New Documents Suggest Saudis Concern Over Hidden Iranian Nuclear Material

imageGenCSP, by Ashley Davies, June 24, 2015:

According to Saudi embassy documents secured by WikiLeaks, in February 2012 multiple Iranian shipments of “sensitive technical equipment in the form of fast centrifuges for enriching uranium,” were located at an airport in Sudan’s capital of Khartoum. The leaked documents are the first of their kind reporting Iran shipping nuclear equipment to Sudan. If the documents’ suspicions can be validated, US inspections of Iranian nuclear sites, an aspect of the nuclear deal, would be greatly hindered, further complicating the already problem-filled agreement.

This is not the first instance of Iran collaborating with other nations in relation to nuclear matters. Iran and North Korea have exchanged nuclear information including warhead designs for many years. Each regime has sent representatives to visit one another’s nations, with three sets of North Korean nuclear experts visiting Iran this year. Furthermore, Syria, a close ally of Iran, which receives aid from Iran in the form of missile development and production, played host to a nuclear reactor that was ultimately destroyed by an Israeli airstrike. If Iran were truly able and willing to develop nuclear weapons in other nations, US inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities would be widely unproductive, as Iran’s nuclear weapons will have been moved outside its borders.

Sudan, a previous safe haven for Osama bin Laden and a designated State Sponsor of Terrorism, is Iran’s strongest ally in Africa, making it the prime location to conceal their nuclear weapons. Despite the Sudanese attempting to keep their relations with Iran secretive, it is widely known that the two have been allies for a long time. Relations can be traced back to the 1980’s when an Islamist-led coup, inspired by the Islamic revolution in Iran, brought President Al-Bashir and Hassan Al-Turabi into power. Within the first six months of the Islamist regime’s reign, Iranian and Sudanese officials signed a cooperative agreement. For decades, Iran has utilized the vastness of Eastern Sudan and its maritime presence in the Red Sea to smuggle weapons. Documents from a meeting of high-level Sudanese officials revealed many officials stressed the importance of relations with Iran continuing, as it is seen as essential to Sudan’s defense and security. The necessity of Iran’s support to Sudan’s national defense spouts from Iran’s training, funding, and supplying of the Sudanese military. As Sudan has continually supported Iranian military operations, Iranian leaders have told Sudanese leader Iran was willing to share their nuclear “experience, knowledge and technology.” Sudan has openly supported Iran’s nuclear program, expressing its backing of Iran’s rights to access peaceful nuclear energy in 2009.

Interestingly, a Sudanese munitions factory was attacked by Israeli airstrikes eight months after the then secret documents were produced. Despite Israel never denying nor confirming its involvement in the strikes, Sudanese officials claimed to have evidence in the remnants of the factory that pointed to Israel as the perpetrator. Sudan and Israel have considered one another enemy nations since the Arab-Israeli war in the late 1960’s, and Israel has since carried out multiple targeted strikes against arms factories in Sudan, looking to impede the flow of weapons to Hamas. With its major African ally in trouble, Iran offered to construct missile defense systems in Sudan, however the Sudanese government rejected the offer. Israel and Iran, as well, have outwardly proclaimed their detest for each other. Iran has publically rejected Israel’s right to exist, and its Supreme Leader has called for the destruction of Israel. On the other hand, Israel has definitively opposed the idea of a nuclear Iran, with President Netanyahu going as far as addressing the US Congress with his concerns of the inadequacies compromising the deal. A majorcomponent of Iran and Sudan’s alliance is the desire to ultimately destroy Israel’s power and influence.

As the June 30th deadline of the nuclear-deal negotiations looms less than a week away,Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, laid out the remaining red lines that must be agreed upon for a deal to be reached. Amongst the ultimatums Khamenei named was Iranian military sites not being required to be inspected, a claim that the Iranians have stood behind since the discussions commenced. Time and time again however US officials have attempted to downplay the sacrifices Western nations have been making, without the Iranians budging, to reach a deal. Whether or not the final deal, if reached, allows the US and other Western nations to monitor its nuclear activity remains to be seen. However, if the Saudi’s suspicions of Iran shipping nuclear material to Sudan prove true, Iran is clearly already moving to circumvent any inspection requirements the deal might contain.

***

***

Clarion Project releases sixth short film in our “Say NO to a Nuclear Iran” campaign.

“Change the Channel” is a look at what could happen if a deal with Iran goes bad.

Click here to join our campaign “Say No to a Nuclear Iran” and join the right side of history.

Click here to write your representative in Congress

Also see:

Why Sharia Should Have No Place in America

20150301_shariawilldominatetheworldsign (1)Family Security Matters, by Eileen F. Topansky, June 22, 2015:

There are still far too many Americans who do not perceive the terrifying Nazi-like intentions of Islamic jihadists either through their outright destruction of the infidel and/or the implementation of sharia law as Allah has ordained it to be.

The alphabet-soup-named groups’ ultimate goal of extermination of Jews, Christians and any others deemed infidels has still not penetrated the consciousness of the media or academia.  And no matter how many ardent efforts are made to educate and raise awareness of the Islamists’ goals, people either ignore or minimize the dangers.

And, yet, like Churchill, there are those of us who feel a moral obligation to continue the clarion call and not bend, dhimmi-like, to the whims and wishes of those who deliberately abuse the freedoms of this country in order to abolish those very freedoms for the rest of us.

Which is why, freedom loving Americans need to support Pamela Geller, Ayanna Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Nonie Darwish and other courageous souls who refuse to cower before the appalling attacks on freedom of speech.  Given the opportunity, Islam swallows the whole body politic. Thus it has been in the past and thus it will be going forward.  After all, “Hijab Day was imposed on citizens in Minneapolis” in 2014.

Author/neuroscientist Sam Harris in his article entitled “Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks” asserts that “[t]he position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we will kill you.”  Furthermore,” [o]nly Muslims hound and hunt and murder their apostates, infidels, and critics in the 21st century.”

Contrary to Muslims’ oft-repeated assertions of victimization, it is interesting to note that the latest FBI statistics indicate that Muslims are the least discriminated among groups in the United States.  In fact, “[t]here were 1,031 incidents inspired by religion last year, 625 (60.6 percent) of which were anti-Jewish” as compared to “anti-Islamic ones [which] constituted just 13.1 percent.”  Yet Muslims play the victim game with the result that “Muslim immigrants are systematically exempted from western standards of moral order in the name of paying ‘respect’ to the glaring pathologies in their culture.”

How many Americans understand the true import of the word “dhimmitude?”  Victor Sharpe describes it as the “parlous state of those who refused to convert to Islam and became the subjugated non-Muslims who were forced to accept a restrictive and humiliating subordination to a superior Islamic power and live as second-class citizens in order to avoid death.”

Secularists from India to Indiana must understand that “by being silent about the horrendous practices in Islam, they only help toward further subjugation of women.” The veil is but one of the many symbols of “a totalitarian political system and an ideology which declares war on the non-Muslims.”  It is as clear and potent as the Nazi swastika was in its declaration of war against civilization.  Yet, when Muslim women activists speak out against sharia and Islamic gender apartheid, they are ignored by the majority of so-called Western feminists.

One need only read the March 2015 report by Baroness Cox entitled “A Parallel World: Confronting the abuse of many Muslim women in Britain today” to see what jihadist ideology is doing to the land of Churchill who, in 1897, wrote “western civilization is face to face with militant Mohammedanism.”  Baroness Cox has written that the “suffering of women oppressed by religiously-sanctioned gender discrimination; and a rapidly developing alternative quasi-legal system which undermines the fundamental principle of one law for all” would “make the suffragettes turn in their graves.”

In 2014 in their publication entitled Sharia Law: Britain’s Blind Spot, Sharia Watch warned about the encroaching sharia law that was affecting “the treatment of women, freedom of speech, finance, and the marketplace.”

Yet the West continues to contort itself to ban Islamophobia, that completely false narrative that disguises and whitewashes the true intentions of the jihadists.  What every freedom-loving individual should be doing is demanding an “Islamist Apartheid Week” to show the “genocidal, totalitarian and racist states that operate under Islamic rule.”  In fact, it isChristianophobia and Judenphobia which are endemic across the Muslim world.

Is sharia law America’s blind spot as Joanne Moudy asserts? In her June 2014 article, Moudy explains that “. . . many states have already passed laws prohibiting the use of foreign religious law in their courts. Yet despite strong voter support for these measures, the ACLU is fighting to get them all overturned. Oklahoma was one such state and – sure enough – in 2013 a federal court struck down their efforts, ignoring 70% of the population’s wishes that the U.S. Constitution take precedence.”  Moreover, “[t]he ACLU claims it is necessary to consider religious law (Shari’a) when negotiating adoptions, custody of children, executing a will and/or settling disputes over private property rights, to name a few. What the ACLU fails to mention is that within Shari’a law, women are considered property and thus have no rights, which means they have no say in court.”

In addition, Bethany Blankley in her article entitled “What America Would Look Like Under Sharia Law” notes the disingenuousness and double standards that define Islamic organizations as they stealthily infiltrate American organizations.

Blankley’s most cogent point is that since Islamists say there is no conflict between sharia law and constitutional law, “why then [do these same Islamic groups] vigilantly advertise, lobby, award ‘educational grants,’ and fund political campaigns, to implement sharia compliant American law?”

In fact, one need only look at Saudi Arabia and other sharia-ordered countries to see that Jews and gays have no civil rights in Islam.  Thus, “like everyone else, they must either submit to Islam or die.  But they are especially forbidden and targeted for death — because the Qur’an instructs it.”  According to Uzay Bulut, born and raised a Muslim, “[t]he Muslim regimes, which do not know even the definition of liberty–and their systematic criminalization of free speech; their suppression of inquiry and creativity; and their unending intertribal fights–are the reason their people have remained in the seventh century.”

Amendment VIII in the Constitution states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”  Yet, in sharp contrast, “every day, arrests, trials, floggings, torture and the murder of journalists, poets, students and human rights activists are a routine practice” in the world of sharia law.

In fact, “[i]n Islamic Sharia law, a free mind is the most inexcusable crime in the Muslim world.”

Under “sharia, no free exercise of religion exists, especially for Muslims who choose to leave Islam.”  Additionally, “blasphemy laws exist worldwide to criminalize offensive speech or actions related to the Qur’an, Allah, and Muhammad.” Thus, anything that is deemed “offensive” is illegal.  And finally, “inequality, slavery and murder are enforced through the Islamic construct of dhimmitude.”

To further understand what life would actually be like for women under an Islamic state, it behooves readers to study the manifesto on women by the Al-Khanssaa Brigade in the February 2015 piece entitled Women of the Islamic State. A propaganda piece to recruit young girls to ISIS, some highlights include a “lengthy rebuttal of the ills of Western civilisation [.]”  ISIS has proposed a curriculum that would ‘begin when [girls] are seven years old and end when they are fifteen, or sometimes a little earlier.'” In essence, “the role of women is inherently ‘sedentary’, and her responsibilities lie first and foremost in the house [.] This role begins at the point of marriage which, . . . can be as young as nine years old. From this point on, it is women’s ‘appointed role [to] remain hidden and veiled and maintain society from behind.'” In actuality, “the ideal Islamic community should refrain from becoming caught up in exploring [science], the depths of matter, trying to uncover the secrets of nature and reaching the peaks of architectural sophistication.”  Consequently, “the implementation of sharia,” and doing “jihad” is paramount.

In Wisconsin and Ohio public school female students are now being asked to pretend to be Muslims.  This subtle propaganda is a first step to indoctrinating American youth.  In fact, much of American life is now being tainted with militant and violent Islamic ideology, be it in public schools, hospitals, and mosques.

Concerning actual sharia incursions into American life, on the one hand, Elizabeth K. Dorminey in her March 2012 article entitled “Sharia Law in American Courts” asserts that “[s]o long as U.S. courts and the federal and state legislatures adhere to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, Sharia’s proscriptions and prohibitions cannot displace constitutionally-guaranteed rights in the United States.”  Likewise Eugene Volokh believes American jurists will halt sharia-like incursions.

But in reality, American courts are already using sharia to adjudicate cases; this is highlighted in the December 2014 booklet entitled Shariah in American Courts, which pdf is available here and whose blurb states that “[t]his monograph also suggests that the effort to invoke shariah in U.S. courts is expanding. Worse yet, the total number of such cases is surely far larger in light of the fact that the proceedings of the vast majority of them are not published.”

In fact, Frank Gaffney emphatically asserts the “need for state legislators to clearly define public policy related to foreign law and Shariah.”  Consequently, . . .  in every case where foreign law and Shariah emerge in the court of a state that has yet to define clearly this policy, it creates one more advance in the Islamists’ determined campaign to have us destroy ‘our house’ by ‘our own hands.'”

Moreover, Gaffney underscores that “Shariah is distinctly different from other religious laws, like Jewish law and Catholic Canon, and distinctly different from other secular foreign laws” because of the “fundamental Shariah doctrine that Islamic law must rule supreme in any jurisdiction where Muslims reside.”  This three minute you-tube is a short version of the article entitled “Shariah vs. Jewish Law and encapsulates the stark differences.

Most alarming is that in “146 cases found, the court upheld the use of Shariah in 27 cases. This means that, statistically, one out of five American judges fail[ed] to reject foreign law that violates U.S. and state public policy.”  Consequently, there is an “increasing effort to insinuate Shariah into American civilization.”  Multi-cultural tolerance is being turned on us. Being paralyzed by political correctness eliminates what self-preservation demands.

In the June 2014 booklet entitled “Siding with the Oppressor: The Pro-Islamist Left” published by One Law for All, the authors explain that “[f]undamentalist terror is predicated on “. . . controlling all aspects of society in the name of religion, including education, the legal system, youth services, etc. When fundamentalists come to power, they silence the people — they physically eliminate dissidents, writers, journalists, poets, musicians, painters – like fascists do. Like fascists, they physically eliminate the ‘untermensch’ – the subhumans -, among them ‘inferior races’, gays, mentally or physically disabled people. And they lock women ‘in their place [.]'”he Campaign La All

Why would we want to import any part of this to our shores?

Eileen has been a medical librarian, an Emergency Medical Technician and a Hebrew School teacher.  She is currently an adjunct college instructor of English composition and literature.  Active in the 1970’s Soviet Jewry Refusenik movement, she continues to speak out against tyranny.  Eileen is also a regular contributor to American Thinker. She can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com

Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad

1710871446Secure Freedom Radio, June 10, 2015: With Stephen Coughlin

STEPHEN COUGHLIN, author of “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in Face of Jihad”:

PART ONE:

  • The Islamic law of the land: Shariah
  • The non-kinetic battle space of information operations
  • Political, military, legal, and religious arms of Shariah
  • Defining “Jihad”

PART TWO:

  • Western misconceptions of the term “jihad”
  • The Muslim Brotherhoods explicit purpose in America
  • David Shipler’s Freedom of Speech
  • An Islamist alignment with the Left

PART THREE:

  • Examining the relationship between the Pentagon and the Islamic Society of North America
  • The true reach of Muslim Brotherhood agents and affiliates within the US government
  • What does it mean if “you don’t know your enemy?”

PART FOUR:

  • State Department mantra that “ISIS isn’t Islamic”
  • U.N. Resolution 1618, Hillary Clinton, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation
  • Understanding the Interfaith Movement as a cultural, Marxist organization
  • The Muslim Brotherhood’s stealth jihad within the US

Frank Gaffney: Iowa National Security Summit Will Tackle Need to Defeat Jihad, Secure Border

frank-gaffney-AP-Photo-640x480Breitbart, by EDWIN MORA, May 14, 2015:

The Iowa National Security Action Summit this Saturday is expected to feature experts and leaders who will address the need to defeat jihad, border security, and the hollowing out of the U.S. military, among other topics, according to the organization hosting the event.

Frank Gaffney, Jr., the president of the Center for Security Policy, spoke to Breitbart News about what to expect from the conference, which is hosted by his organization in partnership with The FAMiLY LEADER Foundation and High Frontier.

The May 16 conference is the second National Security Action Summit hosted by Gaffney’s organization.

On March 14, Gaffney’s group hosted a conference in South Carolina that drew hundreds of participants as well as preeminent national security experts, senior federal officials, and individuals seeking to lead the nation.

“The national security action summits are issues forums designed to educate the public and their representatives about the critical security challenges we face and the imperative of addressing them decisively,” Gaffney told Breitbart News.

“They showcase the necessity of: defeating the global jihad movement and its ideology of shariah; securing our borders and fixing our dysfunctional immigration system; rebuilding America’s military; and securing America’s electric grid,” he continued.

The summits are aimed at “equipping and empowering state and local representatives and their constituents to engage constructively in the national security debate,” later added Gaffney.

Confirmed speakers include:

• Dr. Benjamin Solomon “Ben” Carson, Sr.

• Ambassador Henry (Hank) F. Cooper, Chairman, High Frontier

• Ann Corcoran, Refugee Resettlement Watch

•Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

• Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy

• Dan Goure, Vice President, Lexington Institute

• Peter Huessy, President, GeoStrategic Analysis

• Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

•Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

• Navy Adm. James “Ace” Lyons (Ret.)

• Rick Manning, Americans for Limited Government

• Iowa Republican State Rep. Zach Nunn

• Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, Executive Director, Task Force on National and Homeland Security

• Air Force Col. Al Ringgenberg (Ret.)

• Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

• Phyllis Schlafley, Founder, Eagle Forum

• Donald Trump

• Bob Vanderplaats, President, The FAMiLY Leader Foundation

“The Iowa National Security Action Summit is designed to ensure that our national security receives the attention it requires from elected officials and their constituents, alike – both at the federal level, AND the state level,” said a press release announcing Saturday’s event.

“Americans are increasingly aware that the world is becoming an ever-more-dangerous place.  They expect their leaders to protect them and our vital interests around the world,” explained Gaffney in the release. “The National Security Action Summit is a place where the best minds convene to lay out the best ideas for doing that.”

“Protocols of the Elders of …Islam”, Really?

512R2aJ0iLLFormer New York Times reporter David K. Shipler’s new book, “Freedom of Speech: Mightier Than the Sword” has a chapter called “Protocols of the Elders of Islam” in which he impugns the work of Stephen Coughlin on the Muslim Brotherhood’s Memorandum of Understanding. You really have to hear this:

Frank Gaffney and Stephen Coughlin discuss on Secure Freedom Radio:

LIVE EVENT: Iran Truth Panel

4100482676President Obama has made numerous exaggerated and misleading statements to promote his nuclear diplomacy with Iran as a good deal. However, in an interview with NPR, the president accidentally told the truth and confirmed what many have been saying about his nuclear diplomacy with Iran:

“What is a more relevant I fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.”

Because the nuclear agreement being sought by the Obama administration will allow Iran to continue to enrich uranium and develop much more efficient centrifuge machines, it is very likely that the time to an Iranian bomb could shrink to “almost zero” as the president said. This is one of many reasons to stop this deal.

The Center for Security Policy will hold a panel discussion on how the Iran deal is a path for Iran to get the bomb.

WHO:
  • Kenneth Timmerman: Author, Activist and investigative journalist; Executive director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI)
  • Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, and father of the Navy Red Cell counterterrorist unit.
  • Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.: President, Center for Security Policy, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Acting) under President Reagan.
  • Clare Lopez, Senior Vice President for Research and Analysis, Center for Security Policy and former Operations Officer in the CIA’s Clandestine Service
WHERE:
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
WHEN:
Friday, May 8th, 2015 | 10:00am

History of the Soviet-Islam Connection

4261455653Listen to Frank Gaffny interview with Trevor Loudon at Center for Security Policy

TREVOR LOUDON, a New Zealand political activist, speaker, and author of “The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists, and Progressives in the US Congress”:

PART ONE:

  • The Soviet science of subversion from WWII to today
  • How agents of influence destroyed the Australian/New Zealand/United States military alliance
  • Was the European Peace Movement merely an instrument to destroy NATO during the Cold War?
  • Tracing the current Administration’s three greatest achievements back to the Communist Party USA, courtesy of Frank Marshall Davis

PART TWO:

  • The American Civil Liberties Union’s origins as the security apparatus of communist America
  • Using constitutional projections to empower enemies of the United States
  • The Council for a Livable World’s promotion of U.S. disarmament
  • The rise of George Soros and how the Center for American Progress continues to disseminate socialist ideals

PART THREE:

  • Is George Soros supporting radical attacks on the U.S. justice and economic system?
  • Threats from Islamists and their links to communism, as seen in the Palestinian Intifada Movement
  • Vladimir Putin’s anti-western propaganda now integrating radical Islam
  • Evidence that Pres. Obama has a foot in both the Islamist and Marxist camps

PART FOUR:

  • Is the U.S. internal security apparatus being destroyed from within?
  • Purging of anti-Islamist material from American military and law enforcement training manuals
  • Controversy over Rep. André Carson’s appointment to the U.S. House Select Committee on Intelligence

Texas Senator takes action to protect critical infrastructure

20141125_empattack

Published on Apr 22, 2015 by securefreedom

Texas Senator Bob Hall hears testimony on on Senate Bill 1398 from Kevin Freeman and Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy. SB 1398 sets scientific and security based standards for electrical grid protection higher than the self regulating industry standards. Under current regulations there is no goal to make the Texas grid withstand and recover from a catastrophic system wide event.

The Texas electrical grid is independent from two other major grids in the U.S. and is therefore able to protect itself independently from threats to and failures of the Eastern and Western grids.

***

guilty-knowledge-web-buy_now

Guilty Knowledge: What the US Government Knows about the Vulnerability of the Electric Grid, But Refuses to Fix (centerforsecuritypolicy.org)

On January 21, 2014, Fox News aired a segment describing the vulnerability of the U.S. bulk power distribution system, popularly known as the electric “grid.” The report described various dangers that could cause the grid to fail, possibly catastrophically. These range from physical and cyber attacks on its subsystems to space weather and a high-altitude nuclear detonation unleashing intense electro- magnetic pulses (EMP) that could afflict the grid across vast areas. Fox solicited a comment from the Department of Defense about these threats and their potential to imperil the very existence of the United States—and a large percentage of its present population. This was the Pentagon’s response: “The Department is unaware of any increase in the threat of a deliberate destructive use of an EMP device. Further, any reporting to the contrary by those without access to current threat assessments is both reckless and irresponsible.”

At the very best, this statement suggests that the Defense Department is ignorant of a yawning danger to the civilian critical infrastructure—upon which the military also heavily relies. At worst, it is actively and purposefully misleading the American people who will die by the tens of millions when one or the other of these threats eventuates. In fact, a blue-ribbon commission convened by the Congress to examine the EMP threat concluded that, if the power went out and stayed off for more than a year in large parts of the United States—a prospect it found was plausible—as many as nine-out-of-ten Americans would perish.

Even if it actually were the case that EMP threats are not intensifying— something that is highly debatable in light of evidence in the public domain about the North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons, ballistic missile and satellite programs—one thing is clear: U.S. civil society has been for many years so dangerously vulnerable to the take-down of the nation’s electric grid as to invite enemies to try to exploit our vulnerability.

Moreover, even if no enemies acted on this opportunity to bring about, in the oft-stated words of then-Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, “a world with- out America,” there is another menace that is certain to do that, somewhat later if quite soon: a massive geo-magnetic disturbance (GMD). Such a powerful GMD would distort the earth’s magnetosphere, unleashing what are known as E3 long- duration electromagnetic pulses that would, all other things being equal, be con- ducted by power lines into the backbone of the grid: the nation’s high-voltage trans- formers, seriously damaging if not destroying them.

In other words, the vulnerability of America’s grid does not have to become any more severe to pose a mortal danger. To pretend otherwise—and to encourage the public to believe a false narrative—is what is truly “reckless and irresponsible.”

In the interest of ensuring that the rest of us have ready access to this knowledge, the Center for Security Policy has compiled in one short reference book–Guilty Knowledge: What the US Government Knows about the Vulnerability of the Electric Grid–the executive summaries of these eleven studies. The full text of each may be viewed at the web site of the EMP Coalition, a group sponsored by the Center for Security Policy. Under the leadership of its Honorary Co-Chairmen, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Clinton Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, the Coalition is working to raise public awareness of the electric grid’s myriad vulnerabilities and to achieve the needed corrective action.

Our hope is that this compendium will make clear the abundant evidence distilled from authoritative sources that confirms America has a problem: We are at risk of unprecedented catastrophe from long-duration disruption of the electric grid—unless we take practical, near-term and relatively low-cost steps to prevent it. Equipped with this guilty knowledge, we hope you will recognize and act upon the duty to yourself, your family, your community and your country to ensure that the steps needed to make our grid resilient are taken, before it is too late.

***

Highlights from the Reports in Guilty Knowledge:

Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack (2004)

“Several potential adversaries have or can acquire the capability to attack the United States with a high-altitude nuclear weapon- generated electromagnetic pulse (EMP). A determined adversary can achieve an EMP attack capability without having a high level of sophistication.”

“The electromagnetic fields produced by weapons designed and deployed with the intent to produce EMP have a high likelihood of damaging electrical power systems, electronics, and information systems upon which American society depends. Their effects on dependent systems and infrastructures could be sufficient to qualify as catastrophic to the Nation.”

Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack (2008)

“When a nuclear explosion occurs at high altitude, the EMP signal it produces will cover the wide geographic region within the line of sight of the detonation. This broad band, high amplitude EMP, when coupled into sensitive electronics, has the capability to produce widespread and long lasting disruption and damage to the critical infrastructures that underpin the fabric of U.S. society.”

“Because of the ubiquitous dependence of U.S. society on the electrical power system, its vulnerability to an EMP attack, coupled with the EMP’s particular damage mechanisms, creates the possibility of long-term, catastrophic consequences.”

Severe Space Weather Events: Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts, A Report of the National Research Council of the National Academies (2008)

“The Carrington event is by several measures the most severe space weather event on record. It produced several days of spectacular auroral displays, even at unusually low latitudes, and significantly disrupted telegraph services around the world…. While the socioeconomic impacts of a future Carrington event are difficult to predict, it is not unreasonable to assume that an event of such magnitude would lead to much deeper and more widespread socioeconomic disruptions than occurred in 1859, when modern electricity-based technology was still in its infancy.”

The Final Report of the Congressional Commission On the Strategic Posture of the United States (Excerpts) (2009)

“We note . . . that the United States has done little to reduce its vulnerability to attack with electromagnetic pulse weapons and recommend that current investments in modernizing the national power grid take account of this risk.”

Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (IEMI) and Its Impact on the U.S. Power Grid, Metatech Corporation (2010)

“It is clear that the biggest threat is against the civil infrastructure, shutting down the control electronics associated with the power grid, the telecom network or other parts of the critical infrastructure…. The modern civil infrastructure is very dependent on computers, which operate at logic levels of a few volts. So an intentional interference can occur at a few volts in critical circuits, causing logic upset.”

High-Impact, Low-Frequency Event Risk to the North American Bulk Power System. A Jointly-Commissioned Summary Report of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and the U.S. Department of Energy’s November 2009 Workshop (2010)

“A class of risks, called High-Impact, Low-Frequency (HILF) events, has recently become a renewed focus of risk managers and policy makers. These risks have the potential to cause catastrophic impacts on the electric power system, but either rarely occur, or, in some cases, have never occurred… Examples of HILF risks include coordinated cyber, physical, and blended attacks, the high-altitude detonation of a nuclear weapon, and major natural disasters like earthquakes, tsunamis, large hurricanes, pandemics, and geomagnetic disturbances caused by solar weather.”

Large Power Transformers and the U.S. Electric Grid. Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy (2012)

“Large Power Transformers (LPTs) are custom-designed equipment that entail significant capital expenditures and long lead times due to an intricate procurement and manufacturing process…. Because LPTs are very expensive and tailored to customers’ specifications, they are usually neither interchangeable with each other nor produced for extensive spare inventories…. The average lead time for manufacture of an LPT is between five and 16 months; however, the lead time can extend beyond 20 months if there are any supply disruptions or delays with the supplies, raw materials, or key parts. The United States has limited production capability to manufacture LPTs.”

Buy Guilty Knowledge at Amazon.

Download Guilty Knowledge PDF

About the EMP Coalition

A group of the country’s top experts on this threat and what can be done to mitigate it have joined forces under the leadership of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and President Clinton’s Director of Central Intelligence, R. James Woolsey. The goal of this EMP Coalition is to raise awareness of the extreme peril associated with the sort of powerful electromagnetic pulse that could be caused literally at any time by space weather or a hostile power. The Coalition also seeks to ensure that practical, cost-effective and readily available steps are taken as soon as possible to protect the grid. The EMP Coalition is working to:

  • Engage the nation’s electric utilities and their customers-including, notably, those whose businesses depend critically upon reliable supplies of pow- er–about the imperative of eliminating our vulnerability to EMP and instituting the hardware and other changes necessary to do that.
  • Assist executive branch officials and legislators at both the federal and state levels to create the necessary statutory and regulatory environment to make the present bulk power distribution system and any future “smart” grids resilient against EMP.
  • Develop grassroots support for such measures and empower citizens to help.

To find out more about the EMP Coalition and how you can assist its vital work, go to StopEMP.org.

BOOK RELEASE: Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America


MUSLIM COLONIZATION OF AMERICA: THE HIJRA AND THE HIJACKING OF AMERICA’S REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT PROGRAM

Center for Security Policy, April 21, 2015:

Washington, DC — Last week, the chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, wrote the Department of State demanding that it halt the resettlement of refugees in the city of Spartanburg in his district.  In his letter dated April 15, 2015, Congressman Gowdy objected to the “lack of notice, information and consultation afforded to me and my constituents” and posed seventeen pointed questions, including (as paraphrased by Politico):

  • Why and when was his district approved [as a refugee resettlement site]?
  • What steps were taken to notify local government officials and whether they approved the plan, and where funds for the office and the refugees will come from?
  • When are the first refugees expected to arrive?
  • What benefits are they entitled to?
  • How many will be resettled?
  • What is their country of origin?
  • Who is responsible for housing, employment and education services for them?

Rep. Gowdy was particularly concerned about the security implications of this immigrant migration.  He asked: “Do any of the refugees to be resettled in the Spartanburg area have criminal convictions? If so, for what crimes has each been convicted?” And “Please explain the background-check process performed on refugees scheduled to be resettled in Spartanburg.

The necessity for such congressional oversight has been underscored by an important new monograph by Ann Corcoran entitled, Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America, which was published today as part of the Center for Security Policy’s Civilization Jihad Reader Series.

Ms. Corcoran documents that Muslim immigration as a form of jihad via colonization called hijra dates back to the time of Mohammed.  In fact, she quotes hadith sources that assert that migration is a religious obligation for Muslims to spread Islam and build the Islamic state.  She also cites longtime Libyan leader, Muammar Qaddafi, who once said that Europe would be conquered without guns and swords, but with Muslim migrants overrunning the continent.  A powerful new documentary by Martin Mawyer called “Europe’s Last Stand; America’s Final Warning” illustrates just how accurate this prediction is proving to be.

Federal_Immigration_Policy_amazonbutton-684x1024As practiced today, the hijra strategy is an important part of a covert, pre-violent “civilization jihad” pursued by the Muslim Brotherhood. The UN High Commission on Refugees – which, like the rest of the United Nations, is dominated by the dictates of the Islamic supremacist organization known as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – is complicit in the process of bringing Muslim refugees to America.  Interestingly, no Muslim refugees are ever resettled in wealthy, low-population density Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia.

Particularly troubling is the evidence that Ms. Corcoran compiles concerning the secrecy surrounding this U.S. refugee resettlement program.  She provides estimates of how many Muslim immigrants have been quietly resettled in American communities with no local input.  And she discusses the State Department’s primary targets in the United States for Muslim resettlement and showcases models to be found in communities that are resisting this program.

In her book, Ms. Corcoran recounts her personal trajectory from typical, uninformed citizen to a national authority on refugee resettlement policies and programs, the focus of her highly acclaimed blog, Refugee Resettlement Watch.  It began in 2007, when large numbers of Muslim Meskhetian Turks were quietly resettled by the U.S. State Department in her hometown in Western Maryland, prompting her to research intensively what was afoot.

Although the author and other concerned local residents succeeded in that instance in blocking the dumping of immigrants that are, as a practical matter, unlikely ever to assimilate, the episode led Ms. Corcoran to the discovery of a frightening pattern: Across the United States, the federal government is attempting stealthily to relocate Muslim immigrants into unsuspecting and often unsuitable rural communities. She found that the affected locals, and even states, are totally by-passed in a resettlement process effectively driven by the United Nations, with U.S. agencies playing a clearly subordinate and non-sovereign role.

In addition, Ms. Corcoran has documented how U.S. officials stubbornly refuse to answer affected communities’ questions about Muslim resettlement. In fact, the State Department went so far as to stop holding townhalls and meetings in Washington, DC to discus after local community representatives began to attend.

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

Ann Corcoran’s report is required reading for anyone worried about the threat to America from the global jihad movement.  She has provided shocking details of how a stealth effort by jihadists to advance their stated goal of “destroying Western civilization from within” is being abetted by the U.S. government.

It is to be profoundly hoped that Ms. Corcoran’s analysis will raise awareness of this problem and that, especially with the concern being expressed by influential legislators like Congressman Trey Gowdy, it will help force U.S. officials to halt a dangerous refugee resettlement program.  Her suggestions about what average citizens can do to catalyze such changes amounts, moreover, to a real public service.

Ann Corcoran’s Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America is downloadable for free on the Center for Security Policy website, www.securefreedom.org, and available for purchase via Amazon.com.

For further information on the threats shariah poses to our foundational liberal democratic values, see more titles from the Center for Security Policy’s Civilization Jihad Reader Series at http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/civilization-jihad-reader-series/

Buy Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America at Amazon.

Click here for quick bullet points on this new volume

 PDF of the newly released monograph 

***

Citizen researcher: Get “the plan” for your community before it goes to Washington

Shameful Corker “Compromise” Is a Triumph For The Obama Administration’s Iran Negotiations Strategy

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Corker talks to reporters before meeting with Secretary of State Kerry on Iran nuclear negotiations in WashingtonBy Andrew Bostom, April 15, 2015:

Yesterday, April 14, 2015 a much ballyhooed “compromise” regarding S.615, “Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015.” was unanimously agreed upon within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Independent Politico.com, and Washington Post assessments of critical aspects of the lauded compromise brokered by Republican Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, and Democrat Ben Cardin helped eliminate my own cautious optimism about what in fact transpired.

Politico noted:

Though it gives Congress an avenue to reject the lifting of legislative sanctions that will be a key part of any deal with Iran, it explicitly states that Congress does not have to approve the diplomatic deal struck by Iran, the United States and other world powers… nor does it treat an Iran agreement like a treaty

This claim is substantiated on p. 32 of the updated bill, under a section entitled, “EFFECT OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION WITH RESPECT TO NUCLEAR AGREEMENTS WITH IRAN,”which states in lines 16-19,

16‘‘(C) this section does not require a vote by

17 Congress for the agreement to commence;

18 ‘‘(D) this section provides for congressional

19 review,

Moreover, as Karen DeYoung and Mike DeBonis added in their Washington Postreport:

Obama retains the right to veto any action to scuttle an Iran pact. To override, a veto would require a two-thirds majority of both House and Senate.

Accordingly, the Corker-Cardin compromise validates the Obama Administration’s negotiations strategy. That “strategy” is contrary to almost all past arms control agreements of consequence, which have been Senate Advice and Consent Treaties, whose approval requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate. The Obama Administration, in contrast, is hell-bent on giving legitimacy to Iran’s uranium enrichment program, and waiving economic sanctions on Iran, while not submitting the fruits of its masterful negotiations to a Congressional vote for initial approval, prior to implementing the agreement. These developments should be a tocsin of looming calamity given that the framework fiasco for this pending deal includes an inadequate/“hotly contested” inspections process, while also fully ignoring Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear weaponization programs.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) commented wistfully that although the bill “created” the role of post-hoc “congressional review,” it remained “a long way from advice and consent” for an agreement which “rises to the level of a treaty.” But Iran—a self-proclaimed jihadist state with global hegemonic aspirations—remains in an open-ended, “fierce” jihad war with the U.S. “at all levels,” as one “moderate” Iranian adviser to former moderate Iranian President Khatami recently explained. Notwithstanding Sen. Johnson’s rueful acknowledgment, Senate Republicans have shirked their Constitutional, and moral responsibility, rather than confront the implications of Iran’s religiously-inspired bellicosity. With the exception of a gimlet-eyed young Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)—who speaks candidly about tactical destruction of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, which is the only rational way to thwart Iran’s relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons capability—Senate Republicans have cravenly acquiesced to cynical, perverse Obama Administration bullying so as not to be labeled “warmongers.”

***

A Formula for Rubber-stamping Obama’s Iran Deal by Frank Gaffney

On the surface, yesterday’s insistence by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Congress get a vote on a nuclear deal with Iran appears to be a victory for what is left of our constitutional republic.

Two clues suggest otherwise: First, the panel’s legislation was adopted unanimously. And second, the White House says Mr. Obama is willing to sign such a bill.

The President and his partisans on Capitol Hill are on board for a simple reason: Instead of this deal facing the high hurdle the Constitution requires for treaties – in which the executive branch must persuade two-thirds of the Senate to approve it, the mechanism set up by the proposed legislation will require opponents to come up with that super-majorityin both houses of Congress.

This arrangement serves Iran’s interests, not America’s.

***

Obama’s One-Man Nuclear Deal – WSJ

President Obama says he wants Congress to play a role in approving a nuclear deal with Iran, but his every action suggests the opposite. After months of resistance, the White House said Tuesday the President would finally sign a bill requiring a Senate vote on any deal—and why not since it still gives him nearly a free hand.

Modern Presidents have typically sought a Congressional majority vote, and usually a two-thirds majority, to ratify a major nuclear agreement. Mr. Obama has maneuvered to make Congress irrelevant, though bipartisan majorities passed the economic sanctions that even he now concedes drove Iran to the negotiating table.

The Republican Congress has been trying to reclaim a modest role in foreign affairs over Mr. Obama’s furious resistance. And on Tuesday afternoon the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously passed a measure that authorizes Congress to vote on an Iran deal within 30 days of Mr. Obama submitting it for review.

As late as Tuesday morning, Secretary of State John Kerry was still railing in private against the bill. But the White House finally conceded when passage with a veto-proof majority seemed inevitable. The bill will now pass easily on the floor, and if Mr. Obama’s follows his form, he will soon talk about the bill as if it was his idea.

Mr. Obama can still do whatever he wants on Iran as long as he maintains Democratic support. A majority could offer a resolution of disapproval, but that could be filibustered by Democrats and vetoed by the President. As few as 41 Senate Democrats could thus vote to prevent it from ever getting to President Obama’s desk—and 34 could sustain a veto. Mr. Obama could then declare that Congress had its say and “approved” the Iran deal even if a majority in the House and Senate voted to oppose it.

Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker deserves credit for trying, but in the end he had to agree to Democratic changes watering down the measure if he wanted 67 votes to override an Obama veto. Twice the Tennessee Republican delayed a vote in deference to Democrats, though his bill merely requires a vote after the negotiations are over.

His latest concessions shorten the review period to 30 days, which Mr. Obama wanted, perhaps to mollify the mullahs in Tehran who want sanctions lifted immediately. After 52 days Mr. Obama could unilaterally ease sanctions without Congressional approval. Mr. Obama has said that under the “framework” accord sanctions relief is intended to be gradual. But don’t be surprised if his final concession to Ayatollah Khamenei is to lift sanctions after 52 days.

Mr. Corker also removed a requirement that the Administration certify to Congress that Iran is no longer supporting terrorism. This sends an especially bad signal to Iran that Congress agrees with Mr. Obama that the nuclear deal is divorced from its behavior as a rogue state. One of Mr. Obama’s least plausible justifications for the nuclear deal is that it would help to make Iran a “normal” nation. But if Tehran is still sponsoring terrorism around the world, how can it be trusted as a nuclear partner?

***

Our own view of all this is closer to that of Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, who spoke for (but didn’t offer) an amendment in committee Tuesday to require that Mr. Obama submit the Iran nuclear deal as a treaty. Under the Constitution, ratification would require an affirmative vote by two-thirds of the Senate.

Committing the U.S. to a deal of this magnitude—concerning proliferation of the world’s most destructive weapons—should require treaty ratification. Previous Presidents fromJFK to Nixon to Reagan and George H.W. Bush submitted nuclear pacts as treaties. Even Mr. Obama submitted the U.S.-Russian New Start accord as a treaty.

The Founders required two-thirds approval on treaties because they wanted major national commitments overseas to have a national political consensus. Mr. Obama should want the same kind of consensus on Iran.

But instead he is giving more authority over American commitments to the United Nations than to the U.S. Congress. By making the accord an executive agreement as opposed to a treaty, and perhaps relying on a filibuster or veto to overcome Congressional opposition, he’s turning the deal into a one-man presidential compact with Iran. This will make it vulnerable to being rejected by the next President, as some of the GOP candidates are already promising.

The case for the Corker bill is that at least it guarantees some debate and a vote in Congress on an Iran deal. Mr. Obama can probably do what he wants anyway, but the Iranians are on notice that the United States isn’t run by a single Supreme Leader.

***

Ignatius: WH Left Kerry Like a ‘Beached Whale’ When They Realized They’d ‘Get Clobbered’ on Iran Washington Free Beacon

***

Also see:

Jeanine Pirro discusses threats to the power grid with Tony Shaffer and Frank Gaffney

Grover Norquist book release overshadowed by ‘ethics investigation’ into Islamist ties

2096098934Center for Security Policy, April 8, 2015:

Grover Norquist, famed DC power-player and anti-tax advocate would prefer that you focus on the release of his new book this week. Unfortunately for him, talk show host Glenn Beck, informed by years of investigative work by Secure Freedom President Frank Gaffney, has launched a series of investigative reports detailing Norquist’s connections to dangerous Islamists.

On March 11, 2015, Glenn Beck announced on his popular nationally syndicated radio program that he might have to end his longstanding relationship with the National Rifle Association (NRA) if Grover Norquist were reelected to the NRA’s board of directors. For years, Mr. Beck has made clear that he has no problem with the anti-tax activism for which Mr. Norquist is best known, but that he is deeply troubled by evidence that the latter has long been involved with and enabled Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic supremacist influence operations.

The next day, Glenn Beck reported that he had received an hour-long call from NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre in the course of which Mr. LaPierre announced that the National Rifle Association would be conducting a “transparent” and “open” ethics investigation of Grover Norquist. On three consecutive days, March 25-27, Mr. Beck used his television and radio platforms to engage in his own investigation – including an hour-long interview with Norquist, himself.

The following are highlights of the Beck inquiry, drawn from his TV shows of March 25th and 26th, and his radio program of March 27th – including an illustrative exchange from Mr. Beck’s Norquist interview.

[CLICK BELOW FOR HIGHLIGHT REEL OF GLENN BECK’S EXPOSÉ]

 

Beck’s Characterization of Norquist

Glenn Beck introduced his audience to Grover Norquist at the start of his hour-long, two -chalkboard briefing on March 25th with the following statement:

“[Norquist] is really a power player who has managed to use his influence to evade any real scrutiny over his dangerous connections….Politicians listen to him. Many obey him. He has a long list of connections with radical Islamic organizations and in some cases actual terrorists. His alarming ties with groups hostile to America, who seek to destroy it from the inside out, those are the things that should worry every American.

“This is about national security. This is a danger to you, your family, and the republic.”

Beck’s Depiction of Grover Norquist’s Muslim Brotherhood Associates and Front Group – the Islamic Free Market Institute

In the course of his March 25 televised briefing, Glenn Beck made the following points:

“[Norquist has]…created this: The Islamic Institute. Which is trying to support the free market in Islam. That’s a good goal. Until you start to see how this thing has come together.

“Let me show you some of the people that he’s been working with and crossing paths with:

  • Abdurahman Alamoudi: “This guy is extremely disturbing….[He] was finally arrested at Heathrow airport with $340,000 in cash that was given to him by Muammar Gaddafi. The plot involved al-Qaeda operatives. He was a senior al-Qaeda financier. He funnelled at least a million dollars directly to al-Qaeda. He was sentenced in 2004. He’s serving a twenty-three year prison sentence for terrorist fundraising related to the plan to assassinate the Saudi crown prince Abdul[lah]. So, people [Norquist] trusts.
  • “Khaled Saffuri:…He is al-Amoudi’s right hand man. He was a deputy at the American Muslim Council, one of the Brotherhood front organizations. He was founder of the Islamic Institute. He was very influential in the Bush Administration. He led talks with the administration in opposition of Operation Green Quest, which we’ll talk a little bit about later. That was basically trying to go get the front groups. He didn’t want that to happen.”
  • “Sami al-Arian:…Former member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Former professor at [University of South Florida]. Campaigned against secret evidence method. He was caught soliciting donations for a Palestinian terrorist to kill an Israeli Jew. He paid respects to, quote, ‘the march of the martyrs and to the river of blood that gushes forth and does not extinguish.’ I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to hang out with him. He also said, ‘Let us damn America to death.’”
  • “Jamal al-Barzinji: He is the founder – the founding father, he’s the George Washington of the Muslim Brotherhood of the U.S. He played a crucial role in creating and organizing the web of Brotherhood front groups that followed: Islamic Society of North America, Muslim American Society, International Institute of Islamic Thought. He founded the radical mosque in Virginia. He’s known for ties to Islamic terrorists from Hamas to al-Qaeda. He’s an officer of the SAAR Foundation, which is suspected of funding terrorist groups.”
  • “Then we go to Suhail Khan. Suhail Khan is probably the cleanest of Grover Norquist’s friends. He campaigned against the DOJ’s secret evidence. His parents are really the trouble spot. They were prominent leaders in the Brotherhood front groups. And the annual award at ISNA, it is given every year in his father’s name. The mosque founded by his dad hosted the Blind Sheikh just a couple of months before he bombed the World Trade Center. He has a network of terrorist friendly organizations and he made it possible for Osama bin Laden’s number two, al-Zawahiri, to actually covertly visit the United States undetected in 1995. He played a key role in founding CAIR. He was praised by al-Amoudi at an awards ceremony.”

Norquist’s Defense

The following exchange is illustrative of the sort of explanation/deflection Grover Norquist presented in the course of his hour-long televised interview with Glenn Beck on March 26, 2015:

GROVER NORQUIST:

“…When we set up the Islamic Free Market Institute in the mid-90s, it was because I had seen in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the end of the war against the Soviet Union, this radical strain of anti-Americanism and statism in the Muslim community from people who you think would have been more supportive of the United States since we were helping these people fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

“And so I was looking around for how do we make the case for a reformation in Islam focused on something that I know something about, which is free market economics….

“My interest was not here in the United States. It was focused out. And so the work of the institute was trying to be a little light, a little beacon to make the case that…[in the Quran] property rights are strong, low taxes, free trade.”

GLENN BECK:

That sounds like an unbelievably noble goal. That sounds –

GROVER NORQUIST:

Well, it’s a small effort.

GLENN BECK:

Well, but I think it sounds like a noble goal.

GROVER NORQUIST:

Well, thank you.

GLENN BECK:

Now, here’s the question that leaps to mind. If that’s my goal, gosh, how do I take a check from a guy like al-Amoudi?

GROVER NORQUIST:

But I didn’t really have that much in contact with him, but I did hear from Khaled [Saffuri], he was sort of okay, if oldish school. But then in 2000 – so he wrote a ten thousand dollar check and ten thousand dollar loan to the institute, I think trying to make nice with Khaled. However, he – in 2000, late 2000, October or so, gave this speech at a rally and said that he supported Hamas –

GLENN BECK:

[OVERLAP] Hold on just a second. Hold on just a second. At a rally sponsored by you.

GROVER NORQUIST:

Oh, okay. I know what the concern is. No. There was an intern – this was written up in Insight at the time afterwards cause somebody had said so. We had an intern who had said that was okay. He was told that’s not okay. And there was no money involved. He just – I guess they had a bunch of people’s names attached to some rally in opposition to the occupation of the West Bank –

GLENN BECK:

[OVERLAP] Oh, so you didn’t sponsor that at all. That was an intern that made that mistake.

GROVER NORQUIST:

Yeah, that was written up at the time in Insight magazine –

GLENN BECK:

So is that a little like – because your firm was also lobbying for al-Amoudi, but then you said, once you found out that he was going to prison, you then came out and said that that was a clerical error. So was it the same intern or is it a different – is it a different problem?

GROVER NORQUIST:

No, the one was an intern. You’re not supposed to sign us up for other things. He just thought he was – I don’t know why he did it, but he shouldn’t have. He was told not to.

But just let me get back to the lobbying, because that’s I think very important also.

The – [al-Amoudi] gave this speech and Khaled heard about it and told me. And he said, “Look, I told the guy: One, he needs to grovel and apologize and denounce his statement.” Khaled felt he didn’t do that. And he said to him, “Look, you haven’t done anything with this. You haven’t asked us for anything. You haven’t gone to anything we’ve done. But from now on, you’re not allowed to go to anything we’re doing.” He never went to any of the conferences or worked with anybody there. He never asked for anything.

Beck Dissects Norquist’s Explanation of the Islamic Free Market Institute

During his radio program on March 27th, Glenn Beck performed a lengthy post-mortem on his interview the day before with Grover Norquist. At one point, he engaged in a Socratic colloquy with his executive producer, Steve Burguiere, better known as “Stu” about Norquist’s lengthy involvement with Muslim Brotherhood operatives, organizations and agendas. These excerpts capture the essence of their exchange:

GLENN BECK:

“Stu, let’s say that you want to stop the Klan, okay?…And you want to start a big foundation, billions of dollars will go into this, stopping the Klan. And that’s your zeal. You think you can help – and you’re way ahead of the curve, before the Klan is really even stringing people up, you’re ahead of the curve. Okay? What are some of the things that you do? When you’re looking for people to join you. What are the things you do?”

* * *

“Who do you put in next to you? Who do you have in? Who do you take money from? Who do you have as partners?”

STU:

“Well, you pick people fighting that cause, right? You pick people against the Klan who would be donating money to stop that.”

GLENN BECK:

“Right. And you would have people – if you had people who were members of the Klan, full fledged members of the Klan, would you take money from them?”

STU:

“No, I would not.”

GLENN BECK:

“Okay. Would you think it would be irresponsible of you to take money from people unknowingly when they were clearly in the Klan?”

STU:

“Yeah, that would be very irresponsible.”

GLENN BECK:

“Would you take other people’s word: ‘No, he’s a good guy. He’s a good guy.’ ‘Well, he seems to have a lot of Klan stuff at his house.’ ‘Nah, he’s a good guy.’ Or would you take it upon yourself as being a guy who’s setting up an institution, stoptheklan.org, you know, would you take it upon yourself – ”

STU:

“To do my own research – “

GLENN BECK:

“To do your own homework.”

STU:

“Yes, I believe his hoodie fell off. He just needed another hood.”

GLENN BECK:

“Correct. If you found that one of the guys you took money from and you thought was a good guy because everybody was telling you, would you then up your standards and say, ‘Wow, that was a close call.’”

STU:

“See, maybe, you know, you’re starting out, a little lazy on the specifics, but once it happens to you, you’re certainly going to step up your efforts.”

* * *

GLENN BECK:

“[Norquist] is lying. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you would convict on this if you were sitting in a court. This makes no sense whatsoever….

“Now my question to you is you didn’t accept any of this from the Obama administration. Now this guy is in, this guy agrees with you on much – he agrees, lower taxes, he’s helping people get elected and everything else. He’s on your side. Do you accept it now or are you consistent?

“Do you have the balls to have the courage of your convictions to say, yes, this might hurt in the short-term but this guy needs to be out of CPAC. This guy needs to be out of the GOP. Who is he meeting with every Wednesday in his Wednesday meeting of one hundred and fifty Republicans every single Wednesday? Who is he meeting? What is he saying? Where is he getting his funding from? Who else has he whitewashed and put into places that God knows Muslim Brotherhood should not be in? This guy is lying to you.”

Beck’s Conclusions About Grover Norquist and What to Do About Him

The following quotes capture the bottom line of Glenn Beck’s investigation of Grover Norquist (drawn, as indicated from his television and radio programs of March 25th and March 27th, respectively:

“I don’t know what Grover’s motivations are for working with people that range from Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer all the way to full-blown terrorists. It can only be one of two things. He is the most unlucky and naïve guy next to the president of the United States. And I hope it’s that.

“Because the only other option is that he strongly agrees enough with the Muslim Brotherhood’s mission. Or they’re just paying him enough cash to subvert America.

“Either way, somebody with this much power inside the Republican Party and inside the NRA with these connections is absolutely unacceptable. No person with any shred of integrity whatsoever would be within the same postcode of some of these people let alone at the same office or exchanging money with them. And so far, the explanations given for the connections are completely unacceptable as well.” (3/27 Radio Program)

“I am not telling you that Grover Norquist nor his allies want to destroy the United States of America. I don’t believe that. I don’t know what his motivation is. But I’m going to give what I believe his motivation is power and money. That’s it. Power and money. And so he’ll take the money and he’ll use that power anyway he has, anyway he can, to keep himself and others like him in power.” (3/25 TV Program)

“So the question is not about Grover Norquist. The question is about you. GOP members. NRA members. The people – and I’ve got to get the list, I’ll get the list when we come back of all the things that he’s on the board of directors of. That’s the way the Muslim Brotherhood does it. They launder people and then they get on the board of directors. This is the Tides Foundation. Except it’s on our side. Do you like it? Is this who you want to be?” (3/27 Radio Program)

***

Norquist sponsors terrorist Rally

Published on Apr 8, 2015 by theunitedwest

Glenn Beck reveals new documents that prove Grover Norquist Sponsored terrorists rally in front of Whitehouse in 2000.

Frank Gaffney joins Armstrong Williams and Alan Dershowitz on Iran negotiations

!cid_image004_jpg@01D06CDDCenter for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney joined the Armstrong Williams show alongside famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz to discuss the ongoing drama of the Iranian nuclear negotiations. Dershowitz held his fellow liberals’ accountable, challenging Senator Chuck Schumer, other Democrats, Jews and the Congressional Black Caucus.

Transcript

Bush was to Meet Muslim Brotherhood Affiliates on 9/11

bush-nihad-awad-muslim-brotherhood

By Ryan Mauro:

The Clarion Project has received White House documents that show that President Bush was scheduled to meet with Islamists linked to the Muslim Brotherhood on September 11, 2001. In a remarkably ironic turn of events, it was Islamist terrorism that stopped the meeting with Islamist radicals at the White House from happening.

The never-before-published documents substantiate the assertions that the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood gained access to the highest levels of the Bush Administration and the Republican Party, partly due to the help of Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. The files help tell a shocking story of an Islamist political influence operation that reached the highest levels of the U.S. government.

The Center for Security Policy has a meticulously documented dossier on the topic, including first-hand testimony from the think-tank’s president. The Clarion Project has also told the story, including the history of Norquist’s Islamic Free Market Institute and its links to Islamists including the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

The White House documents show that President George W. Bush was scheduled to meet with U.S.-based Islamists on September 11, 2001 after a previous meeting on March 5 was cancelled.

Bush and Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham would meet privately with a select group of six Muslim and Arab “supporters” at 3:05 PM in the White House Oval Office, including two officials from Norquist’s Islamic Free Market Institute. Every single one of those six has strong connections to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

This would be followed by a larger meeting with 16 activists who are described as representatives of the top 12 Muslim and Arab organizations, including four created by the Muslim Brotherhood. Also in attendance would have been 7 additional White House officials; three of which have served as officials with Norquist’s Islamic Free Market Institute.

We will examine the activists with this treasured high-level access in a moment. The purpose of the scheduled meetings with President Bush on 9/11 must first be understood to appreciate their significance.

Islamist Engagement with the GOP and Bush Campaign

The topics to be addressed in this meeting and with the larger group were classified evidence, racial profiling and the Middle East conflict. The agenda also emphasized that Muslims and Arabs are victimized by negative stereotypes, showing that the Islamists’ “Islamophobia” strategy was well underway before the 9/11 attacks.

The reference to “classified evidence” is important to be put into context.

Sami Al-Arian and the Islamist lobby successfully pressured the Bush presidential campaign and the Republican party into opposing the Clinton Administration’s use of classified evidence to detain immigrants on national security grounds. Al-Arian was later convicted of being a secret Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist operative. The practice was responsible for the detainment of Al-Arian’s brother-in-law and fellow Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative, Mazen al-Najjar.

Al-Arian was described as a “master manipulator” by the judge during his trial. The indictment of Al-Arian says he and his co-conspirators “did seek to obtain support from influential individuals, in the United States under the guise of promoting and protecting Arab rights.”

A document in his possession shows he ordered colleagues to “collect information from those relatives and friends who work in sensitive positions in government.”

Al-Arian’s operation, by his own admission, was essentially one with the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity whose offices were raided in 2002 as part of a terrorism investigation. He later refused to testify to a grand jury investigating the group.

[Also see: IIIT: The Muslim Brotherhood’s Think Tank by Kyle Shideler]

The FBI was warned in 1987 by an informant in the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood that IIIT was secretly working through “political action front groups” and planned “to peacefully get inside the United States government and also American universities.” According to former IIIT member Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, the group decided that accusations of “Islamophobia” would be thrown at opponents standing in their way.

IIIT is linked to the Islamic Free Market Institute founded by Grover Norquist. The St. Petersburg Times observed that “more than 50 targets of the raid were people and organizations connected to Norquist and the Islamic Institute.”

Al-Arian honored prominent Republicans including Norquist for joining his political causes including a ban on the classified evidence practice. Al-Arian repeatedly met with Norquist’s group, had a photo-op with then-Governor Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign and visited the White House.

The other key player was Abdurrahman Alamoudi, founder and board member of the American Muslim Council (AMC) that also lobbied heavily for Al-Arian’s cause. Alamoudi was later convicted on terrorism-related charges and was specifically linked to a Libyan regime plot to assassinate the king of Saudi Arabia.

AMC was part of a coalition named the American Muslim Political Coordination Council-Political Action Committee that endorsed Bush’s candidacy. The coalition said Bush “promised to address Muslim concerns on domestic and foreign policy issues.” It said one of the major reasons for the endorsement was the “accessibility” they had and his adoption of their position on the secret evidence issue.

The Bush presidential campaign returned a $1,000 donation from Alamoudi after he was videotaped declaring his support for the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups. He later wrote in a letter from prison that  was featured in the Grand Deception documentary that, “I am, I hopestill a member of the Muslim Brotherhood organization in the U.S.A.”

You can read more about the story of Islamist-GOP engagement and the Islamic Free Market Institute during this period here.

Bush’s First Meeting with Six “Supporters”

The Bush Administration documents do not specify what qualified the six attendees at the 3:05 meeting as “supporters” but presumably it was their work for the presidential campaign. The Islamist Money in Politics project shows that the Islamist lobby financially favored the Bush candidacy in 2000.

***

Conclusion

The Bush White House documents obtained by the Clarion Projectare shocking in how they display the historical irony of President Bush’s scheduled meeting with terrorist-allied Islamists on 9/11 of all days, but there are equally-shocking broader conclusions to be made.

The episode is reflective of a successful Islamist political influence operation and a seriously flawed vetting process that continues until present, with the Islamists at President Obama’s Countering Violent Extremism Summit and the choice of Muslim Brotherhood promoter Mohamed Elibiary as a senior Department of Homeland Security advisor serving as two examples.

The conclusion should not be that everyone involved is a secret Islamist conspirator or terrorist. It’s that skillful Islamists use relationships with persons of influence in both parties to promote themselves, advance their causes and impact policy.

On the Glenn Beck Show on March 26, Norquist said he formed the Institute to promote a progressive reformation in Islam that is more pro-American and against Sharia governance. Yet, it worked closely with the Islamists who are the exact opposite of that.

Norquist said he probably didn’t even know what the Muslim Brotherhood was at the time. It’s very hard to believe that anyone involved in Islamic issues would be ignorant of that very basic fact. The Islamism of many of Norquist’s partners was already public knowledge then and was almost definitely expressed in their private dealings.

If Norquist was ignorant then, he certainly he is not now. Unknowing partners of these Islamists should renounce them and detail their dealings so as to prevent them in the future. They should thank those who exposed them and make up for their errors by embracing Muslim activists who stand against Islamism.

To this day, Norquist has not expressed regret about working with the Islamists. He has not even conceded that their histories are unsettling. He acts as if the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t even exist and ridicules those who say it does.

There is a bi-partisan problem when it comes to mistaking Islamists for “moderates.” The fight against Islamic extremism requires that those who made such mistakes wake up and act to correct their errors by challenging Islamism.

The treatment of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists as treasured “moderates” must come to an end.

Much more at Clarion Project

Shock claim: Why Obama refused to help fight Boko Haram

2091508155CSP, (Originally published by WorldNetDaily)

Allegations are mounting that the Obama administration withheld weapons and intelligence support from Nigeria’s fight against Boko Haram in an effort to boost the chances of the Muslim candidate for president, who is a client of the political firm founded by key Obama strategist David Axelrod.

Nigerians this weekend are deciding a very competitive race between incumbent Christian President Dr. Ebele Goodluck Jonathan and retired Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, who ruled as dictator there from 1983 until 1985, when he was removed through a coup. Buhari has previously vowed to institute Shariah law in the Muslim-dominated parts of the country if elected.

With the guidance of Axelrod’s firm, Buhari has tamped down talk of Shariah nearing election day and even added a Pentecostal Christian as his running mate.

Boko Haram is a radical Islamist terrorist group that recently pledged allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. In recent years, Boko Haram has slaughtered entire villages, burned countless churches and targeted Christians and moderate Muslims for death. It received global attention last year for abducting nearly 300 Nigerian schoolgirls.

The Obama-Axelrod connection to the Nigerian elections and its impact on U.S. policy toward Boko Haram is laid out in a detailed piece by James Simpson for Accuracy in Media.

Simpson said the Nigerians are thoroughly convinced Obama’s actions are rooted in politics.

“Nigerians overwhelmingly, at least the ones that I talk to and the articles I’ve been able to access, believe that the U.S. deliberately withheld military aid to the Nigerian president because David Axelrod’s group, AKPD, is consulting his Muslim opponent in the upcoming elections,” said Simpson.

According to Simpson, the Nigerians are most upset over their requests being denied for Cobra attack helicopters.

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with James Simpson.

Gaffney said it isn’t hard to see a pattern developing in how this administration approaches foreign elections. “It seems the Obama administration has withheld intelligence,” said Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney. “It seems it has withheld training. It’s found various pretexts, but (the fact it has also withheld) some of the arms that could be very, very decisively used against this odious terrorist organization … really raises a host of questions that I don’t think have been satisfactorily answered by this administration.”

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Frank Gaffney.

“This may sound like deja vu all over again,” said Gaffney, who likens U.S. involvement in Nigeria’s presidential elections to what America just witnessed in Israel’s parliamentary elections.

“He has, as he had in Israel, a political operative engaged in helping effect, in a way that is clearly meddling in the internal affairs of a foreign government and a friendly, sovereign foreign government at that,” Gaffney said. “It rebounds to the benefit, in this case it would appear to the financial benefit of his friend and adviser, David Axelrod. That has translated into efforts to support the candidacy of General Buhari.”

Like President Jonathan, Gen. Buhari is also vowing to exterminate Boko Haram. So how could Obama administration policy impact the campaign?

“Clearly, Goodluck Jonathan’s re-election has been made more difficult by the appearance that he’s not doing enough to defeat Boko Haram,” he said.

While Gaffney believes Obama’s denial of meaningful assistance to Nigeria reflects either a desire to see Buhari get elected or simply to help Axelrod’s client win, there are more official reasons given for the lack of support.

“One is that the administration has found fault with the human rights record of the Nigerian military,” said Gaffney, who noted that the other public concern rests with the Obama cultural agenda.

“There are laws on the books of Nigeria, adopted by a sovereign nation through its normal processes, that they consider to be untoward, unacceptable, homophobic, whatever you want to call it, toward people who are lesbians, gays, transgenders, bisexuals and so on,” he explained.

Simpson reports that Secretary of State John Kerry added fuel to the fire by suggesting the U.S. may re-evaluate the selling of arms and sharing of intelligence after the elections.

“The whole thing is a joke. We provided military aid to Uganda and they have a bad human rights record as well. We’ve provided military aid to al Qaida-liked groups in Libya who are now joining ISIS. The whole thing is ludicrous,” said Simpson.

Despite very little U.S. assistance, Nigeria is starting to make significant strides against Boko Haram. Forty towns have recently been liberated, at least 500 Boko Haram members have been killed and many of the terrorists are retreating to the jungle in the border regions near Niger, Chad and Cameroon.

The Nigerians say it’s because they finally got help – from Moscow.

“They are having an impact but they claim it’s because finally they had to turn around and get their arms from Russia. They got Russian Hind attack helicopters and some other heavy duty military equipment, troop carriers and [armored personnel carriers] and things like that. So they’ve been able to take the fight to the enemy,” said Simpson.

Another major issue at work is the Obama administration’s push for a “gay” rights agenda throughout the world and Nigeria recently moved decisively in the opposite direction.

Fifteen months ago, Nigeria enacted laws that criminalize homosexual behavior and strictly forbids “gay marriage.” Simpson says a public display of affection between homosexuals could draw imprisonment of 10 years or more.

That is not sitting well with the Obama administration.

“The gay rights agenda is detested throughout much of Africa. Seventy percent of African nations have laws outlawing homosexuality. This particularly harsh law was passed in December 2013 and the United States and other western nations spoke out against it,” said Simpson.

The diplomatic friction over the Obama administration’s “gay” rights agenda may well be a key factor in America’s refusal to provide more help against Boko Haram and in Obama’s desire to see a new president in Nigeria.

“Obama, in sort of veiled threats, said that he would withhold aid if they didn’t repeal that law. The Nigerians basically told them to get lost. ‘We’re going to do what we want. You don’t have any right to impose your morality on us,”’ said Simpson, who says the Jonathan campaign alleges that Buhari has secretly promised the Obama administration that he will work to repeal the law if elected.

Gaffney believes some concerns about laws addressing sexual orientation may be warranted, but said he has no “dog in that particular fight” and believes regional and U.S. security interests suggest the administration ought to be pursuing a far different course.

“We do have a profoundly important stake in the larger question of whether Nigeria continues to slide into chaos, into the orbit of these jihadists,” he said. “Oil, the strategic resources and position and population of that country are put into serious jeopardy as a result of these calculations.”

Also see: