New ‘Terror Jihad Reader Series’ Lays Bare The True Nature And Danger Of The Islamic State

2623784173CENTER LAUNCHES NEW ‘TERROR JIHAD READER SERIES,’

LAYS BARE THE TRUE NATURE AND DANGER OF THE ISLAMIC STATE

Center for Security Policy, August 2, 2016:

As the savage attacks claimed by the Islamic State (IS) seem to follow on one another at an ever-increasing pace, too many still do not understand what this group is, where it came from, who its leaders are, and most important of all, why they do what they do. Whether the IS-controlled territory called “The Caliphate” survives in its current form or not, the totalitarian ideology Islamic supremacists call Sharia and the jihad it impels will cause adherent fighters, followers and supporters around the world to fight on and, unless decisively defeated, to continue to metastasize.

In the absence of such a defeat, the Islamic State continues to add new groups to its growing franchise. And individual jihadists from nearly every continent continue to step forward to pledge allegiance to IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as they carry out murderous attacks on innocent civilians. Unfortunately, too many at the top levels of U.S. national security, the media, academia and other elites still fail to understand this enemy, typically approaching it as a mere “terrorist organization” or purveyor of “violent extremism.” In particular, unless and until there is a much better appreciation for the phenomenon that is spawning and intensifying Islamic supremacism as practiced by IS, Americans and other freedom-loving peoples will be in mortal peril.

In the hope of enabling such an appreciation, the Center for Security Policy is pleased to present the first monograph in its “Terror Jihad Reader Series”: Jihad! Understanding the Threat of the Islamic State in America, by Ilana Freedman. This publication delves into IS’ inspirational Islamist identity and describes the real threat it consequently poses to the United States. Ms. Freedman brings to bear her rigorous scholarship and sober analysis in order to define this enemy accurately and illuminate its abilities, intentions and motivations.

Vice President for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez introduces the Center’s new book

Speaking on the timeliness of this critical new book, Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney noted:

For much of the past fifteen years, the United States has been preoccupied with the threat posed by al Qaeda (AQ). More recently, attention has preponderantly shifted to what began as an AQ splinter group, the Islamic State. Ilana Freeman’s new monograph, Jihad!, makes plain why the object of this new focus needs both to be better understood, utterly crushed and recognized as just one part of the global jihad movement – which must get the same treatment. It should be considered required reading, especially for those who seek to be our next Commander-in-Chief and charged with protecting this country against such enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Jihad! Understanding the Threat of the Islamic State in America is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback format at Amazon.com. As with all of the Center’s other publications, this one can also be downloaded for free at www.SecureFreedom.org.

SafariScreenSnapz006

For additional information about the stealthy counterpart to the violent jihad addressed by the Terror Jihad Reader Series, see the Center for Security Policy’s “Civilization Jihad Reader Series.”

PDF of the newly released monograph

BOOK RELEASE: Ikhwan in America: An Oral History of the Muslim Brotherhood in Their Own Words

574097527CENTER RELEASES ACCOUNT BY TOP MUSLIM BROTHER OF HIS ORGANIZATION’S PLANS AND PREPARATIONS FOR JIHAD IN AMERICA

(Washington, D.C.): The Center for Security Policy is proud to announce the second release in its Archival Series, Ikhwan in America: An Oral History of the Muslim Brotherhood in their Own Words.

Like the first volume in this series, The Explanatory Memorandum: From the Archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, this new volume provides context for the needed, far deeper understanding of the true nature of the Muslim Brotherhood (known as the Ikhwan in Arabic). It does so by making accessible an original source document – along with an evaluation of its ideological, historical and organizational significance to equip our countrymen and women, and their elected representatives, to make informed decisions about one of the most serious threats facing our country: the Islamic supremacist enemies within.

“Ikhwan in America” was the title given an early 1980s lecture about the Muslim Brotherhood by a man who was at the time one of the organization’s most prominent leaders: the chief masul (“guide”) of its executive office, Zaid Naman (a.k.a. Zeid Noman). The audience were participants in a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood camp in Missouri.

The audio of the lecture was found, translated and transcribed by the FBI. It was discovered in 2004 during a search of the home of another U.S. Muslim Brotherhood leader, Ismail Elbarasse. At the time it was raided, Elbarasse’s property held what amounted to the archives of the Brotherhood in North America..

Many of those documents, including The Explanatory Memorandum, only became available to the public when they were entered into evidence in support of the government’s 2007-2008 case against the Holy Land Foundation (HLF). The HLF was a Muslim Brotherhood front that masqueraded as a charitable organization. In fact, it engaged in, anFirefoxScreenSnapz081d was convicted of, material support for a designated terrorist organization, Hamas.

Among the many pieces of evidence made available by the government in the Holy Land trial, Naman’s lecture carries special significance since it represents a first-hand account, in the words of one of the Brotherhood’s top leaders, of the Ikhwan’s history and stealthy “civilization jihad” in this country.

Naman covers both the organization’s highs and lows here, from the early successes in establishing the Muslim Students Association and Islamic centers throughout the country, to struggles and infighting that finally led to the forging of a more united U.S. Muslim Brotherhood with its counterparts from many other countries.

The Center for Security Policy’s President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. said upon the publication of Ikhwan in America:

The production of this transcription of Zaid Naman’s authoritative account of the Muslim Brotherhood in our country is especially timely. After all, it coincides with the consideration by the U.S. Congress of legislation calling for the Brotherhood’s designation as a terrorist organization for its role in fomenting jihadist violence.

Naman’s lecture explicitly discusses the Brotherhood’s equipping its members to engage in so called “Special Work,” meaning armed violence, and training its members in the use of firearms for that purpose – statements directly at odds with the Brotherhood professed commitment to nonviolence. It should be required reading for every legislator and other official with the sworn duty to protect our nation and its Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The Center for Security Policy is proud to present this monograph as the latest in its Muslim Brotherhood Archival Series. Ikhwan in America is available for purchase inKindle and paperback format at Amazon.com. As with this Archive Series’ Explanatory Memorandum, this one can also be downloaded for free at www.SecureFreedom.org.

PDF: Ikhwan_in_America_20160418

BOOK RELEASE: See No Sharia: ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ and the Disarming of America’s First Line of Defense

2160830251
Center for Security Policy, April 14, 2016:

(Washington, D.C.): For much of the past fifteen years, the United States government has failed to understand, let alone decisively defeat, the enemy that, under the banner of its al Qaeda franchise, murderously attacked our country on September 11, 2001. The reason why that has been so – notwithstanding the bravery and skill of our men and women in uniform and the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars – has been unclear to most Americans, including some in government. Until now.

With the publication by the Center for Security Policy of a new book by two of its leaders, President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. and Vice President Clare Lopez, See No Sharia: “Countering Violent Extremism” and the Disarming of America’s First Lines of Defense, the case has been forcefully made that this sorry state of affairs is a product of a sustained and highly successful influence operation by Islamic supremacists. Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, Islamists in general and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular have gained access to and considerable sway over policymakers in the White House, the FBI and the Departments of State, Justice, Defense and Homeland Security.

See No Sharia describes the trajectory that has flowed from such penetration and subversion. It traces how fact-based counterterrorism and law enforcement have inexorably been supplanted by an approach defined by accommodations demanded by Islamists – purged lexicons and training programs, limitations on surveillance, case-making and rules of engagement and above all, eschewing anything that gives “offense” to Muslims.

see_no_sharia_thumb-683x1024In addition to showing the perils associated with such policies and practices as America faces the growing threat of global jihad and its animating doctrine of sharia, this book provides specific recommendations as to how to restore our first lines of defense – the FBI and other law enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security, the military and the intelligence community – whose effective service is needed today more than ever.

Frank Gaffney noted,

“Americans expect government officials to fulfill their oaths of office by protecting the Constitution, the Republic it established and its people from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The vast majority of our public servants yearn to do their duty. Yet, as See No Sharia makes plain, for at least a decade and a half, they have been obliged to conform to policies that greatly diminish their chances for success. We simply cannot afford to disarm those in our first lines of defense against Islamic supremacism and its jihad – both the violent kind and the stealthy sort the Muslim Brotherhood calls ‘civilization jihad.’”

Clare Lopez added,

“As a career intelligence professional, the extent to which our policymaking apparatus has been penetrated and subverted by Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist operatives is deeply problematic. This book is meant to expose their handiwork – and to impel the urgently needed and long-overdue policy course-correction.”

The Center for Security Policy is proud to present this monograph as the latest in its Civilization Jihad Reader Series. See No Sharia: “Countering Violent Extremism” and the Disarming of America’s First Lines of Defense is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback format at Amazon.com. As with all of the other volumes in this Readers Series, this one can also be downloaded for free at www.SecureFreedom.org.

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 https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/civilization-jihad-reader-series/

Buy “See No Sharia: ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ and the Disarming of America’s First Line of Defense” in paperback or Kindle format on Amazon.

PDF of the newly released monograph

Connecting Paris and now Brussels Attacks

3903596861

Center for Security Policy, March 25, 2016:

Frank Gaffney spoke with Michel Gurfinkiel on Secure Freedom Radio yesterday. Gurfinkiel is the founder and president of the Jean-Jacques Rousseau Institute and the Shillman/Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

The focus of their discussion was the recent terror attack in Brussels. Gurfinkiel says that the attacks were expected by many in the security field and that numerous industry publications were predicting such an attack in February.

Gurfinkiel also compared the Brussels attack to the Paris attack of last fall:

“Belgium is a country of about 10 million inhabitants, there were something like 33 to 35 casualties, we don’t know about a few people who are in a very tight situation from hospital, there were at least 150 persons wounded, which means that proportionately to the population of Belgium, this is of the same size as the November 13th attacks in Paris.”

He also said that the attack turned Brussels into a “ghost city” almost instantly as people took shelter inside and transportation shut down.

An interesting point to note, Gurfinkiel said that Salah Abdeslam who has ties to both attacks, is a man of Moroccan descent who had citizenship in both Belgium and France.

According to Gurfinkiel, the world is viewed by Jihadists in two ways; the Islamic world and the non-Islamic world. Places like Belgium and France, where Muslims are expected to respect the law of the land while enjoying religious freedom are seen as enemies of Jihad for resisting Islam, merely for putting the nation’s laws before Islam.

“In fact there is a very thin difference between the so called moderate and fundamentalist Islam and the Jihadist Islam. The only difference is that while Jihadists say let’s make war to the West right now the moderate fundamentalists say no, we have another option which is to spread peacefully and wage war only in specific instances when somehow the West will resist some of our demands.”

Too many people in the West seem to be in denial about all of this.

We are at war, whether they believe it or not.

Secure Freedom Radio:

TRANSCRIPT

MICHEL GURFINKIEL, Founder and President of the Jean-Jacques Rousseau Institute, Shillman/Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum: Podcast: Play in new window

  • What we now know about the terrorist attacks in Belgium
  • Connection between attacks in Paris and Brussels

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

  • Salah Abdeslam’s background
  • Difference between jihadist and fundamentalist versions of Islam

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

  • End goal of the Muslim Brotherhood
  • Consequence of mass Muslim migration in Europe

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

  • Failure of intellectual and political elites to address the threat the Muslim Brotherhood poses to the West
  • Global view of Islamist radicals

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

  • Leaders of the Muslim world and their views concerning Shariah law
  • European attitudes concerning anti-Semitism
  • Using the ‘Israeli Model’ of counterterrorism

Ted Cruz Promotes Jihad Expert Frank Gaffney

Cruz-321-Thumbnail-640x480

Breitbart, by Michelle Moons, March 22, 2016:

Senator Ted Cruz is praising one of his security advisors who is being attacked by a jihad-linked advocacy group in Washington.

“Frank Gaffney is a serious thinker who has been focused on fighting jihadism, fighting jihadism across the globe,” Cruz told CNN on Monday.

“He’s endured attacks from the left, from the media, because he speaks out against radical Islamic terrorism … for example, the political correctness of the Obama administration that effectively gets in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood [which] is a terrorist organization,” Cruz said.

Gaffney was one of several Cruz security team advisors labeled “infamous Islamophobes” last week by the Council on American Islamic Relations, an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation’s Hamas-funding operation.

The CAIR group is so closely entwined with Islamists and with jihadis that court documents and news reports show that at least five of its people — either board members, employees or former employees — have been jailed or repatriated to the United States for various financial and terror-related offenses.

The record highlighted by critics also shows that CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Texas-based criminal effort to deliver $12 million for the Jew-hating HAMAS jihad group, that it was founded with $490,000 from HAMAS, and that the FBI bans top-level meetings with CAIR officials. In 2009, a federal judge concluded that “the government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR … with Hamas.”

Host Wolf Blitzer tried to press Cruz on Gaffney’s prior comments about Islam.

Cruz refused to play, and told Blitzer that “I’m not interested in playing the media gotcha game of here’s every quote every person who’s supporting you has said at any point, do you agree with every statement. That’s silliness.”

Here’s my view: we need a Commander-In-Chief who defends America and defending America means defeating radical Islamic terrorism and defeating ISIS. What is completely unreasonable is Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s consistent pattern of refusing to even say the words radical Islamic terrorism.

When we see a terror attack in Paris and San Bernardino and President Obama says ‘Gosh I didn’t realize people were upset, I guess I wasn’t watching the cable news.’ And then he gives a national TV conference where he doesn’t call out radical Islamic terrorists, but instead he lectures Americans on Islamophobia, we need a Commander-In-Chief … [and] one of the reasons why we’re going to win in November is people are fed up with this silliness.

Cruz Assembles an Unlikely Team of Foreign-Policy Rivals

CruzBloomberg View, by Eli Lake, March 17, 2016:

In a year when the Republican Party is breaking apart because of Donald Trump, the only man left with a chance to beat him is trying to build a big tent — by GOP standards — when it comes to foreign affairs.

On Thursday, Senator Ted Cruz is set to announce his campaign’s national security advisory team, and it includes many foreign-policy insurgents and a few more establishment types. The list includes conservatives who disagree on one of the most pressing issues facing the next president: defining and confronting radical Islam.

The first name on the advisory list that stands out is Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan administration Pentagon official who has emerged as a lightning rod in the Obama era, accused by the Southern Poverty Law Center of being one of the nation’s leading Islamophobes.

When Trump proposed a temporary ban on all Muslim immigration, he quoted from a 2015 survey of American Muslims commissioned by the think tank Gaffney founded, the Center for Security Policy. It concluded that a quarter of U.S. Muslims supported violent jihad against the U.S. This led to speculation in the Washington press that Gaffney was advising Trump.

But Gaffney is a Cruz man. In an interview, he said that he met Cruz when he was running for Senate in 2012, and that he has briefed him on the FBI’s investigation into a Muslim Brotherhood-linked charity known as the Holy Land Foundation and on how Sharia law is a threat to America. “I hope that some of that went into his decision to introduce legislation to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization,” Gaffney said.

Until this year, these views were considered radioactive by the Republican establishment. George W. Bush, after Sept. 11, famously appeared at a Washington mosque and declared that Islam was a religion of peace. Senator John McCain, when he was his party’s presidential nominee in 2008, famously rebuked a talk-radio host for calling his challenger “Barack Hussein Obama,” a dog whistle to the president’s Arabic middle name. In 2012, the campaign of Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, spurned Gaffney and other conservatives who warned that Sharia was a domestic threat.

This time around it’s a little different. As Cruz makes the case that he is the last, best chance to prevent Trump from winning his party’s nomination, his foreign-policy advisers include not only Gaffney, but also three others who work for Gaffney’s think tank: former CIA officers Fred Fleitz and Clare Lopez and former Army Special Forces Master Sergeant Jim Hanson. Also on the list is Andrew McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the first World Trade Center bombing. McCarthy has been outspoken in his view that adherents at least to political Islam are seeking to impose Sharia law in the U.S.

At the same time, Cruz’s team includes former officials who reject Gaffney’s broad view that any Muslim who believes in Sharia law by definition believes in a totalitarian and violent ideology at war with America.

“We’re at war with a coalition of radical Islamists and radical secularists. It’s not all one thing, nor is Islam all one thing,” Michael Ledeen, a former Reagan administration official and a Cruz campaign adviser, told me.

Jim Talent, a former Missouri Republican senator who was a key adviser to Romney in 2008 and 2012, is signed up for the Cruz team. So is Mary Habeck, a former staffer on George W. Bush’s national security council, who is an expert on jihadi organizations and has warned against demonizing the entire religion of Islam.

Another Cruz adviser, Elliott Abrams, helped craft Bush’s policy to empower moderate Muslims in the Middle East against radicals. He told me he feels much the same way as Habeck. “It’s now 15 years since 9/11, and I think it’s obvious that Muslim citizens in the U.S. and Muslim leaders abroad have an absolutely critical role to play in fighting jihadis and other Muslim extremists,” Abrams said. “This is partly a battle within Islam that they are going to have fight and win. Alienating these potential allies is the kind of foolish policy that the Obama administration has engaged in when it comes to Arab states that are our allies.”

Victoria Coates, who has been Cruz’s main adviser on national security since he came to the Senate, told me this tension on the policy team “is by design and not an accident.” She added: “Both Frank and Elliott are people I went out of my way to set up meetings with the Senator. He has met with both of them individually for years.”

Cruz threaded this needle between Gaffney and Abrams in his response to Trump’s call in December for a temporary ban on Muslims coming to the U.S. Cruz never criticized Trump’s position directly. (Marco Rubio did.) But he also didn’t endorse the position, instead introducing a bill to halt refugees from countries with a significant al Qaeda or Islamic State presence, with exceptions for asylum seekers fleeing genocide. “When Donald Trump talked about barring all Muslims from entering into the United States, Senator Cruz of course did not endorse that opinion, in part because he knows the law,” Abrams said.

Cruz also knows politics. He has not won over the Washington mandarins who came out early for Jeb Bush, like former CIA director Michael Hayden. But after Rubio dropped out of the race on Tuesday, Cruz made an appeal to his former rival’s supporters to join his campaign.

Cruz is hoping Republican leaders in Washington will embrace his candidacy now, even though he has railed against them since he came to the Senate. Cruz also knows that long-time supporters like him precisely because he so infuriates the Republican establishment.

His new team of national security advisers, in this respect, has something for everyone.

Introducing CounterJihad, CAIR’s Worst Nightmare

CounterJihad.com

CounterJihad.com


Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Feb. 22, 2016:

Secure Freedom, an initiative of the Center for Security Policy (CSP), will be launching a new campaign called CounterJihad, an endeavor that hopes to empower readers with the intellectual firepower to fight back against the radical Islamic current that is coming over this nation, and the rest of the world.

CounterJihad’s mission statement, posted on its website, is to educate all Americans regarding the radical Islamist threat the nation faces today. “We are a movement of American citizen-activists dedicated to safeguarding the country from the danger posed by Islamic Supremacists,” it states.

“We are all aware of the barbaric acts of ISIS, al Qaeda and the others flying the Black Flag. Sadly their violence continues to kill innocents around the world and here at home. They fight in the cause of Jihad to impose their totalitarian religion on all people,” a statement on the CounterJihad site reads.

“But they are not the only ones working toward that goal,” the initiative warns. “There are other Islamist groups who seem much less dangerous on the surface, but actually represent an even more insidious threat to free western society. They seek to use our very freedoms as weapons against us.”

The CounterJihad initiative hopes to provide the American people intellectual firepower against the Islamic forces that seek to undermine western values. Moreover, The CounterJihad project hopes that everyday Americans will spread its message far and wide, from the city blocks of Manhattan to the rural backcountry of this nation.

In a world destabilizing rapidly, Islamist radicals have seized power vacuums opened by the West’s unwillingness to stand up to the forces antithetical to freedom. Far-left and anti-free speech totalitarians have empowered these groups by condemning any and all criticism of radical Islam, labeling individuals and groups who do so as ‘racists’ and ‘Islamophobes.’

From the powers fueling the so-called Arab Spring, to the Muslim Brotherhood’s temporary seizure of power in Egypt, to the rise of the Islamic State and the Ayatollah’s theocracy in Iran, radical jihadi outfits have sprung up exponentially in this second decade of the 21st century.

Islamist entities have also secured footing in the United States. Among the more prominent is the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which poses as a Muslim civil rights organization while maintaining ties to Islamist groups worldwide. CAIR operatives have met with White House officials, yet they have previously demanded the silencing of their critics in accordance with Sharia law.

CAIR has been declared a terrorist organization in the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation’s Hamas-funding operation. In December, an FBI chart, along with governmental testimony, surfaced that alleged CAIR was a Hamas-related organization.

Jim Hanson, CSP’s executive vice president, tells Breitbart News the new campaign is “a response to the incursion by dangerous Islamist groups and their intolerant ideology into the American way of life. We will educate the public and explain how concerned Americans can help stop this.”

CounterJihad will focus on educating the American people about Sharia; Violent Jihad; Civilization Jihad; the Muslim Brotherhood in America; Slander, Blasphemy and Censorship; Migration; Threats To The Electric Grid; and the Iranian Threat Doctrine.

CounterJihad is not designed in any way, shape, or form to target Muslims, Hanson explained. “We’re not anti-Muslim, but we strongly oppose those Muslims who believe they are divinely called to impose totalitarian sharia doctrine on others.”

What do Ben Carson, Frank Gaffney share? Both are victims of a left-wing smear machine

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson speaks during a campaign rally at the Sharonville Convention Center, Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2015, in Cincinnati. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson speaks during a campaign rally at the Sharonville Convention Center, Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2015, in Cincinnati. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

Fox News, by Fred Fleitz, Feb. 19, 2016:

This week, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) named my organization, the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a “hate group” because of our work highlighting the threat from radical Islam.  CSP will join other conservative groups such the Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel and WorldNetDaily, all of which SPLC has smeared by listing them alongside neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups.

The SPLC is best known for its work decades ago fighting legal battles against segregation in the South.  But it long ago morphed into a far left group with one purpose: manufacturing material to slander conservatives for use by the news media and on the Internet.

CSP President Frank Gaffney has been on another SPLC hate list for several years along with American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray, Accuracy in Media President Cliff Kinkaid (who SPLC has singled out for challenging global warming), Robert Spencer (the founder of director of Jihad Watch blog), Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin (executive vice president of the Family Research Council), WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah and other conservatives.  Joining them on this list are an assortment of neo-Nazis, KKK members and white supremacists.

Dr. Ben Carson was placed on a SPLC “extremist watch list” in 2014 because of statements he made in defense of traditional marriage.  But after a public outcry, the SPLC was forced to withdraw this designation and issue an apology to Carson in February 2015.

Among the many false claims in the SPLC’s new list of hate groups is that Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy have been banned from participating in the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and that Gaffney’s banishment from CPAC “probably earns him points with Trump.”

Although CPAC and the Center have had some differences in the past, this is no longer the case.  Gaffney and the Center were present at CPAC last year and will have an expanded presence in 2016.

I will be speaking at CPAC 2016 conference next month on behalf of the Center on the Iranian and North Korean missile programs.

To show how sloppy the SPLC’s research is, a 2015 SPLC report noted that Gaffney and the Center were present at CPAC’s 2015 conference and that the Center was a sponsor.

As ridiculous as the SPLC hate lists may sound, they often are taken seriously by the liberal media.  These lists almost had deadly consequences in 2012 when Floyd Corkins, a volunteer at a gay-rights group, entered the office lobby of the Family Research Council with the intention of killing as many of the Council’s employees as possible because of the organization’s opposition to same-sex marriage.

Corkins shot and injured a building manager before he was disarmed.  He decided to launch a killing spree against the Family Research Council and another conservative organization after he read about their opposition to gay marriage in the SPLC’s hate lists.

While SPLC regularly lumps conservatives with neo-nazis and white supremacists for being anti-gay, anti-immigrant, Islamophobes, white nationalists or for miscellaneous hate (such disbelieving in global warming), it refuses to put liberal individuals and groups on their hate lists.

For example, the SPLC had nothing to say last summer when left wing groups like MoveOn.org, the Daily Kos, Credo and the National Iranian American Council attacked Jewish congressmen who opposed the nuclear deal with Iran like Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) by questioning their loyalty to this country.

Elliot Abrams decried this bigotry in an August 10, 2015 article in The Weekly Standard:

“The basic idea is simple: to oppose the president’s Iran deal means you want war with Iran, you’re an Israeli agent, you are in the pay of Jewish donors, and you are abandoning the best interests of the United States. So Dan Pfeiffer, senior political adviser to Obama until this winter, tweeted that Senator Charles Schumer—who announced his opposition to the Iran deal last week—should not be Democratic leader in the Senate because he “wants War with Iran.”

SPLC also has been silent on a growing anti-Semitism on the left and how American colleges are ignoring violence against Jewish students in Israel and the United States.

On the other hand, the SPLC has joined President Obama in jumping on the fraudulent Islamophobia bandwagon.  That’s why CSP and Gaffney caught its attention.

I join Frank Gaffney and everyone at the Center for Security Policy in strenuously condemning discrimination, mistreatment or violence against Muslims and members of any religious group.

The Islamophobia charges made against CSP and other critics of radical Islam have nothing to do with hate or bigotry – they are a ploy by Mr. Obama, American Muslim groups and liberal groups to sidestep how Islamist extremism represents, as American Islamic Forum for Democracy President Zuhdi Jasser has put it, “a problem within the house of Islam.”

This problem is the global jihad movement which is an ideology at war not just with modern society but also with the majority of the world’s Muslims.

This is the real hate: Islamic supremacists cloaking their intolerance and hatred towards anyone who rejects their extremism – Muslims and non-Muslims – as protected religious practice. This hate includes brutalizing and killing groups that the SPLC claims to protect: women, LGBT individuals and racial and ethnic minorities.

The SPLC designated Frank Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy as “haters” because of our work to publicize the threat posed by to the supremacist Islamic shariah doctrine, a threat that President Obama and liberal groups refuse to confront or even name.  They are in denial about this threat and instead condemn as bigots anyone who tries to address it.

This was crystal clear when President Obama on February 3 visited a mosque in Baltimore with known terrorist ties but refuses to meet with Muslims like Dr. Jasser who is leading an Islam reform movement that rejects Islamist radicalism and ISIS.

American leftwing groups like SPLC have also stubbornly ignored flagrantly hateful statements by some American Muslim groups.

There was a glaring example of this after the San Bernardino shooting when Hussam Ayloush, the Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), told CNN’s “New Day,” “some of our own foreign policy, as Americans, as the West have fueled that extremism. … We are partly responsible.”

In May 2004, Ayloush said the U.S. war on terror was a “war on Muslims,” adding his belief that the 9/11 attacks were committed because of “the U.S.’s unconditional support of Israel.” The U.S. is Israel’s “partner in crime” against the Palestinians, Ayloush explained.

How can a supposed civil rights organization like the SPLC give Ayloush and CAIR a pass on such hateful statements and actions?

How can it not speak out against growing anti-Semitism on the left and violence against Jewish students in Israel and the United States?

One reason is that the SPLC is not a civil rights organization – it is a far left advocacy group that tries to discredit its political enemies on the right with incoherent hate lists that wrongly associate them with notorious bigots to advance a liberal agenda.  This is consistent with #12 of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

SPLC also demonized conservatives with bogus hate charges because it has found this kind of fearmongering to be very lucrative.  According to the SPLC’s 2014 tax return, this non-profit organization had $54 million in revenue and $315 million in assets.

Back in 2000, an investigative report into the SPLC’s activities was published by Harper’s Magazine titled The church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance.  It described the SPLC and its activities as “essentially a fraud” that “shuts down debate, stifles free speech, and most of all, raises a pile of money, very little of which is used on behalf of poor people.”

Perhaps the main reason the SPLC has been able to raise such huge sums because its president, Morris Dees, is so skilled at using scare mongering mailings for fund raising that in 1998 he was inducted into the Direct Mailing Association Hall of Fame.

Based on its 2010 tax return, the liberal website Daily Kos criticized the SPLC in 2012 for its enormous wealth, offshore bank account in the Cayman Islands, and ownership in several foreign corporations.

The author of this article asked, “What I’m very curious to learn is how keeping hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars in assets, several offshore bank accounts and part ownership in foreign financial firms in any substantive way addresses poverty in America.”

I believe the SPLC’s new focus on Islamophobia is because the organization has identified attacking critics of radical Islam as the ultimate money pot.  For example, Saleh Abdulla Kamel, a Saudi banker believed to have been a financer of Usama bin Laden, gave $10 million to Yale University in 2015 to build an Islamic law center.

Given the SPLC’s lack of scruples, greed and offshore operations, I believe it is very likely that this group is receiving funding from Gulf state billionaires like Kamel to discredit anyone who criticizes radical Islam and the global jihad movement.

The news media must stop being manipulated by the SPLC’s calumny of its political enemies.

Reporters should realize that an organization which attacks all critics of radical Islam as Islamophobes, refuses to mention the extremism and intolerance of radical Islamist groups, and is silent on the growing anti-Semitism on the left and violence against Jewish university students cannot be considered a neutral and authoritative source.

The media also needs recognize that the SPLC’s hate lists which lump Ben Carson, Frank Gaffney, Cliff Kinkaid and organizations like the Family Resource Council, WorldNet Daily and the Center for Security Policy with neo-Nazis and white supremacists are utter nonsense.

The press should instead be investigating the SPLC’s enormous wealth, anonymous funders and how it is poisoning the public debate in this country to advance a liberal agenda and to enrich itself.

Fred Fleitz is senior vice president for policy and programs with the Center for Security Policy, a Washington, DC national security think tank. He held U.S. government national security positions for 25 years with the CIA, DIA, and the House Intelligence Committee staff. Fleitz also served as Chief of Staff to John R. Bolton when he was Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security in the George W. Bush administration. Fleitz specializes in the Iranian nuclear program, terrorism, and intelligence issues. He is the author of “Peacekeeping Fiascos of the 1990s: Causes, Solutions and U.S. Interests” (Praeger, May 30, 2002).

 

Frank Gaffney Warns: Southern Border Now a ‘Fertile Environment For Jihadis’

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Feb. 17, 2016:

Gaffney used the Zika virus as a metaphor for how mass migration brings security pathologies from regions with serious security issues into the United States, much as Zika has flourished in countries with less stringent disease and mosquito control protocols.

“We’ve now got these cartels operating with gangs all over the United States,” said Gaffney, referring to South American drug cartels. “Literally, every state in the Union is now a border state.”

“That’s partly because we have been neglecting the border,” he continued, “and not preventing people who have been operating on one side of it from operating on both.”

Gaffney warned that the drug cartels are not alone in establishing operations on both sides of the porous border.

“They are being now, increasingly, accompanied by – and collaborating with – jihadists that the Pope is ignoring in Europe, where he’s residing at the moment, and a lot of other places besides, of course,” he said.

Noting that the big cartels have been compared to the Islamic State in their organizational methods and violence, Gaffney said, “You also have the Islamic State in Latin America. You also have Hamas. You also have Hezbollah. You also have the Iranians… and, by the way, the Chinese and others. That side of the border is now a fertile environment for jihadists to operate from, with impunity – and to bring their violence, and other kinds of predations, here as well.”

Frank Gaffney: Southern Poverty Law Center Is Acting As A Surrogate Group For Islamic Supremacists

frank-gaffney-AP-Photo-640x480 (1)

Breitbart, by JORDAN SCHACHTEL, Feb. 12, 2016:

Frank Gaffney, the founder and president of the Center For Security Policy, tells One America News Network that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is attempting to silence him for speaking out about the threat posed by radical Islam.

He appeared on Tipping Point with Liz Wheeler this week, defending his organization against the assault from the left wing SPLC.

Gaffney said that the SPLC used to be a legitimate civil rights organization, but now the group is a militant left wing outfit that targets pro-freedom groups.

“These days … It seems as though the Southern Poverty Law Center is now mostly about trying to suppress freedom of speech by people like us and others they disagree with politically,” he explained.

Gaffney, who was nominated by President Ronald Reagan as an Assistant Secretary of Defense, said the SPLC has gotten into the business of defending “totalitarian, repressive, and supremacist” Islamist groups.

The “ultimate hate group” is the one that adheres to Islamic Sharia law, he explained.

A recent survey showed that about 25 percent of American Muslims are aligned with the “Sharia doctrine,” he said.

Gaffney speculated that the SPLC will soon categorize the Center for Security Policy as a “hate group,” after the leftist organization penned a hit piece against him.

“On Monday evening, presidential candidate Donald Trump announced that Muslims, including US citizens, should be banned from entering the United States,” the SPLC stated. “In his statement he linked to a poll conducted by the Center for Security Policy (CSP), an organization founded by the notorious anti-Muslim extremist Frank Gaffney,”

“Gaffney has a long history of demonizing Muslims and using CSP to publish misleading reports about alleged “creeping Shariah” in the United States,” the article adds.

Why does the SPLC hate the Center for Security Policy?

2490052973

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q & A

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

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

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

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

Is the Center for Security Policy “Islamophobic”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Hanson: they are setting up to be able to preach jihad and radicalize people… It’s a cunning plan.

A photo provided by the FBI shows Tashfeen Malik (left) and a photo provided by California Department of Motor Vehicles shows Syed Farook, who attacked a holiday gathering of county workers in San Bernardino, Calif., this week. FBI, left, and California Department of Motor Vehicles via AP

A photo provided by the FBI shows Tashfeen Malik (left) and a photo provided by California Department of Motor Vehicles shows Syed Farook, who attacked a holiday gathering of county workers in San Bernardino, Calif., this week.
FBI, left, and California Department of Motor Vehicles via AP

Chris Wallace interviewed Center for Security Policy’s Jim Hanson and counterterrerrorism expert Aaron Cohen last night on the O’Reilly Factor.

While several people on twitter reported the name Syed Farook heard on Police scanners early on the day of the San Bernardino attack, Jim Hanson was the first to bravely report the name on a cable news show, O’Reilly Factor.

Jim Hanson warns of civilization jihad and radicalization in Mosques:

JH: I think it is fairly common in incidents like this for someone to make a martyrdom action. In this case if she is posting, potentially while he’s inside reconing the site of the massacre, and she’s posting a message pledging alleience, they’re basically saying “we’re in the jihad, we’re part of the Caliphate, we’re part of the Global Jihad Movement”. And I think that’s not uncommon. I think you need to look at this Chris, it’s easy for people to understand the violent jihad. Heads get cut off, people get slaughtered at holiday parties. But there’s a larger civilization jihad that the Muslim Brotherhood is perpetrating in America. They have a plan. They are using the Muslim Student’s Associations that they have formed, they are using mosques where they buy the land where they import the Imam and front groups to go ahead and push that agenda.

MW: I want to pick up with that with you Jim because you say that the mosque that Farook attended, one of a couple that he attended, The Islamic Center of Riverside, you’ve raised questions about that and it’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. What’s your point?

JH: They, the Muslim Brotherhood through a number of front groups, one of which is the North American Islamic Trust, have bought property and put in place most of the mosques in the United States. So they buy them, they set up front groups to go ahead and get them staffed. They import the Imams to do a lot of the preaching and they bring in the traveling Imams. So this is an operation where they are setting up to be able to preach jihad and radicalize people under the cover of religious freedom here in the United States. It’s a cunning plan.

Jim Hanson is the Executive Vice President of the Center for Security Policy. Mr. Hanson served in US Army Special Forces and conducted Counter-Terrorism, Counter-Insurgency and other operations in more than a dozen countries. Jim joined the Center to provide the expertise of a practitioner of the art of war. He is also a seasoned fighter in the war of ideas and is helping lead the Center to an information operations strategy that takes full advantage of the new media environment.

***

IMG_2447-640x480

Watch this video by Breitbart of a hard hitting press conference from the Dar Al Uloom Al Islamiyah of America mosque, where San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook attended:

EXCLUSIVE – Terror Mosque Imams: ‘No Comment’ On FBI Investigating MORE Muslim Attendees, Refuse To Talk Islamic Caliphate

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

1818501052

Center for Security Policy, Nov.13, 2015:

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

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

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

E-BOOK RELEASE: “Bridge-Building” to Nowhere

3673405460Center for Security Policy, PRESS RELEASE September 22, 2015:

In this new monograph, adapted from Annex 1 of his superb recent book, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy Stephen Coughlin explains what’s really behind the so-called ‘interfaith dialogue movement’ and how the Muslim Brotherhood has co-opted the well-meaning but misguided intentions of the Catholic Church in particular. Mr. Coughlin’s expertise in the nexus between Islamic Law (shariah) and Islamic terrorism informs his exposure of the manipulative Brotherhood strategy to use the interfaith dialogue arena as an opportunity to edge Catholics toward a dislocation of faith so as to pave the way for the insinuation of shariah into American faith communities and society in general.

At a time when Vatican policy seems to many to have become unmoored from the traditional doctrinal teachings of the Church in ways advanced by the permissive environment of the interfaith dialogue movement, including tolerance of anti-Constitutional, anti-Western, shariah-based Islamic principles as well as those who promote them, this publication hits home hard. As Mr. Coughlin points out, it is intellectually impossible to adhere faithfully to Church doctrine and yet grant acceptance to principles that are fundamentally opposed to such precepts at the same time. Only a dislocation of Catholic faith could allow such moral equivalence. Ultimately, as he argues, the objective of Islamic supremacists is the prioritization of interfaith relationships over advocacy on behalf of fellow Christians being slaughtered elsewhere by the co-religionists of their Muslim interfaith partners—in other words, the neutralization of the Catholic faith community as a serious obstacle to the encroachment of shariah.

In praise of this new Center publication, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said,

While the interfaith dialogue movement presents itself as a laudable effort to ‘bridge’ the distance between faiths, those more familiar with the doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood know that the actual agenda of too many such efforts is, in fact, modeled after the well-known dictum of Sayyid Qutb, who candidly reminded Muslims that such a ‘bridge’ is ‘only so that the people of Jahiliyyah [society of unbelievers] may come over to Islam.

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present this monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series. “Bridge-Building” to Nowhere: The Catholic Church’s Case Study in Interfaith Delusion is available for purchase in kindle and paperback format on Amazon.com.

 

Click here to purchase this newly released monograph in Kindle format.

Click here for a full PDF of the monograph.

Secure Freedom Radio with Ann Corcoran on the Colonization of the West

2967498157

Secure Freedom Radio, Sep. 17, 2015:

Frank Gaffney talks with Ann Corcoran, Founder of Refugee Resettlement Watch and author of “Refugee Resettlement, and the Hijra to America”:

PART ONE: 

  • Growing refugee crisis in Europe
  • What is the Hijra?
  • Europe’s cultural downfall in the face of migrant hordes

PART TWO: 

  • Obama’s past stance regarding refugee resettlement
  • 2014’s estimated Muslim migration to the U.S.
  • President Obama’s responsibility to consult with Congress regarding incoming migrants
  • The “Hidden Hand” behind the refugee selection process

PART THREE: 

  • Ann Corcoran’s first experience monitoring refugee resettlements
  • How resettlement in the United States works
  • Truth behind Saudi Arabia’s claim of accepting 2 million refugees
  • Migrant benefits upon arriving to the U.S.

PART FOUR: 

  • Contractor’s role in setting up vast number of refugees in the United States
  • Obama’s Initiative for New Americans
  • Government pressure against anti-resettlement groups
  • Correlation between Obama’s attempt to transform America and location of refugees resettlement projects