Sharia Crime Stoppers Podcast – Will We Allow Michigan to Transform America?

The United West, June 18, 2018:

In a few short weeks, Michigan voters in the Primary elections could make history that will reverberate across the Republic.  Is it possible that the Michigan primaries will elect a candidate for Governor:

  • Whose campaign is funded by national & Sharia financed sources
  • Is Sharia compliant which means Sharia first, Constitution second
  • Has stated Michigan would become a sanctuary state, protecting illegals over Michigan citizens
  • Would enable/promote Sharia which means women & girls live enslaved lives in the name of multi-culturalism

These life-changing possibilities are real enough that a panel of experts was  convened to explore and identify counter-measures for concerned Michigan citizens and discuss impacts that could affect every state across America.

Watch as these national security, counter-intelligence analysts express the facts of what Michigan is facing.

  • Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy, presents: Michigan: A National Security Threat
  • Anni Cyrus, Ex-Muslim, presents: Sharia Crimes Against Women: Up Close & Personal I
  • Farah Prudence, Ex-Muslim, presents: Sharia Crimes Against Women: Up Close & Personal II
  • Philip Haney, retired Homeland Security officer, presents: Michigan’s Advanced Stage of Sharia Saturation
  • Pastor Don McKay, presents: Counter-Measures for “Such a Time as This”

***

Post-Webinar #1: Farrah Prudence – Personal Experience of Sharia Crime Against Women

Sharia Crime Stoppers Webinar participant Farrah Prudence, Ex-Muslim who has experienced the brutality of male supremacy under Sharia, responds to questions regarding honor killing, FGM, and the rape of Muslim and Non-Muslim women. She addresses the need for police to understand Sharia in order to uphold their oaths to protect Muslims and Non-Muslims from crime.

***

Post-Webinar #2: Frank Gaffney and Philip Haney June 16, 2018 Q&A

Webinar participants from the prior day (Philip Haney, Retired Homeland Security and Frank Gaffney, President – Center for Security Policy), who have a full understanding of the Sharia threat, especially what it is doing in Michigan. They address the need for police to understand Sharia in order to uphold their oaths to protect Muslims AND Non-Muslims from Sharia crimes.

They advise that Sharia is truly a threat to freedom and the local community. Michigan is in danger in the 2018 election cycle. What can you do? Listen and they relate how you can help!


Register NOW for the Next Webinar : Islamist Censorship: Its Roots, Purpose & Role in the 2018 MI Governor’s Race, Thursday June 21st,  7:15pm ET

Free Speech Infringements in Michigan:  Islamist Censorship – Its Roots, Purpose & Role in the 2018 Michigan Governor’s Race

Presenter: Deborah Weiss – Center for Security Policy
When: Thursday June 21st,  7:15pm ET
Where:  Your computer, comfort of your own home

Register here: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_P9MvBq3lTQSzRWyvC7RA-g

In Support of Fred Fleitz and the Real Target (Frank Gaffney)

Written by Diana West at her blog on June 3, 2018:

 

To understand the campaign of slander and smear against Fred Fleitz, late of the Center for Security Policy, now chief of staff in the National Security Council under John Bolton, it is important to understand that in the concentric circles that array themselves around Washingon’s power centers there are to be found National Security Hawks and National Security Subversives. Until November 8, 2016, the National Security Subversives ranged closest to and inside the hubs of power; after November 8, 2016, National Security Hawks began to trickle into that most powerful hub, the Trump White House.

This terrifies the Subversives. To understand why, let me explain why I call them “Subversives.” It is because their policies, their programs, are subversive of the Constitution of the United States; the sovereignty of the United States; which naturally means the continued existence of the United States as a nation-state with controlled borders (including an immigration policy designed to improve the nation-state), overriding interests, and a dedication to the primacy of its own citiizens. Hewing to Marx, not our Founding Fathers, Foreign Policy Subversives are best understood as globalists who see the United States as an integral and also subordinate part of an international political system to be run, not governed, by elites like themselves. In their eyes, We, the People, are just subjects, not citizens, members of contending “identity”-groups to which they will redistriibute benefits, or not.

Quite unexpectedly, the Trump Counter-Revolution of 2016 gave the National Security Hawks in Washington new hope. By “National Security Hawks,” I don’t mean to specify “neocons” or interventionists, which is how we have come to understand this term. Indeed, most neocons and interventionists have worked hand in glove with National Security Subversives. In the context of the campaign of slander and smear against Fred Fleitz, I am thinking of National Security Hawks as those who hold a variety of opposing, even clashing, foreign policy viewpoints; however, as a group, loosely confederated or not, we all seek to defend and protect America first.

Yes, it’s the old struggle — patriots vs. globalists, nation-staters vs. Marxists, anti-communists vs. communists — over our nation’s character. Will our nation re-discover itself as a republic under the US Constitution after all (the National Security Subversive nightmare) or will it further integrate (disappear) into the socialist suprastate run, not governed, by unaccountable legions of  bureacrats guided by global, not national, interests?

As vanquished as the globalists believed the nation-staters to be — I think they forgot about us after winning the ideological war in the Cold War at home  — they were pitched into disarray as this struggle entered a new phase in 2016.

Their tactics to regroup unmask them as Subversives as much as anything else. That is, these are not regular, old “liberals” putting forth their competing set of ideas to win elections next time. As Subversives, President Trump’s main opposition sows chaos, disrupts, “resists,” and tries to sabotage the president and harm those associated with him: Witness the ruinous, punitive campaigns of personal and financial destruction masquerading as a legal process operated by the Special Counsel and glossed by his Special Media. They attempt to commandeer the “information battlespace,” not debate in the public square, with a form of propaganda the historical record shows us originated in the Kremlin to be disseminated by Marxist agents. I refer especially to the communist practice of branding all anti-communists, especially the patriot who loves his country, as “fascists” and “Nazis.” Just check back issues of Pravda and the Daily Worker. Or check the Washington Monthly.

Which takes us to the campaign against Fred Fleitz. As soon as Fleitz’s new job was announced, the story went out that an “anti-Muslim” “Islamophobe” “conspiracy theorist” was going to work in the White House. But maybe nearly 17 years after 9/11, this tired invective just wasn’t bad enough anymore. Or maybe it was just time to hit new gutter-levels of calumny. Whatever the cause, in the pages of the Washington Monthly, in a hit and run piece of claptrap by Martin Longman with a headline on top, the anti-Fleitz campaign went full “Neo-Nazi”: “Bolton Taps Neo-Nazi as National Security Council Chief of Staff.” To put a point on the mainstreaming of such a spurious attack, Google, meanwhile, was simultaneously defining the ideology of the California Republican Party first as “Nazism.”

This is information-warfare against conservatives going nuclear.

Moments ago, the Washington Monthly changed its egregious headline as noted in the correction pasted at the top of this post — six days after the piece appeared. Better late than never is the adage, however, numerous follow-up pieces have appeared in the interim, referencing and knocking down the smear, which tell us the damage was done. (Example: “Fred Fleitz Is Not a Neo-Nazi” by Rich Lowry.) The lasting harm, I suspect, is to the Washington Monthly. Note that the text of Longman’s piece is unchanged and its central spurious claim — that “there are links between the Center for Security Policy and neo-Nazi origanizations in Europe” — is, if anything, underscored by the “correction.” What a disgrace.

Then again, the Washington Monthly is just a tiny publication. Still, it lays claim to the beating heart of mainstream liberal journalism and letters, as the magazine’s roster of contributing editors shows.

Are they all satisfied now that their publication’s Pravda-style headline is just a Wayback.org memory? Or will any of them do the right thing and apologize to Fred Fleitz for this unjustified, injurious blow struck by the journal that their own reputations anchor?

In the article that counts for Martin Longman’s admittedly dodgy research (“I cannot endorse everything” but …), I, too, am slimed (along with Frank Gaffney and other leading lights such as Geert Wilders, Lars Hedegaard, Rachel Ehrendfeld, David Yerushalmi, and more) as a racist, and, referencing the disinformation campaign against American Betrayal launched by David Horowitz and Ron Radosh, I am also tagged “`McCarthy’s heiress’ for selling `yellow journalism conspiracies’ about the secret Soviet occupation of America.” (NB: Being named “McCarthy’s heiress” is a great honor, and I humbly accept; however, Horowitz and Radosh meant it to do as much harm as possible.)

Here is the main and unchanged thrust of Longman’s scurrilous attack:

To get a sense of what it means that Fred Fleitz has been chosen as the National Security Council’s chief of staff, you need to understand both the role of Frank Gaffney and his Center for Security Policy in the international neo-Nazi movement and the way that movement is seamlessly connected to and promoted by Vladimir Putin.

“…the role of Frank Gaffney and his Center for Security Policy in the international neo-Nazi movement”

I have to say I’ve never read anything more insane in my life.

Longman has a caveat:

While I cannot endorse everything Mr. Ahmed alleges and recommend double checking his sources and how he treats them, I do think his A Fourth Reich is rising across Europe — with ties to Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is an excellent place to start your journey. It connects a lot of dots that need connecting, and it contains a lot of documentation that you can assess for yourself.

In other words, “It’s trash, but I like trash.” As for providing “a lot of documentation that you can assess for yourself,” “Mr. Ahmed” somehow forgot to include a link to my column “whose views on black people,” Ahmed wrote, “`gave new meaning to the word racism’” (here’s the link).

In short, Longman’s nasty little item is no better than bathroom grafitti; however, it should not to be quickly dismissed. In its crude slashings there are indicators of a strategy that has been coming into focus, a strategy to engineer and/or use the Russian beguilement and/or infiltration of elements of the European right as a mechanism to “dirty-up” the genuinely patriotic people and parties coalescing around nation-state and sovereignty issues in the wider West. Such attempted inroads are openly attributed to the Kremlin. It seems unlikely that it is just a coincidence that we have been seeing similar patterns in the revelations around the Great “Russian” Frame-Up of the Trump campaign — a process of beguilement and/or infiltration of the Trump campaign to “dirty-up” members with Russian connections, too. Perhaps one day we will be able to attribute this similar operation to the Kremlin, also.

Not Longman. He’s off again, puring hot tar on anti-communists such as Gaffney (and me, I can assume) by aligning them with “Putin’s foreign policy objectives.”

But it’s the way this movement has melded with Putin’s foreign policy objectives that is most urgent, and it’s admittedly confusing because Gaffney built his reputation in the 1980s as an anti-Soviet, anti-Russia hawk. Even today, he is not known for speaking favorably of Russia or Vladimir Putin, which is why it’s essential to explore the absolute confluence of interests that have developed between Gaffney’s promotion of the European far right and Putin’s promotion of the same neo-Nazi parties and politicians.

More slander and disinformation about Frank Gaffney, a courageous patriot whose fidelity to this nation is unparalleled. If Putin is engaging in a “scissors strategy” — the traditional Kremlin m.o. of infiltrating both sides (or more) in a conflict — Gaffney’s so-called “promotion of the European far right” has nothing, nada, zero to do with any neo-Nazi parties or politicians. On the contrary, his “promotion” constitutes a principled and robust defense of free speech in Europe and the US against the incursions of both Islamic and Marxist censorship into Western society.

Not that Longman dares explain or even understands such things. By his own admission, he is irresponsible (and so is Washington Monthly) for promoting a source (“Mr. Ahmed”) he does not trust; also for substituting his own vicious biases for journalistic judgement, without concern for, or, worse, relishing the consequences to Fred Fleitz and anyone else associated with CSP and its mission to support free speech against sharia speech codes, and to alert Americans to the dangers to free speech that accompany Islam wherever it establishes its totalitarian legal, political and individual control-system known as sharia.

Longman says he’s confused.

If so, I bet whoever put him up to this piece is not.

***

Diana West gave an interview with Stefan Molyneux on June 4, 2018:

***

Also with Vlad Tepes May 24, 2018:

Frank Gaffney: President Trump May Be ‘Undermined by His Own Subordinates’ After Strong UN Speech

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Sept. 20, 2017:

Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney joined SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam on Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily to review President Trump’s address to the UN General Assembly.

Kassam asked if Trump’s strong words against Iran during the speech presaged the end of the Iran nuclear deal.

“This is the question,” Gaffney replied. “Action is not so much what one needs to wonder about. I think there will be action. The question is, is it action consistent with what the president said yesterday?”

“This has been what’s so frustrating, I know, to all of us listening to this program and part of the Make America Great Again movement, is the president is being repeatedly and in fact serially undermined by his own subordinates,” he explained.

“He makes these speeches, or he makes these pronouncements, or he tweets the sorts of things that are redolent of the campaign, and what he stood for, and what he promised – only to have H.R. McMaster, or Jim Mattis, or particularly Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State, almost immediately sallying forth and saying, ‘Well, what the president really meant to say was exactly the opposite,’” Gaffney lamented.

“In this case, of course, we have Rex Tillerson sitting down with the so-called ‘Perm 5 Plus One,’ which is U.N.-speak for the gang that put together this Iran deal – I call it the ‘Obama bomb deal’ – plus the Iranian foreign minister. Obviously, the pressure is going to be intense, not just from the Iranians but from the Europeans, to walk back from what the president said,” he warned.

“I pray that Rex Tillerson won’t do it because I think the president got it exactly right. This is a defective deal. It is an embarrassment to the United States that Barack Obama perpetrated it – and, by the way, that Republicans in Congress enabled him to get away with imposing it upon the rest of us. We need to get out from that thing right away. I think John Bolton had that exactly right, and I commend everyone his alternative approach. I hope that’s what Rex Tillerson will be promoting, but I don’t hold my breath on it,” said Gaffney.

Kassam mentioned the argument advanced by French President Emmanuel Macron that the North Korean crisis makes the case for keeping the Iran deal alive because Iran’s nuclear ambitions are now held in check by the kind of oversight North Korea has never received.

“Rubbish,” Gaffney snorted. “This is forgetting the actual lessons of all of this, of course, which are that indeed we made a deal with the North Koreans that was supposed to prevent them from getting the bomb, not unlike we’ve done with the Iranians, and it did not work out.”

“To the contrary, we’ve now got them with not only atomic weapons and missiles with which to deliver them, but now it appears a hydrogen bomb,” he argued. “The so-called ‘strategic patience’ of the Obama administration, unfortunately, followed on the heels of incompetence and malfeasance under both the Clinton administration that made that deal with the North Koreans, and the George W. Bush administration, so there’s a bipartisan fault here. This is not a model to be extolled or held up as the way to deal with Iran.”

Kassam found President Trump’s strong condemnation of socialism to be the most remarkable and encouraging moment of his speech, especially given that a majority of the nations in the UN General Assembly consider themselves socialist to some degree.

“It was tough love, without probably the love,” Gaffney quipped. “The president was laying out the hard truth, and it was incredibly important that he did so – and that he did so to the socialists in that place.”

“Not only are there large numbers of socialists, or communists for that matter, in the UN I mean, it basically is a socialist enterprise. It’s all about redistribution of wealth and power under the auspices of successive socialists, including the guy who is currently running it – the Secretary-General is an old socialist from Portugal. These are people who, I believe, actually think this is the way of the future, so it was very important,” he said.

“But again, it has to be backed up. Let me just say, I think in addition to not having his subordinates undermine him – which they do again, and again, and again, without any consequences – we also have to take actions, Raheem,” he told Kassam.

“I mean, it’s one thing to be telling the North Koreans and ‘Rocket Man’ that you’re toast if you think about pursuing with those hydrogen bombs threats to us. It’s another to actually put into place the capabilities to assure that everybody understands that that’s not an empty threat,” he stressed.

“The rhetoric has been more or less good,” Gaffney judged. “I think you’re absolutely right that the MAGA movement was heard, and brought back ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’ That’s a twofer. One, it’s important in its own right to be calling the enemy what it is, and also that it demonstrates how important the base is. We need to make sure the president is hearing us all the time. I know that he does through your channel, but we need it more elsewhere. In this case in particular, we have got to make sure that we are backing up with credible military capabilities the rhetoric that the president is using.”

Kassam turned to Gaffney’s recent blog post, “Freedom’s Friends Must Denounce, Not Dignify, the SPLC and CAIR.”

“We’ve been talking a lot, and rightly so, about what’s being done to freedom of speech – arguably sort of the foundational freedom in our Constitution and for our republic,” Gaffney said.

“The Southern Poverty Law Center and Islamist Muslim Brotherhood sharia supremacist groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR, have been making – I’m sorry to say even under this administration, under a Republican-controlled Congress – great strides to try to impose the kind of restrictions you’re very familiar with, of course, on your side of the pond,” he said, referring to speech codes in the United Kingdom, where Kassam resides.

Gaffney said these speech restrictions “are designed to basically promote sharia blasphemy restrictions: you must not give offense, particularly to Muslims.”

“The Southern Poverty Law Center has been central to that agenda. They have been working assiduously to defame people who speak the truth about these sorts of issues,” he charged.

“Rod Rosenstein, amazingly, went to what was billed as a civil rights conference in Birmingham last week and gave a speech,” Gaffney said, referring to the Deputy Attorney General. “It was mostly about civil rights, but by his presence, he dignified an event that was holding up both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Council on American Islamic Relations. They had speakers, they were participants in this program, they were considered to be just great champions of civil rights – when, in fact, they are trying to take away that key civil right of freedom of expression. It’s scandalous.”

Of the recent revelations that President Trump appears to have been correct about the Obama Justice Department wiretapping Trump Tower during the 2016 presidential campaign, Gaffney said, “I think what we’re seeing dribbling out slowly, inexorably, is evidence that the Obama administration was engaged in political warfare.”

“I mean, ‘dirty tricks’ doesn’t begin to describe it,” he said, describing the Obama administration’s conduct as “political warfare that makes Nixon’s plumbers in Watergate look like pikers.”

“These were people that were using the instruments of the State, the Deep State if you will – the intelligence community, the law-enforcement community, and of course the National Security Council, Ben Rhodes and his whole disinformation operation and political warfare capabilities – to destroy those like Donald Trump and his campaign that they feared might actually prevent them from having a third term,” Gaffney charged.

“This is why it’s so important to get to the bottom of this, and not be distracted by these deflections, and misinformation, and special prosecutors who are off on a red tear to get us away from the reality that Barack Obama and his minions are Watergate on steroids,” he said. “We need to know the full truth of it.”

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. Eastern

LISTEN:

Frank Gaffney: Governments Have Been Appeasing Jihadists, Not Resisting Them

KENZO TRIBOUILLARD/AFP/Getty

Breitbart, by John Hayward, June 21, 2017:

On Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily, Center for Security PolicyPresident Frank Gaffney talked about the latest incident of “Ramadan rage,” as SiriusXM host Alex Marlow dubbed theBelgium suicide bombing.

“Well, it’s jihad, is what it is,” said Gaffney. “It’s taking the form of perhaps an inspiration by the Islamic State to do a lot of it in the Ramadan period, and to do it in the West. It’s basically what has been developing now for a long time – the increasing confidence of what I think of as sharia supremacists that they are on a roll, and that they are going to be rewarded for being more aggressive, more violent, more jihadist by governments in the West.”

“Unfortunately, they’ve got a lot of reason for thinking that,” he said ruefully.

Marlow proposed that Western Europe has been slow to learn lessons about jihad that Eastern Europe, with its tighter border controls, seems to have absorbed.

“You know the old line about a conservative being a liberal who’s been mugged by reality,” Gaffney said with a chuckle. “The people in Eastern Europe are what Don Rumsfeld used to call ‘New Europe,’ are people who have spent a lot of time facing totalitarianism – living under it, struggling for freedom from it.”

“By the way, that goes back many, many, many years before, to the totalitarianism meted out by sharia supremacists,” he added. More recently of course it was communism, but I think they were able to perceive in the current crop of totalitarians that kind of communism with a god – which turns out to be a lot more dangerous than the original kind, because people who think the next world is going to be where they get their rewards are not as easily deterred from trying to take us all there as the people who think this is it, this is the only life there is.”

“The point that I’m really trying to get it is, I think that our government agencies in this country, and in particular in Old Europe – the Brits we’ve seen a lot of this lately, the French with the Macron victory, the Germans and so on – have been appeasing these guys, not resisting them. The reaction to that I think increasingly is a real restiveness, shall we say, if not fear on the part of the people who live in those countries and see them slipping away,” he said.

“I’m not making any excuse for it, certainly not endorsing it, but I do think you’re going to see more of the kind of retaliation in kind that we witnessed in London last week at the Finsbury Park mosque,” Gaffney predicted.

He said that reaction would be driven by the perception that “the government isn’t going to stand up for their countries isn’t going to protect their people against these jihadists – of either the violent kind, or sort of the stealthy kind of the Muslim Brotherhood that sets the stage for this sort of sharia supremacism and jihad in due course.”

Gaffney said the spate of Ramadan terrorist attacks was “simply the outcropping of what has been cultivated for a long time” in Old European nations where “they have been indulging in a sort of multiculturalist fantasy, or they’ve been trying to deal with hard demographic realities by accommodating large numbers of people making what is, in the Muslim tradition, called ‘hijrah’ – a kind of colonization, invasion if you will, migration in large numbers.”

“You’re seeing an infrastructure put into place, primarily at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, with funding – let’s be honest – by the Saudis and the Qataris and others, that is creating the conditions in which this jihad will manifest,” he warned.

“Finsbury Park Mosque is one of the most virulently jihadist mosques in the world,” he noted by way of example. “It happens that this is where this attack took place. I don’t think that’s entirely an accident.”

“The point is, if our governments are going to continue to be willfully blind about these preconditions to more extremism, more jihadism, more violence, then you’re going to find that the populations in these countries are either going to have to submit – and many are prepared to do that, I guess, look at France at the moment – but doubtless some will fight back, and that’s perhaps the formula for civil war,” Gaffney warned. “We’ve seen a lot of that over the years in Europe, and I fear it may be in prospect again.”

Marlow turned to the return of American hostage Otto Warmbier by North Korea, and the comatose Warmbier’s death soon afterward.

“To be perfectly clear, this young man – this apparently very bright and promising American student – was murdered by the Kim Jong-un regime,” Gaffney declared. “I believe he was taken prisoner on trumped-up charges. I’m not sure there’s any evidence that he actually stole anything. I think he was taken hostage, as the government of North Korea has done repeatedly.”

“It goes back to what we talked about earlier with respect to the Islamists: they have been rewarded for seizing Americans, by both Republican and Democratic administrations,” he charged. “It is no wonder that they continue to do it. The fact that they actually so badly brutalized this guy, that they basically sent him back just prior to his death, is simply the latest example of how horrific this government is. What it does to its own people every day makes that look like a day at the beach, quite frankly.”

“We keep turning a blind eye to it. We keep trying to appease them. We think the Chinese will help us in dealing with them, when the Chinese are the great enablers of this regime. This is as screwed-up a policy, I believe, as we’ve got at the moment, not least because we’ve continued to delude ourselves that somehow, under Bill Clinton notably, and his wife Hillary I guess, we can say we were snookered into thinking that somehow, if we just improved relations with them, they would give up the bomb. They haven’t done it. The threat to us has metastasized,” he warned.

“This is a time for a wholesale relook. The Trump tweet of yesterday about the Chinese deal having not worked out, I hope is the beginning of that kind of fundamental reassessment and redirection,” said Gaffney.

Marlow asked if Gaffney had any idea what really happened in the strange case of a container ship colliding with the USS Fitzgerald near Tokyo Bay on Saturday.

“Not really,” Gaffney replied. “I think all of us are sort of confused by the information that’s available. It certainly seems as though this cargo ship that rammed the destroyer, the Fitzgerald, did some rather dramatic course corrections. In order to do that, it didn’t just happen. I gather the weather wasn’t all that good.”

“The question of what was going on on that ship is one set of issues that has to be addressed, but frankly, what was going on on the bridge of the USS Fitzgerald?” he asked. “This is a formidable, highly equipped warship in the United States Navy. It’s just inconceivable to me that lumbering big freighter just somehow caught this crew by surprise. Somebody was seriously derelict on the Fitzgerald, it sounds like too.”

“Whatever the motivation or the circumstances, here’s the bottom line: that ship, which is an anti-ballistic missile equipped vessel, is critical to the defense of the fleet out in an increasingly dangerous world, in which increasingly the Russians, the Chinese, and even the North Koreans are bringing to bear ballistic missiles that will be capable of attacking our ships,” Gaffney said.

“It’s offline for perhaps as long as a year. Because of the Obama drawdown of our military, particularly our Navy, that is a huge problem. I’m afraid it may be an incentive to others around the world to try to do similar things to our ships at sea,” he added.

Frank Gaffney: ‘If Assad Must Go, What Do We Want There Next?’

Associated Press

Breitbart, by John Hayward, April 12, 2017:

Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy president, joined SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Wednesday’sBreitbart News Daily to discuss Gaffney’s warning that things can get worse in Syria.

“The Syria situation is one that is fraught with peril, as I see it, for the United States at this particular moment in time,” Gaffney explained. “Because President Trump seems sorely tempted – and I think that tempting is not simply a function of the usual suspects, people who have been horrified by the humanitarian crisis there, the people there who think that it will be resolved, or at least diminished, by bringing Heaven knows how many refugees from Syria here and the like – but now from his own national security team that we must get involved, we must inject ourselves into the crisis in Syria.”

“I think that’s folly,” he said. “It’s not because I’m indifferent to the suffering of the people there. It’s that I don’t see a good solution for, frankly, either the people of Syria or their neighbors or for us by making America part of this civil war.”

Gaffney said his specific concern is that “the idea that Assad is Hitler or something akin to him and must go, and Russia must help with that, raises, inevitably, the question: so what do we want there next?”

“The choices, unfortunately, seem to be more of the same. At best, it’s an Assad-Lite, supported by the Russians, supported presumably by the Iranians, supported by Hezbollah. Or, alternatively, it’s sharia supremacists of the Sunni stripe supported by the Saudis, supported by the Turks, supported by perhaps al-Qaeda or the Islamic State, or simply the Muslim Brotherhood. All very bad choices, in my judgment,” he said.

Gaffney noted Russia has some concrete interests in Syria, including a warm-water port in the Mediterranean.

“They have had the use of an airfield there as well. It’s been sort of a foothold for most of this period, certainly since ’67,” he said. “That’s been pretty much it for the Russians. They kind of lost their client relationship with the Egyptians. The United States became the dominant power in the Middle East. That base was important, and it remains so today. I think it’s been an incredibly critical vehicle for Putin to re-insert himself, not just into Syria, but into the Middle East more generally during the Obama years. So it’s a big deal, certainly, for the Russians.”

“It’s been the difference between holding on to power, perhaps even re-establishing his claim to much of Syria, and either death at the hands of the mob, as Qaddafi experienced, or exile for Bashar Assad,” he added.

Marlow noted the lack of consistency in comments from various Trump administration sources about Syria, making it difficult to judge if removing Assad from power is an active goal of the United States or how much military involvement with Syria might be on the horizon.

“Putting the best face on it, Alex, as you know, Donald Trump indicated that he was going to be unpredictable to our allies, and most especially to our enemies overseas,” Gaffney replied. “He thought that that was a virtue. And arguably it is, at least in a tactical sense.”

“But what you’re describing is part of what worries me,” he continued. “I’m afraid that in the absence of clarity about what we’re doing, you may well see the president do what he did last week – which is on the basis, it seems as much as anything, of the horrific imagery on television of children being gassed, he decided he was going to depart from what he said repeatedly was going to be his policy and inject himself at least in that very tactical way, in retaliation against the gas attack.”

“Here’s the kicker: the president is perilously close in some of these comments, particularly by some subordinates, to embracing what the Obama administration actually formally embraced, which is the so-called ‘duty to protect’ that is a formula for having the United States essentially become, if not the policeman of the world, the punisher of bad people around the world, without regard for the vital interests of the United States and the other demands on our resources – military and economic and so on,” he said.

“This is a moment for real care to be exercised,” Gaffney advised. “I think, as usual, I find myself much more sympathetic to the views that we’re hearing attributed to Steve Bannon, who seems to be kinda holding back on some of this stuff. But let’s face it, pressure is on from General McMaster, the national security adviser; General Mattis, the secretary of defense, and others – certainly the whole coterie of Obama holdovers who would love to see this president become embroiled in Syria. I think that would be a very serious mistake.”

Marlow asked about rumors that President Trump’s decision to strike the Syrian airbase was influenced by emotional responses to pictures of suffering Syrian children from members of his family.

“It’s not to say that that’s not a perfectly responsible and even humane reaction to the horrors that we’re seeing,” Gaffney said. “It’s just to say, is it consistent with our national interests? I think keeping people from using weapons of mass destruction is consistent with our national interests, and I think that’s sort of the underlying rationale beyond that humanitarian response. But we’ve got to be thinking more strategically.”

“Let me just throw one idea out that I think it’s high time we begin to address,” he offered. “There is in this mix that I mentioned mostly bad actors. There’s a group that has generally been very responsible, very helpful to us and I think a force for good in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere. And that’s the Kurds.”

“I think one of the things that, as the administration thinks strategically about what the end state is that they’d like to see, everything ought to be on the table, as they say. One is redrawing the maps to recognize reality. There is no homeland for the ethnic population that is arguably the largest dispossessed people in that part of the world, namely the Kurds,” he elaborated.

“I personally think the President of the United States ought to be thinking about a Kurdistan in at least the parts of Syria – and maybe even Iraq or Iran for that matter – that are Kurdish, that have the opportunity or the basis for being safe havens for minorities that are currently very much at risk and are being helped by the Kurds,” he suggested. “This is a place where some creative thinking is warranted and might actually have a strategic value, whereas just responding willy-nilly to the humanitarian crisis du jour is a formula for squandering resources and lives, probably American ones.”

“If we wind up embracing the Obama and U.N. idea of a ‘responsibility to protect,’ all bets are off on an America First sort of approach, either to national security or to rebuilding on the home front because there is no end of need-to-protect people in all kinds of places,” Gaffney warned.

“I think the president is now being buffeted by individuals who have come in who apparently do not agree with his priority of defeating radical Islamic terrorism, as he calls it, and who have, instead, have the view that we should align ourselves with people who are the prime movers behind radical Islamic terrorism. That would include, by the way, the Saudis. It would include the Turks. It would include the Qataris and others in the region. I think that’s a grave concern,” he said.

“I think the idea that the president is going to transform the Chinese, the Russians, the North Koreans into benign actors through the force of our diplomacy or through our various emissaries going there and telling them what to do, is unlikely as well,” he judged.

“His planned and, I think, necessary focus on rebuilding what he called ‘peace through strength’ – my old boss Ronald Reagan’s philosophy of how to protect the United States – is the way forward. You can begin to perhaps moderate others’ behavior by demonstrating that you have the will, you have the capacity to be a formidable adversary, and not have to use that force or that coercive pressure on the ground,” Gaffney said.

He added a prediction that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s visit to Moscow would be “an early indicator of: is he going to be approaching that job as he did his last one, which is, essentially, as a guy who’s going to figure out how to do the bidding of the Russians – or is he going to be helping the President of the United States really institute this notion that America is a formidable force, and Putin is best advised not to be screwing around with us?”

“Again, the philosophy of peace through strength in practice – watch for it, hopefully, in Moscow,” Gaffney concluded.

Frank Gaffney Applauds Trump Administration for Moving Towards Terrorist Designation for Muslim Brotherhood

KHALIL MAZRAAWI/AFP/Getty Images

KHALIL MAZRAAWI/AFP/Getty Images

Breitbart, by John Hayward, February 8, 2017:

Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said it was an “incredibly important step” for the Trump administration to consider formally designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.

“I hope he’ll do it, and I hope he’ll do it soon,” Gaffney said. “The reason simply being that the Muslim Brotherhood, in many ways, is the leading edge of the global jihad movement worldwide. It’s gotten a pass, in particular in American administrations of both Republican and Democratic stripes since 9/11, I’m sorry to say, by virtue of the fact that they putatively eschewed violence as a means of accomplishing the end-state they seek – which is the imposition of this barbaric totalitarian ideology or doctrine or program. Call it what you will; they call it sharia.”

Gaffney added that the Brotherhood seeks to impose sharia law “worldwide, not just on Muslims, but non-Muslims alike.”

“The truth of the matter is that they do not eschew violence,” he contended. “They use it where they believe they can effectively. One prime example, of course, is their Palestinian franchise known as Hamas. But the idea that we’re going to somehow get along with – let alone do what the Obama administration did in particular: empower, legitimate, fund, even arm the Muslim Brotherhood, in the case of its time and power in Egypt – is simply madness.”

“I’m very heartened that the president has seemingly taken stock of this outfit, recognizes that they are a sharia supremacist program that, in fact, has provided sort of the ideological impetus behind all of the other jihadist enterprises around the world, even of the Shiite stripe. They’ve been motivators and inspiration, and in some cases actually contributed materially to them. So the same objectives of al-Qaeda, of the Islamic State, of Boko Haram, and so on, are being practiced and espoused and sought by the Muslim Brotherhood. They’ll just use stealth and subversion, including in countries like ours, where they don’t feel they’re strong enough to use violence. They should be designated as a terrorist organization for all those reasons, and I hope will be,” he said.

SiriusXM host Alex Marlow asked Gaffney what steps should be taken to ensure the Muslim Brotherhood receives this designation.

Gaffney said it was a “fairly straightforward proposition,” requiring President Trump to instruct Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and as-yet-unconfirmed Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to “designate the Muslim Brotherhood on respective lists administered by their departments.”

He also pointed to legislation introduced by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-TX) that would call on the administration to either designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization or explain in detail why it refuses to make such a designation.

Gaffney offered a “hat tip” to Breitbart News for its prominent mention in Wednesday’s New York Times article about the potential terrorist designation of the Muslim Brotherhood, including a pull quote from Gaffney’s Breitbart News Daily interview last week.

“I’m afraid that generally speaking, they are exemplars of the fake news and fake narrative,” he said of the New York Times. “In fact, they did an unbelievable hit piece on the president and Steve Bannon and Mike Flynn, and a sort of drive-by shooting on me last Thursday.”

“It’s really time that we get our heads around the nature of this problem internal to our country and designate the Brotherhood abroad, of course, but also take steps to stop and shut down their operations in this country, which I consider to be at least as dangerous as what the violent jihadists are up to,” said Gaffney.

Marlow played a clip of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly explaining that vetting on the foreign end of our immigration system is insufficient and that action should be taken before terrorists slip through the system and make something go “boom.” He argued before Congress that these points justified President Trump’s executive order for a temporary pause in immigration from seven problematic countries.

After reinforcing the point that Trump’s order is not a “Muslim ban” and does not mention Muslims or Islam at all, Gaffney backed Kelly’s contention that the nations affected by the executive order are “either actively hostile to us, like Iran, for example, or they’re failed states.”

“What we’re dealing with is the possibility that those who seek to do us harm will take advantage of the lousy vetting, if you will – to the extent you can call it that in such places – to insinuate people into this country to do us physical harm,” he warned. “They’ve said they want to do that. That’s most especially true of, as you know, the Islamic State.”

“But here’s the kicker for me: the problem we’re confronting is that we have people who seek not only to do us harm when they can, killing Americans where they can, but who want to replace our system of government – who, as Donald Trump famously said, don’t share our values,” he added. “I think the vast majority of the American people get that we don’t need more of those sorts of people in our country. So a pause that enables us to take stock and figure out are there better ways to evaluate such applicants, to differentiate between people who will be coming here to make America great again, to be part of the American Dream, and so on – as opposed to people who seek to destroy our country. That’s, I think, a no-brainer.”

Marlow noted that in addition to defending the immigration executive order, Kelly conceded there were problems with its implementation, particularly the surprising speed with which the order went into effect. Kelly took responsibility for these problems, saying he wanted to implement the order quickly enough to keep potential security risks from slipping into the United States before its provisions took effect.

“I’m just going to tell you, I don’t think it would have mattered if this thing went off without a hiccup,” Gaffney said. “And as it was, the number of people who were inconvenienced or otherwise, it seems, improperly handled, was trivially small. The problem is that whatever Donald Trump does, the Left, the Islamists in this country, the media, the Democratic Party – which now seems to be primarily about all of the above – were going to seize upon it and beat the dickens out of him.”

“I think, to Secretary Kelly’s credit – and he’s not the Defense secretary; he’s the Homeland Security secretary – but to his credit, he took the hit for whatever the hiccup was. But it was not the problem,” he said.

“As you’ve pointed out, Alex, and I think rightly so, we’ve got to be clear about this: to the extent that amalgamation of interest groups has, as its express purpose, destroying the presidency of Donald Trump, they will seize upon any and every opportunity to do it. In this case, they’re doing it in a way that is simply indifferent to the security concerns of the American people, and I think will further alienate them from those people,” said Gaffney.

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

LISTEN:

Also see:

First ‘Fake News,’ Now ‘Fake Narrative’: New York Times Misrepresents Center’s Views on Islam, Muslims

2666891294

Center for Security Policy, February 2, 2017:

Press Release

(Washington, DC): A front-page, above-the-fold article in The New York Times today used an attack on President Trump and his Senior Counsel Stephen Bannon to ignore a distinction long made by the Center for Security Policy between Sharia-supremacists – notably, the Muslim Brotherhood – and Muslims who do not adhere to that totalitarian political-military-legal doctrine.

In two different places, the Times describes Center President Frank Gaffney as characterizing “Muslims” and “Islam” when, in fact, he was clearly characterizing and warning against the Muslim Brotherhood. Obscuring this distinction plays to the papers efforts to depict the Trump administration and other, like-minded individuals and groups as anti-Muslim “Islamophobes” and “haters.”

Mr. Gaffney observed:

The New York Times did a public disservice with its latest bid to discredit and undermine President Trump as he seeks to protect the American people by halting the further importing of jihadists. Mr. Trump and his senior subordinates are clearly sensitive to the distinction between Muslims who, in the President’s words “share our values” and seek to help live and build the American dream on the one hand and, on the other, those who believe it is Allah’s will to destroy countries like ours. So am I.
It is reprehensible and contrary to the national interest – and potentially to our national security – that those like the Times and the Southern Poverty Law Center persist in encouraging the former to believe otherwise.

The context of the portion of Mr. Gaffney’s interview with New York Times mischaracterized by reporter Matthew Rosenberg is below.

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF FRANK GAFFNEY INTERVIEW WITH MATT ROSENBERG OF THE NEW YORK TIMES
December 8, 2016
FRANK GAFFNEY:

So we took a fresh look at Sharia. [Gaffney presented Rosenberg with an abridged version of Sharia: The Threat to America; An Exercise in Competitive Analysis, Report of Team B II] And if you’re interested, I’ll give you the larger version of it. But it was a distinguished group of, as I recall, nineteen folks.

And the conclusion that we came to was that contrary to the orthodoxy of the time – which was that of the Bush years, which has become more true under Obama – that the doctrine or the ideology or the program that we’re confronting has nothing to do with Islam.

It actually has everything to do with what the authorities of Islam say is the faith, namely, Sharia. Having said that, we very directly acknowledge in the book, and I do in every opportunity that we have, that there are lots of Muslims who don’t practice their faith in accordance with Sharia. But they’re not the problem, by and large. At least not yet.

The ones who do are unmistakably [the problem]. And that manifests itself in what Sharia compels them to do. Again, I may be repeating some of the stuff we talked about the other day, but just in the interest of completeness, it’s their God-directed duty to impose it on everybody else, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Sharia, that is. And the way to do that is through jihad, which is not about personal struggle or about being a better Muslim or any of the other things we’re often told. Again, some Muslims may feel that way, but that’s not what Sharia is really requiring of them.

By the way, when I talk about Sharia, and I don’t know if you have seen it, my colleague may have it next door, what we’ve used as kind of our reference text is Reliance of the Traveller. Which is a book that I think was first written about thirteen hundred years ago. It has been translated into English –

MATT ROSENBERG:

What was the title again?

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Reliance of the Traveller. It has been described as authoritative in terms of its rendering of Sharia by al-Azhar and House of Saud and Jordanian royals and so on. And when you look at the jihad as it is described there, it is clearly about holy war.

And the holy war is, as a practical matter, pursued by those who believe this is God’s will in different ways. The preferred way, the most efficient way, is terrifying violence. And where you’re strong enough to do that and where you can succeed at it, you go for it. Some say you should do it whether you can succeed at it or not, just because that’s the right way and, you know, you’ve got your Islamic States and your Talibans and your – the folks you’ve been hanging with [on foreign assigments] – Al-Qaeda and so on, lovely people.

But as important, I think, are the other kinds of jihad that are also perfectly legitimate and in fact the responsibility of Muslims to engage in, especially where they’re not strong enough to use violence. And that runs the gamut from the hijra – migration, colonization, whatever you want to call it. [To] zakat, at least a portion of which is supposed to go to jihad [and] the people who engage in it, their families. [To] what the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad.”

And this [Gaffney pointing to a print of the Explanatory Memorandum: The General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America] is the single most important book as far as I’m concerned on the subject because it is a secret plan that the Muslim Brotherhood’s leadership here in America wrote in 1991 as a report back to the mother-ship in Egypt. Never meant for our eyes, but it lays out both what their mission is, which is described as “destroying Western Civilization from within by their hands – meaning ours –  and the hands of the believers so that God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

And then it proceeds to say in the way of a report as to how they’re coming, some twenty-five years after they began, with this stealthy, subversive kind of jihad. By which they essentially, like termites, hollow out, you know, the structure of civil society and other institutions, government institutions included, for the purpose of creating conditions under which the jihad will succeed, perhaps through a violent phase or perhaps otherwise.