Assessing Obama’s Mosque Speech on Islam

1350By Daniel Pipes
Special to IPT News
February 8, 2016

Wishing to address growing anti-Islamic sentiments among the American public, Barack Obama ventured on Feb. 3 to the Islamic Society of Baltimore (sadly, a mosque with unsavory Islamist associations) to talk about Islam and Muslims. The 5,000-word speech contains much of interest. Here’s an in-depth assessment of its key points:

OBAMA: a lot of Americans have never visited a mosque. To the folks watching this today who haven’t — think of your own church, or synagogue, or temple, and a mosque like this will be very familiar. This is where families come to worship and express their love for God and each other. There’s a school where teachers open young minds. Kids play baseball and football and basketball — boys and girls — I hear they’re pretty good. Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts meet, recite the Pledge of Allegiance here.

PIPES: All true, but what about the dark side, the unique and repeated role of mosques in parlaying totalitarian ideas and fomenting violence? That goes unsaid in the president’s rose-colored presentation.

as Muslim Americans, you [worry that] your entire community so often is targeted or blamed for the violent acts of the very few.

Obama makes Muslims sound like innocent bystanders when there’s a perfectly reasonable fear of them due to (1) so much violence emanating from this 1 percent of the U.S. population and (2) non-violent Muslims showing sympathy for the violent ones.

The Muslim American community remains relatively small—several million people in this country.

This is a coy way for Obama to walk back his exaggerated 7 million figure of 2009 without explicitly saying so.

recently, we’ve heard inexcusable political rhetoric against Muslim Americans that has no place in our country.

A veiled critique of Donald Trump that Trump deserves.

No surprise, then, that threats and harassment of Muslim Americans have surged.

That’s ridiculous. In so far as there has been a surge of threats and harassment – and this is open to doubt given the disreputable nature of the reporting – this is due to Muslim violence. Reasonably, non-Muslims worry that a co-worker will behead them or attack them at a party, that they’ll be bombed attending a sporting event, or rammed into by planes when working at their offices. To blame non-Muslims for this commonsensical, life-preserving fear is to confuse symptom with cause.

For more than a thousand years, people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace.

Some converts, to be sure, have been attracted to the peaceable side of Islam but many others have seen it as a militant force and converting as joining a winning team. Look at the Western converts who have gone to ISIS as one subset of these. Again, Obama just focuses on the cheery dimension and ignores the unpleasant one.

the very word itself, Islam, comes from salam — peace.

How can a person in a position of responsibility say something so patently wrong? Islam means submission, and does not derive from peace. As I explained in 2005, “There is no connection in meaning between salām and islām, peace and submission. These are two distinct words with unrelated meetings.” Shame on Obama.

For Christians like myself …

Standing in a mosque, Obama presumably feels a need to remind his audience that he’s not a Muslim. He would be more convincing if he could get his autobiography straight. For example, he sometimes declares he has “always been a Christian” and at other times that he “didn’t become a Christian” until after college. It would also help if he could date this important milestone rather than offer, in the view of Jason Kissner, an associate professor of criminology at California State University, Fresno, there are “two completely contradictory accounts” regarding its time frame.

Muslim Americans keep us safe. They’re our police and our firefighters. They’re in homeland security, in our intelligence community. They serve honorably in our armed forces.

Again true, but again not mentioning the other side – the persistent penetration of American security and military services by Islamist enemies.

it is undeniable that a small fraction of Muslims propagate a perverted interpretation of Islam.

Here we go again, Imam Obama declaiming on what the proper and the perverted interpretation of Islam are. He’s done this before, as have many other non-Muslim leaders, including prior U.S. presidents. It’s silly and embarrassing.

right now, there is a organized extremist element that draws selectively from Islamic texts, twists them in an attempt to justify their killing and their terror.

It would be more accurate to replace this with “right now, there is a organized extremist element that draws on medieval Islamic texts and interprets them in medieval ways to justify their killing and their terror.”

Part of what’s happened in the Middle East and North Africa and other places where we see sectarian violence is religion being a tool for another agenda — for power, for control.

This is typical left-wing materialism, which sees religion as a vehicle for something else, usually connected with economic benefit. No, the Islamists are true believers who engage in violence to pursue their vision, not for power as an end in itself, as Obama insists.

Thomas Jefferson’s opponents tried to stir things up by suggesting he was a Muslim – so I was not the first. No, it’s true, it’s true. Look it up. I’m in good company.

I did look it up – in Jefferson’s Religion, a 2007 book by Stephen J. Vicchio, and found no evidence that Jefferson was called a Muslim. His opponents called him names such as “French infidel,” “confirmed infidel,” “howling atheist,” and “fanatic,” but never “Mahometan.”

just as faith leaders, including Muslims, must speak out when Christians are persecuted around the world – or when anti-Semitism is on the rise – because the fact is, is that there are Christians who are targeted now in the Middle East, despite having been there for centuries, and there are Jews who’ve lived in places like France for centuries who now feel obliged to leave because they feel themselves under assault — sometimes by Muslims.

It’s not a complete or coherent sentence but it does correctly demand that Muslims speak out against religious persecution and it does note that Jews in Europe are “sometimes” (really, nearly always) attacked by Muslims. It’s a relief to see the dark side peek through for an instant.

the suggestion is somehow that if I would simply say, these are all “Islamic terrorists,” then we would actually have solved the problem by now, apparently. (Laughter.)

This is a cheap laugh line. No one thinks the problem of Islamist violence would be solved by Obama using the right wording; many, including me, however, say that he can’t properly address the problem unless he accurately identifies it.

Groups like ISIL are desperate for legitimacy. They try to portray themselves as religious leaders and holy warriors who speak for Islam. I refuse to give them legitimacy.

In fact, ISIL (or ISIS, Islamic State, Daesh) could not care less what Obama or other non-Muslims think of it. It cares only about the views of Sunni Muslims. So, Obama can deny it legitimacy all he wants; ISIS won’t notice or care.

the notion that America is at war with Islam ignores the fact that the world’s religions are a part of who we are. We can’t be at war with any other religion because the world’s religions are a part of the very fabric of the United States, our national character.

By this infantile logic, Hitler could not have been at war with Judaism because Jews were part of the very fabric of Germany.

the best way for us to fight terrorism is to deny these organizations legitimacy and to show that here in the United States of America, we do not suppress Islam; we celebrate and lift up the success of Muslim Americans.

No, the best way to fight Muslim violence is by (1) getting out of the way of law enforcement and others on the front line and (2) helping anti-Islamist Muslims find their voice.

we can’t suggest that Islam itself is at the root of the problem. That betrays our values. It alienates Muslim Americans. It’s hurtful to those kids who are trying to go to school and are members of the Boy Scouts, and are thinking about joining our military.

This nicely summarizes the Establishment mentality that one must not publicly connect Islam to violence; just whisper this behind closed doors.

Muslims around the world have a responsibility to reject extremist ideologies that are trying to penetrate within Muslim communities. Here at this mosque, and across our country and around the world, Muslim leaders are roundly and repeatedly and consistently condemning terrorism.

The equation of “reject[ing] extremist ideologies” and “condemning terrorism” reveals Obama’s facile understanding of the Islamist challenge, reducing it merely to wanton political violence. Stop that violence and the problem is solved. Hardly; for lawful Islamism poses a deeper threat than some bomb-totting fanatics.

this is not a clash of civilizations between the West and Islam. This is a struggle between the peace-loving, overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world and a radical, tiny minority. And ultimately, I’m confident that the overwhelming majority will win that battle. Muslims will decide the future of your faith. And I’m confident in the direction that it will go.

I would phrase it quite differently but I endorse these sentiments.

If you’re ever wondering whether you fit in here, let me say it as clearly as I can, as President of the United States: You fit in here – right here. You’re right where you belong. You’re part of America, too. You’re not Muslim or American. You’re Muslim and American.

I endorse this as well.

We are blessed to live in a nation where even if we sometimes stumble, even if we sometimes fall short, we never stop striving for our ideals. We keep moving closer to that more perfect union. We’re a country where, if you work hard and if you play by the rules, you can ultimately make it, no matter who you are or how you pray. It may not always start off even in the race, but here, more than any place else, there’s the opportunity to run that race. …

After more than 200 years, our blended heritage, the patchwork quilt which is America, that is not a weakness, that is one of our greatest strengths. It’s what makes us a beacon to the world.

These are unusually patriotic and warm words for the United States from a leftist who rarely has much good to say about his own country. Good to hear them.

In all, this speech gets much more wrong than it gets right, from factual mistakes to evasions to distortions. It does get a few points right, especially toward the end, but as a whole, it’s a typically shoddy Obama production.

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2016 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

***

Frank Gaffney discusses the President’s rhetoric while visiting a Jihadist mosque in America on Tipping Point with Liz Wheeler:

Also see:

Secure Freedom Radio: Patrick Poole on Obama’s outreach to the wrong Muslims

Getty Images

Getty Images


Secure Freedom Radio, by Frank Gaffney, Feb. 4, 2016:

With Patrick Poole

PATRICK POOLE, National Security and Terrorism Correspondent for PJ Media:

Why is America Reaching Out to the Wrong Muslims?

Frank Gaffney spoke to Patrick Poole on the radio today. Poole is the National Security and Terrorism Correspondent for PJ Media.

Gaffney began by asking Poole about Obama’s recent visit to a mosque in Baltimore. Poole responded:

“This is kind of emblematic of the failure of the Obama administration’s handling of violent extremism or CVE (countering violent extremist) policies which go back to the latter half of the Bush administration where we see this engagement with known bad actors in the Muslim community, promoting them as moderates that are supposedly going to help us de-radicalize yet in fact we’re seeing from an empirical point of view, we’re seeing more terrorists now than we’ve ever seen before.”

Poole then noted the irony of Obama having to travel all the way to Baltimore for a mosque visit because local mosques in the DC area had too many red flags associated with them. Gaffney noted that even the mosque in Baltimore has an imam who has been controversial. Poole reminded us that the Islamic Society which runs the mosque in Baltimore is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Gaffney suggests that America has essentially been suborned by enemy operatives from the Muslim Brotherhood . Poole agrees and suggests that this group has somehow become acceptable as a group with which our government believes it can work.

That seems unreal when you learn the truth about the Muslim Brotherhood. Poole explained:

“The Muslim Brotherhood’s endgame is identical to that of Al-Qaeda,  the Islamic State and a number of these other terrorist groups… to re-establish the caliphate and impose Sharia Law.”

As Gaffney correctly pointed out, it seems like Obama is reaching out to “the wrong Muslims.”

Many Americans probably don’t know that there was even a petition launched for the White House on Change.org to declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terror organization that was signed by over 200,000 Americans which the administration brushed aside claiming there was no evidence that the Brotherhood was committed to violence.

What we have is a situation not unlike what Europe is facing.  Through increased Muslim immigration, jihadists are being embedded in our society. Some are waging cultural jihad and when that fails, militant jihad.

At the same time, we’ve got progressive leaders like New York City mayor Bill de Blasio shutting down surveillance of mosques in the name of political correctness which Poole suggests could cost American lives. Of the people who are against surveillance, Poole says:

“They’re creating the conditions which Muslims are going to be subject to more inspection because we hear these advocates saying, who basically use the Muslim community as a human shield for the extremists, and when something happens, much as it did after 9/11 when most of the surveillance took place in New York… when the next event happens it will be the whole Muslim community rather than these hot spots of jihad. It’s not rocket science.”

Gaffney makes the excellent point that if we keep reaching out to the wrong Muslim groups, it leaves very little space for the type of Muslims we want living in America who reject Sharia Law and don’t want to live under it themselves.

Gaffney and Poole concluded their discussion by noting the irony of Egypt’s rejection of the Muslim Brotherhood as our administration seems to embrace them. Poole, who has visited Egypt numerous times said that he’s often asked by the people there why we are working with the Muslim Brotherhood after millions of Egyptians protested them.

Why indeed?

COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • President Obama’s visit to the Baltimore mosque is emblematic of the Administration’s CVE (countering violent extremism policies)
  • Islamic societies in this country and what we know about their relationships to the Muslim Brotherhood
  • America has been suborned by enemy operatives

(PART TWO): Podcast (podcast2): Play in new window | Download

  • How does the Muslim Brotherhood differ from terror organizations like Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State?
  • Systematic outreach of the Obama administration to the wrong Muslims
  • Obama administration’s response to public petition to make the Muslim Brotherhood a designated terror organization

(PART THREE): Podcast (podcast3): Play in new window | Download

  • DHS and State Department shutting down investigation that could have uncovered critical evidence in preventing the San Bernardino attacks
  • CVE encouraging domestic terrorism
  • Civilization jihad becoming militant in the US similar to what’s happening in Europe

(PART FOUR): Podcast (podcast4): Play in new window | Download

  • Censorship of NYPD’s radicalization report
  • Is mosque surveillance necessary?
  • How Muslim communities are used as shields for radicals
  • President el-Sisi’s crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt

(PART FIVE): Podcast (podcast5): Play in new window | Download

  • Conflagration between the Egyptian government and the Muslim Brotherhood
  • President el-Sisi’s speech at Al-Azhar University
  • The Obama administration’s embrace of radicals domestically and around the world

Why does the SPLC hate the Center for Security Policy?

2490052973

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q & A

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

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

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

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

Is the Center for Security Policy “Islamophobic”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carson Warns About Islamic Groups’ ‘Civilization Jihad’

REUTERS/MOHAMMED SALEM

REUTERS/MOHAMMED SALEM

Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Jan. 27, 2016:

Dr. Ben Carson, the retired neurosurgeon and Republican candidate for president, appeared on the Mark Levin Show Tuesday night, and sounded the alarm about the threat of domestic Islamist groups that pose as moderate organizations.

“Our political correctness is what is going to be our undoing,” Carson told the conservative radio host.

During the Holy Land Foundation trials, in 2007 and 2008, which was the largest terror financing case in U.S. history, a government-produced “explanatory memorandum helped get a handle on what the Muslim Brotherhood and some of these other organizations are doing, and CAIR in particular,” Carson explained.

“They said in that document that it would be particularly easy to carry out ‘civilization jihad’ in America because our people would be so silly and … protecting the rights of the very people who are trying to subvert our system, to their own expense,” the famed retired neurosurgeon added.

Levin remarked, “You’re the only candidate taking on this group CAIR, which is to me a very troubling front group for Hamas and some of these other outfits. And you’re the only one out there pounding away at them.”

CAIR has been declared a terrorist organization in the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in the foundation’s Hamas-funding operation.

Carson noted “the gravity of the situation and what the implications are for our country.”

Breitbart News has reported extensively on CAIR’s ties to radicalism.

An FBI chart that surfaced in December thanks to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request depicted CAIR as a Hamas-related organization.

Frank Gaffney, the president and founder of the Center for Security Policy, said Carson made one the “most important” statements of the election cycle, for drawing attention to the issue at hand.

“Dr. Ben Carson has just made one of the most important statements of the 2016 presidential campaign.  In an interview with Mark Levin last night, the GOP candidate called attention to a document known as “the Explanatory Memorandum” and observed that it lays out the Muslim Brotherhood secret plan for taking down our country,” Gaffney tells Breitbart News.

“Specifically, this Memorandum declares the Brotherhood’s mission in North America is “destroying Western civilization from within” and describes how this ambitious goal is being pursued through a variety of stealthy techniques,” he added.

Carson should be far from the only candidate speaking about this ever-important issue, the Center For Security Policy President said.

“Every other candidate to be our next Commander-in-Chief and every voter contemplating which one to hire for that job needs to acquaint themselves with this ominous plan, and learn how it has been successfully implemented over the past twenty-five years,” Gaffney concluded.

***

Ben Carson connects the dots on immigration, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Holy Land Foundation and the behavior of Hamas front-group CAIR on the Mark Levin show:

Also see:

Gaffney: Shariah-Compliant Twitter

Arabic-Twitter-Getty-640x480Breitbart, by Frank  Gaffney, Jan. 3, 2016:

Twitter seems to think 2016 is 1984. It has welcomed in the New Year with a change in the rules governing all of its accounts that is reminiscent of Orwellian thought-control. Or at least that practiced by another, non-fictional totalitarian system: the Islamic supremacist program known as shariah.

Shariah’s adherents demand that no offense be given to them, their religion, deity or prophet. Now, all other things being equal, they are close to ensuring that none will be forthcoming in 140 characters.

If successful, contemporary Islamists will have achieved a major step towards a goal they have been pursuing through other means for nearly two decades: the worldwide prohibition of “defamation of religions” – read, Islam. In particular, since 2005, their proto-Caliphate – the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – has been working through the United Nations on a ten-year plan to impose this restraint concerning freedom of expression on the rest of us.

In 2011, with the active support of the Obama administration, this gambit produced UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. It basically gives the imprimatur of international law to Shariah’s demand that speech, books, videos and now Tweets that “defame” Muslims or their faith be prohibited.

In July of that year, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton implicated herself personally in this affront to our First Amendment guarantee of free expression. She launched with the OIC and the European Union the so-called “Istanbul Process,” a tripartite effort to accommodate the Islamic supremacists’ demands that Western nations conform to Resolution 16/18 by adopting domestic strictures against offense-giving to Muslims. 

On that occasion, Mrs. Clinton famously declared her willingness “to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.” The message could not have been more clear to jihadists around the world: The United States was submitting to shariah blasphemy norms.

According to shariah, the proper response is to redouble the effort to make the infidel “feel subdued.” That means, worse behavior from the Islamists, not better.

Now, it seems that one of the greatest enablers of the global jihad, Saudi billionaire Alwaleed bin Talal, is seeing his substantial stake in Twitter stock translate into another breakthrough for Islamic supremacy: The suppression of Tweets that, according to the company’s new rule, involve “hate speech or advocacy against an individual, organization or protected group based on race, ethnicity, national origin, color, religion, disability, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status or other protected status.”

To be sure Twitter is a private sector enterprise. It is, therefore, free to deny its services to those whose content it finds objectionable. At least, as long as it doesn’t try to deny service to approved “haters” like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). This organization has deviated wildly from its early history as an effective advocate for civil liberties. Today, its invective-laced advocacy against individuals or organization who are supposed to enjoy “protected status” under our Constitution, namely that of citizens free to express themselves, can only be described as hate speech. Yet, the SPLC is embraced and even cited by the Obama administration and others among the leftists and Islamists who make up the “Red-Green axis” now feverishly working to silence any who they, as Hillary Clinton put it, “abhor.” (For more on this unlikely alliance, see Jim Simpson’s The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America.)

What is particularly concerning is that the new Twitter rule sounds a lot like what is coming out of the Obama administration these days. See, for example, the Justice Department’s “Guidance for Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Regarding the Use Of Race, Ethnicity, Gender, National Origin, Religion, Sexual Orientation, Or Gender Identity.”

Speaking of the Justice Department, Americans who are inclined not to worry about losing the ability to Tweet their concerns about jihadism, shariah and anything else that might offend Muslims should bear in mind that Attorney General Loretta Lynch has put us all on notice that considerably worse may be in store for our First Amendment rights. Last month she told a Muslim Brotherhood-tied organization, Muslim Advocates: “Now, obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone…lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric…When we see that, we will take action.”

With Hillary Clinton’s prominent role in promoting restriction of free expression, and what appears to be accelerating momentum in the direction of ensuring conformity with shariah blasphemy restrictions, this would seem to be a good time for Republican presidential candidates – and the rest of us – to be expressing our adamant objections. If Twitter gets away with keeping us from doing it in 140 characters, we better make sure we do it otherwise, while we still can.

Where Do the Candidates Stand on the Muslim Brotherhood #GOPDebate @FoxBusiness

fbn-debate-2Center for Security Policy, by Frank Gaffney, Dec; 28, 2015:

Daniel Horowitz is one of the most brilliant minds in Washington these days. He writes for Conservative Review and has challenged the presidential candidates to address not just the threat posed by jihadists elsewhere, but that of the Muslim Brotherhood here at home.

The Brotherhood has been operating in this country for over fifty years. The Brothers are not a non-violent alternative to the likes of al Qaeda and the Islamic State. Rather, they spawned – or at least inspired – virtually all of the world’s jihadist organizations. And the U.S. government has proved in federal court that their mission here is “destroying Western civilization from within.”

Sen. Ted Cruz has introduced legislation calling for the Muslim Brotherhood’s designation as the terrorist group it is. Every candidate – Democrat as well as Republican –must be asked if they agree.

Also see:

The Elephant in the Debate Room is Shariah

sharia1 islamic law 2Center for Security Policy, by Frank Gaffney, Dec. 16, 2015:

Against the backdrop of actual and threatened terrorist attacks by Islamic supremacists, presidential candidates from both parties are suddenly talking about the “elephant” in the room: the connection between the practice of jihad and the ideology of authoritative Islam, known as shariah.

Unfortunately, so far this debate has generated more heat than light. Candidates from Hillary Clinton to most of the GOP field are, ironically, parroting a meme advanced by the Muslim Brotherhood’s operatives in this country: Jihad has nothing to do with Islam, and suggesting otherwise impugns all Muslims.

That is, of course, nonsense – and dangerously misleading, at that. The good news is that not all Muslims adhere to shariah. The bad news is that many millions do, and they are obliged to engage in, or support, jihad.

It isn’t religious tolerance to ignore this reality. It is national security malpractice.

***

At least Cruz and Carson brought up the Muslim Brotherhood during the debate. Hopefully this will be mentioned in future debates because they are becoming politically organized in our country through the USCMO and people need to know their true agenda.

Star Spangled Shariah: The Rise of America’s First Muslim Brotherhood Party

The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s stated goal in America is to “destroy the Western civilization from within.” Star-Spangled Shariah: The Rise of America’s First Muslim Brotherhood Partyshows the newest weapon in their arsenal for doing so – a self-described “political Party” called the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO). This new monograph “connects the dots” between the Brotherhood’s secret plan to impose Shariah here and the insidious use it intends to make of our democratic political system to that end.

The USCMO understands that in order for it to succeed, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood must be galvanized to the execution of the “Civilization-Jihadist Process” – a term taken from a key 1991 Brotherhood document, An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, submitted as evidence by the Justice Department in the landmark 2008 U.S. v Holy Land Foundation, et al. HAMAS terror funding trial:

spangled2The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers, so that is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” 

By its nature, the object of such a stealthy form of jihad is to ensure that the target community remains unaware of the extent of the threat until it is too late. It is our purpose with this volume and the other monographs of the Center’s Civilization Jihad Reader Series to raise the alarm and to engage the American people and their elected representatives in countering this threat while there is still time.

Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said of the new Civilization Jihad Reader:

The Muslim Brotherhood agenda for the United States demonstrably seeks through subversive infiltration of American institutions the triumph of shariah. We are now on notice that U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations is simply the leading edge of the jihadist movement in this country. While the USCMO seeks to cloak itself in red, white, and blue, it is only for the purpose of accomplishing what can aptly be described as “Star Spangled Shariah.”

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present this monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series Star-Spangled Shariah: The Rise of America’s First Muslim Brotherhood Party is available for purchase in kindle andpaperback format on Amazon.com.

Click here for a full PDF of the newly released monograph.

Don Lemon Is Wrong About CAIR

d455913e-196d-4a67-9033-7e65be8d909c (1)Town Hall, by Kyle Shideler, Dec. 11, 2015:

CNN Host Don Lemon attempted to invoke the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) as part of his televised ambush of former Reagan official and head of Center for Security Policy Frank Gaffney last night.  Lemon played a clip of Nihad Awad, CAIR’s Executive Director, before asking why Gaffney opposed CAIR. When Gaffney attempted to explain that CAIR was a Muslim Brotherhood organization with ties to Hamas, Lemon flatly denied it saying, “There is no direct knowledge that we had that CAIR has anything to do with the Muslim brotherhood.”

It should be understood from the outset that CAIR’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Hamas, are absolutely indisputable. Anyone who baldly asserts to the contrary, as Lemon does, is either totally ignorant of the available facts or is lying.

CAIR was founded in 1994 by three men, Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad, and Rafiq Jaber. All three men were leading members of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP). IAP is described in documents recovered by the FBI and submitted into evidence at the Holy Land Foundation Trial as an organization of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.

A 1991 Memorandum entitled, “A Suggestion to Amend the bylaws of the Central Committee,” and submitted at trial as Elbarasse Search-7 described IAP as the “official organization” representing the “popular side” of the Palestine Committee’s efforts. Remarks listed at the bottom of the page openly describe collecting donations for the “Islamic Resistance Movement” (AKA Hamas) “from the Ikhwan and others.” Ikhwan is Arabic for brothers and used to refer to Brotherhood members.

IAP is also connected directly to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestine Committee, and Hamas in the 1992 “Islamic Action for Palestine” memo, introduced into evidence as “Elbarasse Search 5. That memo describes the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee as supporting jihad in Palestine, and in particular Hamas, with “media, money, men and all that.”

Deported Hamas operative, and now Deputy Chairman of Hamas’ Political Bureau Mousa Abu Marzook was  IAP Chairman, and the FBI submitted evidence at trial showing that Marzook had supplied IAP with tens of thousands of dollars.

The U.S Government’s Trial brief for the Holy Land Foundation succinctly described IAP as a “media and propaganda organization” of the Palestine Committee.

CAIR Founder Omar Ahmad, and Nihad Awad both appear in the “Palestine Section” Phone Directory introduced into evidence as “Ashqar Search 1.” Ahmad’s name appears under the name Omar Yahya, an alias Ahmad admitted to using.

In 1993, members of the Palestine Committee and its affiliated organizations held a meeting in Philadelphia that was placed under surveillance by the FBI. The FBI recorded open statements about Hamas, including under the code phrase “Sister Samah.” Hamas spelled backwards, as testified to by FBI Agent Lara Burns.

Burns would also testify that CAIR was formed in the aftermath of the Philadelphia meeting.

Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad were both present at the 1993 meeting according to the FBI. Omar Ahmad spoke at the meeting (recorded and entered into evidence as Philly Meeting 15E) about working in the media, and said the problem was that the committee had “stopped working underground,” and that deception was needed, “the media person among us will recognize that you send two messages; one to the Americans and one to the Muslims.”

Following CAIR’s creation, the organization’s name appeared on a handwritten document titled, “Meeting Agenda for the Palestine Committee 7/30/94” seized in a search by the FBI and submitted at trial as Elbarasse Search-19.

Looking at the sum total of all of the submitted evidence during the Holy Land Foundation Trial, Federal Judge Jorge Solis declared that, “The government has produced ample evidence to establish connections” between CAIR, IAP and the terrorist organization Hamas.

Shortly after CAIR’s founding in 1994, Nihad Awad, CAIR’s executive director, wasvideotaped publicly declaring support for Hamas.

In response to a CAIR filed amicus brief in the appellate case against

Sabri Benkahla, the government’s brief responded by noting, “…from its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.”

The Federal Bureau of Investigation responded to a request for information from then Senator John Kyl and other lawmakers about CAIR by saying that it had cut off contact with CAIR’s National Headquarters because “evidence was introduced that demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders (including its current President Emeritus [Omar Ahmad] and its Executive Director [Nihad Awad]) and the Palestine Committee.”

The evidence of CAIR’s participation in a conspiracy to support Hamas through its role as a member of the Palestine Committee of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood is unassailable. The evidence that the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood exists as a real and knowable network of individuals and organizations is likewise unassailable.

It can only be either ignored, or responded to by attacking the messenger.

Which is exactly the route CNN and Don Lemon chose to take.

Do We Really Need More Jihadists?

Raheem Kassam / Breitbart News

Raheem Kassam / Breitbart News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gaffney: It’s Shariah, Stupid

Saul Loeb/Pool Photo via AP

Saul Loeb/Pool Photo via AP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

It’s Time For The ‘Secure Freedom’ Strategy

1092263568 (1)

Center for Security Policy, by Frank Gaffney, Jan. 16, 2015:

A hard reality is finally sinking in across America: for a long time now – actually, for more than thirty-five years – the United States has been at war with an enemy sworn to its destruction.

It did not seek enmity or hostilities with them. Both are the product of forces that long predated the establishment of this country, to say nothing of its adoption toward the end of the 20th Century of certain policies towards the Middle East or other regions.

The enemy is the Global Jihad Movement. And it is inspired, guided, and enabled by the Islamic supremacist doctrine its adherents call shariah.

For much of this period, the U.S. government has pursued various approaches to the threats posed by that enemy – including selective military engagements, benign neglect, willful blindness, and outright appeasement. They have all shared one common denominator: They ignore the aforementioned realities and, as a practical matter, have exacerbated them.

Yet, no one has advanced a more reality-based, more practical and more effective way to counter, let alone defeat, this ideologically driven enemy.

Until now.

At the National Press Club at noon on January 16th, an ad hoc group of highly skilled national security professionals will unveil an alternative plan of action that has been proven effective in protecting us against relentlessly aggressive totalitarian ideologues in the one environment that matters: the real world. The resulting approach, called the “Secure Freedom Strategy,” is modeled after the one President Ronald Reagan successfully employed to take down Soviet communism and the Evil Empire it spawned.

The “Secure Freedom Strategy” offers a detailed prescription for a clear-eyed understanding of the enemy we confront and actionable steps for vanquishing it. Its key components include:

Understanding the Enemy’s Threat Doctrine: Having conclusively demonstrated that Sun Tse’s admonition that you can’t defeat an enemy you don’t know still operates, the United States must now abandon past practice by adopting a realistic understanding of the enemy and its doctrine. That requires, in particular, clarity concerning shariah, the jihad it impels, and the various ways in which such warfare is being waged against us.

The Tiger Team makes clear that its use of the term shariah is informed by the practice of Islamic law by the recognized authorities of the faith since at least the 10th Century. (It is noteworthy that, when Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi complained publicly and courageously about the jihadist character of contemporary Islam, he did not berate so-called “radical extremists” of al Qaeda or Islamic State. Rather, he took to task the leading imams in Sunni Islam’s equivalent of the Vatican, al-Azhar University.) Such use of the term shariah, therefore, does not refer to an idiosyncratic, personal, or purely pietistic observance of Islamic law which may or may not conform to the entirety of established Islamic doctrine.

The jihadism of shariah is being advanced by both violent techniques and by means other than terrorism. We must, accordingly, be prepared to deal kinetically where necessary with the perpetrators of violent jihad. But it is also imperative that we contend no less effectively with what the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad” – its stealthy, subversive effort to “destroy Western civilization from within…by [our own] hands.”

Establishing Our Objective: Next, the United States must enunciate a national commitment to – using a phrase President Reagan employed as the object of NSDD 75 – “contain and over time reverse” shariah-driven Islamic supremacism, including establishment of the Caliphate. The rising tide of shariah and various efforts to impose it here and abroad make abundantly clear an unalterable fact: America and, indeed, Western civilization cannot coexist with the Global Jihad Movement.

Reestablishing “Peace Through Strength”: Just as President Reagan did in his day, the contemporary hollowing out of the U.S. military must be reversed as a matter of the utmost priority. The perception of American weakness only reinforces our shariah-adherent enemies’ conviction that the time has come for intensifying jihad operations. It is also emboldening other adversaries, including Russia, China and North Korea.As the United States is not confronting simply terrorist organizations, or even their state-sponsors, but prospectively “peer competitors,” the rebuilding of American military power must be balanced across the spectrum of nuclear, missile defense, conventional and special operations forces. We must also continue to develop asymmetric capabilities (e.g., in space and cyber space) while correcting our most egregious vulnerabilities to these enemies’ asymmetric attacks (notably, electromagnetic pulse, cyberwarfare, counter-space, economic/financial warfare, smuggled weapons of mass destruction, etc.)

Counter-Ideological Warfare: As in the Cold War, America’s ability to challenge and neutralize its enemies’ animating ideology is at least as important as the task of countering their kinetic threats. Once we are clear about the nature and centrality of the shariah doctrine to the existential danger we currently face, the need for a serious and effective counter-ideological strategy becomes self-evident.Putting such a strategy into practice will require, first and foremost, identifying the Muslim Brotherhood for the explicitly jihadist organization it has always been and is now.

Continuing to treat its operatives and organizations (overt and covert) in America and overseas as “partners” because we are told they “eschew violence” is a formula for our incremental destruction. Wherever and as soon as possible, these foes should be neutralized as political forces. At a minimum, they must be denied access to U.S. government agencies, funds, arms and, via television cable packages, American household subscribers.

Intelligence Operations: We must take a page from the playbook developed during the Reagan administration by then-Director of Central Intelligence William Casey and use covert means wherever possible to counter, divide and undermine our enemies. To the traditional intelligence techniques should be added aggressive use of psychological operations, cyberwarfare and, where necessary, clandestine and special operations.

Economic Warfighting: As with the Reagan NSDD 75 plan, there must be a central economic/financial warfighting component to a new American strategy for defeating our time’s existential enemies. This component would include: constricting the principal source of revenues for the jihad – vast petrodollar transfers from Western nations to OPEC states; reversing the present practice of accommodating and even encouraging shariah finance, a technique employed by civilization jihadists to penetrate and subvert our capitalist system: and exposing shariah-inspired sovereign wealth funds as instruments of financial jihad.

Cyber Warfighting: Cyberspace is the new battlefield of asymmetric warfare where attacks across domains and technologies by the Global Jihad enemy, as well as peer adversaries, must be countered with 21st Century capabilities drawn from the best and brightest in the civilian, intelligence and military worlds.

Were these and similar policy priorities articulated by the Tiger Team to be adopted and executed appropriately, it should be possible to effect the necessary second step: the adoption by the nation of a true warfooting, a state of national commitment that will bring to bear the popular vigilance and support that will make it possible for the Secure Freedom Strategy to be fully executed.

If we are to have a prayer of bequeathing, as President Reagan put it, to our children and children’s children an America that is free – and not one that has submitted to the jihadists and shariah – we must get about the business of securing freedom in a strategic and time-tested way.

And we must begin to do it now.

The Center for Security Policy’s Middle East and North Africa Briefing

1818501052

Center for Security Policy, Nov.13, 2015:

The Middle East and North Africa: National Security and a Secure Freedom Strategy to respond to the threats posed by the Islamic State and the Global Jihad Movement.

  • Pete Hoekstra, Shillman Senior Fellow, Investigative Project on Terrorism; Former Chairman, U.S. House Intelligence Committee; Author, Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya (2015)
  • Elliot Chodoff, Major in the IDF Reserves; Counter terrorism expertPartner, Lecturer, and Political and Military Analyst at Hamartzim Educational Services
  • Jim Hanson, Executive Vice President, Center for Security Policy, Author, Cut Down The Black Flag: A Plan To Defeat The Islamic State (2015)

Moderator: Frank Gaffney, President & CEO, Center for Security Policy.

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

Gaffney-getty-640x480

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also see:

The Center in For the Record

3509912708

Center for Security Policy, (Source: The Blaze) September 10, 2015:

The Center and it’s partners describe the Obama Doctrine in the Middle East in the Blaze short film series For The Record.

Why the eight words used to sell the Iran deal no longer seem to apply (No deal is better than a bad deal):

Why a nuclear Iran could pose an existential threat to the United States (EMP):

Why the Iran deal is also under fire from leading Democrats (Menendez):

Is the Iran deal a case of executive overreach?

Why an Iranian exile doesn’t trust the Iran deal:

The Obama Doctrine, the nine words that explain why the U.S. gave up so much in the Iran deal:

How history of diplomatic failure between the U.S. and Iran shapes the current nuclear deal:

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

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

418dd7fd10ab4ddebaa910c7b66a4d63

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

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

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

***

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

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

Also see: