Frank Gaffney: Obama Seeks to ‘Shred What Is Left of the Constitution’ by Nullifying Senate’s Role in Treaty-Making

AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Sept. 14, 2016:

“I think we are at a turning point nationally, where a choice is going to be made to reject the course that we’ve been on,” said Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, on Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily.

“It’s not entirely clear to me that we know what the other choice is going to be,” he said, continuing:

But we’re going to see, I think, the American people saying, “You know, another Obama term – or perhaps more, and worse, than what we’ve been served up over the past eight years – is unacceptable to us. We can’t, perhaps, even survive it, as a nation.”

Gaffney said this gave him hope, and made him “feel better than I have about our country for some time, in that the public seems to be getting that choice, and it seems to me – this is maybe anecdotal or just entirely subjective – but I think they’re beginning to say, ‘Enough; we don’t want more of the same.’”

SiriusXM host Alex Marlow built on Gaffney’s comment about how Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy could be even worse than Obama’s, saying the Clintons think about “what the Clintons want, and not what’s best for the American people.”

“Again, you have an agenda, of which the Clintons have been a part for a long time, whether it’s a sort of trans-nationalism, whether it’s leftism,” said Gaffney. He added:

As you know, I’ve been particularly concerned about, with respect to Hillary most especially, has been her deep sympathy for Islamic supremacism. I don’t know how else to describe it. What we’ve seen her do, reflexively, throughout her time as secretary of state and in the period since, has been to espouse, and embrace, and empower, to fund, and in some cases, even to arm people who seek to impose this doctrine they call sharia on the rest of us.

“This is the sort of thing I think the American people are going to choose to say, ‘No more. We can’t afford that. We don’t want any part of it,’” he predicted, drawing further encouragement from news Marlow broke during the show about Donald Trump gaining five points in two days on the L.A. Times tracking poll. Gaffney called that “a trend in the right direction for our country.”

Marlow asked Gaffney about reports that President Obama would veto the bill allowing 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia for damages – a bill which passed the House unanimously last week.

Gaffney replied:

The argument is being made, of course, is that you’ve got considerations that will extend beyond the immediate question of whether the Saudis deserve to be sued, for what, I think, is unmistakably the participation of, not just their nationals in actually causing the attacks of 9/11, but in helping arrange those attacks. By the way, the Iranians are also implicated in a similar way, and should be subject to a similar suit.

But you’ve got people making the argument, “Oh, my gosh, we’re going to be ending up opening a true Pandora’s box to Americans being sued for a host of other reasons.” I come down on taking the Saudis to court, myself. I have to tell you, and I think the American people are there, and that’s why you see this overwhelming, probably veto-overriding, majority in the Congress.

He noted President Obama’s stated reason for vetoing the bill is that “we’re going to be subjecting our own people, our government, our personnel, to similar kinds of actions by other governments.”

However, Gaffney thought “at some level, at least, this is about protecting the Saudis.”

“Successive presidents, let’s be honest, Republican as well as Democrats, have been doing it for decades,” he pointed out. Elaborating, he said:

And it has enabled the double game that is – well, unfortunately, really, 9/11 is a prime example of it. They were able to lend, at the level of the Saudi ambassador to the United States – a deep personal friend of the George W. and George H.W. families – to engage in active material support for terrorism, as did his wife. And on and on. These are the sorts of things that, I think, would out, if there were a proper litigation that held them accountable.

“I think they should be held accountable, but I think the U.S. government doesn’t want to go there, quite apart from this other pretext that they’re concerned about being sued ourselves,” Gaffney said.

Marlow also asked for Gaffney’s take on the situation in North Korea, which just conducted its fifth illegal nuclear bomb test. Gaffney said there were “two critically important points” to be made:

One is that the North Koreans are a threat to the United States not just to our friends, and allies, and forces in their immediate area, but now increasingly to the continental United States itself. And that’s because they have been allowed, in part, enabled by a deal that Bill Clinton signed with them, back in 1994 – which was a fraud, not as great a fraud as the one Obama signed with the Iranians, but basically of a piece with it, and it set the stage for what we’re seeing now.

Nuclear weapons? Yes. Miniaturizing of those nuclear weapons? Yes. And placing them on longer and longer-range ballistic missiles, including, it appears, quite possibly, on missiles that are now sending into orbit satellites – which are circling, among other places, the United States, and could be platforms for delivering those nuclear weapons.

And perhaps the most dangerous so far imaginable, and that is an electro-magnetic pulse attack. These weapons seem to be optimized for that purpose. We’ve learned that they have a super EMP design that they got from old Soviet Union.

So these are very serious problems. That’s Point One. Point Two is, Alex, as you know, the President of the United States is in his last days, and determined to shred what is left of the Constitution of the United States. In the foreign policy area, where that is manifesting itself is in connection with doing things that eliminate, essentially, one of the most important checks and balances in our government, and that is the role that the United States Senate plays as a quality-control mechanism on treaty-making arrangements that the Executive Branch might engage in.

We’ve seen this flouted with the Iran deal, we’ve seen it flouted most recently with this so-called Paris climate change accord. Next up is a treaty the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty, that the president would like to get the United Nations Security Council to do some kind of blessing of, that would then supplant the rejection of that treaty by an actual majority of the United States Senate, back in 1999.

Gaffney concluded:

The reason all this matters is that you’ve got the North Koreans testing nuclear weapons at will. I believe the Russians and Chinese are doing the same, albeit in a less obvious way. Everybody on the planet, in other words, that threatens us is using this kind of capability to modernize the threat they pose to us. And it’s real, and it’s growing. And the President of the United States is hoping to bind his successor never to be able to modernize – or, I’m afraid, even maintain our nuclear deterrent.

LISTEN:

Frank Gaffney: ‘Most Searing Indictment of Hillary’ Is ‘Her Consistent Support for, Alignment with, and Help to the Global Jihad’

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Dan Riehl, Sept. 7, 2016:

Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, spoke to Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM host Alex Marlow regarding the upcoming Hillary Clinton/Donald Trump Commander-in-Chief Forum hosted by Matt Lauer on Wednesday evening.

“The most searing indictment of Hillary, I believe, is her consistent support for, alignment with, and help to the Global Jihad,” said Gaffney in discussing lines of attack Trump might choose to pursue during the forum.

Continued Gaffney:

I don’t know how else to describe it–whether it’s her help with the Iranian deal early on, or whether it’s her support for the overthrow of friendly governments in the Middle East. “Friendly” is a relative term, that they were sure more friendly than the Muslim Brotherhood, with which Hillary has aligned herself and supported, it seems to me, at just about every turn. And I think this is a place where Donald Trump can showcase the strong and necessary differences between the kinds of policy approach that he’s been laying out in a series of really important addresses.

The event will be broadcast on NBC and MSNBC, as Breitbart News reported:

The Commander-in-Chief Forum is a first-of-its-kind event and will be broadcast live on MSNBC and most NBC stations starting at 8 p.m. Wednesday. Lauer, a former “notable member” of the Clinton Global Initiative—a leadership arm of the highly controversial Clinton Foundation—will moderate the event, which is being put on by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) organization here in New York City.

“During this one-hour forum, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will be on stage back-to-back taking questions on national security, military affairs and veterans issues from NBC News and an audience comprised mainly of military veterans and active service members,” MSNBC states.

LISTEN:

Donald Trump’s National Security Speech: A Presidential Address

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by Frank Gaffney, Aug. 16, 2016:

Yesterday in Youngstown, Ohio, Donald Trump delivered the best speech of his campaign to date. Newt Gingrich rightly called it the most important since Ronald Reagan left office.

In fact, in many ways, it was very Reaganesque. After all, long before he became president, Mr. Reagan warned that every generation faces an existential threat to freedom. Mr. Trump made clear that he recognizes the threat to freedom in our time, which he explicitly characterized as “Radical Islam” and its guiding, supremacist ideology, Sharia.

The GOP nominee also channeled President Reagan by espousing a comprehensive strategy highly reminiscent of the one the Gipper formally adopted in his National Security Decision Directive 75 and employed to defeat freedom’s last existential threat: Soviet communism. Mr. Trump recognizes that now, as then, we must bring decisively to bear all instruments of national power – economic, military, intelligence, information and ideological.

The last element, which was emphasized repeatedly in the Trump speech, reflects an essential understanding that has eluded past administrations of both parties and some of the candidate’s most vociferous critics, Democrats and Republicans alike: Jihadists who seek the destruction of our country, its Constitution, and people employ different tactics – including violence, migration, material support for terrorism, recruitment, indoctrination, conversions and stealthy subversion. But they are all motivated by the same ideology: Sharia. Donald Trump declared yesterday that if you embrace that supremacist doctrine, you must seek to supplant our Constitution and, therefore, you are not welcome here.

Specifically, the speech adopted a basic principle: As a foreign national and would-be immigrant to this country, you must share our values to gain admission. That filter has for too long been absent and has greatly contributed to the ominous demographic trends facing not just Europe, but this country, as well: growing numbers of transplanted and inherently hostile populations, most of whom have no interest in assimilating and, rather, insist that freedom-loving Americans accommodate their demands and, ultimately, submit to Sharia.

Finally, the Republican candidate to be our next Commander-in-Chief spoke of a reality that can no longer safely be ignored: There are “networks” in America that support “radicalization.” In so doing, he recognized another hard lesson from Europe’s experience. Violent jihadists rely upon and exploit the infrastructure (including Islamist mosques, societies, cultural centers, front groups, influence operations, etc.) that has been systematically put into place in the West over the past fifty years by Islamic supremacists, notably those associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. We have no choice but to identify, designate and roll-up such operations.

Donald Trump’s remarks in Youngstown implicitly addressed another important issue about his candidacy. Particularly for those who have been uncertain about the GOP nominee’s propensity to make provocative comments, concerns played upon by critics’ assailing his judgment, this speech should be comforting. It not only displayed a discipline on the part of the Republican nominee to “stay on script.” It also spoke volumes about the quality of the people who are advising Candidate Trump and writing that script – and, presumably, who would be advising him should he win the White House. At no point since 9/11, and arguably for thirteen years before, has there been a better articulation of what’s at stake and what needs to be done to secure freedom, namely by seeking and achieving Victory over Jihad. We desperately need more such visionary and collaborative leadership.

Donald Trump set the stage yesterday in Youngstown for the sort of national debate – and choice – that is long overdue and absolutely necessary. Bring it on.

***

Levin: Trump is 100 percent right on ‘extreme vetting’ of immigrants 

By: Phil Shiver | August 16, 2016 at Conservative Review

Donald Trump’s national security speech Monday generated a great deal of buzz, especially due to his call for “extreme vetting” of immigrants and the temporary suspension of immigration from countries affected by ISIS.

Trump set the tone that under his administration all incomers to the United States would either accept American values and assimilate, or simply not be allowed in. The Left went crazy. The New York Times editorial board dedicated an entire op-ed to attacking “Mr. Trump’s Foreign Policy Confusions.”

On his radio show Tuesday night Mark Levin fought back. “I want Donald Trump and his team to understand that they are 100 percent right about this issue of ideology and assimilation,” he said.

Listen to the Levin tear into The New York Times and explain why assimilation is so important:

Frank Gaffney: Hillary Clinton’s ‘Sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood’ a ‘Disqualifier’ for the Presidency

GREGG NEWTON/AFP/Getty Images

GREGG NEWTON/AFP/Getty Images

Breitbart by Dan Riehl, Aug.  10, 2016:

Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy talked with Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon Wednesday about Khizr Khan, Seddique Mateen, and Huma Abedin, and how he sees the three coming together in the person of Hillary Clinton.

Gaffney said:

How do any of these folks get selected? Khizr Khan, as we’ve talked about in the past being another example. They’re obviously being recruited by the campaign. Whether they’re coming out of the blue and offering their services, or someone is identifying them saying, “Hey, this is a guy we want to use as a prop for our propaganda against whatever, against those who are critical of Hillary, against those who are running against Hillary, against those who are calling out the Muslim Brotherhood, or other Islamic supremacists.”

He went on to say, “It’s really a matter, I believe, of a concerted political warfare operation against those who are standing up for the Constitution and opposing sharia, which is what these Islamic supremacists believe. It’s God’s will, must be imposed upon Americans and everybody else, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.”

Seddique Mateen is the father of Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen and was recently pictured behind Hillary Clinton at a political rally. “You don’t get to be a prop for a presidential candidate without somebody having decided this is going to be good for the campaign,” he said.

He then stated:

Here you have Hillary, I believe, with Huma Abedin’s influence, engaged in a whole host of activities that speak to a kind of sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood for sure and, frankly, for Islamic supremacism more generally. That ought to be on its face a disqualifier to be the next commander-in-chief of the United States.

As for Clinton’s infamous aide, Gaffney said:

“Who is Huma Abedin?” is a question I’d like to have addressed. Huma Abedin is a woman whose family business has been, for decades, with funding from Saudi Arabia through the Muslim Brotherhood, promoting so called Muslim minority affairs internationally.

And what does that mean, Steve? That means promoting the idea that Muslims should not assimilate in their host country. They should remain segregated. They should be radicalized. They should try to take down the nations in which they find themselves and transform them into Islamic republics. That’s what her dad was pursuing. That’s what her mom has been pursuing. That’s what her brother and sister have been pursuing.

And oh, by the way, Huma Abedin has been at the right hand of Hillary Clinton for over sixteen years now, and I’ve got to ask the question: When you look at what Mrs. Clinton has been doing, when you look at the record, the vaunted record, on which she is supposed to be running – when you look at the judgment that she is … the vaunted judgment that she is supposedly now qualified more than anybody else in American history to be president with, right? You got to ask yourself, that judgment, that record has been, I believe, profoundly influenced in a whole host of ways by Huma Abedin.

And when you wonder how does a Taliban supporter get next to Hillary Clinton? How does a guy who’s been promoting, through the EB-5 program – and by the way, we’ll have a paper on this, I believe, at the Center for Security Policy today, a facility that allows people who have access to money, their own or somebody else, to buy entry into the United States and a fast-track to citizenship? Not just permanent resident status, but citizenship. Do you want a Khizr Khan encouraging that kind of thing? I don’t think so.

 

Frank Gaffney: Democratic Party Is ‘Aligned with Our Enemies, and Not with America’

Kevin Dietsch-Pool/Getty/Reuters

Kevin Dietsch-Pool/Getty/Reuters

Breitbart, by John Hayward, July 27, 2016:

Center for Security Policy founder Frank Gaffney told SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon of Breitbart News Daily that curing the “plague” of Islamist terrorism will first require a proper diagnosis.

Gaffney said it was important to understand that “Yes, these are individuals that want to attack Western civilization, but they also are all about Islamic supremacism over other faiths, as well as other civilizations.”

He was speaking, of course, in the context of the savage murder of a Catholic priest, in his Normandy church, by Islamic State jihadis.

He described the Islamic State as “just one manifestation of this global jihad movement,” stressing that “you could destroy every single operative, in Europe, in the Middle East more generally, and you still have not taken down this Islamic supremacist, jihadist enterprise.”

“You can set it back – and you have to do that, don’t get me wrong – it’s just that you also have to be going after the underlying ideology,” he explained. “And let’s call it what they call it: sharia. And that ideology is at the core of every jihadist enterprise in the world, violent and non-violent, as well.”

Bannon asked if Western nations should shut down mosques and Islamic centers that preach the supremacy of sharia law and deport their clerics.

“Let me suggest three things. One, we’ve got to stop importing more of these jihadists,” Gaffney responded. “I mean, before we get to the ones we’ve got here, don’t bring more in. Whatever the number is, we’ve got plenty. We’ve got too many, in fact.”

“Secondly, we need to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization,” he stated, adding:

That’s what it is. Once you’ve designated it as such, then those mosques, then those front groups, then those influence operations that it is running here, as well as in Europe, to enable the other kind of jihad – not this stealthy civilization kind, the violent kind – you stop that.

Third, Gaffney said, “We need to set our sights on nothing less than victory over jihad,” expressing hope that Donald Trump would issue such a call during his presidential campaign.

“Setting our sights on that is the critical step to making sure that the rest of this gets done,” he urged.

Bannon noted that two days into the Democratic National Convention, there has been no mention of ISIS, radical Islam, or the Muslim Brotherhood. “Are we at war, or are we not at war?” he asked.

“Of course, we are at war with Islamic supremacism because they are at war with us,” Gaffney replied. “Whether the President, whether the former Secretary of State, whether their party chooses to ignore it, Steve, or not, that war is ongoing, and will kill more of us.”

“The bigger question, which I think more and more of us are tumbling to, watching this spectacle, is not just the ignoring of that reality; it is the aligning with our enemies,” he said, continuing:

You talked earlier about Tim Kaine having done a lot of that with the Muslim Brotherhood, but he’s not alone. There are whole bunches of the progressive movement. Look at the Palestinian flags. Look at people burning Israel’s flag and burning the American flag. These people are on the wrong side.

“I’m sorry for Democrats – I used to be one myself – who are now being completely disenfranchised by a party that is aligned with our enemies, and not with America,” Gaffney declared. “They will doom all of us, if they had their way.”

A former CIA clandestine officer’s take on the shariah threat

571726492

Secure Freedom Radio, July 19, 2016:

CLARE LOPEZ, Vice President for Research & Analysis at the Center for Security Policy, former CIA clandestine officer:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • Violence against law enforcement continues – this time in Baton Rouge, LA.
  • Unholy alliance between the US Muslim Brotherhood, Black Lives Matter, and Alinskyite Anarchists
  • Damage done by the US Council of Muslim Organizations and its sister organizations across the Western world

(PART TWO): (podcast2): Play in new window | Download

  • Political agenda of those under the USCMO umbrella
  • Explaining shariah
  • Donald Trump and other GOP leaders’ stance concerning refugee resettlement from Muslim nations

(PART THREE): (podcast3): Play in new window | Download

  • Implications of the failed coup in Turkey
  • How the AKP Party has weakened the Turkish military
  • The Gulenist Movement
  • Aspects of jihad still present in Sufism

(PART FOUR): (podcast4): Play in new window | Download

  • Classified 28 pages of the 9/11 report made public
  • Future implications for the US/Saudi alliance
  • Iran and Hezbollah roles in 9/11
  • Instances of Shia and Sunni cooperation in terrorizing the West

(PART FIVE): (podcast5): Play in new window | Download

  • What to expect from a nuclear Iran
  • Can the MEK Party force regime change in Tehran?
  • Update on Hillary Clinton in regards to Benghazi

Frank Gaffney: America Cannot Solve its Terror Problem Without Taking This Step

McCAUL-640x480

Image text:  “To Mustafa and the Council on American Islamic Relations, the moderate Muslim is our most effective weapon—Michael McCaul, TX-10.”

BY CounterJihad · @CounterjihadUS | July 5, 2016

Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy and a former Reagan administration official, was named by the Cruz campaign as a national security adviser.  Gaffney has made no secret of his criticisms of the Federal government’s failure to speak plainly about the sharia law roots of the threat of jihad.  Many American officials, like Representative Michael McCaul, have chosen to work with Muslim Brotherhood front organizations instead of treating sharia and jihad themselves as the source of terrorism.

Today, Gaffney provided CounterJihad with a copy of his alternative plan.  It contrasts the government’s “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) approach with his “Victory over Jihad” (VOJ) plan.

It follows below.

Tenets of CVE vs Fact-Based VOJ

Key Premises of CVE

  • Violence is the problem. We must focus on it, alone.
  • Islam has nothing to do with “violent extremism.”
  • Islam is a religion of peace; those who engage in violence in its name are seeking to “pervert” or “hijack” a great Abrahamic faith.
  • Muslims are peaceful and tolerant.
  • Jihad is about personal struggle; it has nothing to do with “violent extremism.”
  • Mosques are places of worship only and must not be subjected to surveillance.
  • Muslims are routinely victims of “Islamophobia” – irrational fear animated by “haters’” racism, bigotry.
  • Muslim Brotherhood and other Sharia-supremacist “community leaders” can be relied upon for guidance about the threat and outreach.
  • Offense must not be given to Muslims by basing policing policies on – or even using such terms as – jihad, Sharia, Islamism or Islamic supremacism.
  • Right-wing “violent extremists” are more dangerous than Islamic supremacists. 

Fact-based VOJ Premises

  • Sharia is the problem. Those who seek its imposition through stealthy, pre-violent techniques are also enemies, not just “violent” jihadists.
  • Sharia is an inherently violent, totalitarian doctrine derived from the Koran and other sacred Islamic texts.
  • The authorities of Islam declare Sharia to be the true faith. They regard non-adherent Muslims as perverters of Islam and apostates, deserving death.
  • Many Muslims reject Sharia. But hundreds of millions adhere to Sharia and, thus, to its intolerance and jihad.
  • The sacred texts of Islam and authori­tative renderings of Sharia make clear that jihad is “holy war” against infidels.
  • Supremacist mosques are multipurpose facilities, used for worship and recruiting and equipping jihadists.
  • It is not irrational to fear terrifying jihadism. Sharia is intolerant, hateful and requires infidels’ submission.
  • The Muslim Brotherhood seeks to “destroy Western civilization from within.” It and other Sharia-supremacist groups are enemies, not an ally.
  • Insistence on not offending Muslims restricts free expression and clear understanding, deterring people who “see something” from saying anything.
  • We face a global jihad movement that has no counterpart among returning veterans, Tea Party activists, etc.

Victory Over Jihad (VOJ) Program Mission Statement

 The mission of the Victory Over Jihad Program is to resist and defeat the global jihad movement that seeks to replace our Constitution with the totalitarian, Islamic supremacist doctrine known as Sharia.

Jihadists use both violent and pre-violent techniques (including subversion, influence operations, infiltration, propaganda, lawfare, migration, material support for terrorism, etc.) against all pillars of American civilization (in particular, our political system, military/intelligence/law enforcement communities, media, clergy, economy, education system, courts, etc.)  NATO defines subversion as “an action designed to weaken the military, economic or political strength of a nation by undermining the morale, loyalty or reliability of its citizens.”[1]

The jihad must be effectively and decisively countered, rolled back, dismantled and ultimately defeated through the sustained use of a comprehensive, fact-based approach involving all instruments of national power at the federal, state and local levels and, wherever possible, the help of like-minded allies.

[1] NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions, AAP-06 Edition 2012 Version 2

ADOPT A WINNING APPROACH: ‘VICTORY OVER JIHAD’

Background

The “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) initiative has been, from its inception in the United Kingdom to its implementation here under President Obama, an initiative of hostile Islamic influence operators.  Their object has been to obscure: the nature of the enemy we face (i.e., Islamists who engage in either the violent type of jihad or the stealthy sort of subversion honed by the international Muslim Brotherhood); what impels them(i.e., the Islamists’ totalitarian ideology known as Sharia); and the sorts of measures that would most effectively defeat their agenda (i.e., time-tested, fact-based policing, intelligence and counter-intelligence techniques).

Tragically, under the influence of known Sharia-supremacist groups in America (e.g., Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas fronts like CAIR, ISNA and MPAC), the federal government’s CVE apparatus has given priority to avoiding any offense to Islamists, rather than preventing their jihad.  Federal agents, analysts and state/local police are being trained to remain ignorant of what motivates and enables the global jihadist movement.  They are told that “right-wing” extremism is a greater danger than that posed by Sharia and jihad (terms whose use CVE actually forbids). This practice virtually ensures more Fort Hoods, San Bernardinos and Orlandos as our first lines of defense are effectively precluded from being proactive in the face of knowable threats.

Since Countering Violent Extremism is designed to fail us, it cannot be redirected or redefined, (for example by changing the name to “countering radical Islamist terrorism”). It must be abandoned, dismantled and reversed. U.S. taxpayer resources must go to protecting America, not protecting the Sharia-supremacists in our midst.

‘Victory Over Jihad’

Congress must not endorse, legitimate, institutionalize or otherwise enable CVE as practiced by the Obama administration or under any other name.  The goal of any new congressional initiative must be, instead securing “Victory Over Jihad” (VOJ). Those whose adherence to Sharia obliges them to strive to replace our Constitution with their totalitarian, supremacist doctrine are enemies, not “partners” just because they use pre-violent techniques for advancing this goal (notably, subversive influence operations, lawfare, infiltration, migration, material support for terrorism, etc.), rather than violent ones.

New bureaucracies and funding must not go to institutionalizing and enabling a failed approach.  “Community partnering” must be with anti-jihadist Muslims, not Islamic supremacists.

Victory Over Jihad will require the sustained pursuit of a comprehensive, fact-based approach involving all instruments of national power at the federal, state and local levels and, wherever possible, the help of like-minded allies.

We simply cannot afford to perpetuate what is, at best, official willful blindness and at worst, our first defenders’ unilateral disarmament.  There is no acceptable substitute for Victory Over Jihad.

The strategy to defeat civilization jihad

1620421133

Secure Freedom Radio, July 1, 2016:

Dr. SEBASTIAN GORKA, Major General Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University, author of “Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War”:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • Coming to grips with who the real enemy is
  • Global Jihadi Movement versus violent extremism and lone-wolf terrorism
  • Distinguishing Civilization Jihad

(PART TWO): (podcast2): Play in new window | Download

  • Muslim Brotherhood’s role in the global jihad
  • Practical implications of “willful blindness” on law enforcement
  • CAIR’s involvement in the FBI investigation of the Orlando terror attack

(PART THREE): (podcast3): Play in new window | Download

  • Training with law enforcement
  • Hillary Clinton’s role in the Istanbul process

(PART FOUR): (podcast4): Play in new window | Download

  • Similarities between Sharia and Communism
  • Ties between global Islamist organizations and jihadists

(PART FIVE) (podcast5): Play in new window | Download

  • ISIS’s ideology and the “Last Jihad” message
  • How can the West win the war against Jihad
  • The threat of Saudi Arabia and Qatar
  • Turkey’s turn to fundamental Islam and autocracy

Two members of Congress accused of Muslim Brotherhood ties

tedcruzAmerican Thinker, by Carol Brown, June 29, 2016:

Covering the Senate hearings on Islamic terror, Tuesday’s HuffPo headline read: “Witness At Ted Cruz Hearing Accuses Congress’ Two Muslim Members Of Muslim Brotherhood Ties.” The teaser read: “This doesn’t normally happen on the Hill.” The teaser should have been: It’s about time.

I rarely venture over to the HuffPo, but I couldn’t resist reading their coverage:

In explosive testimony Tuesday, a witness before a Senate panel about Islamic terrorism accused the two Muslim members of Congress of having attended an event organized by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The charge was leveled by Chris Gaubatz, a “national security consultant” who has moonlighted as an undercover agitator of Muslim groups that he accuses of being terrorist outfits, and it was directed at Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and André Carson (D-Ind.). At the heart of his accusation is the attendance by those two members at a 2008 convention hosted by the Islamic Society of North America — a Muslim umbrella group, which Gaubatz claims is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood.

HuffPo was eager to smear Chris Gaubatz, whose impressive undercover work inside CAIR is chronicled in his book Muslim Mafia. (To learn more about him, The Clarion Project has a short interview, here.)  The Huffpo continues:

“I attended a convention in Columbus, Ohio, in 2008, organized by Muslim Brotherhood group, ISNA, and both the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons had recruitment and outreach booths,” Gaubatz said in his testimony. “Both Congressman Keith Ellison, MN, and Andre Carson, IN, spoke at the Muslim Brotherhood event.”

Allegations that Ellison and Carson are secret Muslim agents with extremist leanings are usually found among fringe groups online, often discussed in dire tones on poorly designed websites. Rarely, if ever, do such sentiments get read into congressional testimony, with the imprimatur that offers.

Wow, this is why, as a rule, I don’t read the HuffPo. But seriously, the excerpt noted above highlights how behind the curve we are regarding the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB should have been declared a terrorist organization ions ago. Instead, they have been operating through countless front groups that are legitimized and lauded by leftist politicians and the media. As a result, no red flags are raised about anyone affiliated with these groups.

Responsibility for this rare instance lies with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who oversaw the hearing as chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts and whose staff likely saw the testimonies of the witnesses.

Oh, well. Leave it to Ted Cruz to invite someone associated with “fringe groups” that operate online using “dire” tones on “poorly designed websites.”

An aide to Ellison confirmed that he did attend the 2008 ISNA convention. He’s gone to a few of the group’s conventions, in fact. Carson’s office didn’t return a request for comment. But news reports show that both he and Carson led a discussion at the 2008 convention on how to mobilize Muslims politically. President Barack Obama has addressed the group as well, though only via a video recording.

Mobilizing Muslims politically. Hmm. I’m sure that’s perfectly innocent, right? And who can forget Obama’s video recording where he praised ISNA, Muslims, the fabulous halal food in his hometown of Chicago? (Warning: Don’t look in his eyes for too long.)

Critics of ISNA have insisted that these politicians have either turned a blind eye to — or explicitly embraced — the group’s affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood, an affiliation that is based on ties some of the founding ISNA members have allegedly had to the hard-line religious organization. ISNA has long insisted that no such connection has ever existed.

“I can definitely tell you we are not Muslim Brotherhood. We are not affiliated with them at all and never were,” said Faryal Khatri, an official with ISNA. “That much I can reassure you.”

Well if an ISNA official has gone on record to assure everyone that the organization is not affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood in any way, that’s good enough for me! Mr. Khatri wouldn’t lie, would he?

ISNA is not the only group targeted by Gaubatz. In 2009, he told Talking Points Memo that he obtained an internship with the Council on American-Islamic Relations as part of an effort to secretly collect evidence against the group to be used in a book written by his father. The book, “Muslim Mafia,” alleged that CAIR, a Muslim advocacy group that works to combat Islamophobia, was a front for the Muslim Brotherhood.

In case there is any confusion, CAIR is a front group for the MB. Now if we could all stay focused on facts such as these, we might actually get somewhere.

And to those who think I might be a “fringe” person using a “dire” tone (surely AT isn’t one of those “poorly designed websites” to which HuffPo referred), I’m not just making this up. The MB told us who their front groups were in their Explanatory Memorandum during the Holy Land Foundation trial. Here’s the list. ISNA’s right on top.

Cruz’s office did not respond to a request for comment on Gaubatz’s allegations against Ellison and Carson or whether it had given either member a chance to respond. But the senator has displayed a tolerance for these kinds of conspiracy theories in the past.

Oh my goodness! I am kicking myself for reading through the entire HuffPo piece. “Conspiracy theories?” Anyone who thinks any of this is a conspiracy theory is on the fringe of reality. Dire, desperate, and dumb. (Whether they are affiliated with a poorly designed web site, or not, I couldn’t say.)

Before he suspended his presidential campaign, Cruz appointed known Islamophobe Frank Gaffney to his team of national security advisers. Gaffney, now head of the Center for Security Policy, has objected to Ellison and Carson serving on the House Intelligence Committee because he believes their Muslim faith could compel them to leak information to the Muslim Brotherhood. He has also accused Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and conservative heavyweights Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan of being closeted Muslim Brotherhood members.

When asked about his controversial selection, Cruz defended Gaffney as a “serious thinker” focused on “fighting jihadism across the globe.”

Frank Gaffney is a tireless warrior trying to inform the idiot masses on the looming threat before us. His work, and the work of his colleagues who sound the alarm day in and day out might one day save the lives of those who smear him as aall that they do n “Islamaphobe” (a fabricated word that has no actual meaning).

God bless Ted Cruz, Frank Gaffney, and everyone on the front lines of this fight of the ages.

***

And God bless David Reaboi and the folks at CounterJihad.com and centerforsecuritypolicy.org for all that they do to defend freedom! Everyone should go back and see the updates in their masterful coverage of Ted Cruz’s Willful Blindness hearing featuring running commentary and video clips!

The Senate Judiciary Committee is questioning Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson right now – Livestream

David Reaboi rips into the Huff Po’s propaganda:

Frank Gaffney: Obama’s Failure to ‘Grapple with the Reality’ of Sharia and Jihad is ‘Getting People Killed in America’

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Breitbart, by John Hayward, June 15, 2016:

Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy, responded to President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s complaints about being forced to use the phrase “radical Islam” on Wednesday morning’s Breitbart News Daily with SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon.

Gaffney said that for all of Obama and Clinton’s efforts to minimize the importance of using the correct terminology for the enemy we face, the bigger problem is that “they don’t want to go anywhere near the underlying reality, which is that inherent in the sort of DNA of Islam, its adherence called sharia, is the root of this problem.”

“It’s the root of the problem with respect to killing homosexuals, it’s the root of the problem with respect to oppressing women, it’s the root of the problem with respect to genocide against Christians, killing Jews wherever they can, and apostates, on and on,” Gaffney said.

“And that is this idea that a brutally repressive, totalitarian doctrine has to rule the whole world, and jihad – which is another term they don’t want to use, and in fact they’ve got a new report out of their advisory group at the Department of Homeland Security that says, you know, you can’t use words like ‘sharia.’ You can’t use words like ‘jihad.’ You gotta focus on those ‘right-wing violent extremists. They’re the real problem,” he said.

“That’s what’s getting people killed in America – a failure to grapple with this reality. And I’m afraid Donald Trump is right that the President has exhibited, if not sympathy for the terrorists, certainly for the Islamic supremacists. And the documentation for that is certainly all over SecureFreedom.org, as well as what we talk about, day in and day out,” Gaffney declared, referring to the Center for Security Policy’s website.

On the matter of Islamic supremacism, Bannon asked Gaffney about former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s call for a congressional investigation into the threat.

“He referred, unfortunately, to a particular model that the anti-anti-communists managed to irradiate, the House Un-American Affairs Committee,” Gaffney said of Gingrich’s proposal. “I do think congressional oversight, congressional investigation, congressional efforts to hold the executive accountable, is absolutely essential.”

He said one of the reasons we’ve seen Obama and Clinton “responding so viciously to Donald Trump’s criticisms” is because “they are hugely vulnerable in this area, and a decent investigation by the Congress, accountability by the Congress, would expose this – and, I think, make it clear you don’t want, you can’t afford four more years of this stuff under a President Hillary Clinton.”

Bannon lamented that current House Speaker Paul Ryan undercut the points Trump and Gingrich sought to make. “What you guys want, and holding people accountable for this Islamic jihad, Islamic supremacism, the imposition of sharia law here in the United States of America – Paul Ryan says, ‘Nope, that’s not American values. You guys are haters, you guys are nativists.’” He asked Gaffney what his advice to Ryan would be.

“I had the chance to speak to one of his senior people last week, and I would say the same thing: you’ve got to get this right,” Gaffney responded. “It’s not just Paul Ryan. I’m sorry to say, a whole bunch of other people on the Republican side of the aisle, for most of the past fifteen years, have been getting this wrong too, I’d say starting with President George W. Bush.”

He said Bush made his famous “Religion of Peace” declaration after being subjected to “an intensive, highly successful political influence operation, and I believe it screwed up American foreign and national security policy, from his time to the present one.”

“Look, there are peaceful Muslims, no question about it. There are Muslims who don’t want to live under sharia any more than the rest of us do,” Gaffney declared. “I believe they can be our natural allies. But mistaking either their number, or their importance, or their standing against the authorities of Islam who say, ‘wait a minute, sharia is Islam, sharia is the way this has to be practiced’ is the height of folly, not just professional malfeasance.”

“This is a moment when we’ve got to understand that hundreds of millions of Muslims believe Islamic supremacism is God’s will, and they will engage in jihad – not just of the violent kind, Steve. They’ll do hijra, this migration, to expand the faith. They will use zakat, funding, material support if you will, for terrorism, to enrich and enable the jihad,” Gaffney warned.

“And, of course, they will do what the Muslim Brotherhood has been all about – we don’t even know they’re here for fifty years! They’ve been running what they call ‘civilization jihad’ against America, and it’s working. Part of why President Obama got it wrong, part of why President Bush got it wrong, why Republicans and Democrats in office have gotten it wrong, is the success of the Muslim Brotherhood in running influence operations that have obscure the true nature of sharia, and the jihad that it calls for,” he argued.

Gaffney declared that the Muslim Brotherhood is “absolutely a terrorist organization.”

“Its franchise Hamas is a designated terrorist organization. It aspires to use violence in the way of Allah, as its creed calls for. The federal government of the United States, under Republicans and Democrats, has repeatedly found it to be a terrorist organization. We need to designate it as such,” he urged, noting that Senator Ted Cruz – who Gaffney served as a national security adviser during his 2016 presidential campaign –  has co-sponsored legislation to that effect.

Bannon asked why only 80 Republicans in the House have signed on to the effort to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, and asked why the other 252 Republicans were reluctant to do so.

“The bigger question is, why isn’t the State Department doing this right now?” Gaffney replied, pointing out that no new legislation would be required for them to do so.

As for the recalcitrant House Republicans, Gaffney said it goes back to Speaker Ryan: “If he doesn’t get what we’re up against, he’s not going to be supporting this legislation. One of the first things he could do, to show that he does get it, I believe would be to schedule this legislation that has been offered up, and has been now approved by the House Judiciary Committee, it is ready to go to the floor, to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.”

“Get that floor time, get that vote. Demonstrate that Republicans do have a clue about the danger we’re facing, and are preparing to take responsible action,” Gaffney urged Ryan. “It’s what the public expects them to do. Look, we all, Republicans and Democrats, need them to do.”

Bannon rephrased that advice in somewhat stronger terms, saying Ryan should bring Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and FBI Director James Comey before Congress to “keel-haul” them for security lapses that grow more obvious as each new detail of jihadi Omar Mateen leaks out through the media. He wondered how Ryan and his caucus could leave it up to media outlets like Breitbart News to hold the Administration accountable, when oversight is a clear duty of Congress.

“We need a serious investigation,” Gaffney agreed. “Those guys would claim, hey, wait a minute, we’re in the middle of an ongoing one with regard to this. The thing that needs to be investigated is how we got here.”

As a starting point for such an investigation, he recommended a book he co-authored with Center for Security Policy Vice-President Clare Lopez, See No Sharia: ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ and the Disarming of America’s First Lines of Defense.

He also recommended See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad  by Philip Haney, also a recent guest on Breitbart News Daily.

“There’s plenty of evidence that what we’ve been doing is willful blindness to a threat that has been metastasizing by the day. That ought to be the object of these investigations. You’ll find, if you ask the FBI – certainly the agents, if not the leadership – have you been handcuffed by this willful blindness, have you been kept from doing your job? They have. So has the military. So has the intelligence community. So have the DHS law enforcement guys,” Gaffney said.

“It’s going to get more of us killed, if we don’t get this corrected,” he warned.

“Republicans ought to be in the lead, because this is one of their strong suits, or at least has been historically, national security. They’re not measuring up. They’re not stepping up. We need them to do it, and I think Donald Trump is – you know, with all of his faults, and there are some – he’s got this right,” he said. “We don’t need to import more jihadists. The American people understand that. We need to  stop the ones that are here as well – even, and most especially, really, those that are doing business as the Muslim Brotherhood.”

He warned that the Muslim Brotherhood is “stealthily, covertly subverting us from within,” and “creating the infrastructure that jihadists are using around the world, to do the violent jihad as well. It’s both that we need to address.”

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

Gaffney: Jihad in Orlando

Univision

Univision

Breitbart, by FRANK GAFFNEY, June 12, 2016:

At 2 a.m. this morning, a man who law enforcement sources have identified as Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, a U.S. citizen born of Afghan parents, opened fire with an automatic weapon in a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida.  Before he was killed by police, he murdered at least 20 individuals and wounded dozens more.  The death toll could rise further.

The FBI reportedly suspects that the shooter may have “leanings towards radical Islamic terrorism.”  Some accounts indicate that he was, like so many so-called “lone wolves,” actually a “known wolf” – a jihadist already identified as a potential threat by authorities, but allowed to continue to operate.

Now that latitude appears to have translated into the murder and wounding of dozens of gay people, an action consistent with the teachings of the totalitarian Islamic supremacist doctrine known as sharia, which requires its adherents to hate and kill homosexuals.

A posting last night at CounterJihad.com shows that the genesis of this practice is found in a hadith which has Muhammad saying that “whomever you find doing the actions of the people of Lot, kill the one doing it, and the one it is done to.” While the authorities of Islam disagree about what is the preferred way to kill gays and lesbians – throwing them off buildings, hanging them, burning them alive – there is no question but that murdering them is sanctioned by sharia.

As it happens, in 2013, an Islamic supremacist named Sheikh Farrokh Sekaleshfar made this point in a speech at the Husseini Islamic Center in Sanford, Florida – about 20 miles from Orlando and two hours drive from Mateen’s home in Port St. Lucie.  It is unclear at this writing whether the shooter was associated with this mosque or aware of this particular exhortation to kill homosexuals.  But if indeed he was a sharia-adherent Muslim, there is no doubt that he was aware that his duty was to take homophobia to its murderous extreme.

It is absolutely predictable that Muslim Brotherhood front organizations like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) will shortly denounce this act of violence, insist that it has nothing to do with Islam, and lowball any ties the perpetrator may have had to one or more Orlando area mosques.  Instead, they will try to deflect attention to those they accuse of “Islamophobia” for connecting the obvious – and ominous – dots.  In fact, CAIR has scheduled a press conference on Tuesday at its headquarters in Washington for the purpose of defaming American patriots who oppose the Islamist agenda and those, like the Muslim Brotherhood with its pre-violent “civilization jihad,” who are enabling violent jihadists, here and elsewhere.

The Islamic State and al Qaeda have both called for individual jihadists to use the month of Ramadan, which began on June 6th, to attack Americans in this country.  This murderous act in Orlando may prove to have been inspired by such calls, or by Sheik Sekaleshfar, or simply by the tenets of sharia.

We can only hope that – whatever its inspiration – Mateen’s is the last such act of jihad in America.  But for there to be any chance that will be the case, we are going to have to stop importing more jihadists, designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization (the object of pending legislation sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart), and shut down the Brotherhood’s mosques and front groups that are promoting sharia and the realization of its ultimate objective, which is – in the Brotherhood’s own words – “destroying Western civilization from within.”

As former Department of Homeland Security whistleblower and best-selling author of See Something, Say Nothing Philip Haney points out, the jihadists won’t stop trying to kill us, homosexuals and straights alike, until we stop them.  And that’s what we must be about now.

Canadian Marc Lebuis on the business of Islamophobia

3187833668

Center For Security Policy, by Frank Gaffney, June 1, 2016:

Welcome to Secure Freedom Radio. This is Frank Gaffney, your host and guide for what I think of as an intelligence briefing on the war for the free world. We don’t often get good news in that war these days, I’m sorry to say, but I am very pleased to be able to present a little bit, at least for the moment. And to call back to our microphones for that purpose a man I’ve come to admire greatly and who has been indispensable in bringing about this bit of good news. He is Marc LeBuis. He is the founder and director of Point de Bascule, or Tipping Point, a web-based, investigative magazine that you can find online. It’s based in Montreal, Canada. And this bit of good news comes there, from Canada, from Quebec province, specifically. And to talk a little bit about it, I’m delighted to say congratulations and welcome, Marc LeBuis.

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, thank you. And thank you for having me, Frank.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

So tell us about this development. Bill 59 is something that you’ve been warning about for some time. You’ve been working hard against. And I think as a result, in no small measure of your efforts, it’s come undone. Talk a little bit about what happened.

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, Bill 59, of course, is technically a censorship bill. And the current government in place, it’s called the Quebec liberal government, gave in after a lot of a backlash, the backlash against the bill would not die down. Now the entire civil society, I could say almost with just a couple of exceptions, have been opposing this bill systematically for months. It’s been almost a year that it’s been very actively pushed forward. And then, there’s the opposition to the bill, PQ Representative Agnes Maltais who stood technically almost alone, she is doing what I think in English we call a filibuster where she would systematically oppose the bill in what she called intelligent opposition. So out of sixty to eighty hours of debate over the bill, only one and a half articles out of something like twenty-five were read. They were systematically asking question. And Agnes Maltais basically got it. There’s quite a few politicians, they may participate in these types of debate, but sometimes they don’t really get it. Well, she did get it. She expressed a couple of weeks ago that she felt that this was, out of about twenty years of [UNCLEAR] as a politician, she felt that this was the most important and significant debate that Quebec has ever faced in terms of the danger that it was for democracy.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

This is so important. And Marc, I want to make sure while we acknowledge and express appreciation for this sort of Horatius at the Bridge in the parliament, Agnes Maltais, your own role in helping get that civil society engaged on this issue, understanding the implications of this censorship in the name of not offending Muslims was incalculably important. And you may not want to boast about it, but let me just say thank you to you specifically. I was struck by the minister of justice in Quebec, Stephanie Vallee, indicating that while this kind of regulation of so-called hate speech is adopted elsewhere, she said, quote, we’re not ready for that, unquote. So it doesn’t necessarily mean this is a commutation of sentence, maybe it’s just a stay of execution. But in that regard, Marc, talk if you would a little bit about how things seems to be developing in terms of trying to classify as racism so-called Islamophobia and what implications it might have.

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, there is – there is what we call now, what we’re noticing, a form of axis, I mean, Islamophobia bills or efforts or lobbies trying to push Islamophobia. We know that it’s happening all over the West. But there is a particular axis right now developing which we call the Paris-Brussels-Quebec-Ottawa Axis. There is now an organisation in – based out of Paris, led by a man by the name of Marwan Muhammad who’s very close to Tariq Ramadan, close also to organisations that are linked with Yusuf al-Qaradawi out of Qatar. And he’s also very, very close to not just Muslim Brotherhood operatives but also other Salafist-based Islamist operatives who are known to have radical views in France. And they’re working together with, for example, recently they have met very, very powerful lobbies out of Canada called the CAIR Canada or the new name, the NCCM, that they’re using, and they seem to be coordinating a lot of effort to push institutions and policies inside of Canada to be able to qualify or equate Islamophobia as a racism and this would be happening. What that means, it’s even worse than having a bill that would do censorship. It would take on the current laws on racism and just basically hook onto them or piggyback on them and then would be able to have the same effect in order to kill free speech, kill criticism of anything that’s related to Islamist activities in Canada and maybe in Europe.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Now I know, Marc LeBuis, that you have been accused of being an Islamophobe, I certainly have, many of those we work with have. Just dissect for us this concept that this is in fact some sort of racism. There is no race. Islam is practiced by people of many different races. And what I think we all are concentrating on is not even Islam itself as much as it is the political, military, legal doctrine of shariah that its Islamic supremacist adherents are trying to impose on all of us. And if we were to accede to this idea that this is somehow a racist activity, where would a country like Canada find itself? Where would, you know, people like you who are warning about what’s coming if they’re not careful?

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, there definitely would be, even more difficult than it is now to be able to name the threat that we’re facing, specifically the jihadist threat. It would be extremely difficult to – notions of infiltration, and I’m talking about serious infiltration inside government agencies, when we would try to expose how certain lobbies, associations, or individuals are trying to penetrate a political party, a police force, or even a legal institution. It recalls –

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Or the government itself for that matter.

MARC LeBUIS:

Or the government itself. There’s this leader called Jamal Badawi out of Canada, and I think he’s very known in the United States, who basically, in an interview in the early 2000s said that we should – Muslims should penetrate government institutions, specifically become judges so they can use their own personal discretion in order to avoid applying legal references that will go against shariah. So he’s encouraging Muslims to enter and penetrate and infiltrate. Become lawyers, police officers, and any type of form of positions of power that allows them to have a certain amount of discretionary power.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

As you look at this effort on the part of the Islamists, these Islamic supremacists, to promote shariah, when you find yourself confronting these pressures, Marc, just as the takeaway from your efforts on Bill 59, what should all of us learn from it and take heart from?

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, on our part, I think having the information well-structured, intelligently put together, was able to help some of the people that are pushing these policies, some politicians that could understand what’s happening, to be able to be well-equipped to articulate a defence and even, sometimes, even be on the offensive. So documenting what these organisations are doing, quoting them, knowing exactly – and also, exactly like you said, the memorandum is a perfect example. There are so many plans out there to demonstrate that there is a coordinated effort to disrupt our civilisation, to change laws. There are plans out there that clearly express that.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Marc, we have to leave it at that for the moment, but there’s so much more to talk about. I look forward to doing so with you and just want to say, hats off to you and all of those in Canada who have fought this important fight. We’ll talk with you again very soon. Next up, Kyle Shideler of the Center for Security Policy joins us. We’ll talk about how this problem is manifesting itself here thanks to our so-called friends, the Saudis, among others. That and more straight ahead.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

In Defense of Frank Gaffney

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Win McNamee/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

Watchman on the Wall

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

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

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

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

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

Read more

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

Andrew Burton/Getty Images

Andrew Burton/Getty Images

Breitbart, by John Hayward, April 20, 2016:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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