National Security Experts Issue Letter Endorsing Mike Pompeo as the Next U.S. Secretary of State

Center for Security Policy, April 10, 2018:

(Washington, D.C.): Today, 53 national security experts and public practitioners issued a letter to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker and the committee’s Ranking Member Robert Menendez calling on the U.S. Senate for swiftly endorse President Trump’s choice of Mike Pompeo to be the next U.S. Secretary of State.

The letter’s signatories agree that the wide range of urgent national security threats facing our nation today requires an experienced, highly competent national security leader like Mike Pompeo be confirmed as Secretary of State as soon as possible.  With, among other challenges,  growing tensions in Syria, an upcoming summit between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, and an impending decision on the fate of the nuclear deal with Iran, this is no time for the State Department to be without such a skilled professional at its helm.

The signatories also credit Mike Pompeo for his mastery of the multifaceted threat that Donald Trump promised to defeat in his August 15, 2016 address in Youngstown, Ohio.  Both men recognize this particular danger as ideological in nature, which Mr. Trump correctly noted is called “Sharia” by its adherents, who include “Radical Islamic Terrorists” and “the support networks for Radical Islam in this country.”

Mr. Pompeo’s leadership and management skills from his time in the U.S. Army, the private sector, Congress and as CIA Director are exactly what is needed at the State Department, which is suffering from huge numbers of unfilled positions, low morale and lack of direction.

The letter concludes:

Mike Pompeo is the sort of seasoned, accomplished and energetic national security policy practitioner our nation desperately needs at this juncture in the role of Secretary of State to help President Trump secure our nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic. He enjoys our strong endorsement and we respectfully request that the United States Senate express the same by confirming him at the earliest possible moment.

See the letter with signatories

Assad’s Horror, and Those Who Enable It

hoto credit: Muhammed es Sami/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images.
Demonstrators draw picture on a wall to describe the poisonous gas attack and protest against the Assad regime’s alleged gas attack on Douma in Syria on April 08, 2018

Russia, Iran, and North Korea all play a role in the Syrian regime’s chemical attacks on its own people.

The Weekly Standard, by Thomas Joscelyn, April 8, 2018:

Horrific images from the aftermath of a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria are once again circulating online. The scene of this gassing is the eastern Ghouta suburb of Damascus. Both the location and the timing of this apparent war crime are symbolically important. And while the immediate focus will be on Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and his willingness to gas his own people, any long-term solution will require understanding the role of the rogue states that enable and support him.

It was one year ago, on the morning of April 7, 2017, that the Trump administration launched punitive airstrikes against Assad’s regime at the Shayrat Airfield in response to a Sarin gas attack days earlier. Those targeted bombings were intended to send a message to Assad: Stop using banned weapons of war against your own people. Assad was undeterred.

He had failed to adhere to a previous deal, negotiated by the Obama administration and Russia, that was intended to end his chemical weapons capability. The concord was struck in the aftermath of the August 21, 2013, nerve agent attack on eastern Ghouta–the same suburb hit in the last 24 hours. The U.S. government determined that the Assad regime was responsible and “that 1,429 people were killed … including at least 426 children.”

Just a few weeks later, in September 2013, the U.S. and Russia agreed to “special procedures” for the “expeditious destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons program and stringent verification thereof.” Secretary of State John Kerry claimed in 2014 that the agreement had worked, saying “we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out” of Syria. That obviously wasn’t true, or at least highly misleading, as Assad retained the capability to regenerate and use certain weapons.

And now—one year after the U.S. attempted to punish Assad with airstrikes, and in the same neighborhood that was terrorized in 2013— the Syrian regime has seemingly struck again.

Many details concerning this most recent attack remain to be confirmed. But the world has already learned some valuable lessons regarding the behavior of rogue actors when it comes their pursuit and use of banned weapons.

There is no real question that Assad has continued to use chemical weapons even after he agreed to give them up. As the State Department was quick to note yesterday, the U.S. has concluded that he was responsible for the April 4, 2017, Sarin gas attack in Khan Sheikhoun—the same incident which prompted the Trump administration’s bombing. And both the U.S. government and the UN have found that Assad’s goons used other chemical weapons, namely crude chlorine bombs, more than once. While some of these bombs struck areas held by jihadi rebels, they have also indiscriminately killed civilians.

Assad’s principal international backer, Vladimir Putin, hasn’t stopped him from using of them. Nor has Iran, which is deeply embedded in Syria alongside Assad’s forces. In fact, the Assad-Putin-Khamenei axis has a legion of online apologists who argue that the high-profile chemical weapons assaults aren’t really the work of the Syrian “president” at all. This noxious advocacy on behalf of mass murderers is readily available on social media.

It gets even worse, as another rogue state has reportedly facilitated Assad’s acquisition of chemical weapons: North Korea. This facilitation is especially worrisome in light of the two nations’ previous cooperation on a nuclear reactor that was destroyed by the Israelis in 2007.

In March, the U.N. issued a report on North Korea’s active “prohibited military cooperation projects…stretching from Africa to the Asia-Pacific region, including ongoing ballistic missile cooperation with the Syrian Arab Republic and Myanmar, widespread conventional arms deals and cyberoperations to steal military secrets.”

The U.N. traced a number of visits by North Korean officials to Syrian soil, finding that “multiple groups of ballistic missile technicians” have been inside Syria. Citing intelligence received from a “Member State,” the U.N. explained that these “technicians … continued to operate at chemical weapons and missile facilities at Barzah, Adra and Hama.” The Assad regime tried to deflect this accusation by claiming the North Koreans were in town simply for “training athletics and gymnastics.”

But the U.N. documented additional suspicious details, including previously unknown illicit shipments and transfers. The U.N. investigative body’s “investigations into several cases of hitherto unreported arms shipments and cooperation with front companies of designated entities between 2010 and 2017 showed further evidence of arms embargo and other violations, including through the transfer of items with utility in ballistic missile and chemical weapons” programs.

In one such transfer, the North Koreans provided the Assad regime with “special resistance valves and thermometers known for use in chemical weapons” programs. U.N. member states also interdicted suspicious shipments, including bricks and tiles that may be used as part of a chemical weapons program. Although the U.N. found these specific materials weren’t banned, a member state noted that they “can be used to build bricks for the interior walls of [a] chemical factory.”

The U.N. found it especially suspicious that North Korean front companies were doing business with the Syrian government’s Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC), which oversees Assad’s chemical weapons development.

The U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned 271 SSRC staffers in the aftermath of the April 2017 Sarin gas attack in Khan Sheikhoun. Treasury explained that the SSRC is “the Syrian government agency responsible for developing and producing non-conventional weapons and the means to deliver them.” And the sanctioned SSRC employees “have expertise in chemistry and related disciplines and/or have worked in support of SSRC’s chemical weapons program since at least 2012.”

Therefore, the U.N.’s conclusion that North Korea has been working with the SSRC is especially noteworthy.

The U.S. and its allies will continue to face daunting challenges when it comes to restraining rogue nations and their pursuit of banned weapons. As Syria’s ongoing work on chemical weapons shows, such proliferation concerns often involve multiple rogue states. Assad’s chemical weapons attacks inside Syria are principally his own doing, but not solely. He has friends outside of Syria who are willing to help.

***

Also see:

***

We’re Not the Thought Police

That being said, what are you thinking?

Front Page Magazine, by Bruce Bawer, April 9, 2018:

To read Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch website regularly is to get an unsettling daily dose of real-life Islam-related horrors. But on April 4, Robert posted a half-hour audio that was even more disturbing than the bulk of his usual offerings. The audio records the visit by a couple of British police officers to the home of a British subject who had apparently been reported to the authorities for posting anti-Islam comments on social media. The householder in question greeted the cops with surprising – perhaps nervous? – cheeriness, and for a half hour he earnestly, willingly, and good-humoredly answered their indefensibly intrusive and insulting questions about his opinions. Among them: What were his political beliefs? What did he think of Islam? Did he hate Muslims? Was he a racist? Was he a Nazi?

It quickly became clear that this man – whose name we never learn, unless I missed something – is anything but a racist or Nazi or hater of any kind. On the contrary, he is a thoughtful citizen who, after considerable study, has come to some sensible conclusions about Islam. He made it clear that, unlike his visitors, he had read the Koran, had acquainted himself with the major specifics of the life of Muhammed, and knew the basics of Islamic theology. He was, it emerged, a strong opponent of Islam for precisely the right reasons, including (as he mentioned) the fact that it commands believers to do harm to infidels, Jews, and gays.

Yet even as he spelled out these indisputable truths about Islam, the police officers responded as if he was imagining it all. They suggested that he might want to sit down for a conversation with an Islamic scholar, who could clear up what they seemed determined to view as his misunderstandings. They insisted, moreover, that they were not the Thought Police – even though there is no other word for police officers who show up at the home of an innocent citizen to interrogate him about his personal opinions.

A couple of reader comments on the Jihad Watch audio suggested it was fake, on the grounds that police officers in a free country would surely never do such a thing. Wrong. For me, the audio brought back vivid memories – for I’ve had my own very similar encounter with European policemen. My experience was slightly different in that instead of being visited at home, I was summoned to a local police station in Norway, where I live. But the encounter itself, which took place in January 2014, was strikingly similar to the one recorded on the Jihad Watch audio. My interrogators even assured me, as their British colleagues assured the fellow in the audio, that they were not the Thought Police. When I heard that statement on the audio, I couldn’t help wondering: are cops around Europe, even in different countries, working off of the same script?

Immediately after returning home from my visit to the police station back in January 2014, I sat down and typed up everything I could remember about the exchange I’d had with my new uniformed friends. The conversation had been in Norwegian, and I wrote it out in Norwegian. I sent copies to a few friends of mine, including Hans Rustad, editor of the vitally important Norwegian website document.no, who, in response, told me that he had heard similar, and equally disturbing, accounts from other people living in Norway. He actually took a copy of my testimony with him to a meeting at the Norwegian Ministry of Justice, where he confronted officials with this example of thoroughly inappropriate police conduct.

My Norwegian-language account of my exchange with the police officers later appeared in print (but not online) in a document.no publication, but has never appeared in English. After hearing the audio at Jihad Watch, however, I decided that it might be worthwhile to translate my account into English so that any doubters might understand that, yes indeed, this how at least some police officers in Europe conduct themselves in this era of Islamization.

So here it is, without further ado, but with newly added comments and explanatory information in brackets:

On January 9, I received a phone call from a policeman in Skien [the county seat of Telemark, where I live]. He said he wanted to meet me because he thought my knowledge of Islam could help the police in the fight against Islamic terrorism. He explained that someone at PST [the Norwegian Police Security Service, Norway’s equivalent of the NSA or MI5] had recommended that he speak with me. I said I would be glad to be of help. We agreed to speak again a few days later to agree on a time and place.

During the days that followed I spent a good deal of time preparing for what I imagined would be a crash course in Islam. When we spoke by telephone for the second time, I thought I detected a subtle change in his tone and immediately suspected that his objective was, in fact, not to draw on my expertise but to interrogate me. This suspicion was reinforced when he said, at the end of the conversation, that he himself was a PST officer.

This was precisely the same thing that had happened to me during the [mass murderer Anders Behring] Breivik trial [in 2012], when Geir Lippestad [Breivik’s lawyer] summoned me as an “expert witness.” His real intention at that time was not to make use of my “expertise” but rather to expose me to scorn and derision as one of several writers who had supposedly “influenced” the killer and who thus shared in the blame for his crimes.

On January 15, I met the PST officer and a colleague of his, also from PST, at a police station near my home. Indeed, it turned out that they had no interest in learning anything about Islam from me. They wanted to know about other things. How, for example, had I come to be so critical of Islam? Which other members of the anti-Islam community was I acquainted with? Which far-right websites was I in the habit of reading? Had I experienced discomfort in encounters with Muslims? Did I know Hans Rustad, editor of document.no, which publishes critical aticles about Islam and European immigration policy? Had I ever posted comments on his website?

At first I played along – too much. I told them about the time my partner had been assaulted by a Muslim with a knife at a bus stop at St. Hanshaugen in Oslo, and about the time a Muslim yelled “faggot” at him and kicked him on the tram. I mentioned the doctor I knew who had been killed at his office by a Muslim asylum seeker. As for Hans Rustad, I said, “Yes, I know him. He’s a terrific guy and he has a terrific website. But no, I’ve never commented on articles there.”

They asked about Fjordman [counterjihadist writer Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen]. Had I ever met him? Yes, we had gotten together for beers 3-4 times in Oslo several years ago. We had also both attended a conference in The Hague sometime around 2006. Oh yes? Which conference? The Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference. Who arranged that? I don’t know. Who else took part? Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or, several others. They seemed to be interested in these details. They asked me what I thought about Fjordman. I answered the question rather exhaustively.

Then they came to Breivik. How had I felt when I learned that Breivik had read some of my books and articles? They emphasized that they were fully aware of the dangers of Islamic terrorism, but they were also worried that a writer like me could help “create a new Breivik” or several of them. It was at about this point that I began to fire back a bit. I said that Breivik was a maniac, and that if he hadn’t happened to get hooked on Islam as an object of hate, he would have gotten hooked on something else to hate. They didn’t seem to be willing to accept the possibility that Breivik was just a crazy man, an isolated case. I got the impression that they were working from the premise that Breivik was a cold-blooded counterjihadist who had been created by other counterjihadists.

In a slightly irritated tone, one of the two men reminded me that during the first hours after the government buildings in Oslo were bombed, that is before Breivik was identified and before his motives were known, many people in Oslo had assumed that the city was under attack by Muslim terrorists, and that this had resulted in people assaulting Muslims in the streets. [Note: I have never seen any documentation of this claim.] One of PST’s concerns, he said, was that if a Norwegian Muslim committed a murder like the horrible killing of Lee Rigby in London, there would be a violent anti-Muslim reaction. [They always worry more about the anti-Muslim “backlash” that virtually never happens than about the actual Islam-motivated atrocity.]

My interlocutors had read Breivik’s “manifesto.” They talked about his patchwork of plagiarized historical essays and information about weapons in a way that suggested that, in their eyes, it was a key document for the understanding of the counterjihad movement.

“Have you read the Koran?” I asked.

“No,” both of them said. They were not at all embarrassed about it.

“Well, you should,” I said. “If you want to understand the mentality that underlies Islamic terrorism, you’ll find its origin there.”

One of them answered quickly. “We know that radical Muslims have misinterpreted the Koran.”

“It’s not a question of interpretation,” I replied. “The passages in question are very clear.” I emphasized that while none of the writers they were trying to link to Breivik had called for killing, the Koran calls for killing infidels again and again.

They paid no heed to this. In fact they seemed to find it distasteful to talk about the Koran in this way.

They wanted to know what I thought about the “Eurabia conspiracy theory.”

“What do you mean by that term?” I asked.

“Haven’t you heard it before?”

“Of course, but I hope you understand that this is an expression one almost never hears outside of Norway. It’s a concept that has been invented by the Norwegian left. What does it mean to you?”

“It’s about Muslims wanting to take over Europe.”

“That’s not a conspiracy theory. Jihad is a reality, it’s a core Islamic idea. Do you know how Islam divides the world?”

They shook their heads.

“The world consists of the House of Islam, where Islamic law prevails, and the House of War, which is the part of the world where Islamic law does not yet prevail. According to the Koran, there will not be peace in the world until the House of War is totally conquered by Islam.”

They weren’t interested in hearing about this, either. One of them explained what they meant by the “Eurabia conspiracy theory”: “What we’re referring to is the idea that, for example, Stoltenberg [Jens Stoltenberg, Labor Party politician and Prime Minister from 2000-1 and 2005-13] is secretly conspiring with Muslims with the goal of transforming Norway into an Islamic state.”

What struck me about this was that they talked about Stoltenberg as if he were still Prime Minister. [Just as America’s Deep State is Democratic, Norway’s is Labor.]

At one point, they asked a question that led me to say something very critical about the attempt, after July 22 [the date, in 2011, of Breivik’s atrocities], to limit freedom of expression in Norway. One of them asked me, do you think that there is greater freedom of expression in the U.S. than in Norway? I replied that there’s much more freedom of expression in the U.S. than in all of Western Europe. I mentioned Lars Hedegaard, Geert Wilders, and others who had been put on trial in various Western European countries because of things they had said or written about Islam.

“Where is the limit, then?” asked one of the PST guys, his tone rather sharp.

“There shouldn’t be any limit, unless you call for violence,” I said. They seemed to react to this. I had the impression that they felt I had crossed a line.

During the conversation they reassured me at least three times that this was not an interrogation – but that’s exactly what it was. A couple of times they said that they had no plans to arrest me – which, of course, served as a reminder that they had the power to do so. They also insisted a couple of times that they were not “Thought Police” [tankepoliti]. At one point, one of them mentioned that they can’t do everything the NSA can do, because the law doesn’t allow it, but that they do absolutely everything they can within the framework of Norwegian law.

The entire conversation lasted about an hour and a half. It was intense. They fired questions at me almost without a break. Several times they returned to questions I had already answered. When the whole thing was over, they informed me that they might be contacting me again.

Afterwards, I regretted that I hadn’t just stood up and walked out when I realized that I had been summoned there under false premises. In these times, when certain critical voices and opinions are considered illegal, I would never knowingly have put myself in such a situation with the police. But this was a trap, and they were clearly betting that I would stay there and answer their questions because it would have seemed both uncomfortable and rude to do anything else.

They were right: I stayed there because I didn’t want to make a scene. But while I’m sorry I answered some of their questions so dutifully, I’m glad I took advantage of the opportunity to put up at least something of a challenge. In any event, what emerges from the audio at Jihad Watch is that those bobbies in Britain (apparently Lancashire), like my PST buddies in Norway, have been trained to view Islam as essentially benign and criticism of Islam as a danger. Both sets of cops manifestly consider it part of their job to hunt down critics of Islam and try to intimidate them into silence. And none of them have the slightest regard whatsoever for freedom of speech. They don’t even seem to grasp the concept.

They’ve also apparently been taught – and this is the creepiest part – to emphasize that they’re not Thought Police. This is obviously a result of training, because it would never occur independently to such people – who have plainly never read a word of Orwell – to make such a declaration in the first place. This, then, is what we are up against in today’s western Europe: police departments that are producing Thought Police – and, as part of that production process, are instructing them to reassure the proles that, no, of course they’re not Thought Police.

Sure. And war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

Bruce Bawer is the author of “While Europe Slept,” “Surrender,” and “The Victims’ Revolution.” His novel “The Alhambra” has just been published.

CJR: And if you think it isn’t happening in the US, read this:

John Bolton’s Appointment Rattles The Muslim Brotherhood Echo Chamber

The Trump administration ought not to concede one inch to those who wish to sideline the personnel and stifle the policies that would make its counterjihadist agenda a reality.

The Federalist, by Ben Weingarten, APRIL 5, 2018:

The attacks on former ambassador John Bolton following his appointment as National Security Advisor (NSA) have inadvertently served as some of his strongest endorsements.

First there were the hysterical cries of “neocon warmonger!” This would come as news to the NSA-designate, who was never a “liberal mugged by reality” but a self-identified “Goldwater conservative” from the start; explicitly rejects the belief in democracy-building as imperative to achieving America’s national interest under democratic peace theory; and suggests, exaggerating for effect, that following the removal of Saddam Hussein, as soon as practicable he would have told the Iraqis, “You’re on your own. Here’s a copy of the Federalist papers. Good luck.”

Although the “neocon warmonger” moniker is inapt, to say the least, maybe it is not such a bad thing if our enemies buy this line. In fact, this may be part of President Trump’s strategic rationale as a dealmaker for elevating a “peace-through-strength” realist portrayed as a cantankerous cowboy to the top of the National Security Council.

Then followed another narrative: Bolton is not only a real-life Dr. Strangelove, but worse. He is actually an adroit bureaucrat—“crazy and dangerous.” Then-senator Joe Biden, a man prone to malapropism, actually put it best when, in Bolton’s retelling, Biden said of him in 2005: “My problem with you, over the years, has been, you’re too competent. I mean, I would rather you be stupid and not very effective.”

But the truly revelatory attacks concern Bolton’s positions on Islamic supremacism, which reflect an understanding that jihadists pose a mortal threat that must be countered using every element of national power. You know these attacks are meaningful partly because they have been made under cover of a smear campaign.

Opposing Jihadis Isn’t the Same as Opposing Islam

Bolton has been cast as an “Islamophobe” for the thought crime of being a counterjihadist who supports other counterjihadists. The charge of “Islamophobe” is a baseless, intellectually dishonest, and lazy slur. Although it does not deserve to be dignified with a response, it goes without saying that there is nothing to indicate Bolton harbors an irrational fear of Islam, and everything to indicate he holds the very rational belief that we must defeat Islamic supremacists who wish to subject us to their tyrannical rule or destroy us.

“Islamophobe” is being lobbed at Bolton to try and discredit him and ultimately scuttle policies he supports intended to strike at the heart of Islamic supremacism. The “tell” is that the articles raising such accusations frequently cast counterjihadist policy positions themselves as de facto evidence of Islamophobic bigotry.

As the representative par excellence of the position that America should exit the Iran deal, it should come as no surprise that the Iran deal echo chamber in exile has sprung into action in savaging the ambassador with the most outlandish of insinuations. For the Islamophobia campaign, the lesser-recognized and perhaps more insidious Muslim Brotherhood echo chamber has been activated. Bolton is on record as supporting its designation as a terrorist organization, and Brotherhood apologists and true believers cannot abide this.

Either We Work With Terrorists or We Don’t

Recall that the national security and foreign policy establishment has long held that as a “political Islamist” group, the Muslim Brotherhood ought to be treated as a legitimate diplomatic partner. The theory is that we have to choose between violent and seemingly peaceful Islamic supremacists, ignoring the fact that their differences are tactical and strategic, not ideological. They are all still Islamic supremacists.

Most infamously, the Obama administration supported the ascension of Mohamed Morsi, leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, to president during the Arab spring, with predictably horrific consequences in particular for the nation’s Christians that persist even in the era of the much-maligned counterjihadist Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

Such disastrously naïve policy pushes ignore that the Muslim Brotherhood is the tip of the Sunni jihadist spear. It’s the ideological fountainhead from which violent jihadist groups from Hamas to al-Qaeda and ISIS spring. The “political” element of the Muslim Brotherhood is, if anything, more pernicious precisely because its adherents do not goose-step, guns in hand, in the public square.

No, the political arm engages in political and ideological warfare, tactfully seeking to impose its will through policy and subterfuge. “Social welfare” activities provide a convenient cover for the group’s ultimate aims. As the Brotherhood put it in its 1991 Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America:

The Ikhwan [Muslim Brothers] must understand that their work in America 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.

On account of the Brotherhood’s nature and activities, it has been designated as a terrorist organization from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. A bill first introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz in 2015, calling for the U.S. secretary of state to submit a report to Congress on designating the Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization in America, lays out several other reasons the group merits this, including:

The [group’s] explicit calls for violent jihad, with the end goal of imposing Islamic law over all the world of the group’s founder and spiritual leader Hassan al-Banna, and the consistently violent Islamic supremacist content of the Brotherhood’s core membership texts

The terrorist efforts of numerous jihadist groups explicitly tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, and the efforts of individual Muslim Brotherhood members designated as terrorists by the U.S. government themselves

The litany of terrorist financing cases involving the Muslim Brotherhood, including the…Holy Land Foundation case [the largest terror financing case in U.S. history]…

Do What We Like or Get Smeared as a Bigot

On the campaign trail and in its early days the Trump administration indicated an interest in designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. But within months it shelved these plans. What happened? The Muslim Brotherhood echo chamber deployed.

The Brotherhood undertook an extensive lobbying and information operation designed to dissuade the administration’s plans, reportedly backed by millions of dollars. The U.S. foreign policy establishment quickly proliferated articles and comments in prominent mainstream publications defending the Muslim Brotherhood against charges of being a jihadist group, adding that designated it as such would be impractical and impracticable. Notably, The New York Times went so far as to print an op-ed in the Brotherhood’s defense written by Clinton Foundation-linked Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Gehad el-Haddad.

In the midst of this flurry of articles, it leaked to the media that the CIA and State Department both produced memos against Muslim Brotherhood terrorist designation. Concurrently, counterjihadists throughout the Trump administration were subjected to a barrage of attacks. Many would ultimately be sidelined, though some like Secretary of State-designate Mike Pompeo survived. He, like Bolton, is being attacked as an Islamophobic bigot as well.

Bolton recognized at the time that these events were not random. During a July 2017 interview he noted:

There’s been an amazing campaign. It’s always amazing to me how these stories and op-eds and lines of chatter appear simultaneously, all very well-coordinated…The argument being the Muslim Brotherhood is a complicated organization, not every part of it is devoted to the support of terrorism. Some of them do humanitarian work and so on; a declaration that the entire Brotherhood is a foreign terrorist organization would actually buttress the cause of the jihadis; so, therefore, don’t do anything.

Bolton’s riposte?

Let’s take the notion inherent in that argument as having some validity, that there are pieces of the Muslim Brotherhood that don’t qualify under the statutory definition we have of a foreign terrorist organization…My response to that is, ‘Okay, we need some careful drafting based on the evidence we have now that excludes some affiliates, some components of the Muslim Brotherhood from the designation.’ I’m prepared to live with that, of course, until we get more complete information.

This position is what really draws the ire of the Brotherhood echo chamber. CAIR, the unindicted co-conspirator in the previously mentioned largest terror financing case in U.S. history, published a press release condemning the appointment of “Islamophobe John Bolton” as NSA, citing corroborating articles from such non-biased sources as Think Progress, The Nation, Islamophobia.com, Vox, and Huffington Post.

As I have written previously, CAIR’s Muslim Brotherhood and jihadi ties are numerous and longstanding, involving not only its founders and present leaders to Hamas, but its harboring of apologists for Islamic terrorism, and alleged impeding of counterterrorism efforts.

Bolton’s endorsement of designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization illustrates a keen understanding of the size, scope, and nature of the Islamic supremacist threat that the national security and foreign policy establishment lacks. It is a proxy for a worldview that if followed to its logical conclusion would turn our largely futile efforts to beat back jihadists over the last 17 years on their head. This view takes Islamic supremacists at their word in their desire to impose upon us the Sharia-based, totalitarian theopolitical ideology to which they adhere. Hence the pushback.

Applying this worldview would lead to decisions antithetical to the progressive Wilsonian internationalists and political Islamists on myriad issues in the Middle East, including:

  • Treatment of Israel versus the Arabs
  • The Iran deal
  • Iran policy more broadly, including appropriate measures against its proxies in Syria and Lebanon
  • Qatar’s bellicosity
  • Turkey’s behavior under Islamic supremacist Erdogan

The Trump administration ought not to concede one inch to those who self-evidently wish to sideline the personnel and stifle the policies that would make its counterjihadist agenda a reality. This specious and slanderous smear campaign reflects all the better on the appointment of Bolton as NSA.

Ben Weingarten is a senior contributor at The Federalist and senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research. He is the founder and CEO of ChangeUp Media, a media consulting and production company dedicated to advancing conservative principles. You can find his work at benweingarten.com, and follow him on Twitter @bhweingarten.

Islamist Influence in Hollywood

 

Center for Security Policy, March 25, 2018:

Exposed: The Civilization Jihad Against America’s Popular Culture

New Monograph from Center for Security Policy Reveals Efforts to Manipulate Hollywood Films, and Therefore Popular Culture, to Undermine and Ultimately Dominate America

Washington, D.C.: The #MeToo movement has revealed the hypocrisy of prominent individuals in Hollywood who claim to support women’s rights, while at the same time serially violating them. Yet, an even more sinister hypocrisy in Hollywood still lies beneath the surface – under-reported, often unnoticed and sometimes blatantly denied. That is the alliance of Hollywood Lefists with Islamist organizations that present themselves as champions of multiculturalism and inclusion, but in reality oppose everything that the Left claims to hold dear.

This as-yet-unchallenged hypocrisy has, however, just been brilliantly exposed in a new monograph by Center for Security Policy Senior Fellow Deborah Weiss, Esq., an expert on the censorship and other influence operations of Sharia-supremacist organizations, here and abroad. Islamist Influence in Hollywood reveals such groups’ concerted efforts to manipulate Hollywood movies and independent films, and therefore the popular culture, in the service of their agenda of undermining America, and ultimately dominating it.

Of particular concern is the success such operations have had in whitewashing Islamic terrorism and the totalitarian political, military and legal doctrine that animates it: Sharia. To the extent they have effectively targeted the film-making industry in order to shape popular perceptions and control the public narrative on critical issues of the day, these initiatives are insidious and even subversive.

Though purely pietistic aspects of Sharia can be practiced within constitutional bounds, in its entirety, Sharia is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution and the liberties it guarantees. It treats women as second- class citizens, discriminates against non-Muslims, severely punishes homosexuality, and precludes both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Those who whitewash such facts want to keep the American people from understanding their true mission of undermining liberty and human rights as practiced in this country.

As Ms. Weiss documents, Sharia-supremacists are insinuating themselves into script-writing, Hollywood “consulting,” film production, and even financial scholarships designed to facilitate young Muslims’ penetration of the entertainment industry. The public will be surprised to learn of the extent of Islamist influence in Hollywood, both in movies held out as simply entertainment as well as in so-called “documentaries.”

Islamic supremacist organizations, however, cannot succeed on their own. Ms. Weiss’s monograph documents Hollywood’s complicity and collaboration with Islamist organizations, in some cases capitulating to their demands out of fear, and in other cases championing their cause in the name of political correctness.

The election of President Trump has only exacerbated the situation. With the far-Left’s hatred of all things Trump, whatever objectivity the entertainment industry had has largely been lost. Emotions are running high and wittingly or not, many producers, script-writers, and actors are aligning with Islamic supremacists, simply for the sake of delegitimizing the President.

For example, Hollywood, as well as many in the mainstream media and political elite, overwhelmingly and falsely characterized Trump’s Executive Order imposing a temporary immigration pause as a “Muslim ban.” In fact, the order omitted the vast majority of predominantly Muslim countries and was premised on a list of “countries of concern” designated by President Obama as having a high risk of importing terrorism. The Executive Order, eventually determined to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, sought only to afford the new Administration a chance to develop an effective approach for screening out terrorists. Yet, many in Hollywood aligned with the Islamists among them in mischaracterizing this eminently sensible, modest and short-duration national security measure as religious discrimination motivated by anti-Muslim animus.

Michael Moore perfectly captured the extent of this alignment when he posted a photo of himself holding a sign saying “We are all Muslim.” Ironically, if the Sharia-supremacists such Hollywood celebrities enable are able to get their way, we all may wind up having to be Muslims or dhimmis the Islamists compel to submit and pay a degrading tax known as the jizya.

Upon the release of Islamist Influence in Hollywood, Frank Gaffney Jr. President of the Center for Security Policy observed:

Deborah Weiss’ well-researched and meticulously documented monograph reminds us of the importance of Hollywood and the film industry as an agent for social change. She reveals how Islamist organizations who believe neither in free speech nor equality for all use that core American freedom to censor information about Sharia and its supremacist agenda. The role of Hollywood’s influence in determining how society and its institutions – notably, academia, law enforcement and the faith community – perceive Sharia’s threat should not be overlooked or underestimated.

Ms. Weiss’ in-depth research connects the dots between Islamist organizations that would do us harm and the script-writers, producers and actors in Hollywood who have made them bedfellows. The Center for Security Policy is proud to present Deborah Weiss’ new monograph as an excellent addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series.

Islamist Influence in Hollywood is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback.

It can also be viewed and downloaded for free in PDF format 

Is John Bolton the Man Who Will Dismantle the Islamic & Marxist Counter-States in America?

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – FEBRUARY 22: Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton speaks during CPAC 2018 February 22, 2018 in National Harbor, Maryland. The American Conservative Union hosted its annual Conservative Political Action Conference to discuss conservative agenda. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, March 27, 2018:

How can an American citizen know Ambassador John Bolton, President Trump’s new National Security Advisor, is a good choice for the position?

Because the Marxists are losing their minds.

In fact, John Bolton brings to the table an understanding of a wide variety of threats with strategies to take the fight to the enemy.

UTT’s President John Guandolo interviewed colleagues Philip Haney and Trevor Loudon to weigh in on this issue while the three men spoke together at a panel discussion this past weekend at the Western Conservative Summit in Phoenix, Arizona.

The topic was the Islamic and Marxist Threats.

Former founding member of the Department of Homeland Security, author, Whistleblower and one of the most knowledgable men about the Islamic Movement in the United States, Philip Haney, had this to say about Mr. Bolton:

“I’ve always been a great admirer of Bolton, and I think it’s one of the best choices President Trump has made for his cabinet so far.  He has always stood up for our sovereignty, our Constitutional values, and defended us against great opposition.  He’s outspoken, or I should say, plain-spoken.  People know exactly what he thinks, and he doesn’t equivocate.  He just tells it like it is.  I admire that.  We need some more of that.”

“I think we would all agree Americans put a high value on honesty.  (Mr. Bolton) is always honest.  Foreign leaders know exactly where he stands.  I am very pleased…(with) the appointment of Bolton.”

Responding to the question, “If you could give Mr. Bolton one piece of advice, what would it be?” Mr. Haney replied:

“Focus on the Muslim Brotherhood and start with the domestic arena, but also its connection to the foreign in places like Egypt.  We need to look at the Muslim Brotherhood and get these front groups designated and shut down.  They’re connected to Hamas – that’s been proven.  It is not a theory.  We know it and they have been operating in our face for ten years.  Its time we put an end to that.”

[To get a copy of Philip Haney’s book See Something Say Nothing click here.]

One of America’s greatest resources for information on the Marxist penetration of our government and society is New Zealand native Trevor Loudon.  His movie The Enemies Within tells the tale of the devastating penetration of the American government by avowed Marxists as well as jihadists.

Here are Mr. Loudon’s comments about John Bolton’s new role as the President’s National Security Advisor:

“I’m very very pleased that this is the decision.  I think John Bolton is one of the most knowledgeable and hardcore American Patriots out there.  He understands national security like no one else.  He understands both the external threats and the internal threats, and has no illusions that America has enemies that need to be dealt very, very forcefully.  So I think he’s a perfect choice for President Trump at this time.  I think he will not only confront America’s external enemies, I think he’s a great force for draining the swamp.  I think he will be firing a bunch of people that need to be fired, and I don’t think he’ll take any prisoners.  So, I think that was an inspired choice by President Trump.”

In response to the question “Do you think Mr. Bolton has a good understanding of the Marxist threat in America?” Trevor responded:

“Yeah, I do.  I think he has more understanding than most.  He understands both the threats of countries like Russia and China, but he also understands very much the threat from Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood, and organizations like that.  I don’t think he has any illusions.  I think people in Tehran, Moscow and Beijing will be very, very concerned about this choice, and we should be happy about that.”

Responding to the question, “If you could give Mr. Bolton one piece of advice, what would it be?” Mr. Loudon replied:

“Drain the swamp. Get rid of the bad elements in the State Department and the national security apparatus, stop those leaks.  Deal with the internal enemies first…then you can confront the external enemies.”

Also see:

Christopher Hull: Who is Breaking Europe?

Sovereign Nations, by James Manning, March 12, 2018:

The Center for Security Policy’s interim Executive Vice President, Christopher C. Hull, Ph.D, speaks at the Sovereign Nations Conference, which took place at the Trump International Hotel.

The conference confronted the issues, debated the consequences and explored the causes of things that are destroying our liberty in the United States.  Specifically, it explored the foundation of, on one hand, George Soros‘ view of the world, in which all individuals and freedoms are ultimately subordinate to and guaranteed by government, and on the other hand, Donald Trump’s view as articulated in his Warsaw speech, with independent sovereign nations acting within constitutional constraints to guarantee rights granted by God to free citizens.

Dr. Hull’s presentation, ‘Who Is Breaking Europe?’ can be found in the video above.  In it, he argues that the answer is threefold:

  1. The European illegal immigration crisis, driven at least in part by Islamic holy war, or Jihad;
  2. Politically correct EU leaders and globalist elites like Soros, driven at least in part by cultural Marxism; and
  3. Vladimir Putin’s Russia, driven at least in part by a simple desire to weaken its adversaries by exploiting the divisions among and between them.

***

For more on cultural Marxism see Jordan B. Peterson: Identity Politics & The Marxist Lie of White Privilege