In Defense of Frank Gaffney

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Excellent detailed rebuttal by Sen. John Andrews of all the false claims made against Frank Gaffney over the years at Breitbart:

“If you’re not taking flak, you’re not over the target.” So my brave friends who were Navy pilots used to say, when I was safe at sea on a submarine. After many years of standing against America’s enemies, first in wartime and then in national politics, I find that observation apt when hysterical charges are hurled at some fearless truth-teller.

A fusillade directed at the messenger usually signals that someone is desperate to silence his message before the rest of us wake up to danger. Nothing gives a disrupter the upper hand, as Saul Alinsky said in “Rules for Radicals,” like isolating, stigmatizing, demonizing, discrediting, and thus “freezing” a troublesome opponent.

Such is the explanation, I believe, for the relentless stream of smears and sneers against my friend and fellow Reaganite conservative, my comrade in arms in the battle for the free world, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy.

So here is the truth as I know it firsthand. Here is the Frank Gaffney that the Left and the Islamists are frantic to prevent Americans from hearing, so much do they fear his testimony.

Watchman on the Wall

The Frank Gaffney I know is an American patriot with a record of service to his country over the past forty years, both at senior levels of government under President Reagan and, subsequently, in the non-governmental public policy arena. Over that time, his positions and prescriptions have engendered more than their share of controversy and ad hominem attacks.

Why is that? I submit it has been because he was recognizing and calling for action on problems that were at the time widely unacknowledged or misunderstood. Yet he has been proven right again and again – a vindication in which, as Frank has remarked to some of us, he takes no satisfaction, as it would have been far better for the country if his warnings were not borne out.

The attacks on Gaffney have been especially virulent in connection with Islamic supremacism, a frequent subject of his writings, media appearances, and the work of the non-profit policy research organization he founded in 1988, the Center for Security Policy (CSP).

Starting before 9/11, and intensifying since then, CSP’s efforts to sound the alarm about the rise of the global jihad movement, about the various ways in which it pursues the triumph worldwide of its animating ideology, shariah, and about how those techniques might be most effectively countered, have infuriated Islamists.

They and some others, particularly on the Left, have found it easier to denounce the “watchman on the wall,” rather than challenge the substance of the factual information Frank Gaffney and his colleagues have presented.

Read more

Frank Gaffney: Saudis Waging ‘Economic Warfare’ Against U.S., Attack on Fracking Industry Was a ‘Hostile Action’

Andrew Burton/Getty Images

Andrew Burton/Getty Images

Breitbart, by John Hayward, April 20, 2016:

Center for Security Policy founder Frank Gaffney, a senior policy adviser for presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, tells Stephen K. Bannon on Breitbart News Daily the importance of national security issues in the 2016 presidential race.

He also addressed the controversy over the release of intelligence pertaining to Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

Gaffney thinks Donald Trump’s overwhelming victory in the New York primary was a sign that national security issues are not receiving the proper amount of attention in this election cycle. “I think it’s the defining issue of our time, and we’re still finding ourselves preoccupied with celebrity politics and a lot of other distractions,” he said.

“For a couple of decades, really, if you think about it – I think going back to the end of the Cold War, such as it was – people have stopped thinking about national security,” he lamented. “We’ve been the world’s only superpower. We sent our military around, and it seemed to do decisive jobs, at least until fairly recently.  It was somebody else’s problem, not ours. Our job, as Karl Rove famously said, was to go shopping. This is the sort of genetic makeup of the body politic these days.”

Gaffney praised Breitbart News as one of the media outlets that was “helping people connect with the reality that, whether we’re interested in the war that is upon us – I think it is the war for the free world, a major focus of which is, of course, the global jihad movement – whether we’re interested in it or not, it’s interested in us.”

“We have got to get squared away on this,” he urged. “If we have four more years of this kind of policy of weakness, and emboldening our enemies, and undermining our allies, and the diminishing of our country, we’re toast.”

Gaffney said that all of the Republican candidates had signaled their understanding of the stakes for American security in the 2016 election, although their policy agendas are very different.

“There is a general recognition, I think, among the Republican contenders that more of the same is a formula for disaster for our country, on national security and homeland security grounds most especially,” he said.

Gaffney thought President Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia was a good moment to release the long-classified “28 pages” of 9/11 intelligence related to the Saudis.

“This is a time, I think, for truth to the Saudis,” he said. “They have been playing a double game against us for a long time. They buy our weapons, they sell us oil, they like us to protect them. But the reality is that they are undermining us in many ways, including through various forms of economic warfare.”

“You know, they said explicitly when they were driving down the price of oil – which consumers like us appreciated, by lower gas prices – that they were doing it to destroy our fracking industry. That is a hostile action. They’re now talking about dumping Treasury bills, if they’re held accountable for what they did on 9/11, and I believe they were directly involved in 9/11. That’s an act of economic warfare as well,” Gaffney charged.

He also said the Saudis were acting to “facilitate and underwrite the jihad,” as long as the jihadis aren’t working to destabilize the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

“That’s an act of real warfare against us, and I think it’s time for the President of the United States to say so to them directly, and effect change there, one way or the other,” he said.

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00AM to 9:00AM EST.

You can listen to the full interview with Frank Gaffney below:

Dr. Sebastian Gorka on Secure Freedom Radio: Understanding the Ideology

1621903969

Secure Freedom Radio, April 20, 2016:

Dr. SEBASTIAN GORKA, author of the recently-released “Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War”, Maj. Gen. Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University, Adjunct Professor at the Institute of World Politics:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • Changing concept of ‘Jihad’
  • Ideological underpinnings behind the war against radical, totalitarian Islam

(PART TWO):

Podcast (podcast2): Play in new window | Download

  • Sayyid Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood’s global influence on the faith
  • Some using the ‘hijra’ to undermine European society
  • Muslim Brotherhood practicing civilization jihad

(PART THREE):

Podcast (podcast3): Play in new window | Download

  • Soviet model of state security exported to the Middle East in the 1950s
  • Extensive jihadist networks in European cities due to the political elite’s obsessions with ‘multiculturalism’

(PART FOUR):

Podcast (podcast4): Play in new window | Download

  • Forces of subversion already present inside the US
  • CAIR giving Obama advice concerning law enforcement training
  • Need to disband the terms, ‘counter violent extremism’ and ‘lone-wolf terrorist’

(PART FIVE):

Podcast (podcast5): Play in new window | Download

  • Using Cold War methodology to defeat today’s Global Jihad Movement
  • Institutional changes needed to effectively wage information operations
  • What should US policy towards Saudi Arabia consist of?
  • Declassifying the 9/11 papers

Breaking Down Jihad

Frank Gaffney had Dr. Sebastian Gorka on Secure Freedom radio yesterday. Gorka is the author of “Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War.” He is also the Maj. General Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University and an adjunct professor at the Institute of World Politics.

Gaffney kicked off their discussion by noting that there are different understandings of the term Jihad. He asked Gorka to define the term as he sees it:

“The blunt truth is that it’s a concept which has changed over time and has been redefined by men through the centuries so if you look at the original Koran you find that there is an expression of Jihad as inner striving or trying to resist temptation but that’s a fraction of the times that it is used. By far and away, the majority of instances where the word Jihad is used it is used to mean martial warfare, so physical warfare.”

Gorka suggests in this sense, Jihad was even sometimes used against Muslim leaders who were considered insufficiently Muslim. In the 20th century, Gorka suggests that Jihad took on a very specific meaning:

“The war a Muslim must engage in for the glory of Allah to reestablish and to expand the theocratic empire of the caliphate.”

Gorka suggested that groups like ISIS and others are practicing a form of religious totalitarianism and points out that when they take over a territory, they enslave the people. The imposition of Shariah Law takes place and it is not an option.

Gaffney asked Gorka to break this idea down in a historical sense and Gorka reminds us that Mohammed was not only a prophet for Islam but the final prophet as well as a head of state and head of military. Tribes of people who opposed him were essentially wiped out.

“Either you agree with the prophet and the new religion or you will be subjugated or you will be killed. That is not something which can be parsed, or interpreted or contextualized and anybody who says that’s not in the Koran simply hasn’t read it.”

Muslim Brotherhood Day on Capitol Hill

Facebook

Facebook

The Hill, by Frank Gaffney, April 18, 2016:

On Monday, April 18, legislators’ offices will be visited by individuals associated with a group unknown to most lawmakers: The United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO). In the interest of helping members of the U.S. Congress understand precisely who their interlocutors are, permit a brief introduction: The USCMO is the latest in a long series of front organizations associated with, and working to advance, the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.

Members of Congress should be clear about the true nature of that agenda. It is laid out most authoritatively in a document introduced into evidence by federal prosecutors in the course of the largest terrorism financing trial in the nation’s history, U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation et al. Written in 1991 by a top Muslim Brotherhood operative, Mohamed Akram, and entitled “The Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America,” this internal correspondence was meant for the eyes only of the organization’s leadership in Egypt. So, the document is direct and to the point: It explicitly states that the mission of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America is “destroying Western civilization from within … by [the infidels’] hands and the hands of the believers so that Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

There are two other important facts legislators should know about Akram’s memo.

First, the document helpfully attaches a list of 29 groups under the heading “Our organizations and organizations of our friends: Imagine if they all march according to one plan!” A number of the identified Muslim Brotherhood fronts — and many others that have come into being since 1991 — are members of the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations. Representatives and associates of such fronts will be among the Islamists in congressional offices on Monday.

Second, the memo describes in detail the Muslim Brotherhood’s favored technique for accomplishing its stated goal of “destroying Western civilization” — at least until such time as they are strong enough to use violence decisively: “civilization jihad.” This sort of jihad involves employing stealthy, subversive means like influence operations to penetrate and subvert our government and civil society institutions. (The successful application of these means have been chronicled extensively in the Center for Security Policy’s “Civilization Jihad Reader Series.”)

With the launch of the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations in March 2014, the Muslim Brotherhood has secured a new instrument for its subversion: a self-described U.S. “political party” meant to dominate and mobilize Muslim voters across the country and get them marching according to one plan. The object is to elicit support for the Muslim Brotherhood’s demands from candidates and to help achieve what the Islamic supremacists would regard as favorable outcomes in the 2016 elections. (For more on the USCMO, its purpose and activities to date, see “Star Spangled Sharia: The Rise of America’s First Muslim Brotherhood Party.”)

Unfortunately, some members of Congress have already embraced the Council of Muslim Organizations. For example, two with longstanding ties to assorted Muslim Brotherhood fronts, Reps. André Carson (D-Ind.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), spoke at the USCMO’s inaugural banquet in June 2014. Neither has disavowed the USCMO’s subsequent participation in anti-Semitic, pro-Hamas and pro-Muslim Brotherhood demonstrations and its fundraising on behalf of Islamic Relief USA, a large, U.S.-based Islamic supremacist charity.

Another reason lawmakers and their staffs should be leery of this new Muslim Brotherhood front group is its avowed intention to make common cause with radical non-Muslim entities like the Black Lives Matter movement. At a conference in December 2015 convened by two of the Muslim Brotherhood’s most virulent fronts, the Muslim American Society and Islamic Circle of North America, leading USCMO figures publicly discussed how they could impart lessons to African-Americans by holding up the Brotherhood as the community that staged revolutions across the world.

Congress is on notice: As long as organizations associated with Islamic supremacism like the USCMO and its member organizations dominate “Muslim Advocacy Day” on Capitol Hill, it will actually be Muslim Brotherhood Advocacy Day. And legislators should have nothing to do with either its participants or its programs.

Gaffney acted as an assistant secretary of Defense under President Reagan. He is the president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington. He serves as a foreign policy adviser to presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Sweden and the Consequences of Emigration to Spread Islam

2713762293Center For Security Policy, April  14, 2016:

On Secure Freedom Radio yesterday, Frank Gaffney spoke with Ingrid Carlqvist about what’s happening in Sweden with regard to the dramatic rise in the country’s Muslim refugee population. Carlqvist is a senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute and the Editor-in-Chief of Dispatch International.

Gaffney brought up the subject of Hijra, which is the idea of spreading Islam through emigration.

Carlqvist describes a situation where Sweden has been overrun with refugees who falsely claim to be escaping war and lie about their age in order to exploit greater benefits.

“The problem in Sweden is that nobody talks about Hijra, nobody knows about it, I try to make it known but the politicians, the leftists, the journalists, they’re all covering this migration wave, this Hijra as it were, you know, poor people fleeing from bombs and wars and they’re fleeing for their lives. Even though we all know that not even a majority of the persons that come here, they’re not even from Syria, they’re not coming from the war, they’re just economic migrants. So it is Hijra but no one is talking about it in Sweden, except me.”

Carlqvist notes that while Sweden has been largely exempt from terror attacks, they have been subjected to a form of “rape Jihad” at the hands of the refugee community.

“This has been manifesting itself in the last half a year or so in the public swimming pools. We had a lot of these so-called unaccompanied refugee children… They come and they claim to be 16 or 17 because then you will have more money, you will be fast tacked through the asylum process… Some of them are 30 or 35 and they claim to be 17. If they say to the authorities that their parents have been killed, they can go to the pension authority in Sweden and get a pension… But we have seen these so-called Afghan children running rampant at the public swimming pools. A lot of women or girls have been groped at, they have been harassed, they have even been raped in the public swimming pools.”

Gaffney notes that boys have also been the victims of sexual assault in these situations. Carlqvist agreed and said that many Swedes have simply stopped going to the public swimming pools as a result.

Gaffney and Carlqvist then discussed the fact that the vast majority of migrants are in fact military-aged men and that the disproportionate number of males has created an environment which is threatening to Swedish women.

The situation has gotten so bad that some Swedish men have taken action in the form of vigilantism in a group called Soldiers of Odin. Gaffney and Carlqvist agreed that vigilante groups aren’t a good thing but Carlqvist explained the thinking behind it:

“They are in very many cities right now and they try to protect women but the mainstream media portray them as Nazis, and the police are very afraid of these vigilante groups, but I think, I don’t like a society where it has vigilante groups but when the police can’t protect women out in the street, what can you do?”

Carlqvist also suggests that an industry has grown out of creating asylum houses for migrants. Apartment buildings and inns, even in the countryside, have been converted to refugee housing because the landlords receive economic benefits from the government to do so.

This has in turn, led to creation of exclusion zones, entire areas where local fire departments can’t enter without a police escort for fear of violence .

Proponents of Sweden’s migration policy may believe they’re doing humanitarian work in the name of diversity.

Others would call it the suicide of a nation.

***

INGRID CARLQVIST, Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute, Editor-in-Chief of Dispatch International: Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • Hijrah to Sweden
  • Sexual assaults perpetrated by migrants

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

  • Majority of migrants to the European Union are military-aged men
  • Migrant-related crime causing Swedish citizens to commit vigilante-style action
  • Expropriation of privately owned homes to house refugees

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

  • “Exclusions zones” in Sweden
  • Freedom of speech limitations for those criticizing Islamization of Sweden
  • The political response to the migrant crisis

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

  • Will the Swedish government deport Syrian refugees?
  • Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure in Western societies

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

  • concerning migrant repatriation
  • Visa-free access to Europe for Turkish citizens?
  • Obama’s inability to combat Shariah

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

Frank Gaffney: Obama, Bono, Other Migration Advocates ‘Truly Blind to the Nature of the Enemy We’re Facing’

Alexander Koerner/Getty Images

Alexander Koerner/Getty Images

Breitbart, by John Hayward, April 13, 2016:

Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy and a senior policy adviser to presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz, tells Breitbart News Daily host Stephen K. Bannon his view on rock singer Bono’s call for a new, America-funded “Marshall Plan” to prop up nations in the Middle East and Africa, along with bringing even more migrants into Europe.

“A Marshall Plan for what?” Gaffney asked. “Are we talking about essentially enabling Europe to be repopulated by non-Europeans, who will transform it from a part of the free world, Western civilization, into something that is almost certainly hostile to the free world?”

Gaffney doubted Bono, or most current Western leaders, understood the Islamist theory of “civilizational jihad,” which calls for the transformation of soft Western states into Islamic states through mass migration and the subversion of institutions such as the court system.  “He’s off to the CIA today, to talk about defeating ISIS, but it’s as though that’s happening in isolation from the global jihad movement,” Gaffney said of the rock star.

One aspect of civilizational jihad involves using more respectable organizations to establish networks of support for violent extremists.  “The network that these jihadis have been able to use – in Europe most especially, but also here – to wield their violent kind of jihad is one that’s been put into place by the Muslim Brotherhood,” Gaffney charged.  “That’s in mosques, that’s in Islamic societies and cultural centers, front groups of various kinds, influence operations.  Those are the things I think we’ve got to attend to before we start throwing money at Europe.”

Gaffney compared Bono, a man of the Left, to the “useful idiots” of the Cold War – those whose ideology made them unwittingly useful to the cause of global totalitarian communism.  He said the new useful idiots were self-declared humanitarians “in the service, whether they know it or not, of Islamists, and frankly other enemies of freedom.”

“Whether he has a grip on the service that he’s rendering with these kinds of comments, I have no idea, but my guess is that he’s so imbued himself with this idea of, ‘what’s the humanitarian, what’s the social justice driven agenda?’ that he doesn’t have to bother himself with the facts, or worse, with the implications of his recommendations,” Gaffney said.

He found it troubling that the U.S. Congress would give a platform to “someone who’s espousing – intentionally or otherwise – programs, and plans, and initiatives that will cause us grief.  Not just a waste of money, but I’m sure, intensify in this country the same kinds of pressures and phenomena that we’re now watching undo Europe.”

Based on what he has seen of Barack Obama’s security policy so far, Gaffney judged the President is “truly blind to the nature of the enemy we’re facing.”

“His periodic public manifestations of concern about the Islamic State – to give him somecredit, he’s moved away from thinking it’s the ‘jayvee team,’ but that’s partly because that kind of policy approach has enabled this danger to metastasize,” Gaffney said.  “But it’s still a symptom of a larger problem he refuses to address, let alone do anything about.”

For that reason, he thought Obama’s impending visit to CIA headquarters would be “at most, a photo opportunity; at worst, it will be doubling down on a failed policy that is going to get Americans killed.”

“I hope I’m wrong.  I pray I’m wrong,” Gaffney added.  “But I fear that’s the inevitable result of a policy that says, ‘this has nothing to do with Islam.’  It certainly doesn’t have to do with all Muslims, but it has to do with the sharia-adherent ones, who – whether they’re involved in violent jihad of the Islamic State stripe, or the al-Qaeda stripe, or the  Boko Haram stripe, or al-Shabaab – or that civilization jihad of the Muslim Brotherhood mode.  They are our determined – absolutely, I’m afraid, lethal – enemies, and will remain so until, and unless, they’re defeated.”

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00AM to 9:00AM EST.

You can listen to the full interview with Frank Gaffney below:

Frank Gaffney: Sharia Law ‘Tolerated, Ignored, Accommodated For Years in Europe,’ Now ‘Beginning to Manifest’ in U.S.

AP Photo/Alan Diaz

AP Photo/Alan Diaz

Breitbart, by John Hayward, April 6, 2016:

Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, a senior policy adviser to presidential candidate

Sen. Ted Cruz, explains to Breitbart News Daily the reasons behind his candidate’s controversial call for enhanced counter-terrorist policing of Muslim communities.

Host Stephen K. Bannon found precedent for Cruz’s suggestion in the highly successful “demographic unit” employed by NYPD chief Ray Kelly under New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Gaffney said Cruz was advocating a “common-sense approach” that would recognize “every community, every neighborhood, should be a safe neighborhood.”

It shouldn’t be the case that there are some areas of cities, or other parts of our country, that are off-limits to authorities, that are places that are known to… well, primarily to be dominated by folks who are engaged in a practice that is anti-Constitutional and hostile to the values of our country. Specifically, those who are seeking to impose a program they call sharia.

Gaffney said the drive to impose various aspects of Islamic law on the Western world was no longer a “hypothetical construct.”

“This is what we are seeing now – tolerated, ignored, accommodated for years in Europe, and now there are parts of the United States where it is beginning to manifest itself as well,” he warned.

Gaffney said his Center for Security Policy was interested in “ensuring that communities, irrespective of whether they’re Muslim or they’re non-Muslim, are assured the basic rights of our Constitution, and the safety that our law-enforcement authorities are assigned to provide for all of us.”

On the subject of Senator Cruz’s blowout victory in the Wisconsin primary on Tuesday night, Gaffney said it clearly demonstrated that Wisconsin voters thought Cruz was ready to assume the position of Commander-in-Chief.

“I have the feeling that, as he said, this is a turning point,” Gaffney said, referring to a line from Cruz’s victory speech.  “Others now recognize this is a two-man race, effectively, and the alternative isn’t very attractive.  I believe that the more they see of Ted Cruz, the more they hear of his views, the more likely it is that, as in Wisconsin, the people will opt for Ted Cruz for the Republican nomination.”

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00AM to 9:00AM EST.

You can listen to the full interview with Frank Gaffney below:

Frank Gaffney: The Battle Against ‘Civilization Jihad’ Is a ‘Defining Moment for Our Country’

ISIS-640x480

Breitbart, by John Hayward, March 30, 2016:

On Wednesday morning’s edition of Breitbart News Daily, Frank Gaffney president of the Center for Security Policy and recently announced advisor to presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz’s national security team, joined SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon to discuss the role terrorism and border security will play in the 2016 presidential race.

Gaffney said border security issues should be a key issue for every prospective successor to President Obama.  “This is a problem that is festering.  It has for a long time. But it’s becoming… well, it’s not a festering sore any more.  This is a metastasizing cancer, really.”

He noted the increasing evidence that the Brussels bombings were meant to be radiological attacks, or “dirty bombs,” which would have made the already horrific carnage even worse, and with the possibility of further attacks looming over the next few months, national security would surely “rocket to the forefront in this election season.”

Gaffney said it was difficult to grasp the magnitude of the threat America was dealing with, “whether it’s from immigration, illegal, or refugees, or parolees, or lottery winners, or any number of other means by which we’ve been admitting people who are potentially mortal threats to this country… or whether it’s the fact that we’ve got people here already who represent those sorts of threats, and who have an infrastructure in place in this country, as we’ve seen they had in Brussels, and in Paris, and in other parts of Europe…”

On the latter point, he clarified that the Muslim Brotherhood has been working for decades, since the early 1960s, to establish a network of “mosques, cultural centers, Islamic societies, front groups, and influence operations” that have “basically created the infrastructure for jihad.”

“I’m not saying that they’re using it for that purpose now, but that’s, I think, clearly what’s anticipated,” Gaffney warned.  “Don’t take my word for it.  This is contained in a document that the Muslim Brotherhood itself generated, called the Explanatory Memorandum.”

He directed listeners to the Center for Security Policy’s website to obtain a copy of this document, which he recommended reading to understand the concept of “civilization jihad,” the Islamist strategy to “take over countries like ours.”

“I know it sounds crazy here, but we’re watching it take place in Europe,” he said.

Gaffney addressed accusations from the Left, prominently including President Obama, that those warning against the Islamist threat are “hatemongering” and slandering Islam with the actions of a tiny, insignificant minority.

“I don’t know if he’s talking about me, or if he’s talking about lots of people who are arriving at the same conclusion – that is that not all Muslims are engaged in this kind of jihad, either of the stealthy kind, of of the violent kind,” said Gaffney.  “But an awful lot of them are.  And those that are, unfortunately, include the authorities of the faith.  They believe that jihad is part of their God-directed responsibility.”

I think that the President of the United States, who insists that this has nothing to do with Islam, this is a tiny group of people and they’re trying to hijack a great Abrahamic religion of peace, and so on… They’re either completely deluded themselves, or they’re purposely deluding the rest of us,” he said.

Gaffney commended Senator Cruz for bringing “clarity” to the debate over Islamist terrorism.  “This is a defining moment for our country,” he declared.  “It’s as important as Reagan’s efforts to help really define his differences with Jimmy Carter about the Soviet Union.  We’re dealing with a totalitarian threat.  It’s real.  It’s not the imaginings of a few of us.  It is a problem that is now becoming manifest, and we’ve got to deal with it.  It doesn’t get better when it’s being ignored.”

While he said he admired Donald Trump’s effort to “bring political space” to the debate about national security and the threat of jihad, Gaffney said he found himself “much more in alignment with the positions that Senator Cruz has taken across the board.”  He added there was no doubt in his mind that Cruz was ready to take over as Commander-in-Chief on his first day in office.

“It really comes down to judgment and instincts, as much as it does policy experience,” Gaffney said.  “I think his experience stands up to scrutiny, but I really admire his instincts, and his judgment.  I think that’s what’s desperately needed at the moment, especially after eight years of Barack Obama.”

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00AM to 9:00AM EST.

You can listen to the full interview with Frank Gaffney below:

Hillary Clinton’s Muslim Brotherhood Problem

3475690670

Center for Security Policy, by Frank Gaffny, March 30, 2016:

On March 24th, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton put in an appearance in Los Angeles that perfectly captured one of the most problematic facets of her checkered public service. Seated next to a prominent Islamic supremacist with longstanding ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, she nodded like a bobbing-head doll as he dissembled about Islam, fraudulently professed a commitment to “partnership” with law enforcement to prevent radicalization, and criticized those who know better.

Unfortunately, Mrs. Clinton has all-too-often been an enthusiastic supporter of those like Muslim Public Affairs Council president Salam al-Marayati as they seek to dominate their fellow Muslims (notably in places like Egypt, Libya and Syria) and subvert the United States and the rest of the Free World with what the Brothers call “civilization jihad.”

This serious betrayal of U.S. national interests has surely been encouraged by Clinton’s association with and reliance upon Huma Abedin, a woman with her own, well-documented personal and family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Huma’s involvement as a chief lieutenant to Mrs. Clinton going back to Hillary’s days as First Lady has undoubtedly contributed to the latter’s affinity for the organization.

The following are illustrative examples of how that affinity translated into action during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State – a period in which she and President Obama sought serially to embrace, legitimate and empower the Muslim Brotherhood:

  • Hillary Clinton also personally approved the policy of formally engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood.
  • Clinton played a leading role in developing and executing Obama administration initiatives aimed at bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria.
  • Hillary Clinton was personally involved in advancing the Muslim Brotherhood/Organization of Islamic Cooperation agenda aimed at prohibiting “defamation of Islam/religion.” On her watch, the United States supported the approval of a UN Human Rights Council Resolution for that purpose: UNHC Res. 16/18.
  • Clinton also subsequently launched and presided over the “Istanbul Process” to advance the implementation of Res. 16/18’s call for the criminalization of such defamation. In July 2011, she pledged that, in the United States, we would use “some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel they have the support to do what we abhor” – an unmistakable threat to freedom of expression.
  • That objective of restricting speech that “offends” Muslims was also explicitly served by the fraudulent meme that Clinton, among other administration officials, promoted concerning Benghazi: a “hateful” online video caused the riot that resulted in the murderous attack on U.S. facilities there on September 11, 2012. Publicly disclosed emails have revealed that Huma Abedin, and Rashad Hussein, the special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, were tasked with impressing upon the OIC that they were countering the dissemination of offensive materials.
  • Hillary Clinton’s State Department was involved in shutting down an investigation into the personnel and activities of Tablighi Jamaat – the Deobandi “missionary” group out of Pakistan, two of whose followers were responsible for the jihadist attack in San Bernardino in December 2015. The chief investigator, Philip Haney,believes that, had that inquiry not been terminated and all of its data purged, those murders may well have been prevented.

Al-Marayati and his organization have also been closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and its “civilization jihad” aimed at promoting sharia in the United States. MPAC was founded bytwo top Brothers, Hassan and Maher Hathout, and it has worked closely ever since with the Hamas-tied Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America and other Brotherhood fronts.

In the course of the roundtable with Mrs. Clinton and LA’s mayor, al-Marayati demonstrated his true, Islamic supremacist colors by engaging in classic taqiyya – the Islamists’ well-honed practice of dissembling for the faith. For example, he selectively quoted from the Quran to differentiate between the teachings of Islam and the practices of the Islamic State. He also promoted such favorite Brotherhood themes as “the mosques are not the centers of radicalization” and that “violent extremism” is the threat, not Islam’s jihadism.

For her part, Hillary Clinton used the roundtable to propound the myth that Muslims like al-Marayati are not given enough “platforms” to disavow jihadism. The real problem, though, is that organizations like MPAC and their spokesmen are given plenty of outlets – by the government and the U.S. media – but choose not to use them for the purpose of disassociating their community from those who faithfully adhere to sharia and seek to impose it on the rest of us.

Of course, given their true purpose – Islamic supremacism – the al-Marayatis and MPACs cannot authentically do that. After all, like Islamists the world over, they actually share that agenda and are working, albeit through stealthy, “civilization jihadist” means, to secure its triumph here. No Commander-in-Chief, actual or prospective, should be “partnering” with those advancing such a purpose.

Law Enforcement Must Not Ignore Jihadist Ideology

Politically correct terror-fighters? Robert Sabo/New York Daily News

Politically correct terror-fighters? Robert Sabo/New York Daily News

Center for Security Policy, by Frank Gaffney, March 28, 2016:

The combination of growing jihadist violence and the looming choice of a Commander-in-Chief to contend with it may catalyze a long-overdue debate about how to defeat Islamic supremacism.

Yesterday, it involved New York Police Commissioner Bill Bratton who sharply criticized Sen. Ted Cruz. After the latest attacks in Brussels, the GOP candidate had sensibly urged that U.S. law enforcement ramp-up efforts to protect Muslim communities here against jihadist elements and the Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure that supports them.

Commissioner Bratton retorted that “terrorism is ideologically driven but counterterrorism…has no ideological component whatsoever.”

In fact, as long as police aren’t allowed to assess potentially threatening Muslims by evaluating their attachment to the supremacist sharia ideology, even exemplars like the NYPD are doomed to be rendered less effective in protecting us than we need them to be.

***

Also see:

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.

Does Islam ‘Hate’ Us?

AP_863864811400-640x480Breitbart, by Frank Gaffney, March 16, 2016:

In remarks last week, Donald Trump once again made headlines about the threat we face from Islamic supremacism. As he succinctly put it, “Islam hates us.”

In the course of the most recent Republican debate, he refused to back away from that assertion, bringing a variety of responses from his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination and harsh criticism from some Muslims, their allies on the left and media outlets.

This is a conversation that is long overdue and needs to be had as we decide not only on the next Commander-in-Chief, but whether to provide a national security mandate for our 45th President.

It would be a more illuminating conversation – and a better guide for policy – if we are clear about our terms. There is no getting around the fact that the practice of Islam as defined by the faith’s authorities (e.g., Al-Azhar University, the clerical leaders of Saudi Arabia, the mullahs of Iran, etc.) is hateful towards those like us, who believe that our government should be defined by a man-made Constitution, not by the dictates of a deity like Allah codified in a doctrine like sharia.

That said, there are Muslims who do not practice Islam in accordance with sharia. They generally don’t want to live under its brutal repression, let alone seek to impose it on others. In fact, many of them came to this country to get away from that totalitarian program in their native lands.

Unfortunately, the folks who define Islam don’t think, as we do, that such folks are “good Muslims.” They think they are apostates. And that can be treated as a capital offense under sharia.

But ignoring these non-sharia-adherent Muslims or, worse yet, lumping them in with those who do follow sharia, is not only inaccurate. It is counterproductive. The former do not necessarily hate us; the latter are obliged to do so by what they consider to be divine direction.

For this reason, we should define the problem as the hateful doctrine of sharia and the Islamic supremacists who are determined to ensure that the entire world submits to it. Sharia not only hates us. If not thwarted, the successful imposition of sharia will achieve the end to which those who hate us – Muslim and non-Muslim alike – aspire: our destruction as a free nation and people.

Our understanding of this reality is made more complicated by the lengths to which those who should know better are going to obscure it. That’s the subject of a new book my colleague Clare Lopez and I have just published entitled See No Sharia: ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ and the Disarming of America’s First Lines of DefenseIt chronicles how this administration and the preceding one have insisted that “Islam is a religion of peace,” that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and that those engaged in such terror are hijacking and perverting the Islamic faith.

Such comments ignore sharia and its animating of jihad, including both the violent kind and the pre-violent, stealthy sort the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad.” Bad as the implications of such official dissembling or willful blindness are, matters are made worse by the fact that other influencers, including the mainstream media, are also aiding and abetting the enemy.

A prime example of the sort of propagandizing being done by some in the press was aired by National Public Radio last week. During NPR’s Morning Edition, reporter Tom Gjelten fawningly and at great length profiled an initiative called “Celebrate Mercy.” Gjelten uncritically repeated incorrect claims by Dalia Mogahed, who had previously worked in the White House as an advisor to President Obama and who even the far-left Daily Kospegged correctly as “a Muslim Brotherhood apologist.” Mogahed claimed Mohammed’s time in Medina showed him to be an exemplar of peace and tolerance and, if only Muslims model their lives on his, they will eschew radicalization.

In point of fact, the Medina period of Mohammed’s life as depicted in Islam’s revered texts is the feedstock of sharia’s doctrine of conquest, submission and jihadism. Efforts to urge conformity with it as the perfect model for the faithful Muslim is actually the agenda of so-called “radicals” and “violent extremists.” Kyle Shideler makes this point in the Federalist:

What Moghed does not say and the entire NPR article fails to address is that Islamists view Mohammed’s behavior in Medina as an example for establishing Islam as the dominant political system, at the expense of the Jews, which Islamic historiography identifies as being massacred and expelled. Moghed herself can scarcely be unaware of this, seeing as ISPU is itself a pro-Islamist think tank include numerous Muslim Brotherhood-associated thinkers.

What makes matters worse is this bottom line: Our ignoring, downplaying or misrepresenting the virulent hatred felt by sharia-adherent Muslims towards those of us in what they call the Dar al Harb, or House of War (i.e., the non-Muslim world), is seen by the jihadists not as “political correctness” or diversity sensitivity. Instead, they perceive it as evidence of the West’s submission. And, according to sharia, the appropriate response is for Islamists to redouble their efforts to make the infidel, in the words of the Koran, “feel subdued.” That means more jihad, not less.

In short, sharia hates us, its adherents are obliged to try to make us submit to their repression and, when we show signs of doing so, they will use whatever means are at hand – including more violence – to finish our destruction. We need a Commander-in-Chief who gets all that and will respond effectively.

To that end, let’s hope that Donald Trump’s latest comments about Islam will be but the beginning of a serious and informed national debate.

The Bridge Initiative’s failed attempt to ‘debunk’ Federal evidence

3147963020

Center for Security Policy, March 8, 2016:

The Bridge Initiative, part of the Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, delivered a broadside against what it described as a “Conspiracy Theory” around the piece of Muslim Brotherhood archival history known as the “Explanatory Memorandum”, by Mohammed Akram Adlouni, a senior U.S. Muslim Brotherhood member.

We have highlighted the ties the Bridge Initiative shares with the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood previously. In particular, we’ve noted that its head, Professor John Esposito, was an advisory board member for the Hamas-linked think tank the United Association of Studies and Research (UASR), along with a myriad of other Brotherhood associations. We’ve also previously highlighted their association with the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a group with ties to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and even Al Qaeda.

The Bridge Initiative is anxious to debunk the Explanatory Memorandum perhaps because it was quoted last week by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), as part of his opening statement supporting H.R. 3892, calling on the State Department to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.

The Bridge Initiative attempts to use guile, misdirection and ad hominem attack in its effort to protect the Muslim Brotherhood’s reputation, but fails miserably.

Firstly, the Bridge Initiative assertion dishonestly describes the Holy Land Foundation Trial in which the Explanatory Memorandum was submitted as evidence, as a “money laundering” trial. In fact it was a trial over a conspiracy to materially support the terrorist group Hamas. Every defendant was convicted on charges of conspiring to provide material support for terrorism, in addition to charges of money laundering. It is intentionally misleading to describe the HLF case as simply a “money laundering case”.

The Bridge Initiative attempts to cite the “opinion by the presiding Judge” that the Explanatory Memorandum did not provide “supporting evidence” of a conspiracy but fails to do so.

They instead link the “Government’s Amended Memorandum in Opposition to Petitioners Islamic Society of North America and North American Islamic Trust’s Motion for Equitable Relief,” not Judge Jorge Solis’ “Memorandum Opinion Order”, and in the linked document the words “supporting evidence” which the Bridge Initiative places in quotes, do not appear.

The words “supporting evidence” do appear in the Judge Solis’ opinion however, and assuming this is what the authors at Bridge Initiative intended to cite, it reads as follows,

“But a published list from the Government naming individuals or entities as co-conspirators without any supporting evidence is not subject to such scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to seal the entire list of unindicted coconspirators but stops short of ordering CAIR, ISNA and NAIT’s names expunged from any documents filed or produced by the government.”

Just prior to this however, Solis had written,

“Evidence presented in a public trial is inherently different from the Government publishing a list of persons alleged to be co-conspirators. The public may make its own judgment from evidence presented at trial. The evidence may be examined and conclusions can be drawn as to whether the evidence establishes what the government claims it does.”

The “Explanatory Memorandum” falls into that category of evidence presented in a public trial. Elsewhere in the document however, Solis wrote specifically about the Explanatory Memorandum saying:

Government Exhibit 3-85 is titled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” authored by Mohamed Akram of the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood and dated May 22, 1991. (Gov’t Ex. 3-85 (Elbarasse 3) at 21.) The “Explanatory Memorandum” includes a section titled “Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America,” which states that the work of the Ikhwan in the United States is “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” (Id.) Also contained in that document is a list of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “organizations and the organizations of our friends,” which includes ISNA, NAIT, the Occupied Land Fund (“OLF”) (HLF’s former name), and the United Association for Studies and Research (“UASR”). (Id. at 32.) Government Exhibit 3-64, titled “Preliminary vision for preparing future leadership” and dated December 18, 1988, further ties ISNA to the Muslim Brotherhood by listing it as an “apparatus” of the Brotherhood. (Gov’t Ex. 3-64 (Elbarasse 4) at 5.)

It can be seen that Solis notes that the groups mentioned by name in the Memorandum are also mentioned in other Brotherhood documents submitted at trial, and that this can be taken as authenticating the memorandum itself. You can also see that UASR is the same UASR that Bridge Initiative head Esposito was an advisor for.

The Bridge Initiative treats the Explanatory Memorandum as the aspirations of a single man, but ignores the fact that events described in the memorandum actually happened. Most notably, the merger of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Akram makes reference in the Explanatory Memorandum to the discussed merger of the Group with the “Islamic Circle” (meaning the Islamic Circle of North America.) The “Shura Council Report” from 1991 also references two documents associated with the agreement between ICNA and the Muslim Brotherhood:

“Supp. #12: An Islamic work concept between the lkhwan and the ICNA (6/1991).

Supp. #13: A suggestion regarding the relationship with ICNA (6/1991).”

Additionally a Muslim Brotherhood document entitled, “Implementation Manual For the Group’s Plan for the year (1991-1992),” also references ICNA:

“5 – Arriving at a specific definition of the relationship with ICNA.”

It can in fact be shown that ICNA began to publicly identify with the Muslim American Society (MAS), which federal prosecutors have referred to as the “overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood” by holding joint MAS-ICNA conventions beginning in 2001.

Far from one man’s “fantasy” Akram describes in the Memorandum proposals for events which do in fact take place. Similarly his views on elements of the Muslim Brotherhood’s apparatus in the United States, such as the creation of Islamic Centers, matches other descriptions of Brotherhood’s efforts in the United States, such as the historical description of the MB’s activities provided by then leading MB member Zaid Noman in an audiotape dated sometime in the 1980s, and entered into evidence as Elbarasse Search-2. In other words, Akram’s explanatory memorandum fits into a historical context of what the Brotherhood had done in the past, was proposing to do, and what it in fact can later be shown to have accomplished.

The Bridge Initiative Team goes on to attempt to disarm the public from worrying about Mohammed Akram’s chosen phrase, “civilization-jihad” by claiming that such language is entirely unknown among Muslim Brotherhood documents, and can’t be found in any of a number of document troves they claim to have searched through.

Realizing that Akram’s memorandum was never intended to be read by the public at large at all, but only by high level members of his own organization, and the Bridge Initiative’s insistence that “his [Akram’s] ideas are not widespread online” loses much of its impact.

Interestingly enough though, the Bridge Initiative seems to have missed at least one key document, available online, and published in English, by the very same IIIT which Bridge Initiative’s partners with. A document which seems to contain ideas and concepts comparable to that proposed by Akram’s use of the term “Civilization jihad”.

In 1989, IIIT published Islamization of Knowledge: General Principles and Work Plan, edited by IIIT co-founder Abdulhamid Abu Sulayman. That’s only two years before Mohammed Akram wrote his “explanatory memorandum”, and it contains an interesting reference:

Unlike the past, the civilizational forces contending in this century can reach and overtake anyone without invasion or military occupation of his land. They can subvert his mind, convert him to their world view, neutralize and contain him as a puppet whether he is aware of it or not. Certainly these forces are contending with one another to dominate the world. And it is the decision of Muslims today whether Islam will be the victor tomorrow, whether Muslims will be the makers of history or merely the objects. Indeed, a civilizational battle now in progress in the world scene will not leave anyone unscathed.

Now admittedly IIIT uses the word “battle” not “jihad” (holy war), but the comparison otherwise tracks. Islamization of Knowledge is describing “civilizational battle” as a conflict between ideas advanced through “stealthy techniques” such as subversion and conversion rather than violence. It appears to suggest the author’s view that Islamic civilization must also engage in such techniques in order to emerge triumphant.

But Bridge Initiative mocks those who interpret Mohammed Akram’s statement of “Civilization jihad” as representing an exhortation to engage in just this kind of conflict.

Given the Bridge Initiative’s ties to IIIT, one would have thought they’d have been familiar with IIIT’s seminal work on “Islamization”, and not missed this obviously compatible reference if they were doing their “debunking” in good faith.

John Esposito and AbuSulayman both speaking at an IIIT-UK Conference

John Esposito and AbuSulayman both speaking at an IIIT-UK Conference

The Bridge Initiative attempts to convince readers that the view of the Explanatory Memorandum as representing a seditious conspiracy against the United States is reserved solely for groups like the Center for Security Policy, and former presidential candidate Ben Carson. But the reality is that this view of the document represents the very view of federal law enforcement at the time the document was discovered, and submitted at trial.

The Explanatory Memorandum was taken extremely seriously by key U.S. counterterrorism officials at the time of its discovery. Former U.S. deputy chief for Counterterrorism at the Department of Justice Jeff Breinholt says the Memorandum made:

“Pretty clear as to how they viewed their own objective. And they’re talking about the United States here. For the first time that was almost direct proof of what we had long suspected about their true political goals in the United States…

“Something like the explanatory memo is a bonanza for the art of intelligence because it actually is the target or the subject speaking in their own words about what they intend. You don’t have to read too much into that.”

Former FBI Agent and federal prosecutor Nathan Garret concurred:

“The organizations that were on that list represented a huge segment of the Islamic voice in North America at the time. The Memorandum not only named names, it candidly revealed just how the Brotherhood viewed the United States- as a target of conquest.”

In the sworn affidavit of an FBI agent in the case of Nabil Sadoun, a Muslim Brotherhood member deported from the United States for lying on federal immigration forms about his association with the Hamas-linked UASR (The same UASR for which Esposito was an advisory board member) an FBI agent writes:

The FBI seized numerous documents from Elbarasse’s home, including “An Explanatory Memorandum,” dated May 22, 1991, concerning the strategic goal of the US-MB. This document outlined in detail the US-:MB’s plan for jihad and the elimination of Western civilization from within the United States. [Exhibit A12]

That the Explanatory Memorandum represents a piece of evidence in a conspiracy by the Muslim Brotherhood to wage jihad against the United States is not just the opinion of Frank Gaffney, the Center for Security Policy, or Dr. Ben Carson. It was the view of the United States Government, affirmed by a jury when it convicted the Holy Land Foundation defendants of 108 counts of conspiracy to provide material support for terrorism and money laundering.

The Explanatory Memorandum is not a stand-alone piece of evidence, and it should not be considered as such. Rather it is a particularly eloquent and demonstrative piece of evidence in a mosaic of documents and events which explain the nature and history of the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in the United States. It has singular importance as a document which opens up for investigation a wider network of Brotherhood activity and concepts.

It has always been the goal of the Center for Security Policy to open up the field of inquiry into these activities and to make them accessible to a wider audience, so as to better inform the public about the national security threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its activities in the United States. The haphazard effort by the Bridge Initiative to muddy the waters is an attempt to obfuscate and manipulate the historical record.

That the Bridge Initiative is tied directly to the very organizations exposed by the publication of the Explanatory Memorandum should be cause enough for skepticism about their charges, but the individual reader is encouraged to examine the record and documents on their own in order to form their own opinion. All publicly released Holy Land Foundation trial documents are available at the website of the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas.

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).