Center for Security Policy

Frank Gaffney Claims Dearborn, Michigan, Is Now A 'Muslim-Only' No-Go Zone

Not only did anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney use his interview on “Washington Watch” last week to compare President Obama to Osama bin Laden, but he also claimed that Sharia law has popped up in the U.S.

According to Gaffney, Dearborn, Michigan — a regular target of debunked claims about Sharia law that Gaffney calls “Dearbornistan” — has become a “ghetto enclave in which it’s Muslim-only and others, if they are not effectively proscribed or prevented from going in, know that it is too dangerous to go.”

Perkins, for his part, has previously claimed that both Dearborn and parts of Minneapolis are Islamic no-go zones.

The two also railed against the criticism directed at Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal for declaring that no-go zones are sweeping across Europe — an allegation for which Jindal offered no evidence besides anecdotal stories he claimed to have heard from people he met — and stating that Muslim faith leaders who condemned terrorist attacks didn’t go far enough because they didn’t specifically say that the culprits are going to Hell.

Gaffney said the “clueless” people criticizing Jindal want to impose a “rhetorical equivalent of a no-go zone.”

Gaffney also said that criticizing Jindal’s remarks amounts to enforcing Sharia blasphemy laws, decrying the “people who are trying to silence him, effectively to try to put Sharia blasphemy restrictions on his speech and his political prospects.”

Frank Gaffney: Obama Sounds Just Like Osama Bin Laden

Last week on “Washington Watch,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins invited anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist and birther Frank Gaffney to discuss the so-called “no-go zones” in Europe, neighborhoods that anti-Muslim activists claim are run according to Sharia law and remain off-limits to police and governmental authority.

Perkins asked Gaffney if President Obama is aiding terrorists because he won’t blame terrorist attacks on Islam, prompting Gaffney to say that Obama is a Sharia law proponent who sounds just like Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the leaders of Boko Haram.

“When the president says at the United Nations, ‘The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,’ we could’ve found those words coming out of the mouths of Osama bin Laden, or Mullah Omar of the Taliban, or the leaders of Boko Haram or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of Islamic State,” Gaffney said. “This is the doctrine of Sharia and its blasphemy codes. So it not only gives people latitude to say, ‘The president is saying we mustn’t exercise our freedom of speech or maybe we should give it up altogether lest it offend these folks.’ It is also, and this is really in a way much worse, emboldening our enemies, who when they see this behavior, they think we’re submitting to them.”

Gaffney, of course, is leaving out the fact Obama’s 2012 UN speech was all about the importance of the freedom of speech and opposition to blasphemy laws:

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day and I will always defend their right to do so.

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.

We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

Gaffney also conveniently left out the sentence immediately following the president’s remark on “those who slander the prophet of Islam”: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”

How The 'No-Go Zones' Myth Traveled From The Anti-Muslim Fringe To The Mouths Of GOP Politicians

Shortly after terrorist gunmen killed 12 people in an attack on the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris earlier this month, conservative commentator Steve Emerson went on Fox News and claimed that Europe was being taken over by “no-go zones” controlled by Islamic law to such an extent that non-Muslims were not allowed to enter Birmingham, England’s second-largest city.

Emerson’s claim was met with ridicule, including by British Prime Minister David Cameron, and Emerson and Fox quickly retracted the claim.

But at the same time, the “no-go zone” myth gained traction among conservative activists and Republican leaders, including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who mentioned it in a speech in London despite refusing to offer the names or locations of the purported no-go zones, and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, who claimed last week that France has “like 700 no-go zones where authorities have allowed Sharia law to be imposed,” something that he claimed is also beginning to happen in the United States.

The “no-go zone” myth didn’t spring out of nowhere two weeks ago. Instead, it has been percolating for years in fringe media, perpetuated by anti-Muslim activists warning that Europe was being overtaken by Sharia law, soon to be followed by the United States.

Bloomberg pinpoints the beginning of the myth at a 2006 article by conservative pundit Daniel Pipes, who gave the name “no-go zones” to a list of French “sensitive urban zones,” some with large populations of Muslim immigrants, that were, in reality, nothing more than areas hit by high crime and poverty that were actually targeted by the government for urban renewal projects. A few years later, Pipes had the opportunity to visit a few of these “no-go zones” and reported that they were “very mild, even dull” compared to high-crime neighborhoods in the U.S. and that “immigrant areas are hardly beautiful, but buildings are intact, greenery abounds, and order prevails.” He wrote, “Having this first-hand experience, I regret having called these areas no-go zones.”

But Pipes’ retraction came too late to stop the “no-go zone” story from becoming an established fact in fringe right-wing media.

The far-right outlet WorldNetDaily mentionsno-go zones” frequently, often warning that the United States will soon face the same fate. Anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller told WND last year:

The Muslim population, for example, in France is over 10 percent,” she said. “You see outside of Paris … it can be very frightening. The no-go zones, the Shariah zones, where firefighters and police cannot go. They are many times lured by particular criminal activity into these zones, only to be ambushed. We see it in the U.K., increasingly, the imposition of Shariah law. And people think it can’t happen here, but it is happening here.

A search for the term “no-go zones” in Geller’s blog before the Charlie Hebdo attack produces 10 pages of results. Prominent anti-Muslim activist Frank Gaffney has also perpetuated the myth, warning repeatedly on his website and radio program of such zones “where authorities dare not enter” and “Shariah rules instead of the laws of the host government.”

Last year, the Clarion Project’s Ryan Mauro similarly warned in a FrontPageMag article that European “no-go zones” would provide “precedent” for such “Muslim enclaves” in the U.S. The publication has been another prominent generator of the myth, frequently citing Pipes since-rejected claim about French “no-go” neighborhood.

The myth percolated to the top of the news cycle briefly in 2010 when Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle claimed that Dearborn, Michigan, and the made-up town of Frankford, Texas, were ruled by “Sharia law.” She didn’t use the term “no-go zone,” but was clearly influenced by the myth that had by then become established fact in fringe media.

As recently as last month, Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt was citing the myth to warn that U.S. protests against police brutality would create “no-go zones.”

“It’s like in England and Scandinavia and I guess in Paris and a lot of Europe, perhaps in a lot of their metropolitan areas, the Muslims have come to a preponderant population in those areas that the police do not dare go into the urban areas controlled by Muslims,” he said.

The myth, propagated by a few voices in fringe media, is too wild for Fox News. But it is now apparently perfectly acceptable in the Republican Party.

Allowing DACA Recipients In Military 'Unbelievably Dangerous' Says Numbers USA Spokeswoman

In an interview with Frank Gaffney on Tuesday, Rosemary Jenks, the director of government relations at the anti-immigrant group Numbers USA, said that any opening of the U.S. military to some people who came to the country illegally would be an “unbelievably dangerous” attack on the military’s “morale” and “integrity.”

“I think this president, not only is he intent on transforming America, he is intent on decimating our military in every way possible, in attacking its morale, in attacking its integrity,” she said. “It is just unbelievably dangerous to put illegal aliens inside the gates with our troops. It is unconscionable the things this president is doing to our military.”

“Well, I really think of it as a wrecking operation, and this fits the profile for sure,” Gaffney agreed.

In September, the Defense Department issued a new policy expanding to a small number of DREAMers an existing Bush-era program that allow some noncitizens with specialized skills serve in the military. USA Today explained the policy change:

The Pentagon program is capped at 1,500 recruits per year. Officials say it's unclear how many of those might be unlawful DACA status immigrants as opposed to others who are also eligible for military service under MAVNI, including those with legal, nonpermanent visas such as students or tourists.

Estimates suggest between 1.2 million and 2.1 million children, teenagers and young adults in the U.S. have no legal immigration status but meet the criteria for the DACA program. Those targeted by recruiters under the MAVNI program likely will be immigrants with language skills critical to national security, such as Arabic, Chinese, Pashto or Persian.

DACA status is granted by the Department of Homeland Security and includes a background check.

On average, the military recruits about 5,000 noncitizens each year, nearly all of them permanent U.S. residents, or so-called "green card" holders. Starting in 2006, the military began accepting some foreigners with nonpermanent visas, such as students or tourists, if they had special skills that are highly valued.

After entering military service, foreigners are eligible for expedited U.S. citizenship. Since 2001, more than 92,000 foreign-born service members have become citizens while serving in uniform.

The MAVNI program began in 2008 and remains a pilot program. The Pentagon notified Congress on Thursday that the program, which was due to expire at the end of this fiscal year, will be extended for another two years and will for the first time include DACA-status immigrants.

The military services are not required to accept recruits under MAVNI. In recent years, the Army has been the only service to accept a significant number of recruits under the program. The Air Force has accepted only a few and the Navy and Marine Corps have not sought MAVNI recruits in recent years.

Jerry Boykin: 'Persian' Valerie Jarrett Convincing Obama To Let Iran Have A Nuclear Weapon

Family Research Council vice president Jerry Boykin told the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney in an interview last week that he believes President Obama is going to cut a deal with Iran allowing the country to have a nuclear weapon on the advice of his adviser Valerie Jarrett because she “is Persian, she’s an Iranian.”

“I think the administration has essentially, and probably because of the advice of Valerie Jarrett — who is Persian, she’s an Iranian — I think that because of her influence that the president has made some very bad decisions with regards for support for the Iranian nuclear program,” he said.

Jarrett was born in Iran to American parents — her father ran a hospital there — and left when she was five years old.

Boykin and Gaffney also discussed the alleged “penetration” of the U.S. government by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Gaffney, who helped start the right-wing smear campaign against Hillary Clinton aide Human Abedin, asked Boykin, “What is the state of the penetration of our government, not just by the Huma Abedins and the Hesham Islams of the world, but more broadly as evidence of the civilization jihad that’s being waged against us by the Muslim Brotherhood especially?”

Boykin responded by asserting that after 9/11, counterterrorism authorities hired a large number of Arabic translators, “a large percentage” of whom “actually wound up working for the other side.”

He went on to lament what he called “the total infiltration of the intelligence community” by people he believes to be Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood agents, including the counterterrorism chief responsible for many of the targeted killings of Al Qaeda officials, reportedly a Muslim convert. He also repeated the “strong rumors” that CIA director John Brennan has converted to Islam.

“What we do know is that there are penetrations at every level of our government, to include homeland security, to include the military, to include the intelligence community, to include the Congress,” he said. “There are penetrations by nefarious elements, by people that are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, by people who are associated with Al Qaeda. And by the way, Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda are really all the same thing.”

“And the Islamic State and Boko Haram and the rest of them,” Gaffney added. “And the Iranians, too, with their differences on different points of theology, are very much part of this Sharia enterprise and the global jihad to impose it.”

Phyllis Schlafly: 'So-Called Kids' Crossing The Border Just Want Welfare

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly appeared on “Secure Freedom Radio” with Frank Gaffney last week to point the blame at undocumented immigrants for increasing the national debt, overburdening social welfare programs and inciting a health crisis in the United States.

To supposedly remedy these issues, Schlafly called for a moratorium on immigration, arguing that the most recent waves of immigrants aren’t willing enough to integrate into American society. “The American people want the borders closed and we need a pause in our immigration. That’s what happened after the big immigration of the 1920s,” she said. “We had a pause and they all assimilated and they learned English and they learned to adapt to American ways. But the people coming in now, it’s not even clear they want to be Americans.” 

She said that she learned from Rep. Michele Bachmann that the border is insecure and that “there’s no fence, they’re bringing in all kinds of disease and Obama’s not doing anything to stop it.”

Schlafly added that “a lot of these so-called kids who are coming in” are “tough cookies.”

Schlafly breathlessly described a scenario in which the knee-jerk dependency of immigrants on federal assistance programs would cripple the economy.

“They’re people who have no understanding or familiarity with the concept of limited government,” she added. “When you let these people in who will immediately go on the welfare system — you know, the Boston bombers came in, went right on the welfare system. That’s the reason for the enormous spending and debt we have, because we keep bringing in people who really can’t support themselves.”

Schlafly brought up her childhood during the Great Depression — arguably an era that saw one of the largest periods of federal government intervention — claiming that Americans were resilient enough to fend for themselves and didn’t need to seek out government aid. “[Immigrants] expect big government to take care of them, to solve their problems, and that’s not the way most Americans think,” she said.

“I grew up during the depression, and we didn’t look to government to solve our problems. And we grew up to be what they called the Greatest Generation.”

Diana West: Military's Anti-Ebola Mission Shows 'Development Of A Totalitarian Government Structure'

Conservative columnist Diana West does not approve of the Obama administration’s decision to send U.S. troops to West Africa to help fight the Ebola epidemic at its source by building treatment centers and training medical personnel. In fact, West told Frank Gaffney on “Secure Freedom Radio” last week that the mission shows that the president does not have “an American agenda” and is instead embracing “a totalitarian government structure.”

Gaffney told West that the administration said it would not return service members to the U.S. for treatment if they were to contract the disease — a claim that seems to be based on a Brietbart headline that isn’t backed up by the source it references — while it might bring in some foreign patients for treatment.

“How could they possibly do that with some non-Americans and not enable American citizens in uniform to be returned here?” he asked.

“Well, I think this goes back to the original question which does have to do with the fact that we have leaders with a global agenda, not an American agenda, who have all the power at the moment and certainly act as if they do,” West said.

“It’s exactly this idea that there is nothing special about America or Americans,” she continued. “Another point to get to is the notion of a commander in chief with so little regard for his forces…that he sees them as pawns in a global game of ideological utopia.”

“This is where you start seeing the development of a totalitarian government structure,” she said.

Family Security Matters Suggests Outlawing Islam In US

A post last week on the website Family Security Matters — which was founded by Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy and counts a Center official as a member of its board — suggested that the U.S. “tailor the language of Section 2 of the Communist Control Act of 1954” to read that “the organization known as Islam shall be outlawed in the United States."

Via Mitchell Blatt, Family Security Matters contributing editor Paul Hollrah writes:

Islam is not a religion, as we understand the term. Rather it is a complete political, judicial, economic, military, and cultural system, masquerading as a religion. Its adherents refuse to assimilate into host country cultures, insisting that they be allowed to exist as an independent entity, not subject to the laws of their host nations. In order to accomplish their ends, they regularly preach the overthrow of their host governments, by violence if necessary.

Accordingly, we must resolve that, "What is sauce for the (Communist) goose is sauce for the (Islamic) gander." In order to neutralize Islam's cultural institutions within our country, we must do as I have previously suggested: We must tailor the language of Section 2 of the Communist Control Act of 1954... a law that has not been struck down by the Supreme Court and which is still on the books... to read as follows:

"The American people are determined to eliminate from their midst organizations which, purporting to be ‘religious,' in the accepted sense of that term, are conspirators dedicated to the destruction of our form of government by force and violence...

"The Congress hereby finds and declares that Islam, although purportedly a religious sect, is in fact an instrumentality of a foreign conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to individuals of other religious denominations, but denying to all others the freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution...

"As a segment of the U.S. population, Islam is relatively small, numerically, and gives scant indication of its capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful means. The peril inherent in the existence of Islam arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present system of government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power renders its existence a clear and present danger to the security of the United States. It is the means whereby individuals are seduced into the service of Islam, trained to do its bidding, and directed and controlled in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the organization known as Islam shall be outlawed in the United States."

With that statute on the books we can make it very uncomfortable for radical Islamists. We can make their presence in our country so unpleasant that they will long for a return to whatever hellhole they and their predecessors crawled out of. With eyes and ears planted in every mosque and every Muslim cultural center in America, radical Imams such as the late Anwar al-Awlaki could be readily identified.

Cliff Kincaid: NSA Should Monitor Obama As A Potential Russian Agent

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media said in an interview with Frank Gaffney yesterday that the National Security Agency “should be monitoring our own president,” implying that the president could in fact be a Russian agent.

Kincaid has stated before that he believes that German Chancellor Angela Merkel is a Russian agent, and told Gaffney that the NSA was right to monitor Merkel’s phone calls.

“We can’t just assume that some of these people supposedly on our side are just misguided and have been led astray,” he said. “We have to look at evidence of infiltration.”

He then implied that President Obama himself could be part of this “infiltration,” saying that it was “no accident” that Edward Snowden “ended up in Moscow” and citing conspiracy theories around labor activist Frank Marshall Davis, who was a friend of the president’s family when he was growing up, to claim that the president was “mentored as a youth by a pro-Soviet Communist Party operative.”

(There is an alternate birther theory that holds that Davis was in fact Obama’s real father, but Kincaid is among those who believe that Davis merely mentored Obama to become a communist.)

“[F]rankly our NSA should be monitoring our own president,” Kincaid said.

Frank Gaffney Demands Obama Cut Foreign Aid To Central America As A Way To Curb Immigration

Conservative pundit Frank Gaffney has a great idea to dissuade young migrants from escaping violence and economic hardship in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras: cut off their foreign aid!

In today’s “Secure Freedom Minute,” Gaffney says the Obama administration should declare that such countries “are not eligible for our foreign aid” until the immigrant “invasion” ends.

We can’t see how that could possibly go wrong.

Barack Obama visits Texas today, but not its border areas. He’s not interested in evidence that his policies have encouraged an ongoing invasion by tens of thousands of illegal child and other aliens. The President just wants Congress to give him nearly $4 billion to “manage” the resulting crisis. Unfortunately, he would spend much of it in ways that will encourage more such invaders to come here. For example, lots of this emergency funding would go to provide housing, food, transportation and lawyers for the illegal aliens. These would be inducements for further invasion. Congress should just say “No” to such spending and ensure that the countries enabling the invasion – namely, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Mexico – are not eligible for our foreign aid until they stop it, and repatriate the invaders.

After Attacking Woman At Heritage Panel, Brigitte Gabriel Smears Her In Fundraising Email

Earlier this week, a media firestorm erupted around a Heritage Foundation panel about the 2012 Benghazi attack, which featured a number of anti-Muslim activists including ACT! for America’s Brigitte Gabriel and Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy.

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank attended the event, and wrote about an ugly exchange in which a Muslim woman in the audience asked a question about Muslim representation at the event, and was met with a tirade from Gabriel, who told her that the “peaceful majority” of Muslims was “irrelevant,” made a comparison to Nazi Germany, and demanded to know if the woman was an American.

Milbank’s column, in turn, caused outrage from  the conservative media and from Politico, who claimed that he misrepresented the event, although, as Milbank later pointed out, his critics were not actually there to see Gabriel’s diatribe and the enthusiastic response of the Heritage crowd.

Now, Gabriel is responding to criticism of her remarks in trademark fashion, by attempting to smear the woman who asked her the question.

In a fundraising email yesterday, Gabriel claimed that she had found “additional information” about the woman that “begins to bring into more focus the possible real reason for her ‘question’ at Monday’s event.” Gabriel breathlessly reports that the woman, Saba Ahmed, has been active in politics before (not a huge surprise for someone attending a panel event in Washington). She then tries to link Ahmed to an attempted terror plot in Portland (Ahmed was a family friend of the suspect, and has not in any way been implicated in it). And to top it all off, Gabriel reports that Ahmed was once arrested for something completely unrelated.

This line of attack should not come as a huge surprise from someone who has used similarly tenuous connections to claim that former Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin was a Muslim Brotherhood agent, an accusation that Gaffney repeated at the panel.

Gabriel concludes her email by repeating her remark from the panel that “it is time we take political correctness and throw it in the garbage” and asking for money from her supporters.

Although the only focus of Monday’s Heritage event was getting to the bottom of the Benghazi attack and holding those responsible accountable for their actions (or lack of action), my panel was asked a rather unusual question by a woman in the audience, Saba ‘Queen’ Ahmed – a woman portraying herself as a young Muslim student concerned about the discrimination of Muslims.


Ms. Ahmed has been described by many in the media as a “young Muslim law student.” However as is so often the case, there is just a little more to the story.

The additional information we found about Ms. Ahmed begins to bring into more focus the possible real reason for her “question” at Monday’s event – and a possible explanation about why she attended the discussion and left immediately after her question and our exchange:

  • She is CEO/President of Saba Ahmed, LLC a Washington, DC, lobbying firm.
  • She is the friend of the family of Mohamed Osman Mohamud, the Somali-American accused of attempting to bomb a Portland Christmas tree lighting ceremony in 2010. (In fact, here is a photo of her leaving his court proceedings!)
  • She is a former candidate for U.S. Congress. (Right: Image from her campaign website)
  • She has been active in Democratic politics as well as with the radical “Occupy” movement.
  • She was an assistant of former Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski and also for U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR).
  • She was arrested for a “stalking incident” in Florida.

I am glad that I had the opportunity to address Ms. Ahmed’s comments directly and respectfully – even though they had nothing to do with the issue of the event. It was an important educational moment.

I stand by how I closed my remarks on Monday:

It is time we take political correctness and throw it in the garbage where it belongs, and start calling a spade a spade.

I have received letters and e-mails from all over the country in support of my response to Ms. Ahmed. I am humbled by, and appreciative of, this support and encouragement. And I want you to know that I intend to continue standing up to individuals like this who seek only to misrepresent the truth and who use the liberal media to spread falsehoods about the Islamist threat that surrounds us.

UPDATE: On Sean Hannity's program last night, Gabriel again attacked Ahmed, saying “she took the limelight instead of standing up as an American.” Hannity then spent several minutes hounding Ahmed.

Frank Gaffney Warns Obama Is Aiding 'Stealth Jihadist Groups' By Relinquishing Federal Control Of The Internet

Frank Gaffney is joining other conservative activists in pushing grossly misinformed criticisms of a recent decision to “relinquish federal government control over the administration of the Internet,” which the Center for Security Policy said yesterday in a radio bulletin would assist “various enemies of freedom – including hostile nations, stealth jihadist groups like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and UN bureaucrats,” in their efforts to “dictate what the Internet can and can’t do.”

“Enabling that to happen is just the latest example of President Obama’s systematic efforts to diminish our country in ways that undermine liberty,” Gaffney warned.

Gaffney is either intentionally distorting the new policy or has no idea what he is talking about, as the decision was actually a rebuke to countries that wanted a stronger role for the United Nations:

Supporters of an Obama administration decision to untether the group that manages Internet infrastructure are challenging Republican criticism as misplaced or even politically motivated.

The Commerce Department announced Friday that it would give up oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which manages .com and other domain names, when the current contract expires in fall 2015. The decision triggered backlash from some in the GOP, who worry the move hands authoritarian countries the power to take over the Internet.

Advocates see the opposite: a necessary step toward a more global Internet and one less susceptible to strong-arming tactics.



ICANN, a non-profit based in Los Angeles, has managed the nuts and bolts of the Internet under a long-time contract with the United States. But the U.S. role has worried countries like China and Russia, who want another organization to take ICANN’s place. They’ve tried to empower an alternative authority, the United Nations-led International Telecommunication Union.



But Democrats and Internet experts believe the move actually lessens the power of the United Nations’ agency and makes the entire playing field more fair.

“It’s not a good news item for the ITU,” said Nick Ashton-Hart, the Geneva representative for the Computer & Communications Industry Association and a former ICANN official. “If the U.S. was to try and maintain the master key, it would have been more likely to result in the fragmentation of the Internet,” because other countries could claim a similar role.



If the agency hadn’t relinquished its oversight, the ITU could continue to argue that ICANN functioned as a pawn for the U.S. government, said former Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), who oversaw the Energy and Commerce subcommittee with jurisdiction over ICANN. “This will reduce the level of global controversy.”

Gaffney: Legal Immigration 'Dooms Our Constitutional Republic'

On Secure Freedom Radio yesterday, Frank Gaffney invited Phyllis Schlafly to discuss her new Eagle Forum report making the case that Republicans should oppose immigration reform because immigrants will always vote Democratic.

Schlafly repeated her usual talking points that people from other countries don’t “understand the concept of limited government” so expanding legal immigration would be “suicide for the conservative movement and the Republican party.”

Gaffney agreed, adding that if immigration reform “dooms” the Republican Party it also “dooms our constitutional republic that that party has historically been there to serve and advance.”

As you know, the freedom of America is based on limited government --“Bind him down from mischief,” as Jefferson said – and the conservative movement believes in government’s too big and too expensive. And the people coming in will just vote the other way. And that’s why I think the Democrats are so eager to bring them up, they see millions of Democratic votes coming in through this amnesty.

It’s of course not just people who are not in this country and will come in if there’s an amnesty and the borders remain open, it’s also the numbers of undocumented people already here – it seems to be 11 million, but God only knows what it actually is.

Well, that’s right, it’s the people who are already here, and they come from countries -- well, America is not only exceptional, it’s unique in that we believe in limited government and cutting down on government spending, and there’s just a large bloc of the world that has other experiences and doesn’t even understand the concept of limited government. So, when they come in they will vote Democratic, which is what they showed. And this is also true of the Asians who are coming in, although not in as large numbers as the Hispanics, and that is because that’s all they know and they think government should be big in their life, and conservatives don’t feel that way. So I think that the amnesty, which would bring in millions of legal and illegal immigrants would just be suicide for the conservative movement and the Repbulican party.

Gaffney: I want to commend you again and urge everyone to check out at eagleforum.org ‘How Mass Legal Immigration Dooms a Conservative Republican Party,’ and I would argue – and I think you would too, Phyllis Schlafly, dooms our constitutional republic that that party has historically been there to serve and advance.

Frank Gaffney Will Twist Any News Item In Order To Attack Obama

After the Ukrainian government’s decision to pull out of an agreement with the European Union triggered massive protests, Secretary of State John Kerry cancelled his trip to Ukraine and instead visited Moldova which, unlike Ukraine, decided to pursue closer relations with the EU.

This is how a real news source covered the story:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry urged the Ukrainian government on Tuesday to “listen to the voices of its people” after President Viktor Yanukovych's decision to spurn an agreement with the European Union sparked days of massive protests.

Kerry said Ukrainians had demonstrated “in unbelievable numbers” their support of the accord on closer ties with Europe, which Yanukovych rejected last week in favor of Russian incentives.

“Mr. Yanukovych has obviously made a personal decision and the people don't agree with that decision,” Kerry said after a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels.

“Clearly there is a very powerful evidence of people who would like to be associated with Europe... we stand with the vast majority of the Ukrainians who want to see this future for their country,” he told a news conference.



“I personally will be going to Moldova in order to support that country's European choice,” Kerry said. “I look forward to visiting Ukraine when it too gets back on the path to European integration and economic responsibility.”

But Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy claims that Secretary Kerry’s clear stance in favor of greater European integration and support for the demonstrators actually is proof that he opposes the pro-EU protest movement, proving once again that Obama administration officials can do no right in the eyes of right-wing activists: 

There’s a new revolution underway – this time in Ukraine. Mass demonstrations are insisting that country align with the European Union, not Russia, an idea adamantly opposed by Vladimir Putin and his puppets in Kiev. America should be standing with those seeking freedom and closer ties to the West. Yet, the Obama administration is literally missing in action, with Secretary of State John Kerry just cancelling a planned trip to Ukraine. See a pattern here? Where revolutionaries are working to overthrow friends of the United States, Team Obama is all for them. Where revolutionaries oppose regimes hostile to the United States and freedom – as in Iran in 2009 or Ukraine today – President Obama offers no help, or even rhetorical support. This pattern diminishes America’s standing internationally and makes for a more dangerous world.

Gaffney: Gays And Women In Military Are Inviting War; 'God Help Us'

Earlier this year, Sandy Rios claimed that women in combat positions and the “homosexual takeover” of the military have destroyed the military’s effectiveness. Therefore it was no surprise when her Veterans Day guest Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy made a similar statement, arguing that gay and female service members have jeopardized the country’s security and the strength of the military. Gaffney also repeated the false claim that the military is now persecuting Christians and turning the practice of one’s faith into “a career-threatening activity.”

“God help us if we have to go to war again,” Gaffney told Rios, “especially if we invite war by this kind of behavior and weakness as we have in the past.”

The social engineering piece of what I think of as the Obama wrecking operation: you put in the effort to put homosexuals in the military and change the ethos of the institution in that way; you put women into combat and you change the ethos of the institution that way; you put every Christian in uniform on notice for the practice of their faith as possibly a career-threatening activity. You through all that into the mix on top of the other kinds of hallowing out — the lack of training, the lack of maintenance, the lack of modernization, the lack of research and development — and you really have I’m afraid put us in the position where we are breaking the only military we have. And God help us if we have to go to war again, and we will, especially if we invite war by this kind of behavior and weakness as we have in the past.

Gaffney: Registering More People To Vote Will Mean 'The End America As We Have Known It'

With Republicans openly cheering for a low voter turnout and passing laws restricting the right to vote, it is no surprise that they are extremely upset that the Affordable Care Act website asks if the person applying for an insurance plan would like to registered to vote.

The voter registration question is actually mandated by federal law. “The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, also known as ‘Motor Voter,’ requires public agencies that provide public assistance to offer voter registration opportunities,” Scott Keyes points out. “Nowhere are citizens told who to vote for, which party to register for, or even that they have to register at all.” 

But Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy said that registering more people to vote is “promoting creeping socialism” and voter fraud. By registering more “low-income voters,” Gaffney warns, “expect a permanent majority demanding government hand-outs—and the end of America as we have known it.”

That’s right, Gaffney thinks it is anti-American and wrong that low-income people might exercise their right to vote.

For some time, it’s been apparent that the Obama presidency is promoting creeping socialism. Obamacare’s intervention in, and substantial takeover of, one-sixth of our economy is a particularly ominous manifestation of the administration’s agenda – and evidence of its progress.

Not content with creeping, though, Team Obama’s socialists have broken into a full gallop. That’s the practical implication of a newly revealed facet of Obamacare: Whatever its other shortcomings and outright failings, the health care registration process is being used effectively to compel Americans to register to vote.

The process lends itself to abuse and fraud. And allies of the President say the goal is to register sixty-eight million, most low-income voters. If successful, expect a permanent majority demanding government hand-outs – and the end of America as we have known it.

Gaffney: US Must Stop CAIR Like It Fights Terrorist Attacks

On his Secure Freedom Minute radio program yesterday, Frank Gaffney said the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) “must be stopped”…just like the terrorists who attacked a mall in Nairobi, Kenya. Gaffney claimed that CAIR is waging a “stealthy, pre-violent” kind of jihad known as “civilization jihad” against the US, citing their criticisms of laws that are ostensibly designed to ban Sharia but are in reality a ploy to unfairly target Muslim-Americans.

CAIR is a frequent punching bag of anti-Muslim activists like Gaffney. “Like jihadists in Kenya and elsewhere, CAIR’s must be stopped – not tolerated or appeased,” Gaffney claims.

A murderous jihadist attack on a Kenyan mall prompts the question: Could it happen here? Unfortunately, it could.

But there’s another kind of jihad already being waged against us in this country. It’s the stealthy, pre-violent kind the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad.” And the Brotherhood’s Council on American Islamic Relations is a prime practitioner.

Last week, CAIR railed against efforts to keep Sharia law from being used in U.S. courts. Then, we learned that some FBI agents were still meeting with and taking advice from CAIR operatives, despite explicit direction from superiors not to do that.

Now, the Daily Caller reports, CAIR’s Islamists seem to be engaged in money-laundering foreign funds to pay for civilization jihad here. Like jihadists in Kenya and elsewhere, CAIR’s must be stopped – not tolerated or appeased.

Frank Gaffney Pushes Conspiracy Theory That US Had Foreknowledge Of Chemical Weapons Attack

Last week on Secure Freedom Radio, Frank Gaffney interviewed Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) about the crisis in Syria and asked him about a conspiracy theory, recently publicized by Rush Limbaugh, that the United States knew ahead of time about an imminent chemical weapons attack in Syria. As the story goes, Syrian rebels got hold of the weapons and staged the attack in order to give the US an excuse to intervene in the civil war.

Gaffney inquired:

One particularly troubling thing is we had just yesterday Rush Limbaugh among others picking up on a report by a former congressional staffer by the name Yossef Bodansky to the effect that a US Ambassador to Syria was in the company of rebels in Turkey shortly before the attack that took place on the 21st of August and was being told there was about to be a war changing event that would bring the United States in on the side of the rebels. I just wonder in light of the fact that some of these chemical weapons might have migrated into other hands, do you think we’re doing due diligence even to understand the authority of this claim that the administration has made that Assad was responsible for this attack? At the very least, it seems to me that question ought to be sorted don’t you think?

The radio host later claimed that “this is in fact, I believe, a formula for a war.”

Johnson didn’t directly respond to the allegations and only argued that Obama administration officials haven’t offered Senators enough time to review the evidence.

Gaffney: Immigration Reform a Communist Plot to Destroy GOP, Help Terrorists

In his “Secure Freedom Minute” today, Frank Gaffney ominously warns that immigration reform legislation will “determine the fate of the [Republican] party and our Republic.” He alleges that if the bill becomes law it will “prove a magnet for more illegal aliens and more amnesties in the future” and even “permit terrorists now here to put on the so-called path to citizenship.”

Gaffney argues that immigration reform is a “product of decades of work by communists determined to consign the GOP to permanent minority status incapable of halting the further radical transformation of America.” He cites a piece by Trevor Loudon, who claims that several California politicians are tied to a “secret communist” immigration activist and the Democratic Socialists of America.

Gaffney: Immigration Reform May Give Citizenship to Terrorists

Frank Gaffney took to the Washington Times today to warn Sen. Marco Rubio that if he continues to support the Senate immigration reform bill, then he will be effectively helping terrorists gain citizenship.

While Gaffney alleged that “illegal immigration is up as untold numbers of aliens seek to take advantage of our still-too-porous border to get themselves placed on the ‘path to citizenship,’” in reality, the flow of unauthorized immigrants is at historic lows.

He writes that Rubio is pushing the “undoing” of laws which “thwart terrorists and dangerous criminals seeking to exploit our immigration system.”

“As Mr. Rubio surely knows,” Gaffney continues, immigrants crossing the border include people “associated with terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah.” “Does Mr. Rubio want to be responsible for helping their ilk not only continue to come here, but to obtain legal status to stay?”

Like Mr. Obama’s earlier amnesty initiative — the Dream Act — the Gang of Eight bill is already having the predictable effect: Illegal immigration is up as untold numbers of aliens seek to take advantage of our still-too-porous border to get themselves placed on the “path to citizenship.” As Mr. Rubio surely knows, a non-trivial percentage of those are dubbed OTMs — “other than Mexicans.” These include persons from what are euphemistically called “special-interest countries,” notably, Iran and other Islamist-ruled nations. Some are even associated with terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah — notwithstanding the Obama State Department’s preposterous announcement last week that there are “no known operational cells” of such groups in the Western Hemisphere.

Does Mr. Rubio want to be responsible for helping their ilk not only continue to come here, but to obtain legal status to stay? Is he OK with the extensive hamstringing of law enforcement this bill entails, which can only make it more difficult to protect us against such unwanted aliens?

Then there’s the screening process mandated by the gang’s legislation for the more than 11 million illegal immigrants already here. It seems designed to delude the innocent, not detect the dangerous. Its superficial, hands-off review bears no resemblance to the 14-hour interview the FBI conducted of Tamerlan Tsarnaev before the Boston Marathon bombings— and even that proved inadequate to the task of identifying and excluding a threat.

Mr. Rubio cannot finesse the hard choice before him. An amendment here or there will not fix the systemic problems with a bill that, at its core, ignores and subverts national security by undoing much of the law put in place after Sept. 11 to thwart terrorists and dangerous criminals seeking to exploit our immigration system. Will he enable it to become the devastating new law of the land?
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious