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)

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

download (70)

Sign the Petition to Protect the Grid!

For background see Jerry Gordon’s article at NER:

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

 

Jeanine Pirro is helping to get the message out:

 

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

Woolsey: EMP catastrophe worse than effects of nuclear war:

 

The full video of the event can be viewed here

Obama’s Nuclear ‘Perfect Storm’

1950158182Center For Security Policy, By Frank Gaffney:

America is confronting a very dangerous nuclear “perfect storm.”  You might be forgiven for thinking that prospect has sufficient importance to warrant mention in President Obama’s State of our Union.  But, if past experience is any guide, it probably won’t make the cut in a speech with an Alinskyite focus on persuading the public and his Republican opponents that the greatest threat the country faces is “income inequality.”

Reality must intrude, however, on such cynical political machinations.  Consider the following elements of this perfect storm:

  • The Washington Free Beacon reports that a Defense Science Board task force has completed a three-year review of U.S. intelligence capabilities with respect to emerging nuclear threats and found them seriously wanting.  The Beacon’s Adam Kredo says the DSB found that: “‘The nation is not yet organized or fully equipped’ to detect clandestine nuclear activities across the globe, and in most cases ‘current solutions are either inadequate, or more often, do not exist.’”

This conclusion is all the more alarming given the current strategic environment. The panel concluded: “The actual or threatened acquisition of nuclear weapons by more actors – with a range of motivations, capabilities and approaches – is emerging in numbers not seen since the early days of the Cold War.  Many of these actors are hostile to the U.S. and its allies, and of greater worry, they do not appear to be bound by established norms, nor are they deterred by traditional means.”

Think about that the next time – presumably in Mr. Obama’s State of the Union address – the President claims his seriously defective deal with Iran will curb its bid for the Bomb.  The truth is that we have no clue about the extent of the mullahs’ covert nuclear weapons program, let alone any reason to believe it will be impacted at all by the terms of an agreement that covers only a few declared facilities and only in ways that are readily reversible.

  • It seems certain that those intelligence deficiencies will only grow as President Obama further compromises our collection policies, practices and capabilities.  As a new study by the Center for Security Policy’s Fred Fleitz and Clare Lopez points out, that is the inevitable effect of his affording many foreign leaders and even “ordinary people” the privacy rights heretofore reserved for American citizens and persons.

The question occurs: Will our spies and intelligence agencies find it still more difficult to perform the mission of ferreting out what enemies are doing to ready electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and other nuclear threats for possible use against us?

  • Speaking of EMP, Americans have lately been getting a much-needed crash-course on the existential danger it poses to our country and population.  With the enthusiastic support of a new EMP Coalition chaired by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Clinton Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, Bret Baier and Judge Jeanine Pirro of Fox News last week aired must-see-TV segments about this threat.  They exposed the damage Iran or other actors could inflict on the United States by taking down its electric grid, possibly with the EMP unleashed by a single high-altitude nuclear detonation. Do you think Mr. Obama will mention that threat to our Union – or the fact that we need to harden our grid against the certainty that intense solar flaring will at some point in the future cause similar effects?
  • Mr. Obama is also unlikely to address another element of the nuclear perfect storm: the free-fall being experienced by America’s deterrent to nuclear and other threats. In the wake of a series of performance, readiness and disciplinary problems with personnel manning some of the nation’s intercontinental ballistic missiles, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel recently issued an all-hands-on-deck memorandum to the Pentagon leadership.

The Secretary’s memo read, in part: “Personnel failures within this force threaten to jeopardize the trust the American people have placed in us to keep our nuclear weapons safe and secure.”  It went on to lay out an “action plan” to try to remedy the situation, which included this directive to the senior occupants of the E-Ring: “Examine the underlying leadership and management principles governing the strategic deterrence enterprise and the health of the culture that implements those principles.”

Mr. Hagel’s initiative is certainly welcome, the more so for its coming from a man who, until recently, was a champion of “Global Zero” – the reckless and truly insidious campaign to take down the U.S. nuclear arsenal, on the bizarre theory that other nations will then follow our example.

  • Unfortunately, the most serious “underlying leadership and management” problem confronting America’s strategic deterrence enterprise today is the Commander-in-Chief’s continuing adherence to his policy of “ridding the world of nuclear weapons,” starting with ours.  Unless and until he makes clear his commitment to maintaining and modernizing our deterrent, it will continue to unravel as a result of demoralized personnel, obsolescing weapon systems and ever more emboldened adversaries.

The State of the Union would be a perfect vehicle to announce such a commitment and to rally the Congress and the American people to the task of contending with the emerging nuclear perfect storm.  Will President Obama follow the lead of his Defense Secretary and do so?

 

See also:

Gathering Storms: The Iranian Drive for Nuclear Weapons

Sand-in-HourglassBy Andrew Harrod:

“Iran is now at the last lap of the nuclear marathon,” Ambassador Yoram Ettinger, former Israeli Minister for Congressional Affairs, stated during a January 14, 2014, conference call.  Sponsored by the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET) after a January 8 EMET/Center for Security Policy (CSP) panel on Iran (video here), the two policy discussions highlighted growing dangers from an uncontained Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Nuclear weapons were part of an Iranian “long term strategic vision” dating from the 1980s, Lebanese-American Middle East scholar Walid Phares explained at the Russell Senate Office Building.  Along with these “fissiles,” Iran was developing missiles as weapons delivery vehicles, an arsenal currently capable of striking Israel and in the future targets like Moscow.  Iran’s Islamic Republic “perceived itself as a superpower” challenging infidels such as the Israeli “Little Satan” and the American “Greater Satan” with an international revolution analogous to Soviet Communism. The subsequent presentation by Andrew Bostom on canonical Islamic anti-Semitism recurring throughout history emphasized the troubling ideological nature of the Islamic Republic.

There is in Iran currently, however, “nothing to compare” with Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms, Phares determined.  Despite contrary hopes, Iran betrays the “opposite of reform.”  Phares dismissed impressions of Islamic Republic moderation as manifesting how this regime is “not predictable on the tactical level” while maintaining a consistent strategic vision.  The Islamic Republic is willing to go “very far” in the name of pragmatism and “sell you anything.”  Iran, for example, is currently claiming to be “part of the war on terror” alongside the United States in opposing Al Qaeda in Iraq, a “narrative” of “common enemies” designed to impress “Ivy League experts.”  Yet “there is no difference” between the infamous Islamic Republic founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and the current Islamic Republic Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Phares’ fellow panelist, the former Central Intelligence Agency officer and CSP fellow Clare Lopez, similarly rejected prospects of the Islamic Republic reforming.  Contrary to “people with stars in their eyes,” current Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is not any moderate but rather a “long term insider of the regime.” Among other things, Rouhani helped plot the 1994 Buenos Aires Jewish cultural center bombing.  Ettinger likewise described Rouhani as a “con artist” and “master of taqiyya” who had been “misleading the world community for ten years” as Iran’s nuclear negotiator.  Lopez also dismissed any debates in the Iranian parliament or majlis over the November 24, 2013, Iranian nuclear agreement between “hardliner” and “moderate” elements as merely “theater” for foreigners.

Deceit, rather than reform, is far more likely coming from the Islamic Republic, in accord with the canonical saying of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (hadith) cited by Lopez that “war is deceit” (Bukhari 4.52.269).  Former Rouhani adviser Mohammad Sadeq Al-Hosseini’s televised description of the nuclear deal as emulating the treacherous 628 Hudaybiyya truce made by Muhammad emphasized such calculations for Lopez.  Given past Iranian concealment of nuclear facilities at Lavizan-Shian and Parchin to avoid international inspections noted by her, the Islamic Republic had a proven track record of duplicity.

Phares additionally analyzed how the late Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi’s failure to acquire nuclear weapons led the Islamic Republic to develop regime defenses before obtaining nuclear weapons.  Thus Iran is seeking to consolidate a “geographic space” from Afghanistan to Lebanon, including a NATO-like alliance formed with “Papa Assad,” Syrian ruler Bashar Assad’s father and predecessor Hafiz. While this alliance allows for Iranian penetration of Lebanon through Hezbollah, Iran has also made its influence felt in Africa and Latin America.

Distressing to Phares, President Barack Obama’s administration actually looks to Shiite Iranian influence along with that of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood (MB) to stabilize the Middle East.  A key “benchmark” for Phares was Obama’s recognition of continuing Islamic Republic rule by not supporting the 2009 Green Revolution that came “very close” to “shaking off” the Iranian regime. The 2013 nuclear deal now implies “recognition of influence in the region” for Iran in places like Syria, an “undeclared Yalta agreement” in return merely for Iran’s promise to abandon nuclear weapons.  “Why on Earth did we partner with the Ikhwan” or (MB) in Egypt, an astonished Phares asked, while noting Lebanon’s 2005 Cedar Revolution and the Green Revolution as examples of pro-democratic movements with which the United States could ally.

“We betrayed them in 2009” and “unfortunately failed to support them in any way,” was also how the Iran expert Michael Ledeen described American policy towards the Green Revolution during the conference call with Ettinger.  Yet the Islamic Republic is a “hollow regime…quite clearly terrified” of opposition movements in Ledeen’s judgment, contrary to assessments of the regime as stable.  Islamic Republic repression of public gatherings and intellectuals reminds Ledeen “a lot of the last days of the Soviet Union.”  Indeed, current Iranian opposition movements are “much bigger” than past Soviet dissident groups and Iranian security services are not as effective as their former Soviet counterparts like the KGB. The “Iranian people do not like this regime,” Ledeen concludes, something Rouhani’s ultimately empty “great reputation as a reformer” has not changed.

“Bring it down…support the Iranian people,” is thus Ledeen’s policy recommendation for regime change in Iran.  In fact, this “third option” between eventual acceptance of Iranian nuclear weapons and any military counter-proliferation strike is the only viable long term Iran strategy.  Yet the “folly” of the American government not contacting Iranian opposition figures amazed Ledeen, who himself regularly communicates with them.  “If I can contact them, believe me the American government can contact them,” Ledeen says.

Read more at Front Page

EMET/CSP panel addresses the question “What are Iran’s True Intentions”

download (55)Center For Security Policy, Published on Jan 16, 2014

As the Obama Administration continues to move forward negotiating with Iran, there has been little attention paid to the underlying motivations of the Islamic Republic of Iran. What is the Iranian end game? What are the ideological motivators of the Islamic regime in its conflict with the United States of America and Israel? Are the genocidal threats issued by Iranian leaders to”wipe Israel off the map” and achieve a “world without America” only posturing? Or are these goals the Iranian regime is committed to achieving?

EMET and the Center for Security Policy have put together a great panel of experts to address these questions and answer, what are Iran’s true intentions?

 Introduction

Walid Phares

Dr. Walid Phares serves as an Advisor to the Anti-Terrorism Caucus in the US House of Representatives and is a Co-Secretary General of the Transatlantic Legislative Group on Counter Terrorism, a Euro-American Caucus, since 2009. Dr Phares briefs and testify to the US Congress, the European Parliament and the United Nations Security Council on matters related to international security and Middle East conflict. He has served on the Advisory Board of the Task Force on Future Terrorism of the Department of Homeland Security and the Advisory Task force on Nuclear Terrorism. Dr Phares teaches Global Strategies at the National Defense University. He has published several books in English, Arabic and French including the latest three post-9/11 volumes: Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West; The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy and The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.

Clare Lopez

Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on national defense, Islam, Iran, and counterterrorism issues. Currently a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, The Clarion Project, the London Center for Policy Research, and the Canadian Meighen Institute and vice president of the Intelligence Summit, she formerly was a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee from 2005-2006. Ms. Lopez is a regular contributor to print and broadcast media on subjects related to Iran and the Middle East and the co-author of two published books on Iran. She is the author of an acclaimed paper for the Center, The Rise of the Iran Lobby and co-author/editor of the Center’s Team B II study, “Shariah: The Threat to America”.

Andrew Bostom

Dr. Andrew Bostom is the author of the highly acclaimed works The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: from Sacred Text to Solemn History, Sharia Versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism and the recent monograph The Mufti’s Islamic Jew-Hatred: What the Nazis Learned from the “Muslim Pope.” Dr. Bostom’s forthocoming monograph is entitled, Iran’s Final Solution for Israel: The Legacy of Shi’ite Islamic Jew-Hatred in Iran. Dr. Bostom has published numerous articles and commentaries on Islam in the New York Post, Washington Times, The New York Daily News, Pajamas Media, National Review Online, The American Thinker, FrontPage Magazine.com, and other print and online publications. More on Andrew Bostom’s work can be found at his:http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/

Mark Langfan

Mark Langfan is a noted security analyst who in 1991 created a 3 dimensional topographic raised-relief map system of Israel. Viewing the 3D Israel map one can easily and quickly be informed of many of the underlying resource and security issues involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict such as West Bank water resources and Israeli ‘defensible’ borders. Over the past 20 years, Mark has briefed many Congressional and Senate offices, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Israel Desk, and the New York Times Editorial Board. Mark wrote and published seminal articles concerning the Israeli/Middle East region including the 1992 “Demilitarization Risks” warning of future Palestinian Katyusha rocket barrages from vacated Israeli territory, the 1995 “US Troops on Golan Quicksand” warning of the unique topographic dangers of deploying US Troops to the Golan Heights, and the 2006 “Iran: The 4th Reichastan” exposing the Iranian arming of Iraqi Insurgents against US forces, and of Iran’s other regional and strategic goals. Mark has published numerous articles in newspapers and security journal. For more information visit www.marklangfan.com.

This presentation by Mark Langfan with Erick Stakelbeck shows the maps better:

Islamist Ties of Senior DHS Official Alarms Arab Media

Mo. El.

Either President Obama is truly that ignorant, or the U.S. government has struck an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood to control the Middle East and to stop them from targeting America.

BY RYAN MAURO:

A popular Arab television program is bringing attention to the Clarion Project’s research on the Islamist ties of a senior Department of Homeland Security official. This begs the question: Why is the Arab media more concerned about pro-Muslim Brotherhood influence in the U.S. than the American media?

The segment appeared on Al-Hayat TV (and was uploaded on another organization’s  YouTube channel). According to an Egyptian friend of the Clarion Project, the Arab show was alarmed by our reporting on Mohamed Elibiary, a senior Department of Homeland Security advisor that is vocally in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Al-Hayat references (at 47:00), a 37-page annotated interview I conducted with Elibiary that was jointly published by Clarion Project, the Center for Security Policy and the Institute on Religion and Democracy.

In October, Clarion Project published 15 disturbing facts about Elibiary taken from the lengthy report. One fact specifically mentioned in the Arab television segment is that Elibiary is linked to the Holy Land Foundation, a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood front that was shut down for financing Hamas.

The Egyptian show was also shocked by our report on how the Department of Homeland Security issued training guidelines that shield Elibiary’s U.S. Muslim Brotherhood allies and sideline their Muslim and non-Muslim opponents.

Read more at Clarion Project

Obama on National Security: Serial Fraud

fraud

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

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

Send an email to President Obama

 

 

Transcript: Obama on National Security: Serial Fraud

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

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

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

American Betrayal 2.0

2947115834By Frank Gaffney at CSP:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt should have described November 16, 1933 as a day that will live in infamy.  As syndicated columnist Diana West notes in her splendid new book,American Betrayal, that date marked the beginning of a sustained and odious practice of our government lying to us about the Russians.  It appears that the Obama administration is determined to perpetrate a reprise of this practice.  Call it American Betrayal 2.0.

According to Ms. West, the betrayal syndrome began when FDR normalized relations with the Soviet Union on the basis of a written promise from the Kremlin not to subvert the United States.  Of course, the Soviets lied.  But, for years thereafter, so did our own government – with horrific effects – by insisting the Soviets were reliable friends, and even wartime allies.

Sound familiar?  Today, Team Obama is engaging in its own, serial and disastrous betrayals – from promising you can keep your health care to a deal that will allow Iran to keep its nuclear weapons program.  But two others regarding the Russians warrant special attention.

First, the New York Times reported on the eightieth anniversary of the infamous normalization deal (without, of course, noting the irony) that the U.S. Department of State was beavering away at a new arrangement that would allow half-a-dozen Russian facilities to be installed across the United States.  Ostensibly, these sites would be used to help the Kremlin build-out and operate its so-called Glonass satellite system, a counterpart to and competitor with America’s Global Positioning System (GPS).

There are several things wrong with this picture.  First, it is not clear why we would want to help the Russians compete with the GPS.  Second, the practical effect of the Red Army having its own global positioning system is that it may make ours a more certain target in the event of any future hostilities between us, or perhaps even between the United States and Russian clients.

Then, there is the problem that Glonass signals may interfere with those controlling our GPS satellites, especially if the Russian ground stations might be in proximity to the American ones.  Another serious concern has to be precisely what electronic equipment the Russians will put into these facilities.  Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, chairman of the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee, recently wrote three agency heads out of concern that, among other things, some of such gear might not actually be needed for Glonass – but be useful for espionage, electronic warfare or other activities inimical to our security.

According to the Times report: “For the State Department, permitting Russia to build the stations would help mend the Obama administration’s relationship with the government of President Vladimir V. Putin, now at a nadir because of Moscow’s granting asylum to Mr. Snowden and its backing of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.”

It is a travesty, but in keeping with past betrayals of America, that our State Department – presumably, with White House approval – believes that we need to make further concessions in response to bad behavior by the Kremlin.  The outrageousness of such an idea is compounded by the fact that the folks in Foggy Bottom neglected to secure its approval from either the Defense Department or the intelligence community.  Both are reportedly up in arms about it – as indeed they should be.  But will they prevail?

At the same time, the Obama administration has another betrayal in the works.  This one involves not only the nation as a whole, but several of its Democratic allies in the United States Senate.

It seems that Team Obama is intent on dismantling at least one squadron of fifty Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles as its preferred approach to meeting the reductions in nuclear forces required by the seriously defective New START Treaty with Russia.  A timeline provided to Congress indicates that, in order for that to happen by the “treaty compliance date” of February 5, 2018, the Air Force needs to begin the lengthy decommissioning process by launching an environmental impact assessment next month.

This should be a shock to Senators Max Baucus and John Tester of Montana and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.  They were assured by President Obama that the ICBM forces like those located in Montana and commanded by the Global Strike Command in Louisiana would not be affected by New START.  It was on the basis of such assurances that all three Senators voted for that accord.

These legislators and their colleagues from the other ICBM basing states – Republican John Hoeven and Democrat Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Republicans Mike Enzi and John Barrasso of Wyoming – should take the lead in amending the National Defense Authorization Act scheduled to be considered on the Senate floor this week to ensure that, as the President promised, the land-based leg of our nuclear Triad is not further weakened.  That is especially advisable at a time when the Russians are aggressively beefing up their nuclear threat to this country and its allies.

America needs a reset, alright.  It should feature not further concessions to the Russians, however, but an end to the betrayals of our people to the benefit of the Kremlin that have been perpetrated now for eighty years.  No more.

Video: The Legacy of FDR’s Normalization of Relations with the USSR

nov16 (1)

With (left to right) Stanton Evans, Frank Gaffney, Diana West, Chris Farrell and (not pitcured) Stephen Coughlin

Eightieth Anniversary of Deal That Facilitated Penetration of U.S. Government, Society

Washington, DC — Eighty years ago this Saturday, President Franklin D. Roosevelt agreed for the first time to recognize the Communist regime of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. He did so on the basis of formal undertakings by then-Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov that the Kremlin would not engage in subversive actions in America.
The rest, as they say, is history. And a sordid and still unfolding history it is.

“The 16th of November 1933 is a day that truly should live in infamy. This symposium will explore its significance both in terms of much of the most sordid history of the 20th Century — and as the predicate for similar forces at work in the 21st.”

The Center for Security Policy is pleased to convene a symposium to review that history — both that of the immediate post-normalization period, of World War II, of the Cold War and of today — from noon-2:00 p.m. at the headquarters of Judicial Watch in Washington, D.C.

  • Diana West, author of American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character;
  • M. Stanton Evans, author of Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government Relations;
  • Christopher Farrell, Chief Investigator, Judicial Watch; and
  • Stephen Coughlin, author of the forthcoming book, Catastrophic Failure.
  • Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy, moderator.

Diana West at 7:09, Stanton Evans at 24:15, Chris Farrell at 47:09, Stephen Coughlin at 57:57 followed by Q&A (which you do not want to miss)

What’s Behind CAIR’s Attempt to Stop Training Course about Hezbollah?

H rallyBY CLARE LOPEZ:

A very odd situation has developed in which the Council on American-Islamic Relations(CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood front group that was named by the Department of Justice as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial, issued a last-minute call to replace three highly-qualified instructors for a course on the Iranian proxy terror group, Hezbollah.

The Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy (CSP) think tank was certified by the Oklahoma Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training (CLEET) to deliver a one-day seminar entitled “Iran, Hezbollah and the Drug Cartels: Counterterrorism Considerations.” CAIR wanted CLEET to drop the course instructors whom it terms “anti-Muslim extremists.”

On October 28, 2013, CAIR issued a call to CLEET Executive Director Steve Emmons to replace course presenters Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William G. “Jerry” Boykin, Frank Gaffney and Clare Lopez with what it calls “’credible and objective subject matter experts.”

Yet, here are the credentials of the presenters:

Gen. Jerry Boykin, currently Executive Vice President of the Family Research Council, is one of the original members of the U.S. Army Delta Force. Boykin led Green Beret Special Forces and commanded their Special Warfare Center and School, and served as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. There are few who could match his credentials as a subject matter expert on topics related to terrorism.

Frank Gaffney is the Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy and served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy in the Reagan administration. He brings decades of national security expertise to this course and addressed its final hour with a presentation on the Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) threat to the U.S. critical infrastructure.

Clare Lopez (author of this piece) is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy and the co-author of two books about Iran who has briefed Congressional members, and lectured and published widely on national security and terrorism topics. She also was an expert witness and co-author of a key affidavit in the 2011 Havlish case, in which Judge George Daniels of the Southern District of New York found Iran and Hezbollah jointly responsible together with al-Qaeda for the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Adam Soltani, executive director of CAIR’s Oklahoma chapter, led the ill-informed and ultimately unsuccessful campaign for the removal of these well-qualified course instructors. To their credit, the Oklahoma Counterterrorism Caucus, which sponsored the seminar, and Rep. John Bennett, R-Sallisaw, Caucus Chairman, held firm against CAIR’s pressure tactics, and the course went on as scheduled.

Soltani himself, apparently very keen to attend the training, nevertheless apparently applied too late for a seat in the full-capacity hall. Bennett advised Soltani by email prior to the course running that registration had closed, but Soltani showed up anyway. He reportedly found a place from which to follow the course in the Visitors Gallery.

Read more at Clarion Project

See also: CAIR Tries to Stop Counter-Terror Training Sessions by Ryan Mauro