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

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

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

Highlights of the program included:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal Judge Sending “Muslim Mafia” Case to Trial

seh_darn_CAIR_300x188

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

American Freedom Law Center:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Order in ‘Muslim Mafia’ case exposes CAIR’s ‘shell game’

cair-340x161 (1)WND:

A lawsuit brought by the Council on American-Islamic Relations against investigators who probed the group’s connection to radical jihad and its founding as a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood is coming into sharper focus after an order today by a federal judge.

D.C. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly denied a motion by CAIR for summary judgment in the case, which would resolve it based on its merits, without a full trial. She also ordered that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part.

CAIR filed suit in 2009 against former federal investigator Dave Gaubatz and his son, Chris Gaubatz, after the two carried out an undercover investigation of the Islamic group. The Washington, D.C., think tank Center for Security Policy and three of its employees were later added to the suit for their part in commissioning a documentary about CAIR, along with attorney David Yerusalmi and his non-profit group SANE, which campaigns against the advance of Islamic law, or Shariah.

Evidence from the Gaubatzes’ investigation was published in the WND Books expose’ “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.” The book documents CAIR’s support of radical jihad, recounting its origin as a front group for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, the worldwide movement that has stated its intent to transform the U.S. into a Saudi-style Islamic state.

CAIR alleges it suffered damage after the younger Gaubatz, posing as an intern, obtained access to some 12,000 pages of CAIR internal documents under false pretenses and made recordings of officials and employees without consent.

‘Severe pruning’

Significantly, today’s order underscored CAIR’s formation of two separate legal entities that it has used interchangeably, the CAIR Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and the CAIR Action Network, a lobbying organization.

Attorney Daniel Horowitz, who represents the Gaubatzes, told WND the judge “did some severe tree pruning,” removing from the case claims by CAIR Action Network, the name CAIR uses but in actuality is just a shell.

“She left in CAIR Foundation, which has existed for ages but was not really used,” he explained.

Horowitz said the existence of the two CAIR entities “raises lots of issues of ownership and control.”

“Tax returns were filed in generic names without clearly reflecting which entity was filing. Meetings were held without clarification,” he noted.

Horowitz said it would be hard for CAIR to show damages to a “paper/shelf corporation,” which is why CAIR Action Network was removed.

David Yerushalmi, a defendant in the case who is a noted anti-Shariah activist, has explained that CAIR dissolved into two separate organizations after it faced accusations following 9/11 that it was funded by oil sheiks and other foreign supporters of terrorism.

Meanwhile, CAIR’s national organization in the nation’s capital continued to promote its organization as if it were a single entity founded in 1994.

Yerushalmi said CAIR used a maze of shell-corporations and several real estate holding companies to purchase properties with money from oil-rich sources in the Arab Gulf states.

The IRS was unaware, he said, that CAIR was operating a fraudulent scheme in which it sheltered millions of dollars of illicit funding by moving money between the shell corporations while insisting there is only one organization.

Horowitz said that, meanwhile, the CAIR Foundation, the entity that remains in the lawsuit, apparently has suffered no damages, and “the court is asking them to state the harms once and for all.”

Two counts of breach of contract brought by both CAIR Action Network and CAIR Foundation against all eight defendants were ruled out.

Not decided were accusations of conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, trespass, unjust enrichment, fraud and trade secret misappropriation.

Issues of electronic privacy and stored communications largely survived, Horowitz said, likely because public policy protects those interests regardless of a lack of damages.

“The court seems most concerned with the bigger picture issues,” he said.

Peeling away the layers

Yerushalmi said that as a result of CAIR’s “dizzying array of cover-ups and fraudulent activities,” it “has no coherent basis for explaining the structure and nature of its operations, much less the status of Chris Gaubatz when he interned with the organization.”

He explained that CAIR has claimed all along that Chris Gaubatz interned with CAIR Action Network but he insisted that’s impossible, because CAIR Action Network “is a shell organization without any staff or operations.”

In the course of the litigation, CAIR, with the court poised to dismiss the lawsuit, changed its claim, contending that Chris Gaubatz actually interned with CAIR Foundation.

Yerushalmi made a comparison to the current IRS scandal.

“While the IRS has been busy harassing conservatives, pro-Israel Jewish organizations and Catholic charities, they have essentially turned a blind eye to CAIR, which has been running a money laundering scheme over several years by, among other things, siphoning money from abroad and hiding it within their various entities,” he said.

Yerushalmi said the discovery process and the forced production of documents brought about through the nearly five-year court battle “has peeled the layers of the onion off by uncovering CAIR’s dangerous agenda, which poses a real threat to our national security.”

Read more at WND

Buy the Book:

download (89)Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America

 

CPAC’s Blind Spot

3235888515By Frank Gaffney:

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

The rest of us would call it the national security.

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

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

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

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

Read more at Center for Security Policy

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

SEN. DAVID VITTER TO KEYNOTE ‘UNINVITED II’, NEW GUESTS AND PANELS ANNOUNCED

20140302_Slider_EMPact_Natl_Sec_ActionSummit_3614Breitbart, by :

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) will deliver a keynote address on the dangers of granting amnesty to illegal aliens at “The Uninvited II: The National Security Action Summit” during CPAC, Breitbart News Network is proud to announce.

Co-hosting the event alongside EMPAct America and the Center for Security Policy, Breitbart News Network will present the second annual installment of the “Uninvited” event—this year a full day of events and speakers rather than just one panel—at the Westin Hotel at National Harbor all day Thursday, from 8 AM until after 4 PM. Tickets are available for free but prior registration is required at HomelandThreats.com.

First elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Vitter is known for being as vicious a fighter against amnesty as Senate Budget Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL). He has offered scores of amendments and pieces of legislation to counteract efforts from Democrats and Republicans to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.

Breitbart News is also proud to announce that Rep. Steve King (R-IA) will also speak on the topic of amnesty at the “Uninvited II.” Additionally, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) will speak on how big a threat to America’s national security the national debt presents.

Newly announced speakers also include former George W. Bush administration Western Hemisphere foreign policy official and current American Enterprise Institute fellow Amb. Roger Noriega; Judicial Watch’s top investigator Chris Farrell; American Foreign Policy Council president Herman Pirchner; Foundation for the Defense of Democracies national security expert Sebastian Gorka; former CIA agent Clare Lopez; and the Heritage Foundation’s Ariel Cohen. In addition, Breitbart News Network Senior Editor-at-Large Joel Pollak will speak, as will retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Bob Newman, Amb. Hank Cooper, and EMPAct America president Dr. Peter Pry.

Also revealed today are panel presentations and topics at the “Uninvited II” event that include “The Common Defense Endangered: The Case for Peace Through Strength 2.0,” and a panel focused on the crisis unfolding in the Ukraine right now, titled “Crisis in the Ukraine: Putin’s Bid for USSR 2.0 and the Needed U.S. Response.” There will also be a panel focused on efforts to protect America’s power grids by pointing out vulnerabilities.

As Breitbart News reported earlier this week, other speakers who will present at the “Uninvited II” include Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Trent Franks (R-AZ), and Jim Bridenstine (R-OK). Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey will also speak, as will several retired military generals, commanders, and admirals, former members of Congress, and anti-amnesty and pro-military grassroots activists.

Update: TED CRUZ TO SPEAK AT ‘THE UNINVITED II: THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION SUMMIT’

Judge Jeanine: “Lights Out: Danger to U.S. Power Grid”

CSP, Justice with Judge Jeanine devoted an hour-long special to the many dangerous threats to the US electric grid, including EMP attack, solar flares, and insecure transformers.

 

 

Available at Amazon:

Guilty Knowledge: What the US Government Knows about the Vulnerability of the Electric Grid, But Refuses to Fix (Center for Security Policy Archival Series)