‘Clock Boy’ Loses in Court, Father’s Defamation Lawsuit Dismissed

Ahmed Mohamed, center, and father Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, left, look on as their lawyer Susan E. Hutchison speaks holding the school pencil box holding the clock Ahmed built. (AP Photo/LM Otero)

Ahmed Mohamed, center, and father Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, left, look on as their lawyer Susan E. Hutchison speaks holding the school pencil box holding the clock Ahmed built. (AP Photo/LM Otero)

PJ Media, by Debra Heine, January 11, 2017:

A district court judge in Texas has dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by Ahmed Mohamed on his own behalf and on behalf of his 15-year-old son, Ahmed Mohamed. They had sued Fox News, Glenn Beck, and the mayor of Irving — among others — for defamation in September of 2016.

A year earlier, Ahmed, then a 14-year-old freshman at an Irving, Texas, high school, was arrested, briefly detained by police, and suspended for three days after bringing to school a “cool clock” that looked like a briefcase bomb. Ahmed claimed to have “invented” the easily assembled clock, and that he had brought it to school to show it to his shop teacher.

The incident led many to question the Mohamed family’s motives. Newly appointed District Court Judge Maricela Moore dismissed the lawsuit following a nearly three-hour hearing on Monday, according to the American Freedom Law Center:

The motion to dismiss was filed by lawyers from the American Freedom Law Center (“AFLC”) and local counsel Pete Rowe on behalf of the Center for Security Policy (“CSP”) and Jim Hanson, two of the defendants in the defamation case, which also named as defendants the local Fox affiliate, Glenn Beck, and Beck’s production company.

Mohamed had sued Hanson and CSP for statements Hanson had made on Beck’s program about the connection between the Clock Boy hoax bomb affair, the attendant media frenzy created in large part by his father Mohamed, civilization jihad, and the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”), the Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group in the United States that promotes civilization jihad.

During the hearing, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel David Yerushalmi explained to Judge Moore that the purpose of the lawfare-driven lawsuit was to intimidate into silence those who might comment publicly on the connection between jihad, terrorism, sharia, and Islam. As such, Yerushalmi argued, “this case is a classic Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation or ‘SLAPP’ case and should be dismissed.”

During the lengthy hearing, Judge Moore pressed Mohamed’s lawyer, Fort Worth attorney Susan Hutchison, to provide any facts that would suggest that Hanson and the other defendants had said anything false or defamatory about Mohamed or his son during the television broadcasts. After spending a painfully embarrassing 15 minutes flipping through reams of paper, Mohamed’s lawyer was unable to provide any such evidence.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Moore said that she would rule by the end of the day. On Tuesday, the court published Judge Moore’s ruling dismissing the lawsuit against Hanson and CSP with prejudice.

Upon leaving the courtroom, Yerushalmi made the following statement:

“This lawsuit filed by Clock Boy’s father is yet another example of Islamist lawfare, which is a component of the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihad.”

Yerushalmi further explained that the purpose of such lawsuits, formally labelled Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”), is to intimidate into silence those who might comment publicly on the connection between jihad, terrorism, sharia, and Islam.

Yerushalmi added:

The Islamists employ the progressive mainstream media to label any public criticism of a sharia-centric, jihad-driven Islam as “Islamophobic,” and they add fear and financial ruin to the equation by utilizing the legal system to file SLAPP actions.

Now that the lawsuit has been dismissed, the AFLC is petitioning the court for lawyer fees and sanctions against Clock Boy’s dad.

***

Clock Boy’s Defamation Lawsuit Attacked as Lawfare: AFLC Lawyers Ask Court to Award Sanctions

clock-boy

AFLC, December 6, 2016:

Today, lawyers for the Center for Security Policy (“CSP”) and Jim Hanson filed a motion in a Dallas, Texas court seeking to dismiss the defamation lawsuit filed by Mohamed Mohamed on his own behalf and on behalf of his 15-year old son, Ahmed Mohamed.

Ahmed is better known as “Clock Boy” for bringing a hoax clock bomb to his Irving, Texas middle school in September 2015 and causing a bomb scare that led to his arrest and suspension from school.  Later, Ahmed claimed the look-a-like briefcase bomb was just a “homemade clock.”  In reality it was neither a bomb nor a homemade clock, but a disassembled digital clock put in a small carrying case giving it the look of an improvised digital bomb or trigger for a bomb.

The Clock Boy’s lawsuit seeks unspecified damages from various media companies and personalities, such as Glenn Beck, the Glenn Beck Show, and the local Fox News station, for commenting on the hoax bomb affair during their programs.

Jim Hanson, a CSP senior vice president, a former member of the U.S. Army Special Forces, and an expert on counter-terrorism, was sued along with CSP and the other media defendants for suggesting that the entire affair was a PR stunt by Clock Boy’s father in order to generate a media firestorm about anti-Islamic bias and Muslim-victimization.

During Hanson’s appearance on the Glenn Beck Show, Hanson noted that the Clock Boy’s father had orchestrated an intense media campaign with the local chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”), which the U.S. government has formally linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and to the designated terrorist organization Hamas in several formal court filings in federal terrorism cases.

Hanson went on to explain that the entire affair had the look and feel of a typical “influence operation”—the standard operating procedure of what the Muslim Brotherhood calls its “civilization jihad” against the West.

The motion to dismiss, filed by the American Freedom Law Center (“AFLC”), along with AFLC’s local Texas counsel Pete Rowe, not only seeks dismissal of the lawsuit, but also requests the court to award attorneys’ fees and to sanction Clock Boy’s father for filing a meritless lawsuit whose only purpose is to silence those who might speak out publicly against such influence operations.

David Yerushalmi, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel, issued the following statement:

“This lawsuit filed by Clock Boy’s father is yet another example of Islamist lawfare, which is a component of the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihad.”

Yerushalmi further explained that the purpose of such lawsuits, formally labelled Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”), is to intimidate into silence those who might comment publicly on the connection between jihad, terrorism, sharia, and Islam.

“The Islamists employ the progressive mainstream media to label any public criticism of a sharia-centric, jihad-driven Islam as ‘Islamophobic,’ and they add fear and financial ruin to the equation by utilizing the legal system to file SLAPP actions,”

Yerushalmi added.

Texas, like California and a number of other states, has an anti-SLAPP statute that requires a court to dismiss such lawsuits and to sanction those plaintiffs who file them.

Robert Muise, AFLC’s other co-founder and senior counsel, made clear:

“AFLC was formed in large measure to take on Islamists like CAIR who use and abuse the legal system with their cynical form of lawfare to undermine our constitutional liberties—notably free speech.  We have confronted these lawsuits across the country in federal and state courts and have defeated CAIR and its minions at every turn.  When appropriate, we have won sanctions.  This lawsuit will be no different.”

The Real Issue Between Khizr Khan and Donald Trump: Importing Jihad

GettyImages-512836672-e1470333480720-640x481

Breitbart, by Jim Hanson, Aug. 4, 2016:

Does anyone remember what the issue Khizr Khan attacked Donald Trump about at the Democratic Convention? Amidst all the outrage and attacks the substance seems to have slipped off the radar.

It was about Trump’s plan to stop Jihadists from riding the refugee flow into this country.  I think that topic is worthy of our attention, so let’s take a few minutes and look at it.

ISIS has said on numerous occasions that they are sending Jihadists into the refugee population to infiltrate Europe and the United States. Hillary Clinton wants to increase the number of Syrians we allow into the country as refugees by 550%. The FBI Director has said unequivocally that we cannot vet refugees from Syria because there are no records to check them against any more. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that mean Hillary supports importing any Jihadists who can get into that process?

Of course it does, and Donald Trump was being attacked for the perfectly common sense idea that — if we can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys, maybe we should stop bringing them here until we can. I am absolutely gobsmacked this is even controversial. Trump’s current proposal is a pause on immigration from areas compromised by terrorism. If anyone can come up with a good reason why we need to allow people from those areas to come here please share it with us.

Since I think I just heard someone answer “we can’t just shut down immigration for entire countries,” allow me to retort. Oh yes we can, actually we can shut down immigration from any country, of any group at any time if the President decides it is necessary. This power is in the Immigration and Naturalization Act and the last six Presidents have all used it at some point. Entering the United States is a privilege we grant, not a right to be exercised and the potential entrant has to convince us to say yes you may come.

If pausing immigration from regions swarming with people sworn to kill us doesn’t meet the definition of a national security concern, then we have decided to simply commit national suicide. Europe made that mistake a while ago and the last month has shown just exactly how terminal that was. Hatchets, machetes, explosives, trucks, and guns were all tools the enemy used to help Europe shuffle off this mortal coil. They now have so many unassimilated migrants the likelihood of actual civil war looms in France and maybe elsewhere as well.

We are nowhere near as far gone as Europe, but if we don’t want to end up next on the hit list, we have to start paying attention. It is vital that we stop Jihadists from coming here hell bent on conducting slaughter. But it is equally, or even more, important to ensure that anyone we allow to immigrate shares the basic American values that make this country the bastion of freedom it is. There is a significant portion of the Islamic world which does not, and we are under no obligation to invite them here.

The unwelcome folks are Sharia adherent Muslims of the kind who mutilate little girls, stone rape victims and hang gays from cranes. They follow a barbaric totalitarian code that has some of the trappings of religion, but actually governs every aspect of human life. This is not just mandatory for the believers, but they require submission by even non-believers. Well sorry folks, but that just doesn’t fly here and you may not pass Go or collect $200. This is another completely legal exclusion for entry and one the Center for Security Policy put forth in a paper called “Stop Importing Jihadists.”

We cannot let the craziness of the political season cause us to lose sight of our own security. We cannot let political correctness stop us from keeping our enemies at bay. These plans are entirely constitutional and vitally necessary. They deserve all of our support.

Listen to Jim Hanson’s discussion of this article on Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM:

Nice Attack: Cut Down the Black Flag, Target Sharia

hqdefault-1 (1)

Former Special Forces Master Sergeant Jim Hanson explains what must be done to stop this constant terror.

CounterJihad, July 15, 2016:

Former Special Forces Master Sergeant Jim Hanson, currently the Executive Vice President for the Center for Security Policy, has an answer to the problem of constant terror attacks.  First, though, he dismisses the strategy of attempting to prevent attacks by adding additional levels of security.  “Even in a police state, you couldn’t secure every gathering,” Hanson said, noting that this was just a simple delivery truck like any other.

“You have to look at the people who are conducting these terror attacks,” he told “FOX & Friends.”  A focus on methodology won’t work, as the truck attack plainly shows:  “It’s not guns, it’s not bombs, it’s not trucks,” but rather “the ideology of sharia and jihad that motivates them to kill.”

Hanson is the author of Cut Down the Black Flag:  A Strategy To Defeat the Islamic State.  Unsurprisingly, he believes that destroying the caliphate is an important part of the solution.  However, he argues that the caliphate is only a symptom — albeit a major one — of the real problem. “You start in the Islamic State.  You start with their caliphate, and you cut down their black flag there.  But… that’s not going to solve the problem, that treats a symptom.  The ideology of sharia, which calls for a holy war of jihad, is something we need to deal with.”

Citing a poll that sharia law enjoys large-scale support among Muslims worldwide, Hanson crossed into disputed territory.  CounterJihad has reported on this controversy before.

The central issue to empirical science is the ability of others repeating the experiment to replicate your findings.  If you replicate the same findings using the same methods, that’s telling.  If you replicate the same findings with both the same and different methods, that’s even more suggestive that you’re on to something.  Every poll of Muslim populations, regardless of its methodology, shows strong support for sharia.

Last summer, the Center for Security Policy commissioned a poll that found 51% support for shariaamong American Muslims.  There were critics who pointed out that this poll was an online poll, and one that only surveyed those who opted in.  However, the Pew polling service found that half of American Muslims are recent immigrants, chiefly from countries in which their global survey of support for sharia tops 80%.  Three of the leading countries for Islamic immigration to the United States are Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.  The figures for those countries are 91%, 84%, and 99% respectively.

When you find the same thing no matter how you study the question, you’re probably finding something that’s really there.

Hanson’s solution of targeting sharia also enjoys strong support from the American people.  A recent poll conducted by a firm out of Atlanta found that more than seven in ten American voters think Muslim immigrants should be screened for the ideological belief in enforcing sharia law.  More than 80% of those who agreed say all immigrants ID’d as Sharia adherents should be barred from entering the United States.

The popularity of the solution does not mean that it will be enacted, at least not for the next few months.  A recent survey of US President Barack Obama’s calendar shows that he never met with former National Director of Intelligence LTG(R) Michael Flynn.  He and his administration’s top officials did meet with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been proven in Federal court to be linked to the Foreign Terrorist Organization Hamas.  In fact, CAIR has had hundreds of White House meetings.

Both of President Obama’s likely replacements have described the France attacks as acts of war, and both seem clearer-eyed than President Obama about the nature of the threat.  However, asked which one was more likely to take the threat seriously, Hanson gave the nod to Donald Trump.  Hillary Clinton would be too hamstrung by political correctness, he argued.  Only Trump was likely to move strongly against Islamic terror.

***

Stop Importing Jihadists: Sharia Supremacists Have No Right to Enter the U.S.

Getty

Getty

Breitbart, by Jim Hanson, June 29, 2016:

Donald Trump lit off a firestorm with his call for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States. The deadly threat of Islamist terror and the migrant violence in Europe make a ban on Muslim immigration seem like a reasonable solution.

But we have Muslim allies, the King of Jordan for example, who would be affected by such an action. So if banning all Muslims is not the perfect solution, how can we deal with the ones who are a serious problem without alienating our allies?

The Center for Security Policy just released a white paper detailing how to do that entitled “Stop Importing Jihadists: Making Sharia-Supremacism a Bar to Immigration and Naturalization.” It explains how existing laws can be used to stop allowing Muslims from coming to this country who do not share our American values. This does not mean all Muslims, but it is a significant number who believe the totalitarian Islamist code called Sharia should be placed above the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. citizens have rights. But clearly, there are no rights for non-citizens to visit or migrate to the United States. It is a privilege. We need to make sure that anyone coming here doesn’t believe their mission is to bring with them an antiquated and barbaric system to impose on us. We have the authority under current law to stop members of totalitarian ideologies from infiltrating and working to subvert our free system.

The problem is not Muslims per se; it is Islamic Supremacists who push the totalitarian ideology called Sharia. Unfortunately, this is a significant number of Muslims worldwide; a Pew International poll shows more than half of them believe Sharia should be the law of their land. Most also believe this law should apply to non-Muslims, as well. That could hardly be more un-American and we have every right to tell those folks “That’s not how we do things here.”

There are differing versions of Sharia, but they agree that the practice of all aspects of life is governed by the unassailable word of Allah and not one single bit of it may be questioned. That includes an ironclad prohibition on any man-made law superseding Sharia and a requirement for believers to actively work to impose it everywhere. This makes it impossible for a Sharia-adherent Muslim to swear an oath to obey the U.S. Constitution or any other country’s governing document. There can be no agreement to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, Caesar must submit to Allah.

That single fact makes it prudent to restrict immigration by anyone who holds those beliefs. We have done this previously to stop totalitarian communists and fascists from infiltrating with a mind to undermine our society from within. That subversion is actually the very goal articulated by groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood for its operations here in the United States: “The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house.”

It makes perfect sense to say to a group that wants to destroy us “from within” that “you are not welcome to come in.”

The dividing line we need to use for making policy is Sharia; the practice of Sharia is simply not compatible with life in the U.S. It is also the dividing line between Medieval Islam, with its abhorrent practices such as death for homosexuals; stoning for victims of rape; forced marriages and genital mutilation for girls; and Modern Islam, which could properly be called post-Sharia. The problem is Modern Islam does not truly exist yet. There are Muslims who do not practice or believe in the barbaric acts Sharia requires, but they are technically apostates, defectors of Islam, and the penalty for leaving is death.

The current state of play has members of the medieval form acting as the loudest voices of the “Muslim” community. Those who wish to practice a modern version do so at their own peril: they face shunning at best and death at worst. The medieval practitioners are aided in this effort by vast support; even the U.S. government has embraced them both abroad, by supporting groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, and here at home, in the form of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others.

Our U.S. government has a responsibility to safeguard this country and our way of life. That includes banning those who wish to destroy us from entering the United States. We must add Sharia to the list of totalitarian ideologies that trigger this prohibition. This will help all Americans including Modern Muslims who just want to live in peace in the land of the free.

Stop Importing Jihadists- A Policy Prescription

1949093373

Center for Security Policy, June 28, 2016:

The danger posed by the Global Jihad is immediate and deadly and our government should take all possible precautions to keep Americans safe. The Center for Security Policy (CSP) released the Secure Freedom Strategy to Defeat the Global Jihad Movement to provide an approach that uses all aspects of U.S. power to stop this growing danger to our way of life. There are many facets to the threat, but one of the most compelling is the entry to this country of Sharia Supremacists who work to place their totalitarian ideology above any man-made law including the U.S. Constitution.

The existing immigration laws provide ample authority to ban sharia-adherent individuals under exclusions for totalitarian ideology and the President should provide guidance to the responsible agencies to do so. CSP has produced a white paper detailing the rationale and legal basis for this policy in the following white paper:

Stop Importing Jihadists: Making Sharia-Supremacism a Bar to Immigration and Naturalization

Stop Importing Jihadists- Executive Summary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                     27 June 2016      

NEW POLL FINDS AMERICANS WANT TO STOP IMPORTING JIHADISTS, CENTER OFFERS PLAN FOR ACCOMPLISHING THAT SECURITY GOAL

Washington, D.C.: A new poll suggests that large majorities of Americans agree with the common sense proposition that we should stop importing jihadists. A murderous attack in Orlando heightened concern that we already have too many here.

A public opinion survey conducted this month by Opinion Savvy found that 71% of respondents support “identifying foreign supporters of Sharia law prior to their admission to the United States.” Of those favoring such identification, 80% believe Sharia-supremacists should not be admitted into the country.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump put this issue on the political map last year by calling for a temporary pause in admissions of Muslims until a way can be found to determine whether they are potential terrorists. He cited troubling findings of a 2015 poll of U.S. Muslims conducted for the Center for Security Policy. Twenty-five percent of respondents believed “violence against Americans here in the United States could be justified as part of the global jihad” and fifty-one percent believed “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed by [Islam’s totalitarian] Sharia” code, rather than the Constitution.

In recent days, Mr. Trump has mused publicly about how to differentiate between would-be Muslim immigrants who pose a threat and those who do not. He has suggested applying his proposed restriction to all would-be immigrants from certain countries tied to terrorism.

One of Mr. Trump’s top advisors, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, however, argues that defining test should instead be adherence to Sharia. On Fox News Sunday, Speaker Gingrich said: “I would apply a test for Sharia and a test for loyalty to ISIS rather than geographic test, because we’re fighting people all over the world who are dangerous to us. So, it’s hard to say which countries really are the Islamic terrorist countries.”

In an appearance last Thursday on Fox News, Center Executive Vice President Jim Hanson made a similar point:

It would be smart right now to pause immigration from jihadist controlled or influenced areas and take a look at whether or not letting anyone who is Sharia adherent Muslim— which is a totalitarian ideology not the religion — has any business coming in this country ever. We can ban totalitarian ideologues from entry with existing laws. And it’s probably  time to do that and stop bringing in more jihadists into the United States….

…The Sharia adherence is the important thing. It’s not all Muslims. There are plenty of Muslims willing to live in peace. But the ones who follow Sharia, which is a large number, it’s a third to half worldwide, have no way to follow the Constitution because they’re required to place that above any man-made law. So they’re not going assimilate. It’s not a question of their parents or internet or ISIS or anything. That’s what they taught and that is what they follow. That leads them to jihad and leads to dead bodies. We got to stop it.

The Center for Security Policy released today a white paper describing how such a filter could be applied and statutory changes that would facilitate its implementation:

“Stop Importing Jihadists: Making Sharia-Supremacism a Bar to Immigration and Naturalization.”

It calls on presidential contenders, candidates for other offices, elected officials and citizens of this country to evaluate and implement this important paper’s recommendations.

For more information contact:                                                                                               

Alex Vanness

vanness@securefreedom.org

Of Course The Muslim Brotherhood is a Terror Organization

402a4050-b871-42ee-b645-f96de5553bd3Town Hall, by Jim Hanson, April 18, 2016:

There are bills under consideration in both houses of Congress to designate the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) as a terrorist organization. The reason for this is the fact – the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Bahrain, and Jordan have already designated them as a terror collective and their motto makes their goal pretty clear  “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” You can help protect America by contacting your senators and representatives to tell them to pass this legislation.

President Obama not only refuses to acknowledge the Brotherhood as terrorists, but actively changed U.S. policy during the Arab Spring to support them; and Hillary Clinton helped make this happen while she was Secretary of State.  Obama sees them as a bulwark against what he calls the “violent extremists,” which is his euphemism for the jihadists killing in the name of Islam. The MB plays the public relations game of saying they are a civic organization that runs schools and feeds the poor while promoting the image that the milk of Islamic kindness flows through their veins. Now there is a nugget of truth in there; they do some of those things. But, they also have a plan for a global Caliphate and the submission of all of us.

They state publicly they have foresworn violence in the pursuit of this domination, but that is deception. The term for this kind of deception is Taqqiya and it is wholly sanctioned, even required for the faithful, if such lying is necessary to further the cause of Islam. The MB are the faithful, the hardcore believers, and knowing Taqqiya is integral to their way of life let’s us understand that their words are often simply words with no inherent truth attached to them. Their actions on the other hand are plenty sufficient to show their true intentions and the trail of blood they have left throughout the world leaves no doubt.

They support, fund, enable and rejoice in the terror committed by their brethren in Hamas, al Qaeda and Jamaat al Islamiyya. Their resurgence during the Arab Spring was an attempt to put their iron sandal on the necks of the countries where previously some also pretty heinous dictators had reigned. In most of these countries they were the only organized alternative to the tyrants in residence, so when uprisings began they took advantage.

In Egypt, for example, they leveraged the actual social work they did and their mosque-enabled power base to win the elections that followed the overthrow of Mubarak. No sooner had they swept the blood out of the palace, they began imposing the oppressive ideology of Sharia.

Sharia-adherent Islam is not a religion but a totalitarian system that controls every facet of human life and the Brotherhood are among its foremost advocates. They are hell bent on imposing this brutal regime which includes: stoning women who have been raped; forced child marriages; murdering homosexuals; and killing any apostate who leaves its loving embrace.

They are equally comfortable with either violent means of imposing this, although they prefer to outsource the bloody work to their partners, or non-violent methods which are their particular specialty. The first is the “Violent Jihad,” often called terrorism; and the second is what the MB has named “Civilization Jihad,” which works to use a country’s own freedoms and civic liberties to subvert it from within. They are hard at work using both methods to bring more of the world into what they call Dar al Islam (House of Islam). They deem those not yet submitted Dar al Harb (House of War); their terminology is telling, just in case you had any doubts.

The Muslim Brotherhood should be designated a terrorist organization. They have well and horrifically earned the dishonor. Making this common sense determination gives our government and security organizations the necessary tools to fight the MB and their partners in crimes against humanity. Tell Congress to vote “yes” on the Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act bills H.R. 3892 and S. 2230; and do their part to counter the threat of the global jihad.

Jim Hanson is the Executive Vice President of The Center for Security Policy. Mr. Hanson served in US Army Special Forces and conducted Counter-Terrorism, Counter-Insurgency, and other operations in more than a dozen countries.

The Strong Horse is Always Favored

black flag

By Counter Jihad,  April 14, 2016:

Brett Stephens at the Wall Street Journal chides those who excuse terrorist violence from the Islamic world.

There’s a great deal of literature about how young Muslim men—often born in the West to middle-class and not particularly religious households—get turned on to jihad….  It’s a long list.

And in many cases investigators are able to identify an agent of radicalization…. But the influence of the Awlakis of the world can’t fully account for the mind-set of these jihadists. They are also sons of the West—educated in the schools of multiculturalism, reared on the works of Noam Chomsky and perhaps Frantz Fanon, consumers of a news diet heavy with reports of perfidy by American or British or Israeli soldiers. If Islamism is their ideological drug of choice, the political orthodoxies of the modern left are their gateway to it.

Stephens mentions a famous anti-colonial thinker, Chomsky, as a purveyor of the idea that hatred of the West is justified in the Islamic world.  This attitude is not limited to scholars.  It is peddled by public relations firms that are paid by Islamic governments to sell these stories to Western publics.  Burson-Marsteller, called “the PR firm of evil” even by MSNBC, has just crafted a poll designed to push that very point.  Using simplistic language and offering no useful analysis, the poll finds that 90% of Iraqi youth view the United States as an enemy government.

It does not ask why.  It might be because the United States, having brought peace to their land after a brutal civil war, abandoned them to a new spiral of darkness.  President Obama has recently tried to shift the blame for his disastrous Iraq policy onto the shoulders of retiring Central Command leader General Lloyd Austin.  But Austin advised President Obama not to withdraw precipitously from Iraq.  President Obama abandoned Iraq to a renewed chaos.  Had American soldiers remained in the country to stabilize the government, the peace that flourished following the Surge and into 2009 would have continued.

Instead, though, we are told that our ‘occupation’ was the driver of their rage.  “For years, many have argued that Muslims and Arabs, like other humans, don’t appreciate being bombed or occupied,” says Haroon Moghul, a fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. “Finally, we have a study to confirm this suspicion.”

That is nonsense.  The Gulf States love America, including Bahrain where we base the US 5th Fleet and Qatar where Central Command’s forward deployed headquarters is located.  Kuwaitis love America in spite of the fact that we base Air Force operations there serving the war in Afghanistan and, yes, Iraq.  Iraqis had mixed feelings about the troops who both were a reminder of national weakness and yet also a guarantor of their country’s stability.  Many did not want us to leave.  “Occupation” isn’t driving the anger at America among the current state of Iraq.

What is driving the anger is the way in which our leadership broke the promises we made, and allowed peace to slip away.  President Obama broke our word and left them to be savaged by the dogs of war.  But peddling the justification has its purpose.  It allows the President to shift the blame for Iraqi anger to his predecessor.  It also teaches the potential jihadist, however, that the West condemns itself and thinks their anger against us is justified.  It suggests to them that we are prepared to submit, because we do not see ourselves as morally worthy to wield the sword.  Weakness provokes.  As a man who knew something about jihad once said, everyone always favors the strong horse.

Also see:

CPAC 2016—Countering the Global Jihad Panel Exposes Islamist Influence Operations

timthumb

AIM, by James Simpson  —   March 18, 2016
On assignment to CPAC 2016 for Capital Research Center
This report is exclusive to Accuracy in Media

After a number of years of noted absence, the Center for Security Policy returned to CPAC this year. On Thursday, March 3, the Center presented a “Countering Global Jihad” panel. The panel was moderated by CSP President, Frank Gaffney, and included CSP Vice President Jim Hanson; Danish historian, journalist and author, Lars Hedegaard; British activist and politician, Paul Weston; four-star Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (Ret.); and Middle East expert and former CIA case officer, Clare Lopez.

Jim Hanson

CSP VP Jim Hanson outlined a new CSP initiative, the Counterjihad Campaign (www.counterjihad.com). Its purpose is to provide Americans with the facts and the wherewithal to push back in the face of the Red-Green Axis: the leftist/Islamist effort to smear and intimidate Americans who dare to stand up to them.

Hanson related his experience as a second generation immigrant whose family believes in the American values of hard work and patriotism. His family immigrated legally, and enthusiastically assimilated to pursue the American dream. Hanson says that today, “The problem is that we are dealing with a large cohort [of Muslims] who do not, and will not [assimilate]… They’re proudly saying ‘not only will we not assimilate, but we are going to, in some ways, take over your culture.’”

Hanson took a special shot at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). SPLC put CSP on its “Hate Watch” list, calling CSP leaders the standard “Islamophobe” for their excellent work cataloging the subversive activities of Islamist individuals and groups. I have written extensively about the SPLC, its communist heritage and calculated “hate” accusations—as advocated by Lenin, Herbert Marcuse and Saul Alinsky—designed to intimidate and silence people. This is a malevolent organization created for the sole purpose of silencing anyone who does not buckle under to the left’s agenda—and makes big bucks while they’re at it. But Hanson put SPLC in its place:

“The bottom line is, it’s not true…When I was in Army Special Forces, one of the main missions was humanitarian assistance. I have built schools, dug wells, immunized hundreds of Muslim kids. And yet I’m anti-Muslim? No…”

It’s not ‘hate’ to love freedom. It’s not ‘hate” to believe that women should not be subjugated… It’s not hate to think that homosexuals shouldn’t be thrown off roofs. It’s love of freedom… That’s something we should be able to stand up proudly and say. That’s American. The people trying to stop that are the political Left—the politically correct police—and the Islamist groups…who are actually pushing an agenda that is not religion. They are doing it under the guise of religious freedom. They believe their totalitarian ideology [Sharia] is mandatory. You can either submit or be conquered. The Counterjihad is for you…to tell you what’s happening and empower you to act.”

Lars Hedegaard

Danish historian, journalist and author, Lars Hedegaard, talked about the ongoing mass migrant invasion into Europe. His was a gripping and engaging testimony:

The vast majority have nothing to do with being refugees, they are simply migrants who want to come to our countries and take advantage of our welfare states…in Denmark, where I come from, people don’t have to work. They can come into our country and claim any benefit that a Dane can claim—meaning free housing, free health service, free education, money if you don’t have any…They can also claim the protection of our laws and any of the benefits that accrue to us. And we have to pay for it…Every dime we can save goes to these foreigners, who come uninvited, and claim all the benefits from day one. And this is just one example. The same thing goes for Britain, Sweden, Germany and other countries.

Hedegaard identifies the Schengen Agreement as a main cause of the problem. This agreement, signed in 1995, allows for free, unchecked travel among most European Union countries. Great Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland are excepted. Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria are candidate countries (although they’d be wise to reconsider the wisdom of joining now). The European Union was supposed to ensure that the EU’s outer borders would seal off EU countries from the outside. But, Hedegaard says, “The European Union, which is a master con artist, did not keep its part of the promise. The outer borders do not exist. Currently anyone can get into Europe…”

Paul Weston

Paul Weston is a former UK Independent Party member and leads Liberty Great Britain, a political party he co-founded in 2013. Weston also spoke about the migrant crisis in Europe. He says Britain is not yet lost, but will be gone in 20 years or so. Sweden is “literally a lost country,” with perhaps five or ten years left. He says:

Malmo, Sweden is now the rape capital of the European continent. Aside from South Africa, I think it’s the rape capital of the world. It is that bad. So we look to Sweden in the way that you need to look to us. And we had, over the last 12 months, 12 mass transit bombings planned for England that our intelligence services, MI5, MI6, managed to stop…and despite this, we keep on saying, ‘you can come into our country…and we have no idea who these people are…

Weston noted how British political leaders refused to acknowledge the terrorist attacks in Britain as motivated by Islam. He said, “This denial of what Islam is, is going to be the downfall of Europe.” He finished dramatically, by saying that we Americans desperately need to retain our First Amendment rights, despite Obama’s efforts to clamp down. “Because unless we can talk about this, unless we can bring it out into the open, you in America will go the same way. You need to stand up and look at what we’re doing and say ‘this is never going to happen here.’”

Admiral James “Ace” Lyons

“Ace” Lyons is President and CEO of LION Associates LLC, a global security, trade, defense and procurement consultancy. A career naval officer, Lyons was, among other titles, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, the largest military command in the world. He also served as Senior U.S. Military Representative to the United Nations. As the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) from 1983 to 1985, he advised the Joint Chiefs of Staff and created the U.S. Navy SEAL Red Cell anti-terrorism unit, established in response to the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut. Lyons’ irascible nature, irreverent sense of humor, and forthright, politically incorrect manner endear him to audiences wherever he speaks. This day was no exception.

Marine Barracks Bombing Betrayal

Lyons reveals military history with the unique perspective of being part of that history. For example, he was Deputy CNO when the Beirut, Lebanon Marine barracks was bombed on October 23, 1983. 220 U.S. Marines were killed—the largest one-day Marine loss since Iwo Jima. Twenty-one other servicemen were killed and 60 Americans wounded. The pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) bomb caused a blast equivalent to 21,000 lbs of TNT, and was considered to be the largest non-nuclear explosion ever detonated. Seconds after the Marine barracks attack, another facility housing French paratroopers was also bombed, killing 58 paratroopers and four Lebanese civilians.

As Ace explained, the bombings were carried out by Islamic Amal, a Hezbollah-allied splinter group of the Amal militia headed by Nabih Berri. They were headquartered in a Lebanese army barracks captured in mid-September with the help of Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces. Lyons says the U.S. government knew all this, and had inside sources providing accurate intelligence. Admiral Lyons was tasked with developing a devastating response. “We had the photographs.  We had it nailed down. We had the planes loaded…” he said.

He fingers then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger for stopping the raid. According to Lyons, Weinberger told Reagan there was a risk of hitting Lebanese forces. “In other words,” Lyons says, “he sabotaged the strike.” Weinberger also prevented the U.S. military from participating with the French in their planned retaliatory attack in November. As Lyons recalls, “The secretary of defense would not issue the execute order! Unheard of!” He said that George Shultz and National Security Advisor Bud McFarlane “pleaded with Weinberger to release the execute message, and he refused to do it.”

Middle East expert Ken Timmerman, who was reached for comment on this article, recalled the French raid. “I was having a late lunch in the mountains, on my way back to Beirut after another day of covering the siege of Tripoli (Lebanon) in November, 1983, when the French Super Étendards flew overhead for Baalbek on the botched retaliation strike. I recognized the planes, and remember thinking at the time, wonder what they are up to…”

Lyons says to an echo of laughs, “the French dropped two 500 lb bombs and killed a goat.” One assumes he is joking to make a point, but in fact not. According to Timmerman, someone in the French government leaked the attack plan to the Iranians. The planes arrived at Baalbek, dropped their bombs and managed to kill a shepherd and his flock of goats. The targets were long gone.

Apparently the government also had warnings a month earlier that a major attack was in the works, and the military could have been prepared. Lyons relates that NSA had intercepted a message from Tehran to the Iranian ambassador in Damascus, Syria, on September 24, 1983, saying “take a spectacular action against the U.S. Marines.” However, Lyons did not see message until two days after the bombing.

Timmerman says the note was held up by none other than Colin Powell, at the time Weinberger’s military aide. Powell most likely kept it from the DoD chief, Timmerman says, because he believed a strike on Baalbek risked getting the U.S. sucked deeper into Lebanon, at a time Weinberger was lobbying hard to get the U.S. to withdraw from Lebanon. For his part, Weinberger claimed as late as 2001 that “[W]e still do not have the actual knowledge of who did the bombing…” In 2003, the DC Circuit Court sided with plaintiffs in a lawsuit holding Iran responsible for the attack. But in case you had any lingering doubts about Obama’s loyalties, in 2012 he blocked legislation that would have held Iran accountable for the attack.

Lyons hypothesized that the Iranians may have influenced Weinberger’s decision through behind-the-scenes lobbying. While that must remain conjecture, the Iran lobby is forthright these days. In fact, the Obama administration could almost be called a subsidiary of the Iranian government. Recall that prior to the 2008 election Obama had established a secret back-channel communication with Iran through former ambassador William G. Miller. His message was clear: “hold out against the Bush administration on nuclear talks because you will get a much better deal with me.”

Both Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden appear to have been heavily influenced by the Iranian lobby, as have Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ed Markey (D-MA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Al Franken (D-MN) through the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC). Biden and Kerry have also been befriended by the American Iranian Council (AIC) and theIranian Muslim Association of North America (IMAN). AIC founder, Housang Amirahmadi, once said he intended to “conquer Obama’s mind.” Biden even suggested sending $200 million to Iran, just for yucks. The nuclear deal includes unfreezing Iranian assets valued between $100 and $150 billion, and the Obama administration will pay $1.7 billion to settle a suit over undelivered military equipment ordered by the Shah prior to the Mullahs’ takeover. Some of these funds will likely be used for terrorist activities, Kerry has admitted.

The bombing remains an open sore for the U.S. Marine Corps, as it should for all Americans. As Timmerman said, “This was a lost opportunity. At the time, a powerful strike on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard troops in Lebanon would have taught Iran not to mess with the United States. Had we struck then, when Iran was severely weakened by its war with Iraq, we might have prevented 30 more years of Iranian state terrorism. As it was, they learned we were weak, and that they could attack us with impunity.”

Ken Timmerman is a rare example of true journalism. He has risked life and limb researching his stories in the Middle East and has developed a network of sources that cannot be made sitting behind a desk in Washington, D.C. Timmerman’s books read like thrillers. His most recent, Dark Forces: The Truth About What Happened in Benghazi, brings his deep Middle East expertise into play and is one of the most authoritative books, if not the most authoritative, on the subject.

In his concluding remarks, Lyons offered some pithy reflections on our current state of affairs:

  •  “Their [The Muslim Brotherhood’s] penetration into our systems is as deep, or deeper, than the Communists of the 30s, 40s and 50s.”
  • “The Communists had Harry Hopkins as their man in the White House… The Islamists have President Obama.”
  • “On Libya, we changed sides… we provided the armament for the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood militias.”
  •  “Qaddafi was our guy in Libya. He was beating down the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood militias.”
  • “There was no humanitarian crisis in Benghazi. (The pretext for our involvement in Libya’s civil war was the Responsibility to Protect doctrine—a new idea promoted by George Soros and other radicals that justifies military intervention in any conflict where civilian lives are threatened, i.e. practically anywhere.)
  • “Qaddafi was ready to abdicate. He entered into negotiations with Carter Ham the AFRICOM commander… for two days. He was ready to go… Ham was directed to cut off negotiations.”
  • “Here’s the President who received the Nobel Peace Prize for giving a speech. But he couldn’t give three days to work out a truce and save the lives of tens of thousands of people.”
  • “We had forces that were ready to respond [in Benghazi]… They were enroute…”

Clare Lopez

Clare Lopez is a preeminent Middle East expert. A former CIA case officer for 20 years, she speaks several languages, including Spanish, Bulgarian, French, German, and Russian, and currently is studying Farsi. She has extensive expertise in counterintelligence, counternarcotics, and counter-proliferation issues. Clare used this forum to call for a change in policy that would explicitly identify Sharia as an “enemy threat doctrine, with the priority objective to counter it and defeat the forces of Islamic jihad globally.”

Clare backed up Lyons’ testimony regarding Iranian lobbying efforts, saying:

“Within the global jihad movement threats are myriad, including the deep, systemic, institutionalized penetration by the Muslim Brotherhood…of our national security leadership and apparatus. But Iran is far and away the most critical, dangerous and immediate U.S. adversary in this entire region. The Tehran leadership succeeded in blinding our U.S. leadership to its threat, by an equally deep…penetration of the intelligence community, the White House, the Department of State, and that is by the Iran lobby.”

Clare covered a lot of ground in her remarks. Here are some of the points she made:

  • Iran’s WMD program, especially its nuclear and Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) programs pose an immediate threat to the U.S. mainland, “right now, today.”
  • Iran’s behavior has gotten worse since the nuclear dear was concluded—a deal which was never signed.
  • Iran relies on proxy forces for its expansion of power and terrorism, including: Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraqi Shi’ite militias, the Islamic State and the Taliban.
  • Many of these proxies will be receiving “massive” infusions of the money released by Obama following the nuclear deal.
  • Money is also being sent to both the Houthis in Yemen and the Assad regime in Syria.
  • A letter written by Osama bin Laden and seized during the raid on his Pakistani compound, was released recently. It says, “Iran is our main artery for funds, personnel and communication.”
  • Hamas is working very closely with the Islamic State in the Sinai.

Clare concluded with a call for regime change in Iran and a sea change in U.S. policy. Good ideas that should be considered once President Obama leaves office. There is much more in her presentation.

Conclusion

It was good to see CSP back at CPAC. CSP is one of the few DC organizations willing to confront head-on the difficult subject of Islamist infiltration in the U.S. The Muslim Brotherhood and its sister organizations have pretty well figured out the DC racket and their tentacles have become deeply entrenched in the Washington establishment of both parties. Thus, ironically, CSP is criticized by the establishment when it should be welcomed by them. This is a travesty, because the MB’s goal, aggressively pursued by front groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), is transforming our schools and our government, blinding us to the dangers of Islamic radicalism, creating fertile ground for terrorist attacks in the U.S. and threatening our cherished rights—most immediately the First Amendment.

James Simpson is an economist, businessman and investigative journalist. His articles have been published at American Thinker, Accuracy in MediaBreitbart, PJ Media, Washington Times, WorldNetDaily and others. His regular column is DC Independent Examiner. Follow Jim on TwitterFacebook

Cruz Assembles an Unlikely Team of Foreign-Policy Rivals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CPAC 2016: Fighting for Victory Against Radical Islam

CPAC 2016 Jim Hanson

Via C-SPAN, MARCH 3, 2016

Van Hipp moderated a panel discussion on combating radical Islam and cyberwarfare. Panelists included Representative Steve King (R-IA), Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Jim Hanson.

Via Counterjihad.com:

The most justly famous among the members of this panel was Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch-American leader for the reform of Islam whose life has been in constant peril for her courageous activism.  Less famous, perhaps chiefly because his background is as a ‘quiet professional’ with the US Special Forces, is Jim Hanson, Executive Vice President of the Center for Security Policy.  Also featured was Representative Steve King, a thirteen year Congressman whose interest in these questions is well-known. The panel was chaired by Van Darrel Hipp Jr of American Defense International.

Jim Hanson called for clarity in defining the enemy, which he said was not easy because anyone who tries to engage the conversation is labeled a hater of Muslims.  All Muslims are not the enemy, he said:  there are plenty of good Muslims in the world.  “The problem is Muslims who believe that sharia — the Islamic totalitarian ideology, which is more than a religion — is their calling, and they must spread it around the world,” he said.  “ISIS is now an intercontinental Caliphate.”  While this is a larger percentage of Muslims than many want to admit, Hanson said, it is the enemy and must be defeated.  This enemy comes in two forms, he went on to say:  the easy-to-understand violent jihad, which everyone sees, and the front groups that work to pave the way for conversion to sharia compliance.  They are, indeed, behind the campaign to label anyone discussing the problem as hateful.  That is a core part of their strategy, Hanson said.  “You cannot possibly defeat an enemy you will not name:  the enemy is radical Islam, sharia-adherent Islam.”

Ali began by saying that Islam, as a set of ideas, can be discussed without slander to any race or ethnic group because Islam has adherents of all races and ethnic groups.  She called upon the peoples of representative democracies to correct their elected leaders when they “insult our intelligence” by trying to talk us out of what is plainly obvious about the threats we face.  She also pointed out that the taboo against criticism of Muhammad, or even depicting him, makes it impossible to understand Islam because he is the model every Muslim child is taught to emulate.  You have to be able to discuss and depict him to understand what the faith is trying to teach people to become.

Rep. King pointed out that the southern border of the United States could be easily defended from jihadist infiltration by building a wall, for less money than we are spending now just to “watch people come across.”

The panel discussion treated questions of security and immigration, including problems of getting Muslims to assimilate.  In the Netherlands, Ali said, there was a traditional thought that engaging Muslim immigrants in the political process would make them assimilate.  “That’s not going to happen,” she said, “if we self-censor.”  Just because of the refusal to talk about the ways in which Islam’s political traditions are problematic, bringing Muslims into the elected power structure did nothing to assimilate them in the Netherlands.  It just gave them power they used to push for sharia compliance.  The problems were compounded rather than relieved because of this self-censorship by citizens of the West.

View the rest of the discussion in the video above.  It is very much worth your time.

CPAC 2016: Center for Security Policy panels on migration, jihad, shariah

CPAC 2016 counterjihad panelVia Breitbart TV, March 3, 2016:

Panel 1: “Obama’s Dangerous National Security Legacy and How it Must Be Reversed”

CSP President and CEO Frank Gaffney leads this panel of national security experts, composed also of Former Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, and 20 year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency, and VP for Research and Analysis at CSP Clare Lopez. They will analyze the grievous toll the policies of the Obama administration have taken on our nation’s defenses, and how those policies might be mitigated by the next president.

Panelists:
Fmr. Adm. James “Ace” Lyons
Clare Lopez
Frank Gaffney

Panel 2: “The Global Jihad Movement in America and the Counterjihad Campaign”

Panelist will argue free speech is the indispensable tool in confronting jihad and Islamic shariah law. Author and historian Lars Hedegaard of Denmark founded the Danish Free Press Society and International Free Press Society, and has been a fierce critic of the encroachment of shariah law on freedom of expression in the West. He has faced persecution by his own government and survived an assassination attempt in 2013.  The UK’s Paul Weston leads the Liberty GB party, and is a strong voice against creeping sharia in his homeland. In 2014, he was arrested on “suspicion of racial harrassment” after quoting verbatim a passage about Islam written by Winston Churchill. CSP Executive Vice President Jim Hanson will outline a new initiative against these and related threats, the Counterjihad Campaign.

Panelists:
Paul Weston
Lars Hedegaard
Jim Hanson

(the panels are reversed in the video)

Standing up for freedom isn’t hate

Jim Hanson @Uncle_Jimbo

Jim Hanson @Uncle_Jimbo

The Hill, by Jim Hanson, Feb. 24, 2016:

When did standing up for basic human rights become hate speech? The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) can’t seem to tell the difference any more. It was once a premier civil rights organization instrumental in taking down the Ku Klux Klan. Now it attacks those who profess unpopular or politically incorrect opinions. The latest target is the Center for Security Policy (CSP) for our work exposing and opposing Islamist groups. For this they are adding us to their annual list of “hate groups”.

CSP stands for freedom and liberty against a collection of groups that really do “hate”. We believe that all people should be able to live freely, but the radical Islamist groups do not. The premier institute of Islamic thought is al-Azhar University in Egypt and it publicly stated that even ISIS was still part of Islam. We should not be censored for pointing that out and that we differ from the Islamists on numerous other human rights issues as well.

We believe women are equal citizens. They believe women are property whose testimony in court counts less than a man’s.We believe homosexuals have a right to live without fear. They believe homosexuals should be hung or tossed off rooftops.

We believe young girls are humans with full rights. They believe in female genital mutilation, honor killings and child brides.

In what crazy mixed up world are we the bad guys for making this clear? Loving the freedoms all people are endowed with by their creator is an embodiment of American values. The Islamic law, sharia, they look to impose is an embodiment of subjugation. Too many Muslims actually think shariah should be supreme over our Supreme Court and the entire Constitution. CSP vigorously opposes this and we will speak out against it, and we hope others will add their voices.

The Islamist groups have made some unlikely allies on the political Left, like the SPLC. Together they are trying to suppress free speech by calling it Islamophobia. A phobia is an irrational fear, but the horrors perpetrated by the violent Islamists are all too real as are the attempts by their allies to bring customs abhorrent to free people here.

We will continue to speak out strongly in support of the freedoms that make this country great. It is love of those freedoms, not “hate” that leads us to call out those who truly deserve that moniker. The Islamists oppress women, homosexuals, non-believers and they are using violent and civilizational means to impose their will on all of us. CSP believes in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Hanson is the executive vice president for the Center for Security Policy.

Introducing CounterJihad, CAIR’s Worst Nightmare

CounterJihad.com

CounterJihad.com


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Hanson warns of civilization jihad and radicalization in Mosques:

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

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

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

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

***

IMG_2447-640x480

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

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