Mohamed Elibiary has left the building

3728290738Center for Security Policy, by Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Mohamed Elibiary, an Islamist with extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and a record of influence operations in the service of its agenda, has announced his departure after five years on the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council. We can only hope that – at a moment when the danger posed by shariah-adherent Muslims is becoming more palpable by the day – the Department decided to stop legitimating an advisor who has publicly championed that it was, “ inevitable that ‘Caliphate’ return”, contended that the United States is “an Islamic country with an Islamically compliant constitution.”

Elibiary had always been brazen in his support for Islamists and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular, including featuring the Muslim Brotherhood “R4Bia” symbol on his twitter page, and publicly lauding Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb.

In 2011, Elibiary was also suspected of utilizing his security clearance in order to access confidential documents from the Texas Department of Public Safety, and seeking to “shop” the files to journalists in order to label then Presidential candidate Governor Rick Perry an “Islamophobe.” In May 2014, during testimony before Congress, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson admitted to Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX), that this was “problematic.”

Whatever the cause of Elibiary’s departure from a senior advisory capacity in the Obama administration, it must be welcomed because – as documented in the Center for Security Policy’s online, video-based course entitled The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within” (MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com) – he played a prominent role in blinding the U.S. government to the threat posed by the Brotherhood’s “civilization jihad.” This was the practical upshot of a sequence of events that began with Elibiary being given the FBI’s highest civilian award at the Bureau’s Training Academy in Quantico, Virginia in September 2011.

Shortly thereafter, Spencer Ackerman of Wired Magazine published pictures of materials in the FBI Training Academy’s Library that Elibiary and his ilk deemed “offensive” accompanied by a series of screeds about the need to stop employing such information and trainers employing it to prepare Bureau personnel to protect us against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On November 8, 2011, then-Homeland Security Advisor to the President (now CIA Director) John Brennan agreed not only to accommodate that demand but applied the purge to the U.S. military, U.S. intelligence community and Department of Homeland Security, as well.

Unfortunately, as welcome as the news is that Mohamed Elibiary may be less able in the future to run subversive influence operations from within the U.S. government, his next publicly announced mission is disconcerting. In response to a Tweeted question from investigative reporter Ryan Mauro (who conducted a highly illuminating interview with Elibiary in the fall of 2013), the former Senior Fellow at the Obama Department of Homeland Security announced that he was now going to turn his attention to “reform[ing] the conservative movement so the GOP can win in 2016.”

I had an opportunity to witness personally Mohamed Elibiary’s involvement with the conservative movement when I was invited in the Spring of 2013 to address a conservative group that meets monthly in the Park Cities neighborhood of Dallas, Texas. Undeterred by his presence, I briefed the group on the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood, its goals of imposing shariah worldwide under the rule of a Caliph, and its practice of stealthy, pre-violent “civilization jihad” to advance that agenda.

I also discussed the enabling role that has been played on behalf of and with Muslim Brotherhood-tied Islamists like Abdurahman Alamoudi, Sami al-Arian, Nihad Awad and Suhail Khan in their influence operations targeting the George W. Bush in the run-up to and during his administration by a prominent conservative activist, Grover Norquist. As recounted at length in Agent of Influence: Grover Norquist and the Assault on the Right, the Brotherhood front called the Islamic Free Market Institute, founded by Norquist and Alamoudi, and Norquist’s self-styled “Center-Right” Coalition meetings in Washington and similar groups meeting in state capitals and major cities across the country have served as vehicles for facilitating the penetration and subversion of the conservative movement.

In the course of my Park Cities briefing last year, I did not mention Elibiary by name and he did not make any intervention or otherwise challenge my briefing. After the meeting ended and he left, however, I asked the organizer, “Why do you have a Muslim Brother in this meeting?” Interestingly, he did not reply by saying, “Who are you talking about?” or “What evidence do you have that anyone here is a Muslim Brother?” Instead, he simply said, “The Center-Right Coalition recommended him.”

One can only assume that if Mohamed Elibiary is going to be involved in “reforming the conservative movement,” he will be doing it with the help of Grover Norquist. And that prospect should be of concern to all of us – as are Norquist’s past dealings with such Islamists to, among many others, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin and six of their colleagues in the community of influential national security practitioners who signed a cover letter accompanying the Statement of Facts that makes up the body of Agent of Influence. It should be required reading for all conservatives.

ISIS on the border: a clear and present threat to the US electric grid

2110780238

Center For Security Policy:

The Secure the Grid Coalition convened a panel to examine the danger and possibility that the Islamic State, either directly or through proxies like the Knights Templar drug cartel, or other enemies of the United States – could inflict existential damage upon this country by attacking its vulnerable electric grid.

 

Kelly Carlson discussing U.S. Grid Vulnerability:

DECLARE WAR ON SHARIAH

iraq-machine-guns-held-aloft-afpBreitbart, by FRANK J. GAFFNEY, JR., Aug. 24.2014:

The National Journal called earlier this week for the United States to “declare war on ISIS.” The magazine is right to argue for a new authorization for the use of military force (AUMF), a legislative vehicle that passes these days for a congressional declaration of war. It is wrong, however, to urge that the existing AUMF, which targets al Qaeda and “associated forces,” be replaced by one that focuses just on the Islamic State (also known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Sham/Syria, or ISIS, or the Islamic State in the Levant, or ISIL).

Nearly thirteen years after 9/11, it is past time to recognize that we are at war not with one group of “terrorists” or another. Rather, adherents to a doctrine or ideology they call shariah are at war with us. Shariah is, at its core, about power, not faith. While some small percentage (some estimates suggest ten-percent) of its dictates prescribe the religious practices, the rest of it defines comprehensively how every relationship must be ordered – between individuals, families, neighbors, business associates, all the way up to how the world is governed.

Most importantly, shariah obliges its followers to engage in jihad (or holy war). Don’t be misled by those who argue jihad means “personal struggle.” The Koran makes clear that jihad is “holy war.” And for shariah-adherent Islamists that war has two goals: the triumph of shariah worldwide and the establishment of what is, for want of a better term, a theocratic government to rule the entire planet according to that doctrine.

The jihadists may disagree among themselves about some points of theology (notably, differences that divide Sunnis and Shiites). They may be committed to the use of terrifying violence under all circumstances. Or, as in the case of the Muslim Brotherhood, they may believe it is to be used where practicable, but insist on employing not so much non-violent as pre-violent, subversive techniques where terrorism will be counterproductive.

Whatever the banner under which these shariah-adherents wage jihad – for example, the Islamic State, al Qaeda, Taliban, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, Ansar al-Shariah or Muslim Brotherhood – all these Islamists are our avowed enemies. That is not because of how we view them. That is because of their own doctrine which is endlessly reinforced in their mosques, via the Internet, through social media and other vehicles.

We can no longer kid ourselves, or otherwise avoid a harsh reality: While perhaps hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world – including it seems the majority of those in America – practice their faith without regard for shariah (they don’t want to live under it themselves and they do not seek to impose it on others), the authorities of Islam regard shariah as the true faith and consider these co-religionists to be apostates.

At the moment, fortunately, only a relatively small number are actively engaged in violent jihad. Many more, though, are doing what shariah demands of those unable or unwilling to wield the sword in holy war: underwriting those who do, through the practice of zakat (Islam’s obligatory contributions to approved charitable causes, one of which is jihad).

Unless and until we understand that shariah-adherent Muslims are inherently dangerous, we will be unable to define our enemy correctly. Unless and until we hold such Muslims accountable, we will not only restrict unduly the focus and effectiveness of our countervailing efforts.

Worse yet, we will actually encourage Muslims – whether states like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, organizations or individuals – to associate with, underwrite, or in other ways enable deadly foes of freedom.

Some will respond that an AUMF focused on shariah is a formula for a “clash of civilizations.” The truth is that enemies of civilization – namely, those who adhere to and seek to impose, whether through violence or by stealth, brutally repressive, totalitarian, misogynistic, homophobic, intolerant and anti-constitutional shariah on others – have made no secret of their determination to conquer and destroy us and the rest of the civilized world.

Only by making clear that we are determined to fight back in defense of freedom will we have a chance of protecting our civilization against these enemies. By identifying the political-military-legal ideology of shariah as the defining ideology of those with whom we are at war – much as we did in the past against Nazism, Fascism, Japanese imperialism, and communism – we have a chance of prevailing. And that chance will be greatly enhanced if we bring to bear now, as in the past, not only military but all other instruments of national power.

We will also incentivize Muslims who do not conform to this doctrine to join us in fighting those who accuse them of apostasy, a capital offense under shariah. If they do so, the likelihood of our early success improves still further.

So, by all means, let’s have a new authorization for the use of military force. Or better yet, a proper declaration of war approved by the Congress, authorizing the use of the full array of our economic, political, intelligence, strategic and military means of waging war. But for the sake of our civilization and freedoms, we must ensure that it correctly defines the object of our defensive war: those who adhere to and are trying compel us to submit to shariah.

OBAMA’S POST-FOLEY FRAUD ABOUT SHARIAH

isil-journalistBreitbart, by FRANK J. GAFFNEY, JR.:

President Barack Obama found time between golf rounds Thursday to condemn the beheading of American journalist James Foley by the Islamic State (also known as the Islamic State in the Levant or ISIL) and to assure the American people that he was all about protecting them against similar fates.

Unfortunately, aside from the President’s welcome condolences to the Foley family, the rest of his remarks amounted to serial misrepresentations about this latest act of terrorist violence at the hands of shariah-adherent jihadists. Such conduct can only assure that more of us will die at their hands.

For example, Mr. Obama declared: “No faith teaches people to massacre innocents.” Actually, the authoritative Islamic doctrine (or ideology) known as shariah explicitly calls for violent jihad to force infidels to submit to Islam and, as the Koran puts it, “to make them feel subdued.”

The President sought to reinforce the notion that, because ISIL’s “victims are overwhelmingly Muslim,” the group’s terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. In fact, practically from Islam’s inception, innumerable Muslims have been massacred by their co-religionists over such matters as Sunni-Shia differences concerning fine points of theology or insufficient conformity with shariah.

Mr. Obama also asserted that the Islamic State’s “ideology is bankrupt.” Calling that ideology bankrupt at a moment when it is palpably on the march from North and sub-Saharan Africa to the Far East and Latin America bespeaks a contempt for the intelligence of the American people. It is approximately as delusional and misleading as Obama’s previous, electioneering claim that one of shariah’s other jihadist franchises, al Qaeda, is “on the path to defeat.”

In short, President Obama’s comments marking the decapitation of James Foley are but the latest in a series of instances of national security fraud on his part. Intentional or not, they have the effect of engendering a false sense of security at home, even as they embolden our jihadist and other enemies – who are ever-alert to weakness, lack of seriousness, or irresolution on America’s part.

A particularly unsettling example of those qualities was evident in the President’s closing assurance that “we will be vigilant… and relentless” in protecting the American people. Actually, at the moment he is being clueless, disingenuous, and ineffectual in doing so. And that puts us all at risk.

Frank Gaffney: “Obama Administration Involved In Setting Up the PA/Hamas Unity Government”

Frank GaffneyBy Michael Beckman  at Tales From a Tribble:

Frank Gaffney, who is a national security and Middle East expert, and is the founder of the Center for Security Policy, and also a columnist and radio host of the Secure Freedom Radio show, was a very interesting and important guest on the Hugh Hewitt radio show on Wednesday afternoon.  Hugh and Frank were discussing the disturbing crisis Israel is facing from the constant Hamas rocket attacks on it’s cities.

In one of the more stunning moments of the interview, Hugh asked Frank Gaffney if it was true what a listener who has children in Israel asserted that the United States was the first country to recognize the unity government that included the Islamist terrorist group Hamas.  Frank Gaffney said it was worse than that.  He said that the Obama administration, via the special envoy for the peace process from the State Department, was actively involved in setting up the unity government that included Hamas. That was disturbing and shocking news to me that our government was working to aid a terrorist group to be a part of a government that they actually want Israel to negotiate with.

 

Read more

A ‘Moderate Muslim’ at the Heritage Foundation?

By Andrew Harrod:

“Who is the head of the Muslim peace movement,” journalist Chris Plante asked of my Facebook friend Saba Ahmed at a recent, nationally notorious exchange at a Heritage Foundation panel.

Despite Ahmed answering with a willingness to lead any such movement, her past provokes deeply disturbing questions about oft-sought “moderate Muslims” and their ability to counter aggressive Islamic agendas.

Having previously met, the veiled Ahmed smiled to me in the audience during the first panel of a June 16 seminar on the September 11, 2012 attack upon America’s Benghazi, Libya, consulate.

American University law student Saba Ahmed spoke at the Heritage Foundation’s panel on Benghazi June 16, 2014. (Photo: The Heritage Foundation via Media Matters)

American University law student Saba Ahmed spoke at the Heritage Foundation’s panel on Benghazi June 16, 2014. (Photo: The Heritage Foundation via Media Matters)

“How can we fight an ideological war with weapons?” was Ahmed’s not particularly pertinent audience question for the panel.

Ahmed argued that “we portray Islam and all Muslims as bad” while 1.8 billion followers of Islam remained unrepresented on the panel. Agreeing with Ahmed’s emphasis on ideology, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney’s response distinguished between personally pious Muslims and a faith-based political agenda of brutal sharia law.

That Ahmed “stood there to make a point about peaceful, moderate Muslims” while showing no interest in the panel’s discussion of a lethal attack against Americans, however, irritated national security activist Brigitte Gabriel.

“We are not here to bash Muslims… I am glad you are here,” Gabriel stated before asking to a standing ovation, “but where are the others speaking out?”

Gabriel cited intelligence estimates from various countries rating 15-25 percent of Muslims worldwide as radicals, a group perhaps as large as the American population.

“Most Germans were peaceful, yet the Nazis drove the agenda,” Gabriel argued in describing the outsized influence of a militant minority such as jihadists. Just as the peaceful majority were irrelevant in imperial Japan and Communist dictatorships such as in China and the Soviet Union.

“It is time that we take political correctness and throw it in the garbage where it belongs” Gabriel announced to cheers.

Sean Hannity interviewed Saba Ahmed on his Fox News show earlier this week. Photo Credit: Fox News

Sean Hannity interviewed Saba Ahmed on his Fox News show earlier this week. Photo Credit: Fox News

Following this exchange Ahmed left, giving evidence to suspicions that she merely wanted to make a point and not attend the event. Subsequent reception discussion revealed multiple observations of Ahmed’s appearance at other Washington, D.C. events involving Islam. One person noted that Ahmed at another event had similarly unilaterally raised the subject of anti-Muslim hostility.

Curiosity about my casual acquaintance Ahmed prompted by the Heritage event initiated a revealing internet search. An online interview deepened my limited knowledge of Ahmed, a woman raised in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, by an upper-middle class family before coming Oregon with her family at age 12.

Read more at The Blaze

Washington Post Engages in Propaganda Exercise against Benghazi Conference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dylan Byers tweet

Tapper tweet

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

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

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

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

 

Obama ‘went to bed while people died’

benghazi_fire_gunBy GARTH KANT:

WASHINGTON – After all is said and done, the Benghazi scandal boils down to just the same two key questions as those in the Watergate scandal: What did the president know? And, when did he know it?

That’s according to a man who used to guard the president for a living, former secret service agent Dan Bongino, author of the WND bestseller, “Life Inside the Bubble,” and current candidate to represent Maryland in Congress.

Bongino strongly suggested the answers to those questions will show President Obama just as responsible for the scandal as President Nixon was for his. The difference was, he said, people died in Benghazi.

Parodying the phrase used by former Secretary of Stare Hillary Clinton, Bongino rhetorically asked, “What difference does it make?” He then answered by saying four men were killed and nothing was done to help them.

The man who used to personally guard the president was one of more than a dozen expert panelists convened by the Heritage Foundation and the Benghazi Accountability Coalition for a four-hour examination of the scandal called, “Benghazi: The Difference it Makes is Accountability.”

The purpose of the live-streamed conference was to inform Americans of details they have not heard from the establishment media and to provide information for the House select committee on Benghazi to be chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.

Bongino called it “media malpractice of the highest order” that the most basic questions were not asked, and that the real conspiracy was the establishment media silence.

 

He promised he would stop talking about the anti-Islamic video the administration has tried to blame for the attack, if the mainstream media would find the answer to one question: “Where was the president on the night of the attack?”

“We know he was not in the situation room, thanks to Tommy Vietor, the ‘Benghazi was like two years ago, dude.’ And the situation room is where situations (like this) are handled.”

Retired Army Gen. Jerry Boykin said he was tired of hearing that U.S. rescue forces couldn’t have arrived on time and there was no way to save the four Americans who died in Benghazi that night.

“This is not just about lives lost,” he said. “This is about who we are. We have a fundamental ethos. We don’t leave people behind.”

Boykin said critics had asked him whether that applied to Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was swapped for five top Taliban commanders.

“A deserter is not a fallen comrade. There’s a big difference,” he instructed the audience, who responded with an enthusiastic round of applause.

Boykin described the history of how the U.S. military created special rescue forces, after the failed rescue attempt of the U.S. hostages in Iran, under President Jimmy Carter.

“We let four people die without any effort to save or retrieve them,” he said. “We had forces designed for this kind of situation, so what happened? Why was there no response?”

Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, said blaming the attack by well-organized terrorists on a spontaneous uprising of people upset over a video was “a singular affront to intelligence of the American people.”

He said the president himself blamed the video while speaking to the United Nations “weeks after it was known to be untrue,” and he also noted the president told the U.N., “The future must not belong to those who slander the name of the prophet of Islam.” Gaffney said that was the sort of statement you could find on an al-Qaida website.

Gaffney then predicted, if the current Democratic efforts to change the First Amendment were successful, they wouldn’t just limit free speech, they would also make insults to Islam against the law.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney said there was one very big difference between Benghazi and Watergate: President Nixon’s scandal was limited to the White House. The general said the Benghazi cover-up cuts across the entire executive branch, including the State Department, FBI, Justice Department, National Security Council, CIA and elements of the military.

 

However, he added, he knew of members of special operations forces, forced by the administration to sign nondisclosure agreements, who were just aching to be subpoenaed by the Gowdy committee so they could tell lawmakers what they know.

Gowdy has famously asked the media: If all the Benghazi questions have been answered, could any of them say why U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed by terrorists, was in the obscure diplomatic compound that night?

McInerney said his understanding was Stevens was helping facilitate a covert gun-running scheme, with the U.S. government supplying arms from Libya to rebels in Syria, via Turkey.

He believes the 30 CIA agents on the ground in Benghazi during the time of the attack, as well as special operations and State Department personnel, were sworn to secrecy, but the logjam of information will break once they are subpoenaed.

He predicts the truth will come out, and when it does the American people will be outraged that they were lied to.

Former U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova said another reason the truth hasn’t come out is because the nation has an incurious media that operate as “flacks” for the administration.

Nearly all the panelists expressed dismay and outrage that the administration did nothing to save the lives of the four Americans who died during the attack on the compound on the night of Sept. 11, 2012.

DiGenova said the problem is no one would stand up to the president and tell him to send help.

 

His voice rising with indignation, diGenova declared, “Everybody knew what was going on that night. The question was who had b-lls that night? A lot of people didn’t have the b-lls and didn’t do their jobs.”

His voice rising to a crescendo, the attorney scornfully declared, “These people actually went home and went to bed, and people died.” The remark elected an emotional round of applause from the 200 people gathered at the Washington, D.C., hall to watch the panel.

Read more at WND

***********

Here is the entire event:

In Wartime, Focus on Detainment of Terrorists, Not Rehabilitation

2475970912Center for Security Policy:

The following is a partial transcript of an interview with Congressman Jim Bridenstine(OK-1) that featured in the Monday, June 9th edition of Secure Freedom Radio. The entire interview may be listened to here. Congressman Bridenstine serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Frank Gaffney: There’s a report–I don’t think you’ve seen it, Congressman Jim Bridenstine–our friend and colleague Paul Sperry had in the New York Post over the weekend indicating that the President is aggressively moving forward on other efforts to remove these guys, including perhaps releasing as many as half of the detainees that remain in Guantanamo Bay this summer. If you could, just give us a sense of the character of the folks who are left [in Guantanamo Bay] and what the implications might be if we find this kind of wholesale dismantling of this detention facility.

Rep. Jim Bridenstine: Well, we have seen a commitment from this administration to close Guantanamo Bay going back to his first election and then his second election. There was a time when he was trying to bring a number of the most hardened terrorists to the United States to have them tried in Article III courts. Here’s the situation–I’m going to speak as a warfighter for a second. There are two types of law. There is the law of war and there is the law of peace. When you’re at war, you detain people not for rehabilitation, not for punishment; you detain them to get them off the battlefield until the end of hostilities. That is under the law of war, and this is an important piece of what Guantanamo Bay is for the American military. It is a way to detain people until the end of conflict. Unfortunately there is confusion, even among my colleagues on the Republican side, about the difference between why you detain people in wartime and why you detain people in peacetime. That confusion is creating this environment where people, even on my side of the aisle, some of them are saying we need to close Guantanamo Bay. Now, if there’s a strategic reason to close it, then that’s an argument that needs to be had. But if people are arguing that they need their Article III protections per the Constitution, under the laws of war we have every authority to detain them until the end of armed conflict and the last I checked, the Taliban and Al Qaeda have not decided to end the war or sign a peace treaty.

FG: To the contrary, there’s every evidence that they’re redoubling their efforts as we saw the Pakistani branch doing in Karachi yesterday. Just to drill down on this…the President says: we are winding down the war. So, we have to wind down both the authority that we have given the President–his predecessor initially–to conduct that war and we need to wind down facilities like Gitmo as well. I take it you don’t think we’re actually winding down the war, at least in terms of the enemy’s determination to continue to prosecute it.

JB: No, not at all. What we’re seeing now is we’re seeing the Taliban and Al Qaeda more emboldened than we’ve seen them in years. And of course this is a direct result of the policy that this President is putting forward. You know, this isn’t fun and games. This isn’t about political philosophy. These are real world issues where Americans are put at risk and the world is becoming more dangerous–not less dangerous. And when America projects weakness, this is what we get. We get emboldened enemies and we get friends and allies around the world that don’t trust us. This is terrible policy and this is not one of those things where if you’re nice to them, they’ll be nice to us back. That’s not how this works.

Michigan Rep Doubles Down on Support for Islamist Event

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee (right), spoke at an Islamist event honoring Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, leader of the “Ground Zero Mosque” project (left).

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee (right), spoke at an Islamist event honoring Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, leader of the “Ground Zero Mosque” project (left).

Rep. Rogers attendance at this event—and more importantly, his refusal to cancel after being given the facts—is a testament to the growing political influence of Islamists on members of the U.S. Congress from both political parties.

By Ryan Mauro:

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, was booked as the keynote speaker for an Islamist event on May 30. The event honored Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who rose to prominence as the former leader of the “Ground Zero Mosque” project.

Rogers represents the 8th district in Michigan, which includes Dearborn — an Islamist stronghold in America.

Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy under the Reagan Administration, was the first to bring attention to the matter. He wrote a letter to Rep. Rogers asking him to cancel his appearance at the event.

The organization he embraced was the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy (ICRD). It has a Memorandum of Understanding with the International Institute of Islamic Thought(IIIT), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity that was once the subject of a federal terrorism-financing investigation. Its leaders met with then- President Morsi in September 2012, the Brotherhood leader of Egypt, where he “welcomed the participation of IIIT in the reform of higher education in Egypt.”

A confidential source inside the Muslim Brotherhood informed the FBI that IIIT is a Brotherhood front as early as 1987. The source reported that IIIT sought to “institute the Islamic Revolution in the United States,” with one stepping stone towards that end being to “peacefully get inside the United States government and also American universities.” The informant said IIIT leaders already “claimed success in infiltrating the United States government with sympathetic or compromised individuals.”

Read more at Clarion Project

How Barack Obama Ends Wars

barack_michelle_salute_APBreitbart, By Frank Gaffney, Jr.:

In discussing last week his decision to eliminate essentially all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the time his term of office ends, Mr. Obama declared:  “This is how wars end in the 21st Century – not through signing ceremonies but through decisive blows against our adversaries, transitions to elected governments, security forces who are trained to take the lead and ultimately full responsibility.”

Actually, how Barack Obama ends wars is by what amounts to surrendering to our undefeated adversaries, undermining elected governments by emboldening those determined to destroy them, and abandoning local security forces who lack the capability to prevail.

The President’s exchange this weekend of “prisoner of war” Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five of the world’s most dangerous jihadists is a microcosm of his way of waging–and losing–wars. Consider the following features of this odious act of appeasement and its roll-out.

  •          The exchange was unbalanced:  We purchased at exceedingly high cost the freedom of an American described by his comrades as a deserter. It appears that by abandoning his sentinel’s post in the dark of night, he not only jeopardized their lives, but he set in train searches and tactical situations that cost the lives of numerous other servicemen.

Treating Bergdahl as some sort of heroic figure because of his five years in self-induced captivity is a further assault on the principles of integrity, discipline, and honor that have been central to the character and culture of the U.S. military for generations. This is not an accident. Destroying that culture happens to be a well-established feature of Team Obama’s social engineering of the armed forces.

  •         The price paid to achieve Bergdahl’s freedom was to release no fewer than five of the Taliban’s senior commanders to the custody of Qatar. Let’s take what’s wrong with this picture, piece by piece:

First, the Qatari government is on the other side in the War for the Free World. It is a bankroller of al Qaeda in Syria (and perhaps elsewhere): the enabler of the Muslim Brotherhood, the underwriter of the enemy’s propaganda arm, al Jazeera, etc. Trusting the Qataris to be helpful to us with regard to anything having to do with jihad is worse than willful blindness; it is national security malfeasance.

Second, the best case is that these guys will be out of the fight for one more year. Since the administration won’t say what restrictions will be imposed on them in the interim, however, it is a safe bet they will be doing whatever they can to contribute to their terrorist organization’s return to power as soon as possible. But even if that were not the case, in the long war the United States is abandoning, a year is nothing for those determined to defeat us.

  •          To complete this exchange, President Obama violated the law, something he has done relentlessly in the course of his presidency.  (To appreciate just how often, see Andrew C. McCarthy’s splendid new book, Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.) The fact that Eric Holder’s Justice Department gave Chuck Hagel’s Defense Department a fig-leaf for doing so by claiming extenuating circumstances–namely, concerns about Bergdahl’s deteriorating health–does not alter the reality that Obama and Company did not conform to the statute requiring a 30-day pre-notification to Congress.
  •          Adding insult to injury is the fact that Bergdahl does not seem to be ill, let alone near death’s door. National Security Advisor Susan Rice said on Sunday the he is “in good health” and he has reportedly been released from the hospital in Germany where his medical condition was assessed post-release. Of course, he may have lingering psychological problems, but then that may have been the case before he deserted. Either way, there is no justification there for the president ignoring the law.
  •         Speaking of Susan Rice, her interviews on two Sunday talk shows this weekend vividly called to mind the notorious, serial appearances she turned in on five such programs in September 2012. Now, as then, she was the dutiful–almost robotic–spinner, relentlessly sticking to her misleading, if not patently fraudulent talking points.

Two years ago, Rice engaged in what amounted to lying about the murderous attacks in Benghazi, by insisting they were the result of a video, not jihadist attacks.  This meme, we recently learned, was manufactured by a man who is now her Deputy National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes.  It was explicitly designed by him to deflect politically problematic attention in the run-up to the 2012 election from questions about the President’s claims that al Qaeda was on the path to defeat, and other national security frauds.

This weekend, Rice reprised her role as untrustworthy flack by relentless insisting we have a “sacred duty not to leave anyone behind”–a duty that neither she nor any other senior Obama administration official seemed to feel while the Benghazi attacks were underway. All the while, she deflected questions that would have illuminated the reality of the Bergdahl exchange–the exorbitant price we paid, how the exchange was conducted under false pretenses, the dire implications with respect to strengthening our enemies and the lack of real justification for violating the law.

With the Bergdahl exchange, Americans are on notice: Unless this episode proves to be a very costly one for Team Obama, the President is on a trajectory not only to lose Afghanistan, as we previously lost Iraq. He will also ignore statutory inhibitions on releasing the rest of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay and close that facility, foreclosing its use by a successor. The upshot of all this will be to establish that the way Barack Obama “ends wars in the 21st Century” is going to get a lot more of us killed.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. formerly acted as an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan.  He is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for Breitbart News Network and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio.

Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner?

670876846CSP, By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

The International Center for Religion and Diplomacy (ICRD) is a Washington-based non-profit organization that, like many working these portfolios, happens to have worrisome ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. It is, moreover, engaged in a top priority of what the Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad” – namely, interfaith dialogue. The Brothers cynically engage in such “bridge-building” in order to induce individuals and institutions of other creeds to provide them with political cover, thereby enabling subversive Islamist efforts to insinuate into this country the supremacist shariah doctrine – all in the name of religious freedom.

On May 30th, the ICRD will further display its true colors. It will have as its guests of honor at a gala fundraising dinner two preeminent stealth jihadists – Faisal Rauf and his wife, Daisy Khan. The couple gained international notoriety in 2010 when they sought to build a 15-story mosque complex in a building so close to Ground Zero that it was badly damaged in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.

The only surprise in all of this is the dinner’s keynote speaker: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI).

Now, I am personally fond of Rep. Rogers. In the land of the blind that is our Congress – which is almost completely bereft of lawmakers who focus on national security, let alone provide leadership in that portfolio – he is the one-eyed man, for sure. He has been willing to tell the truth about the world becoming more dangerous when few in his party, let alone the Democrats in Washington, have done so. A former Army officer and FBI special agent, he has championed a strong defense and sought to stave off the throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater impulses of legislators determined to dismantle the NSA in the wake of the Snowden treachery.

So, I wrote the chairman last week laying out the ties between the ICRD and various American Muslim Brotherhood fronts and leaders. These include: one of the Brotherhood’s preeminent fonts of ideological purity, the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT); the American Muslims for Constructive Engagement (AMCE), whose stated mission is to secure “the deliberate appointment of qualified Muslims to key advisory bodies and policy-relevant positions in government in order to shape U.S. policy choices”; and, through the AMCE, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). ICNA, ISNA and CAIR were listed as unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history: U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation, et.al.

Consequently, I urged Chairman Rogers in my 21 May letter to withdraw from the ICRD fundraiser: “While there is certainly no objection to qualified Americans, of any religion, serving in U.S. policy-making positions, it appears that members of the Muslim Brotherhood, a subversive terrorist organization with intimate ties to terrorism, are using the ICRD as a venue for an ongoing influence operation to manipulate U.S. policy. Your attendance at this event would risk further legitimizing this event to the detriment of U.S. national security.”

Unfortunately, this is not the first time Rep. Rogers has evidenced an inadequate appreciation of the civilization jihad the Muslim Brotherhood is waging inside the United States. (To read the Brotherhood’s secret plan for this jihad, see here.). Notably, in July 2012, he joined Senator John McCain and House Speaker John Boehner in criticizing Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other legislators. They had quite properly written five federal agencies’ inspectors general requesting investigations of the roles being played in shaping U.S. policies by individuals shown to be associated with the Muslim Brotherhood in this country (see: see Part 8 of the free, online course atwww.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com).

This is a particularly bad time for the chairman of the House intelligence oversight committee to have a blind spot with respect to Islamist influence operations. After all, the Obama administration appears determined to admit more Muslim Brothers into this country as they are being rolled up in Egypt. That would be the practical effect of its recent decision to rewrite unilaterally and extra-constitutionally federal immigration statutes by allowing individuals to apply for refugee status if they have only engaged in “limited” material support for terrorism. Last week, a young Egyptian Brotherhood sympathizer, if not member, appears to be the first to have put this opportunity to the test.

In addition, as Adam Kredo observed at the Washington Free Beacon, the Obama State Department is continuing the embrace of Islamists begun while Hillary Clinton was in charge:

The State Department’s Counter Terrorism (CT) Bureau promoted on Friday a controversial Muslim scholar whose organization has reportedly backed Hamas and endorsed a fatwa authorizing the murder of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

The CT bureau on Friday tweeted out a link to the official website of Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah, the vice president of the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS), a controversial organization founded by a Muslim Brotherhood leader “who has called for the death of Jews and Americans and himself is banned from visiting the U.S.,” according to Fox News.

Mike Rogers is right that the world is becoming more dangerous thanks to the rising capabilities and malevolence of global jihadists. The reality, however, is that the threat is growing in no small part because of the success jihadists are having in undermining our situational awareness and subverting our policies. We need Chairman Rogers for the remainder of his tenure in Congress to be part of the solution to that problem, not compounding it with his own case of willful blindness.

Frank Gaffney to Rep. Mike Rogers: Withdraw Your Appearance Before MB-tied Group

445582704

Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan are being honored by the International Center for Religion & Diplomacy for their pioneering efforts in promoting peace, understanding and cooperation among people of all faiths, particularly between Islam and the West. In 2010, Imam Rauf proposed to build an Islamic Community Center in downtown Manhattan, which created an intense national conversation about Islam in America.

Center releases letter from President Frank Gaffney to Rep. Mike Rogers urging him to withdraw appearance before Muslim Brotherhood-tied group

(Washington, D.C.): Today, the Center for Security Policy released a letter previously sent from CSP President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., to Rep. Mike Rogers (Michigan, 8th), Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, urging the Chairman to withdraw from his scheduled upcoming appearance as keynote speaker at the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy’s (ICRD) Faith-in-Action Award Dinner on May 30th, 2014.

In the letter, Mr. Gaffney details the ICRD’s extensive and troubling ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist entities, including:

  • The ICRD Vice President for Preventative Engagement AbuBaker Al-Shingieti’s previous service as a spokesperson for the Sudanese regime of indicted war criminal Omar Bashir – a particularly worrisome link in light of the Sudanese government’s recent sentencing of a young pregnant woman to death for refusing to recant her Christian faith and for her marriage to her Christian husband, a U.S. citizen;
  • Al-Shingieti’s previous service as regional director for the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), an organization subject to a federal grand jury probe for terrorism finance due to its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad;
  • The ICRD’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed by ICRD President Douglas Johnston and IIIT President Jamal Barzinji – the latter of which, according to testimony by a federal law enforcement officer, has been connected to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad organizing and fundraising efforts in the U.S.;
  • Al-Shingieti’s current service as President of the American Muslims for Constructive Engagement (AMCE), an organization whose Directors, Steering Committee, and Advisory Council includes leaders of multiple organizations named in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing case as unindicted co-conspirators and members or affiliates of the North American Muslim Brotherhood.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, commented:

“I commend Chairman Rogers for his years of service to our country, both in and out of Congress. His record of steadfastness on numerous issues of national security makes it especially regrettable, however, that he has chosen to go forward with his speaking engagement at the ICRD, an organization with troubling ties to both Omar Bashir’s Sudanese regime and the Muslim Brotherhood. It is my hope that Chairman Rogers will reconsider his decision to keynote the ICRD’s event, and decline therefore to give the ICRD any appearance of legitimacy in light of its past and present activities.”

A copy of the letter, along with accompanying fact-sheet can be found here:http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Frank-Gaffney-Letter-to-Chairman-Rogers.pdf

On the Ground in Egypt: Patrick Poole and Stephen Coughlin

Secure Freedom, Published on May 13, 2014

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

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

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

Unsafe Places: Islamist Mosques

mosque-American-flag-ReutersBreitbart, by FRANK J. GAFFNEY, JR.

The contempt that America’s enemies have for the United States these days is palpable. The most obvious current example is Vladimir Putin’s disdain for President Obama, whom he regards as little more than a speed-bump on the road to his conquest of Ukraine and perhaps other nations in what the Kremlin calls Russia’s “near-abroad.”

Not content with snatching Crimea and preparing reprises elsewhere, Putin has a jet buzz one of our ships in the Black Sea for ninety minutes then launches a new multiple-warhead intercontinental ballistic missile. By contrast, Team Obama is busily dismantling what’s left of our navy and strategic forces.

Then there’s the back of the hand treatment China showed Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel when, during his recent visit to the People’s Republic, the Pentagon chief had the temerity to lecture his hosts about how to behave internationally. They took him to see their just-refurbished aircraft carrier and unveiled a new fighter aircraft to operate from it. The best Hagel could do was announce that the U.S. was going to respond to Beijing’s increasing belligerence in the region by sending there a grand total of two more anti-missile destroyers–by 2017.

A more subtle, but no less in-your-face kind of contempt has just been served up by Muslim Brotherhood operatives and other Islamists in this country.

To mark the occasion of the first anniversary of two of their fellow jihadists’ murderous attack at the Boston Marathon, the leaders of several Brotherhood fronts have launched something called the “Safe Spaces Initiative.” They evidently think we are so stupid, or at least now so submissive, that they can try to put mosques off-limits to law enforcement. This is all the more astounding since we know that the perpetrators of the terrorism of a year ago used the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge to become versed in the ways of the supremacist Islamist doctrine known as shariah and the jihad it commands.

A chief proponent of this Safe Spaces gambit is Salam al-Marayati, the president of an Islamist influence operation out of California with extensive access to the Obama administration, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). In an opinion piece posted by altmuslim blog on March 28, al-Marayati actually makes plain the true purpose of his Safe Spaces Initiative.

Notwithstanding the portrayal of this proposal as a means of preventing radicalization in mosques, in the words of al-Marayati: “Safe spaces are needed so that government informants and extremist recruiters are prevented from violating the sanctity of the mosque. In essence, we want to enhance both a spiritual safety and public safety.” (Emphasis added.)

Unfortunately, the latest announcement by William Bratton–the former police commissioner recently re-appointed by New York’s new, Islamist-friendly mayor, Bill de Blasio–would sure seem to justify the Brothers’ low regard for us. As the New York Timesreported today “The New York Police Department has abandoned a secretive program that dispatched plainclothes detectives into Muslim neighborhoods….Plainclothes detectives looked for ‘hot spots’ of radicalization that might give the police an early warning about terrorist plots.”

The Times quoted the NYPD’s chief spokesman, Stephen Davis, who made clear the completeness of the department’s submission to the Islamists who style themselves as the “leaders” and “representatives” of all Muslim Americans: “‘Understanding certain local demographics can be a useful factor when assessing the threat information that comes into New York City virtually on a daily basis,” Mr. Davis said. “In the future, we will gather that information, if necessary, through direct contact between the police precincts and the representatives of the communities they serve.”

I discussed the folly of making mosques surveillance-free zones in an interview on Secure Freedom Radio this evening with former federal prosecutor and best-selling author Andrew C. McCarthy. Here’s part of our conversation (for the entire podcast, click here):

FRANK GAFFNEY: The Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, who’s a Muslim Brother fellow-traveller jihadist type, has a rather poetic turn of phrase for it. He says, “The minarets are our bayonets, the domes our helmets, the mosques our barracks, and the faithful our army.” And, Andy, this gives rise to a concern that I’m sure you share about an initiative that some of these Muslim Brotherhood types, notably Mohamed Magid, the president of the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in the United States, the Islamic Society of North America–and, oh, by the way, a frequent visitor at the Obama White House and prominent source of counsel to him and others in his Administration–

ANDY MCCARTHY: And another unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation.

FG: Indeed. These guys have cooked up something called the “Safe Spaces Initiative.” I wonder what you make of that idea, particularly as it seems their purpose is to, as one of them put it, “keep government informants…from violating the sanctity of the mosque.”

AM: Yeah, well, you know, it’s unfortunate that with this particular Justice Department and this Administration they’re probably pushing on an open door.

FG: It’s probably a wired game, let’s be honest. These guys have almost certainly got this rigged with the Justice Department.

AM: But the amazing thing is for all of Obama and Eric Holder’s caterwauling about, you know, how we’ve proved again and again that the civilian justice system is the best way to prosecute terrorism cases–well, why don’t they ever check into what was proved in those prosecutions that they like to tout around? Because if they open the transcripts…what they would find is that mosques were used as recruitment centers, they were used for conspiratorial conversations and agreements, they were used to house weapons, they were used to transfer weapons, and they really were used to light a fire under people who might have been fence-sitters but who were powerfully influenced by some of the imams, particularly the guy who I prosecuted in the 1990s, the Blind Sheikh.

It was in the mosques that [Omar Abdel-Rahman] did most of the damage that he did to the United States. So this is not something we speculate about, Frank. This is something that’s actually been proved in court, and proved again and again and again. So, if you’re going to say that a mosque needs to be a safe space, then what you’re really saying is we’ve taken willful blindness, which was a problem, and we’ve now codified it, so it’s not just willful blindness; it’s just mulish, absolute refusal to come to terms with what we’re up against.

FG: Yeah. And to speak to the other subject of your trilogy there, it is a formula for more of the grand jihad, not less. It is a certainty that you will find more Tsarnaev boys being recruited, or being trained, or being armed, or in other ways being enabled. It simply is mindboggling, Andy, and I think the American people couldn’t comprehend what’s going on here, or believe it if told it.

We can’t afford more of the sort of willful blindness that will give rise to more unsafe mosques and other places, and more jihad.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. formerly acted as an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan.  He is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for Breitbart News Network and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio.