Islamic Jihad Comes to Campus

sjp_0Frontpage, April 17, 2015 by David Horowitz:

The world is witnessing a resurgence of global anti-Semitism not seen since the 1930s and the “Final Solution.” In the Middle East, Hitler-admiring regimes like Iran, and Hitler-admiring parties like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, are openly planning to finish the job the Nazis started. Even in America, until now the most hospitable place outside of Israel for Jews, the atmosphere is more hostile than at any time in the last 70 years.

According to the FBI, three-fifths of all religious hate crimes in America are now committed against Jews, while a recent Pew poll revealed that 54 percent of Jewish students have either been the subject of an anti-Semitic attack or witnessed one. The frequency of these attacks among college-aged students, moreover, is five times that of any other age group. The reason for this is obvious: Across the United States student groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and the Muslim Students Association, are engaged in a vitriolic campaign against Israel and those students who support its right to exist. These organizations promote the propaganda of the terrorist organization Hamas, and call for the destruction of the Jewish state.

Students for Justice in Palestine, the more active of the two groups, claims to support a left-wing agenda of “social justice,” and “universal human rights.” Like the left itself, though, Students for Justice in Palestine doesn’t stand for the rights of Palestinians in the territories controlled by Palestinians, including the rights of Palestinians to disagree with each other without being targeted by their terrorist rulers. Instead, SJP’s sole agenda is the destruction of the Jewish state.

While SJP’s self-professed purpose is “to promote self-determination for the Palestinian people,” the organization defines the boundaries of this liberation as extending “from the river to the sea,” i.e., from the Jordan River on Israel’s eastern border to its western border on the Mediterranean. To advance this genocidal agenda, SJP endorses the lie that Israel was created on territory stolen from the Palestinians and, therefore, Jews illegally occupy Arab lands from which they must be purged.

In fact, Israel was created on land that had belonged to the Turks, who are not Arabs, for 400 years previously. In 1948 when Israel was created, there was no Palestinian political entity, no movement for a Palestinian state, and no people calling itself Palestinian. These core genocidal lies make up the primary agenda of SJP and its anti-Jewish allies, and are crowned by the ludicrous claim that Israel is an “apartheid state” with policies worthy of the “Nazis.” In fact, Israel is the only democratic and ethnically tolerant state in the Middle East, the only place where gays, Christians and women are safe. The real Nazis in the Middle East are the Arabs who openly call for the extermination of the Jews.

Despite its anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist agendas, SJP is funded by university fees. University administrations officially recognize the organization and grant it the privilege of erecting walls of hate, and conducting “die-ins” and other propaganda stunts in campus centers where other students can’t avoid being assaulted by their noxious accusations.

University administrators who refuse to rein in this hatred operate under pressure from faculty and student activists of the anti-Israel “social justice” left. These include the self-hating Jews of J Street and Jewish Voice for Peace, who join hands with their mortal enemies to condemn anyone who confronts SJP and the malignant forces it represents as “Islamophobes.”

As it happens, “Islamophobe” is a term coined by the Muslim Brotherhood to demonize its opponents, and the center of a campaign seeking a universal ban on critics as religious blasphemers. The campaign’s success can be seen in President Obama’s refusal to call the terrorist Islamic State “Islamic,” or to describe the war waged by the Islamic State, al Qaeda and other Islamic terror organizations as a religious crusade.

Thanks to the savageries of the Islamic State, however, Americans have begun to wake up and to see Jews as canaries in the mine, and to understand that what is happening to Jews is also happening to Christians and others in the way of Islamic Nazis. Nonetheless, the continuing successes of front organizations such as Students for Justice in Palestine are ominous indicators of the dangers that confront us, and should be a wake-up call, too.

The Black Book of the American Left: Volume IV: Islamo-Fascism and the War Against the Jews

dh1

Frontpage, April 15, 2015 by Jeffrey Herf:

To order David Horowitz’s “The Black Book of the American Left: Volume IV:  Islamo-Fascism and the War Against the Jews,” click here.

In this spirited and savvy collection of recent essays and speeches, David Horowitz argues that progressives, that is, left of center politicians, journalists and intellectuals have contributed to “undermining the defense of Western civilization against the totalitarian forces determined to destroy it.” Specifically, the threat comes from “the holy war or jihad waged by totalitarian Islamists in their quest for a global empire.” (p.1) These essays, many of which are lectures at university campuses or reports about those lectures, will reinforce the views of those who already agree that “Western civilization” is a good thing, that Islamism is a form of totalitarianism and that its Jihad is quest for a “global empire.” They may not convince those who think Western civilization is another name for racism, imperialism and war, that totalitarianism is an ideological relic of the Cold War and that an otherwise peaceful and tolerant Islam has been “hijacked” by violent extremists who misconstrue its texts and their meanings. Yet they may strike a nerve with those liberals who think it is absurd to deny the clear links between Islamism and terror and who, especially after the murders in Paris in January, understand that Islamism is a threat to the liberal traditions of Western politics and culture.

This volume addresses a by now much discussed paradox of our political and intellectual life. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 9/11, the liberal intellectual Paul Berman in Terror and Liberalism made the compelling case that the Islamist ideology that inspired the Al Qaeda terrorists emerged from a profoundly reactionary set of ideas which had lineages to Nazism and fascism. In Germany, Matthias Kuentzel, in his Jihad and Jew-Hatred:  Nazism, Islamism and the Roots of 9/11 examined in more detail the illiberal views of the 9/11 terrorists as well as the political and ideological connections between Islamism and Nazism. A number of us historians have documented those connections. The irony of the years since 2001, and especially of the Obama years, is that, with some exceptions, much of the sharpest criticism of the reactionary nature of Islamism and defense of classically liberal values has not come from the historic home of anti-fascism among leftists and liberals. Rather, as the 55, mostly short essays in this collection indicate, that critique has migrated to centrists and conservatives or those who are now called conservatives.

“Islamophobia,” the longest essay in the collection is co-written with Robert Spencer, also importantly draws attention to the international connections of Islamist organizations in the United States. The authors write that “the purpose of inserting the term ‘phobia’ is to suggest that any fear associated with Islam is irrational” and thus to discredit arguments that suggest a connection between Islamism and terror as themselves forms of bigotry. Horowitz and Spencer connect this criticism of the concept to discussion of the organizational connections between the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2005, the FBI seized the Northern Virginia headquarters of the Holy Land Foundation, then the largest Islamic “charity” in the United States. In a trial in 2007 that led to the conviction of the Foundation’s leaders on charges of supporting a terrorist organization, the prosecution entered a seized a remarkable document entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”(18)  The group’s goal was the establishment of “an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood, which adopts Muslim causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at directing and unifying Muslim’s efforts, presents Islam as a civilizational alternative, and supports the global Islam state wherever it is.”  Muslims, it continued “must understand their work in American is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” Horowitz and Spencer perform an important service in drawing attention to this document and to the political campaign that it has inspired.

The memo called for the creation of front organizations including the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Students Association, and the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Islamic Association for Palestine and the parent group of the Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR. Another front group identified in the Holy Land memo was the International Institute for Islamic Thought, said to have invented the term “Islamophobia.”  Horowitz and Spencer’s discussion of CAIR’s “Islamophobia campaign” is particularly interesting. In the Holy Land case, the US Department of Justice named CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator and produced evidence that it has received $500,000 dollars from the Holy Land Foundation to set itself up.  CAIR was created in 1994 as a spinoff of a Hamas front group, the Islamic Association for Palestine, a group that the US government shut down in 2005 for funding terrorism. CAIR has defined Islamophobia as “closed minded prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims” and has described anti-terror measures adopted by the US government as forms of “prejudice” and “hatred.” The authors argue that the use of such terms has been an effective instrument in blunting or stifling criticism of Islamism.

On American university and college campuses, the Muslim Students Association and “Students for Justice in Palestine” have sponsored “Israel Apartheid Weeks.” In recent years, the MSA has been particularly active at the campuses of the University of California in Davis, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles in the anti-Islamophobia campaigns. Remarkably, such efforts have received support from coalitions of leftwing student groups active in student governments. The authors write that “perhaps the chief asset possessed by the jihadists is a coalition of non-Muslims-European and American progressives—who support the anti-Islamophobia campaign,” one that “had a venerable antecedent in the support that progressives provided to Soviet totalitarians during the Cold War.” (p.48) Again, the remarkable aspect of the current coalitions between Islamists and leftists was that these leftists were making common cause with organizations famous for anti-Semitism, subordination of women to second class status or worse and deep religious conviction, a set of beliefs at odds with some of the classic values of the radical left in the twentieth century. Then again, in view of the anti-Zionist campaigns of the Soviet Union and its allies during the Cold War and the hostility of the global radical left to Israel in recent decades, such “Red-Green” leftist-Islamist coalitions of recent years are not so surprising.

Horowitz sees a parallel between the “secular messianic movements like communism, socialism and progressivism” and the religious creeds they replaced. “It is not surprising therefore, that the chief sponsors of the blasphemy laws and the attitudes associated with them have been movements associated with the political left. It is no accident that the movement to outlaw Islamophobia should be deeply indebted to the secular left and its campaign to stigmatize its opponents by indiscriminately applying repugnant terms to them like ‘racist.’”  The invention and application of the concept of Islamophobia “is the first step in outlawing freedom of speech, and therefore freedom itself, in the name of religious tolerance.”(55)

The remainder of this volume elaborates on these themes with twenty essays on Islamo-fascism, thirteen on the Middle East Conflict and eleven on “the Campus War against the Jews.” Horowitz’ reports on his many speeches at various campuses where some of the above mentioned Islamic organizations turn up to protest. There the front organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood, especially the Muslim Students Association, emerged to challenge his arguments about the links between Islamism and fascism. Two essays are particularly important—and depressing. In “Suicidal Jews” and “”Hillel”s Coalitions with Israel’s Enemies,” Horowitz describes instances in which liberal and left-leaning Jewish undergraduates turn their criticism towards him rather than towards the anti-Israeli activists on campus.

This fourth volume of Horowitz’s essays depicts the bizarre nature of our contemporary political culture in which leftists make common cause with Islamists, Israel is denounced as a racist entity while the anti-Semitism of the Muslim Brothers, Hamas and the government of Iran are non-issues for leftists, and the United States government refuses to state the obvious about the connection between Islamist ideology and the practice of terrorism. The defense of liberal principles has liberal advocates but as this valuable collection indicates the core of the defense has become a preoccupation of the center and right of American intellectual and political life. This volume is an important document of that endeavor.

Jeffrey Herf, Distinguished University Professor, Department of History, University of Maryland, College Park. His most recent book is Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World. His work in progress is entitled “At War with Israel: East Germany and the West German Radical Left, 1967-1989.”

Southern Poverty Law Center Named Propagandist for Jihad Terrorists

as000016517-300by John Perazzo:

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a self-described “civil-rights organization” committed to “fighting hate and bigotry,” says that ever since 9/11 a host of “anti-Muslim hate groups”—exhibiting “extreme hostility” toward Muslims—have arisen across the United States. The current edition of SPLC’s quarterly Intelligence Report names David Horowitz as “the godfather of the modern anti-Muslim movement.” The lead accusation in the report says: “For Horowitz, Muslim Student Associations ‘are arms of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the fountainhead of the terrorist jihad against the West.’”

Apparently SPLC deems it bad manners for anyone to notice that when the national Muslim Students Association (MSA) was established in 1963, its three principal founders were all members of—you guessed it—the Muslim Brotherhood. It is equally bad form, in SPLC’s view, to draw any conclusions from the fact that a Muslim Brotherhood memorandum explicitly names the MSA as one of the Brotherhood’s arms, and as an organization that could help the Brotherhood carry out a “grand Jihad” aimed at “eliminating and destroying … Western civilization from within.”

SPLC’s report also turns a blind eye to the fact that in recent years MSA members and guest lecturers in numerous venues have: raised money for Hamas and Hezbollah; professed support for Islamic Jihad; called for Islam to dominate “the halls of Congress”; declared that “the only relationship [Muslims] should have with America is to topple it”; extolled Islamic suicide bombers as noble “martyrs”; and chanted “Death to Israel!” and “Death to the Jews!”

Moreover, Patrick Poole, an anti-terrorism consultant to law-enforcement and the military, notes “a rather lengthy list of top MSA leaders who have been arrested and convicted on a wide array of terrorism charges, ranging from material support of terrorist groups to being actively involved in terrorist plots.” One of the most famous was Anwar Al-Awlaki, who served as president of the Colorado State University MSA and later as chaplain of the George Washington University MSA, before migrating to Yemen where he became a high-ranking leader of al Qaeda.

But by SPLC’s reckoning, not even a shred of “hate” or “bigotry” is evident in any of this. Thus the organization directs its criticism not at the Muslim Students Association or the Muslim Brotherhood, but at the “Islamophobes” who brazenly dare to suggest that the MSA is in any way radical.

SPLC is also squeamish about anyone mentioning the Muslim Brotherhood’s connection to jihad and terrorism, even though the Brotherhood’s own credo states explicitly that “jihad is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations”; even though Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna himself wrote that “jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim”; even though al-Banna emphasized that “it is the nature of Islam to dominate [and] to impose its law on all nations”; and even though another Brotherhood leader, Ahmed Yassin, personally founded the jihadist group Hamas, which proudly identifies itself as “one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine.” Mohammed Ayoob, Coordinator of the Muslim Studies Program at James Madison College, states outright: “Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.” And Richard Clarke—who served as chief counterterrorism advisor on the U.S. National Security Council during both the Clinton and Bush administrations—told a Senate committee that Hamas, al Qaeda, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are all “descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers.”

But none of this matters at all to SPLC, which simply views concern over these matters as the paranoia of hateful “Islamophobes.”

SPLC takes further umbrage at Horowitz’s depiction of Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s longtime closest adviser, as a “Muslim Brotherhood operative” who has managed to “penetrate” the U.S. government. Clearly, it is of no consequence to SPLC that Huma’s mother is a well-known advocate of Sharia Law, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s division for women, and a board member of a pro-Hamas Islamic Council that is part of a larger, international terrorist-abetting coalition led by the Brotherhood luminary Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Nor does SPLC care that from 1996-2008, Huma herself was employed by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), whose agenda, as Andrew C. McCarthy explains, is “to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.” Neither does SPLC give a whit that for at least seven of those twelve years, Huma’s presence at IMMA overlapped with that of the Institute’s founder, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure with ties to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

For SPLC, this is all mere trivia that occupies the minds of Islamophobes. Can’t everyone just leave poor little Huma alone?

Read more at Front Page

The Southern Poverty Law Center Stands Up for Hamas

MorrisDees-310x350by :

Two years ago the Southern Poverty Law Center named me, a bar sign and a brand of gun lubricant as hate groups. It wasn’t the punch line to a joke about a Minister, a Rabbi and a Priest. Instead it was another tribute to the research skills of the country’s wealthiest, dumbest and laziest civil rights group.

Morris Dees began in the mail order business and ended up in the mail order civil rights business. Every month elderly retirees receive envelopes covered with pictures of Klansmen burning crosses. Those photos are the SPLC brand the way that the “swoosh” is for Nike and I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that Dees had already trademarked the KKK.

Their checks bulk up the Southern Poverty Law Center’s $245 million endowment, a few pennies from which are used to hire DailyKos diarists who turn out poorly researched attacks on “hate groups.” That might explain why “Casa D’Ice Signs,” the signs outside a Pennsylvania bar, continues to be listed under “Active Anti-Muslim Groups” by the SPLC despite two solid years of internet ridicule and mockery.

Left-wing cultural revolutionists have a loose definition of “hate,” but they can usually get the “groups” part right. The Southern Poverty Law Center can’t even do that.

With solid research like that, the SPLC’s latest Intelligence Report has everything you expect from an organization that lists a brand of gun lubricant as a hate group. There are random attacks on celebrities like former Homicide star Richard Belzer and former Saturday Night Live star Victoria Jackson. Belzer is deemed guilty of promoting JFK conspiracy theories and Jackson called the TV show Glee “sickening.”

It’s not exactly the KKK, and Belzer, who is Jewish, was unhappy to be implicitly associated him with the Nazis. “As a Jewish person whose grandfather represented Israel at the United Nations before it was a state and an uncle, who as a member of the Resistance, fought the Nazis in World War Two, I am deeply hurt and offended,” he wrote.

But Belzer was not the only Jewish person targeted by the SPLC in an issue exploiting the Kansas City shootings around a Jewish community center. Instead the SPLC decided to launch into a full-throated defense of Hamas supporters and attacks on Jews opposed to Hamas and its domestic front groups.

After the Kansas City shootings, the SPLC rushed to the defense of one of the left-wing bigots whose attacks on Jews had been cited by the killer. It defended Max Blumenthal against charges of bigotry when even the Forward, a left-wing paper, described Blumenthal calling for the ethnic cleansing of Israel’s Jewish population.

But the SPLC did not stop there.

Instead it attacked David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer, as well as me, for calling attention to the terrorist ties of the Muslim Students Association. It based this attack on the writings of an Islamist who had been a board member of Berkeley’s Muslim Students Association.

This was the MSA chapter which the ADL reported had distributed copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.Hatem Bazian, who has called for Jewish genocide, had headed this chapter. While at Berkeley, Bazian had responded to the arrest of members of his anti-Semitic SJP group for disrupting a Holocaust remembrance event by accusing Jews of controlling the university.

Read more at Front Page

War & Peace in the Age of Obama

3333By :

Editor’s note: The following is the text to David Horowitz’s introduction of Caroline Glick at the Wednesday Morning Club.

To order Glick’s new book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, click here.

We live in surreal times. My privilege and pleasure today is to introduce a remarkable woman who has written an extraordinary book in which she argues that the only viable way to resolve the Middle East conflict is a “one-state solution.” I am going to let Caroline explain why that should be so, but in order to understand the magnitude of the task she has undertaken and the difficulties her solution would have to overcome, you first have to understand the surreal nature of the times we live in.

We are not long emerged from a fifty-year Cold War, which began when the Soviet Empire swallowed Eastern Europe and the Baltic states, and ended only when the United States undertook a vast rearmament, and applied enough pressure over enough years to bankrupt the Communist system and force its withdrawal from the occupation.

The Russian successor to that empire has just swallowed one of its lost treasures, a sovereign domain in Eastern Europe. The response of our commander in chief, Barack Obama, to the rape of Crimea has been to wag his finger in response, and explain to the Russian conqueror that the time for conquests has actually passed. We are all modern people now living in the 21st Century and we just don’t do things that way. Not surprisingly this pablum made no impression on Vladimir Putin.

In point of fact, Russia is a second-rate power and could have been easily dissuaded from this adventure or backed down without firing a shot. But because Barack Obama is such an embarrassingly weak leader and untrustworthy ally, Putin was able to laugh in his face, mass 100,000 troops on the Ukranian border and prepare to swallow Ukraine itself.

The leader of the free world today is a man who does not believe in the free world or in America’s role as its head. In the five years since a Norwegian committee gave him a Nobel Peace Prize for nothing, Obama’s policies of weakness and appeasement have made the world a far more dangerous place than it has been since the end of the Cold War, and possibly its beginning.

From his first day in office Obama has made it clear that he regards America as having wronged its adversaries, and its adversaries as having grievances that are justified. It is a view that is conveniently close to Putin’s own. As should by now be apparent, America’s president is a determined enabler of America’s enemies, and equally determined betrayer of her friends. In the five years since he took office he has lost the war in Iraq, giving up the military presence that thousands of Americans gave their lives to secure, while turning that benighted nation over to Iran; he has lost the war in Afghanistan by announcing his intention to lose it in advance and by forcing our troops to fight under rules of engagement that tied their hands and got them killed. He has lost Libya by conducting a unilateral, illegal and unauthorized aggression against an American ally, murdering its leader and turning its streets over to mobs of terrorists. In the course of these betrayals Obama has violated every principle he invoked as a senator to justify his attacks on George Bush’s war in Iraq. But then, Obama is a compulsive and brazen liar on matters both foreign and domestic.

In the Middle East, Obama has lost Egypt, its largest and most important nation. Until Obama intervened in its internal affairs and overthrew its pro-American president, Egypt had been an American ally for 40 years. In Egypt and throughout the Middle East, Obama and his secretaries Clinton and Kerry, have put American power and influence behind the Muslim Brotherhood an Islamic terrorist organization with attitudes indistinguishable from Hitler’s Nazi Party, except that it claims to take its direction from Allah.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the spawner of al-Qaeda, the creator of Hamas and the source of the global jihad against America and the West. Obama’s support for the Brotherhood has not only cost us our Egyptian ally, but it has opened the door for Putin’s imperial Russia to replace us as the Great Power influence in the region.

On top of these betrayals of America’s interests, Obama has systematically appeased our most deadly enemy in the region, the terrorist regime in Iran. In particular, he has conspired to insure that the Iranian mullahs, who have sworn to wipe America and Israel from the face of the earth, are successful in their drive to acquire nuclear weapons.

While giving aid and comfort to America’s mortal enemies, Obama has turned his back on the only democracy in the Middle East, and America’s most faithful and important ally. He has thrown his country’s enormous weight behind Islamic radicals whose goal – stated in so many words – is to obliterate the state of Israel and push the Jews who inhabit it into the sea. To finish the job that Hitler started.

Read more at Front Page

SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER PROVIDES COVER FOR JIHAD APOLOGISTS

images (27)by LEE STRANAHAN:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has taken a lead role in the institutional left’s attempt to unilaterally intellectually disarm America on the issue of Islamic terrorism. In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, it’s worth looking at how the group has attempted to silence critics of Islamic extremism, often by poisoning the well to discredit any examination of the possible dangers posed by Islamists.

The SPLC was started over forty years ago as a legitimate civil rights organization to combat the violent racist actions of groups like the Ku Klux Klan, but has become part of the vast web of organizations–many funded by George Soros’s Open Society Institute–that work together to smear conservative voices in order to advance a leftist agenda.

One way to think of the institutional left is as a body where different organs perform different functions but all function together to form a whole; your stomach signals your brain that it wants food, so your feet walk you to the fridge, your hand opens the door, and so on. With the institutional left, many different groups work in concert to promote the wider agenda of radicals, such as diminishing America’s security.

The role that the Southern Poverty Law Center plays is to be an “objective” source to brand conservative entities as “hate groups” for the purpose of stopping debate and discussion on important issues. The well-heeled SPLC–with financial reserves of over$200 million–does this through their Hate Watch blog and a quarterly magazine but, more ominously, by also reporting their findings directly to the FBI.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has explicitly targeted people like Atlas Shrugs blogger Pam Geller, author Robert Spencer, 60s radical-turned-conservative David Horowitz, and the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney. By lumping these authors and speakers in with violent groups like the Aryan Brotherhood or Ku Klux Klan and then reporting them to law enforcement as “hate groups,” the SLPC is trying to create a chilling effect on investigation into what we’ve learned time and again are legitimate dangers.

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s impact is magnified because other institutional left groups pick up on the SPLC’s reports and regurgitate them; these circular references are then used to give the reports legitimacy.

Read more at Breitbart

Horowitz on Benghazi: “Most Un-American Act By An American President”

images (11)Politichicks:

PolitiChick Ann-Marie Murrell talks to David Horowitz about the trend in DC to ignore the threat of Islam, the education system that has been “taken over by the Communist Left” and the stunning lack of help by the Obama administration in Benghazi.

Inside the Muslim Student Association Conference, Part 3

Untitled-3-450x336By Mark Tapson:

In Part 1 of this series on the recent 15th Annual Muslim Student Association (MSA) West Conference, which I attended at the University of California, Santa Barbara, I gave a general overview of the conference’s pro-Palestinian activism, its promotion of a sense of victimization at the mercy of an Islamophobic society and university system, its urgent appeal to political activism that goes hand-in-hand with its emphasis on strengthening one’s Muslim faith and community, and its support from top Muslim Brotherhood front groups in America. Part 2 focused on the biggest names who had been invited to speak there, radicals like Siraj WahhajEdina Lekovich and Taher Herzallah of the infamous Irvine 11. Let’s look at some of the lesser-known speakers there whose presentations were even more political.

Ali Mir, Director of Muslim Student Life at the University of Southern California, whose bio was not included in the conference program booklet, lectured the crowd about “white privilege” in a session called “Perennial Spring,” probably intended to echo the disastrous “Arab Spring.” Mir identified cultural and economic “imperialism” as the basis of American foreign policy, and urged students to get politically involved in “social justice”: “As Muslims, we demonstrate our Islamic principles by working to empower all marginalized people, regardless of their faith,” reads his session description. Really? Like the marginalized Christians in Egypt and Nigeria and elsewhere where Muslim fundamentalists are slaughtering them openly? Like the marginalized Jews in Europe and elsewhere who are suffering increased violent persecution at the hands of Muslims? Mir neglected to address that contradiction.

As an example of how the organized Muslim students can effect meaningful change on campus, Mir told the audience that “your friend and mine, David Horowitz” delivered a talk at the University of Southern California three years ago in which “he said stupid things.” He didn’t specify what they were, but the plan he encouraged among his fellow students at that time was to “write down every racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic thing Horowitz said” and force the university to issue a statement denouncing him afterward – which Mir said it did, to the applause of his uncritical audience.

That’s not quite the whole story. In fact, David Horowitz was invited by the USC College Republicans to come on campus and protest an Islamic hadith which appeared on an official USC website, calling for the genocide of Jews. His speech was attacked in advance by Students for Justice in Palestine and the USC Progressive Alliance, who made up quotes and attributed them to Horowitz to paint him as an Islamophobe and a racist. Nonetheless, Horowitz was allowed to speak at USC on November 4, 2009.

Later, the USC Vice President of Student Affairs, Michael Jackson, published an open letter in the campus newspaper, attacking the College Republicans for inviting Horowitz. He claimed that Horowitz’s presence “led members of our community, our Muslim students, to feel threatened, unsafe, and betrayed.” This letter was also sent to every official USC student, faculty, and staff email address and was published as an ad in the Daily Trojan, which Jackson controlled. Horowitz responded with a rebuttal, which the Trojan ultimately and reluctantly printed.

In his MSA West conference presentation, Mir didn’t offer specifics about objectionable Horowitz statements. He didn’t need to; it was enough for him to simply use unsubstantiated, demonizing labels: “racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic.” Because for radicals like Mir (and his allies in the unholy alliance of the left and Muslim fundamentalists), those labels suppress debate and misrepresent the substance and philosophy of their opponents like Horowitz.

Mir went on to condemn the atheist anti-Islam writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali as “as much an extremist as Osama bin Laden,” because of her assertion that Muslims would be better off converting to Christianity. That’s right – he considers Hirsi Ali as much of an extremist as the man who ordered the World Trade Center massacre and other acts of terrorism. The man who was the living inspiration for violent jihadists worldwide. No student in the auditorium raised an objection.

Read more at Front Page

Mark Tapson, a Hollywood-based writer and screenwriter, is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. He focuses on the politics of popular culture.

Why Israel Is the Victim

hereBy :

Order your physical copy by clicking here.

Introduction

Israel, the only democracy and tolerant society in the Middle East, is surrounded by Muslim states that have sworn to destroy it and have conducted a genocidal propaganda campaign against the Jews, promising to “finish the job that Hitler started.” A global wave of Jew-hatred, fomented by Muslim propaganda and left-wing anti-Semitism, has spread through Europe and the United Nations and made Israel a pariah nation. David Horowitz’s classic Why Israel Is the Victim, now updated in the pamphlet below, sets the record straight about the Middle East conflict. In addition to restoring the historical record —  a chronicle  of obsessive aggressions first by Arab nationalists and then by Muslim jihadists, this pamphlet brings the story up to date by showing the systematic way in which the fanatical Islamic parties, Hamas and Hezbollah, sponsored by Iran, have subverted peace in the Middle East.

As Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield notes in his insightful Foreword, this pamphlet “tells us why we should reject the ‘Blame Israel First’ narrative that has so thoroughly saturated the mainstream media… It confronts the myth of Palestinian victimhood… and it delivers a rousing restatement of the true history of the hate that led us to all this.”  America needs to be Israel’s protector, for as George Gilder has observed, “If the United States cannot defend Israel, it cannot defend itself.”  Instead, under the leadership of Barack Obama, it has become Israel’s prosecutor with ominous portents for the future.

Foreword

In “Why Israel is the Victim” David Horowitz tells the ugly tale of the war against Israel, laying bare the sordid hypocrisies and deceits behind its campaign of violence. No volume can contain the full story of Islamic terrorism or the courageous ways in which the ordinary Israeli confronts it in the streets of his cities. What this essay does tell is the story of the lies behind that terror.

Propaganda precedes war; it digs the graves and waits for them to be filled. The war against the Jews has never been limited to bullets and swords; it has always, first and foremost, been a war of words. When bombs explode on buses and rockets rain down on Israel homes, when mobs chant “Death to the Jews” and Iran races toward the construction of its genocidal bomb; the propaganda lies to cover up these crimes must be bold enough to contain not only the murders of individuals, but the prospective massacre of millions.

The lie big enough to fill a million graves is that Israel has no right to exist, that the Jewish State is an illegitimate entity,  an occupier, a warmonger and a conqueror. The big lie is that Israel has sought out the wars that have given it no peace and that the outcomes of those wars make the atrocities of its enemies understandable and even justifiable. That is the big lie that David Horowitz confronts in “Why Israel is the Victim”.

From the latest outburst of violence to its earliest antecedents under the Palestine Mandate, “Why Israel is the Victim” exposes the true nature of the war and wipes away the lies used by the killers and their collaborators to lend moral authority to their crimes. It shows not only why Israel must exist, but also why its existence has been besieged by war and terror.

“Why Israel is the Victim” tells us why we should reject the “Blame Israel First” narrative that has so thoroughly saturated the mainstream media. It challenges the false hope of the Two State Solution in sections such as “Self-Determination Is Not the Agenda” and “Refugees: Jewish and Arab”. It confronts the myth of Palestinian victimhood in “The Policy of Resentment and Hate” and delivers a rousing restatement of the true history of the hate that led us to all this in “The Jewish Problem and Its ‘Solution’”.

Recent history shows us that it was not an Israeli refusal to grant the Palestinian Arabs the right of self-determination that led to their campaigns of terror, but that Palestinian self-determination empowered a people steeped in the hatred of Jews to engage in terrorism.

Continue reading at Front Page where the entire pamphlet has been published

David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine,Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from “red-diaper baby” to conservative activist that George Gilder described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.”

Also see: Reading Horowitz

 

 

The Heart of the Unholy Alliance’s Darkness

dtnBy

To know everything you ever wanted to know about the Left’s Islamist odyssey, visit DiscoverTheNetworks.org, the website that describes and exposes the networks and agendas of the political Left.

As Islamic Jihad, including its “stealth” variety, is rapidly succeeding in destroying our civilization, the Left continues its shameless and bizarre denial — not only about the threat of Islamic Jihad, but also about its own complicity with our enemy and its war on our society.

The latest example of the Left’s Jihad-Denial concerns me personally: it involves an intriguing post, written by Brian Tashman in RightWingWatch.org, titled: Beware: Human-Hating Liberals and Islamic Extremists Seek to Build Shariommunism. The post ridicules my recent appearance on CBN’s “Stackelbeck on Terror” in which I discuss the Unholy Alliance between the radical Left and radical Islam, which David Horowitz has masterfully documented in his masterpiece Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left and that I have analyzed in United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror.

Unholy Alliance book

United in Hate book

The ingredients of Right Wing Watch’s attack on me are pathological not just in how they deny blatant reality, but also in how they in and of themselves substantiate the very realities they are denying.

Below, I will demonstrate and deconstruct the pathology in these assaults. It is more crucial than ever to expose the nature of the Left’s duplicity, lies and inner contradictions, since the Unholy Alliance’s malicious and destructive war on our civilization is now making more dangerous inroads than at any previous time.

Read it all at Front Page

See also:

“It Is High Noon For America”

imagesCABV4RXIShoebat.com:

By Drew Zahn

His parents were dissidents in the Soviet Union who braved gulags to voice the cry for freedom in a totalitarian state.

When he was five years old, his family fled to the West.

Now Jamie Glazov, editor of FrontPageMag.com, is following his parents’ footsteps, speaking out against the biggest issues threatening the freedom he found in America. And according to Glazov, the threat has never been more real or more urgent.

“It is high noon for America,” Glazov claimed in an interview with Josh Brewster of The Glazov Gang. “There’s a jihadist enemy that’s coming at the West and at America and at Israel. There’s the threat of stealth jihad and also violent, physical jihad. And … political correctness and the leftist ideology has completely blinded the West and handcuffed us behind our back, and we’ve got a media as well as people in our White House that are sabotaging us from within.”

Glazov spoke with Brewster about his family’s struggle for freedom, their run-ins with KGB interrogators, their escape to the West, the influence of David Horowitz, founder and president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and about the release of his newest book, “High Noon for America: The Coming Showdown.”

Glazov’s earlier book, “United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror,” shows how the radical left, even in America, is willing to cover for and partner with radical Islam, because the two groups share common values: namely, a hatred for Western culture, capitalism and the Judeo-Christian heritage of the U.S., and a desire to establish a new world order in their own image.

In the interview, Glazov explains how his newest book, “High Noon for America,” was formed from years of symposia on the detrimental influence of communism, Islam, the Obama administration and more on the foundations of American freedom.

“This is a collection of the brightest minds and what they have to say about the threat we face,” Glazov said.

The interview, which has been divided into two parts, can be seen below:

Defending Homeland

By Mark Tapson:

No matter how far backward Hollywood bends over to placate Islam,  its foot soldiers among the leftist media still complain it isn’t far enough. Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor at Britain’s left-leaning The Guardian and The Observer, wrote an editorial this weekend about Showtime’s terrorism drama Homeland entitled, “Homeland is brilliant drama. But does it present a crude image of Muslims?” Guess how he answers his own question.

The show centers on a U.S. Marine, missing and presumed dead in Iraq since 2003, who is rescued and brought home to Washington D.C. where he rides his war hero popularity all the way into a Congressional seat and a possible vice presidential nomination. The twist? This supposed patriot is a Muslim convert here to carry out a plot spawned by a terrorist mastermind.

As readers of FrontPage know well, political correctness and moral equivalence reign in Hollywood, and Homeland is no exception. The show suggests, as Hollywood always does, that the root cause of Islamic terrorism is “blowback” – justifiable retribution for America’s imperialist foreign policy and CIA ruthlessness. Hollywood never acknowledges that our enemy might be motivated, as it has been for 1400 years, by the supremacist imperatives of Islam itself.

I’ve written about Homeland before for FrontPage, when its first season finale proved it to be disappointingly typical of Hollywood’s blame-America-first, post-9/11 perspective on our clash of civilization versus barbarism. At that time, I’d been encouraged by the fact that the show at least didn’t shy away from presenting Islamic terrorists. But in the long run Homeland, like Hollywood in general and the Obama administration itself, simply refuses to put forth a narrative truthfully identifying who the white hats and black hats are in this global conflict.

Thus it’s odd to find myself in the position of defending the show, but Peter Beaumont’s piece is so typical of the left’s complicity with Islamic fundamentalists (the unholy alliance, as David Horowitz calls it) in their agenda to criminalize the defamation of Islam, that a response was necessary.

Why is the show worth writing about at all? For the same reason Beaumont himself devoted a lengthy column denouncing it: it’s an important cultural marker. Homeland just brought home the Emmy for Outstanding Drama Series, and Best Actor and Best Actress Emmys for its two leads. It is currently the most highly regarded drama on television, and perhaps the only show that is even addressing what used to be called “the war on terror.” Its messages matter.

“I find the depictions not only crude and childish but offensive,” Beaumont says, and God knows the left has elevated “offending someone” to the level of violent crime, so you know he’s serious. He complains that on Homeland, it doesn’t matter whether Arabs/Muslims are “rich, smart, discreetly enjoying a western lifestyle or attractive” – all are suspect. But the fact is, not all jihadists are backward, bearded bombers; some are affluent, educated, slick and Westernized subversives, like CAIR spokesmen or celebrity academics like Reza Aslan and Tariq Ramadan. So yes, those qualities do not exempt one from suspicion – far from it. This is the reality, not bigotry or the mythical Islamophobia.

Beaumont goes on to complain that “Arabs and Islamists have been portrayed thus far [in Homeland] as violent fanatics, some of whom are powerful and influential infiltrators.” Why, that’s outrageous! Where could that offensive stereotype possibly have come from? The real-world fanatics and infiltrators themselves, perhaps? Beaumont should be directing his ire at them for establishing and perpetuating the stereotype he blames on Hollywood.

Homeland presents “an odd and unbelievable image of relationships,” Beaumont claims, “between countries and identities in the Middle East, where Palestinians, Iraqis, Saudis all share an agenda regardless of background, culture and history.” It’s not odd or unbelievable at all – that agenda is the annihilation of Western civilization and the establishment of a worldwide caliphate, and it is shared by Muslim fundamentalists regardless of national background, culture and history. This is something Hollywood and the left refuse to acknowledge.

Then Beaumont lets his own bias slip. Referring to the fact that Homeland originally spun off of an Israeli TV show, he notes that “what Homeland portrays is a peculiar view of the Islamic world, one rooted, perhaps, in its genesis as an Israeli drama, where the view of the surrounding neighbourhood is more paranoid and defensive.” Paranoid and defensive? Israelis’ wariness about the Islamic world’s open determination to exterminate them is not “a peculiar view”; as the saying goes, it’s not paranoia if they’re really trying to kill you.

Read more at Front Page

The Progressive-Islamist Alliance

By J.T. Hatter:

The  affinity between radical Islamists and the progressive left derives from a shared belief that America  is the Great Satan and must be destroyed.

The  esteemed writer and lecturer David Horowitz has crafted a book entitled Unholy  Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, in which he reveals that  common cause.  The progressive left — which also embraces  socialism/communism as a means to destroy America — has now allied  ideologically with the Islamists, who despise modernity itself and especially  detest the sexual agenda of the left.

This  alliance is growing and extends deep into the Obama administration, the  mainstream media, and academia.  The Democratic Party and the mainstream  media have been protecting and supporting radical Islamists for decades.   And where you once saw fashionably leftist young college students wearing Che Guevara t-shirts, it is now common to  see them wearing Palestinian colors and sporting radical anti-Zionist  themes.

The  leader of the progressive left, President Barack Hussein Obama, proclaimed  recently at the United Nations (emphasis added):

The  future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be  credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when  the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the  Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite  pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form  of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic  spirit.”

Like  most Obama oratory, this is filled with deception and hidden meanings.  In  this statement, Obama delivers a virulent attack against those who “slander the  prophet of Islam.”  This is followed by a backhanded token (“to be  credible”) to the effect that Christianity, Judaism, and minority sects of Islam  should also receive a modicum of respect.  The implication is that the  rights of other faiths are secondary to those of Islam.

Then,  in typical Obamaic oratory fashion, he turns Gandhi’s famous quote about  tolerance on its head, delivering a meaning that is the opposite of what its  author intended.  Only the worst kind of propagandist or hypocrite can use  the term “tolerance” in the context of a nonexistent Islamic pretense to a “true  democratic spirit.”   There is no such spirit anywhere in Islam.   Islam abjures democracy.  In this reprehensively deceptive and devious  statement, Obama masks the offensive depredations of Islamic intolerance and  terrorism with the noble veneer of religious tolerance.

Obama  went on to specifically denounce the Nakoula YouTube video and continue his cover for the latest Islamic  terrorist attacks in Egypt and Libya and the murders of the American  ambassadorial staff.  Yet he curiously failed to specifically mention the  return engagement of the Piss Christ “artwork” on display less than two  miles away at the Edward Tyler Nahem Gallery on 57th  Street.

The  progressive left — the liberals in our society — almost always side with  Muslims against American ideas and laws and, in particular, against Christian  beliefs and practices.  It is a curiosity, to say the least.  You  would think that Islam and liberalism had nothing in common and were  diametrically opposed to one another.  But the two belief systems actually  have much in common.  Liberals and Muslims despise most of what patriotic,  religious Americans cherish and revere.  This makes them common enemies of  the American enterprise: comrades de guerre, so to  speak.

Where  there is conflict between the Islamic and leftist ideologies, the Muslims always  prevail.  Progressives will never confront the Islamists, in the fear that  to do so would weaken their ally, or that it could produce a backlash so violent  and devastating that the beneficial alliance would be destroyed  forever.

Still,  it is amazing to watch progressives  continue to defend and support their Muslim allies in light of the latter’s  historical and continuing offenses against the most hallowed tenets of  liberalism: hanging homosexuals; stoning adulterers; maiming criminals; abusing  and raping women and children; beheading and crucifying non-believers; killing,  dismembering, and having sex with the corpses of women; invading embassies and  torturing and killing Americans and raping the body of the ambassador.   Instead of getting tough with the Islamists for their horrors, the president and  his leftist followers cover for them.

The  horrific crimes and depredations committed by Islamists are endless, yet  liberals manage to “tolerate” them.  You would think that people with any  kind of claim to a moral mantle would not be able to tolerate so much  evil.  Such is liberalism.

Liberals  cope with these contradictions by denying that they exist or by convincing  themselves that Islamic practices are justified and the  result of cultural differences, poverty, Zionism, or something George Bush  did.

The  more you compare the beliefs of Islamists and liberals, the more similarities  you find.  David Horowitz was right: it is an unholy  alliance.

Read more at American Thinker

Is Grover Norquist Losing His Grip on the GOP?

By  , Bloomberg:

Most Republican members of Congress—279 of them—have signed Grover Norquist’s antitax pledge and sworn never to raise taxes. But there are signs that his legendary sway over GOP lawmakers may be on the wane.

Last week, Congressman Allen West, a Tea Party favorite from Florida, told Politico: ”I signed that thing in the desert of Afghanistan. I got home and they wanted me to sign again during my campaign, and I wouldn’t, and Grover started yelling at my campaign manager. Grover is a nice guy, but I think he’s a little misguided.” (Norquist says he never yelled at anyone who worked for West.)

West joins Wisconsin Congressman Reid Ribble, a fellow signee of the pledge, in speaking out against it. And Scott Rigell, of Virginia, who changed his mind and said he could no longer abide by it. Also: Jeff Fortenberry, of Nebraska, who flat-out refused to sign the pledge last year and explained in a recent interview that he wasn’t opposed to increasing certain taxes. “Removing special-interest loopholes,” Fortenberry told the American Conservative, ”could potentially increase revenues and allow for lower rates.”

So is Norquist concerned about the defectors? Norquist told me on Wednesday that he has spoken with members of Congress who expressed doubts about the pledge—but left feeling committed that none of them would vote for a tax increase. “The pledge is stronger than ever,” he says.

Lets refresh our memory on the Islamist mole Grover Norquist:

The Norquist Cell: Operation GroverKhan, (by GARY H.  JOHNSON, JR, FSM, 6/11/11)

Grover Norquist Exposed on House Floor Today (Atlas Shrugs, 10/4/11)

Grover Norquist’s New Muslim Protégé (Frontpage, 9/26/11)

A Troubling Influence,(Frank Gaffney, Frontpage, 12/09/03

David Horowitz at CPAC warning of the dangers posed by the infiltration of the conservative movement by the Muslim Brotherhood in the person of Suhail Khan and his sponsor Grover Norquist:

 

 

Savaging Shariah Critic Gaffney:What Is the ACU Up To?

Blue Ridge Forum:

Alex Seitz-Wald of the left-leaning Think Progress in his post today “EXCLUSIVE: Conservative Board Unanimously Condemned Gaffney’s ‘Reprehensible’ And ‘Unfounded’ Attacks” — also tells us of two revealing  American Conservative Union (ACU) documents of  September 21, 2011 here and here.

(Seitz-Wald notes: “Asa Hutchison and Carly Fiorina were not [Board] members at the time of the letter”).

The first document “welcomes their [Grover Norquist’s and Suhail Kahn’s] continued participation in the work of ACU and of the American conservative movement.” The second, authored by Washington insider Cleta Mitchell — “board member of and/or counsel to several leading conservative groups” –purports to remove all questions about any association of Mr. Norquist and Mr. Kahn with “extremist Muslim organizations.”

One wonders why the ACU — but perhaps because of its recently controversial history  (click here for Jim Lampe’s RedState report yesterday) – failed to release these documents at the time for full discussion by the conservative community.

For the conservative rank and file will want to come to their own judgment on Mr. Norquist and Mr. Kahn.

There will likely be many comments from a vastly different perspective on the ACU’s position, comments which we shall endeavor to track.

In the interim, faithful readers will recall northern Virginia Representative Frank Wolf’s October 4, 2011 statement to the House entitled “Grover Norquist’s Relationships Should Give People Pause.” Readers should scroll down in this link to see what Mr. Wolf terms “Terrorist Connections.”

Moreover we call readers attention to David Horowitz’s address to CPAC on February 13 of last year entitled  “The Muslim Brotherhood Inside the Conservative Movement.”

FrontPageMag publisher Horowitz counseled –

Frank Gaffney has been the courageous bringer of the bad news about Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan to the board of the American Conservative Union. Many good conservatives on the board have refused to believe the evidence of Suhail Khan’s Brotherhood allegiances and agendas. They are of the opinion that Suhail’s public appearances with Alamoudi and the Muslim Brotherhood fronts took place a decade ago, and that he doesn’t promote violent agendas. I understand this. My parents were Communists in the heyday of Stalin. The Party’s slogan was not ‘Bring on the dictatorship of the Proletariat’ or ‘Revolution Now.’ But that is what they believed. The slogan of the Communist Party was ‘Peace, Jobs and Democracy.’

As for the question of whether Suhail Khan believes now what he openly said then, my answer is this. When an honest person has been a member of a destructive movement and leaves it, he will feel compelled to repudiate it publicly and to warn others of the dangers it poses. This is a sure test of whether someone has left the Muslim Brotherhood or not. “  (Underscoring Forum’s.)

We need a robust national discussion  among conservatives on all of this — not back-room resolutions. Blue Ridge Forum looks forward to comments from long-time experts on how free societies cope with Shariah.

Frank Gaffney is the Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. The Center is a not-for-profit, non-partisan educational corporation established in 1988. Under Mr. Gaffney’s leadership, the Center has been nationally and internationally recognized as a resource for timely, informed and penetrating analyses of foreign and defense policy matters.

Mr. Gaffney is the host of Secure Freedom Radio, a nationally-syndicated radio program heard weeknights throughout the country. On Secure Freedom Radio, Mr. Gaffney addresses current and emerging threats to national security, sovereignty and our ways of life. Featured guests have included Newt Gingrich, John Bolton, Donald Rumsfeld and many current and former policymakers and elected officials.

Mr. Gaffney is the publisher and associate author of Shariah: The Threat to America (Center for Security Policy Press, 2010).  With an introduction by former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, New York Times bestseller Andrew C. McCarthy and Lt. General Harry Soyster as well as contributions from the 19-member Team B II, this highly acclaimed report provides a comprehensive and articulate “second opinion” on the official characterizations and assessments of the threat of political Islam as put forward by the US Government. Shariah: The Threat draws upon the work of the Center for Security Policy and offers practical steps for mobilizing the our law enforcement, our elected officials and the American public to defend out country from those who would do us harm. 

Mr. Gaffney also contributes actively to the security policy debate in his capacity as a weekly columnist for the Washington Times, TownHall.com, and Newsmax.com. He is a contributor to BigPeace.com and his columns also appear periodically in WorldNetDaily.com, and FrontPageMagazine.com. He is a featured weekly contributor to Lars Larson’s syndicated radio program as well as Greg Garrison’s show and a frequent guest on syndicated programs with hosts like: Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Janet Parshall, and Jim Bohannan. In addition, he appears often on national and international television networks such as Fox News, CNN and BBC.  Over the years, his op.ed. articles have appeared in such publications as: The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The New Republic, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Los Angeles Times, National Review, Newsday, American Legion Magazine, and Commentary.

In April 1987, Mr. Gaffney was nominated by President Reagan to become the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, the senior position in the Defense Department with responsibility for policies involving nuclear forces, arms control and U.S.-European defense relations. He acted in that capacity for seven months during which time, he was the Chairman of the prestigious High Level Group, NATO’s senior politico-military committee. He also represented the Secretary of Defense in key U.S.-Soviet negotiations and ministerial meetings.

From August 1983 until November 1987, Mr. Gaffney was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy under Assistant Secretary Richard Perle.

From February 1981 to August 1983, Mr. Gaffney was a Professional Staff Member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Senator John Tower (R-Texas). And, in the latter 1970’s, Mr. Gaffney served as an aide to the late Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson (D-Washington) in the areas of defense and foreign policy.

Mr. Gaffney holds a Master of Arts degree in International Studies from the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service.

Mr. Gaffney’s leadership has been recognized by numerous organizations including: the Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Award (1987), the U.S. Business and Industry Council’s Defender of the National Interest Award (1994), the Navy League of the United States’ “Alfred Thayer Mahan Literary Achievement Award” (1999), and the Zionist Organization of America’s “Louis Brandeis Award” (2003).