Frank Gaffney

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.

Trent Franks: Obama's Immigration Move Triggers 'The Death Of The Republic'

Rep. Trent Franks believes that President Obama’s executive action on immigration was such an egregious step that it may cause the rule of law to collapse and compel the U.S. send an apology to England for the American Revolution.

While speaking yesterday with Frank Gaffney, the Arizona Republican said that Obama is “dividing the country in some very significant ways and I don’t think that he serves either the illegal immigration community or the cause of the rule of law or justice in general in any way when he makes these kinds of unilateral decisions.”

“I think that there’s probably nothing that this president has done or is doing that is more dangerous to the fundamental foundation of this Republic then ignoring the Constitution and betraying his oath of office” he said. There is something very frightening about a president who simply aggregates this power onto himself and ignores the very oath that he took that president.

“Without trying to sound overwrought, it literally could be the death of the Republic because once the chief executive officer of any republic all of the sudden begins to ignore the rule of law to hold himself unconstrained to the Constitution and to the truth of his own words, if that should become a common practice of presidents, then that little unpleasantness with England we had is something we should probably apologize for,” Franks added.

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.

Right Wing Round-Up - 10/1/14

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.

Allen West: 'Barack Hussein Obama Is An Islamist'

Former congressman Allen West writes today that President Obama is siding with extremist groups like ISIS because he supports their goal of building an Islamic caliphate.

Why wouldn’t the Obama administration allow Kurdish Peshmerga members to come to America and receive flight training so they could be given quality helicopter gunships and destroy ISIS? Can anyone explain what the strategy and objective is here in lifting this ban with a nation that is or should be on the terrorist watch list?

Sorry, but I can only explain this one way: Barack Hussein Obama is an Islamist in his foreign policy perspectives and supports their cause. You can go back and listen to his 2009 speech in Cairo, where Muslim Brotherhood associates were seated front and center.

All the circumstantial and anecdotal evidence points to that conclusion. The pivot away from the Middle East seems to be nothing more than an opportunity to enable Islamists and their goals. Anyone supporting this Libyan ban being lifted is indeed an enemy of this state.

The Obama administration’s foreign policy doctrine is self-described as “don’t do stupid s@#t”. But I guess that all depends on what your ultimate goal is.

He told Frank Gaffney yesterday that not only does Obama have an “Islamist perspective and viewpoint,” but so does Hillary Clinton. West alleged that the former secretary of state “never spoke out against” a proposed UN resolution barring religious defamation, which Clinton did in fact denounce as an attack on the freedom of speech.

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 8/1/14

  • Frank Gaffney worries Central American kids at the border will “likely to fall into the hands of drug gangs and jihadists.”
  • WND muses that watching far-right House members sink a border bill was a “moment that might remind one of a scene from a Frank Capra film.”

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 7/9/14

  • What a surprise, people have had enough of Sarah Palin.
  • Frank Gaffney says that Richard Mellon Scaife was "a founding father in his own right."
  • What a surprise, Tim LaHaye, who made a fortune writing about the End Times, thinks people don't study the Book of Revelation enough .... so he wrote another book about it!
  • Sen. Rob Portman "is confident that his position on gay marriage has not crippled his ability to be a national candidate." Good luck winning the GOP presidential primary with that position.
  • Finally, "life is a lot simpler when you’re a liberal": "For one thing, you don’t have to be bothered by silly things like facts; you can just make up your narrative as you go along and, thanks to our abysmal public education system, most people will never know that you lied through your teeth. You also don’t have to worry about understanding many complex issues, and how to respond to criticism of your position on those issues. Being a liberal, you’re wrong on pretty much everything anyway, so there’s no need to waste your time trying to articulate a factual, intelligent response.

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.

Rep. John Shimkus Pushes Phony Internet Scandal To Warn Of Threats From 'Totalitarian Regimes'

Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) is citing debunked right-wing claims that President Obama handed over the Internet to foreign powers in order to attack the Obama administration. 

Speaking yesterday with Frank Gaffney, one of the first conservative activists to push the discredited claim, Shimkus wondered if “we risk a totalitarian regimes taking over” the Internet, speculating that governments that “shut down social media” will gain control over Internet access in the US.

Gaffney agreed and said Obama’s policies are “very detrimental to freedom of expression.”

Rep. Lou Barletta Says There's 'Nothing More Dangerous' Than Immigration Reform, Ties It To 9/11

Every year, the anti-immigrant group FAIR holds an event called “Hold Their Feet To The Fire,” which invites radio hosts to broacast from Washington, DC, and interview lawmakers and conservative activists.

This year, Rep. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania, one of the staunchest anti-immigrant members of the House, showed up on FAIR’s radio row to call president Obama a dictator, associate undocumented immigrants with the 9/11 terrorists, and declare that “there may not be anything more dangerous” than comprehensive immigration reform.

Barletta told Secure Freedom Radio’s Frank Gaffney that President Obama has put us “on a road to where we’re now electing a dictator.” He took particular exception to the president’s support of immigration reform: “There may not be anything more dangerous than what he’s doing, to give amnesty to millions of people. “

Gaffney: To the extent that the president is, at best, selectively enforcing the law and in some cases rewriting the law or ignoring it altogether, do you agree with those who describe this as a constitutional crisis?

Barletta: Oh, there’s no question about it. This has been a slippery slope that this administration has taken, that the president has taken, walking over the Constitution and taking us down a path that, quite frankly, I don’t know if we’ve ever been this far down a road before, on a road to where we’re now electing a dictator who will try to pick and choose what laws and challenging Congress to try to stop me.

And there may not be anything more dangerous than what he’s doing, to give amnesty to millions of people. We know for a fact that there are people who have come here illegally who want to harm America.

In an interview with Florida radio host Joyce Kaufman, who came under fire for anti-immigrant extremism when she was briefly the chief of staff to Rep. Allen West, Barletta compared the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country to the 9/11 terrorists.

Referring to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s comment that many undocumented immigrants come to the US as an “act of love” for their families, Barletta said, “You know, sometimes we need to remind everyone about September 11. The pilots of those planes, it was an act of love to a different God that took American lives. And not everyone who is here illegally is all here for an act of love for their families.”

Kaufman agreed, adding that the Boston Marathon bombing – perpetrated by legal immigrants – was “another act of love.”
 

Paranoia-Rama: Gays Destroying The Economy, CIA's Feminist Infiltration & Antichrist Obama

RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.

Before the Internet becomes censored by our Chinese-Islamist overlords, right-wing figures would like you to know that America is being destroyed by feminism, gay rights and President Obama (who may or may not be the Antichrist). Not that any of that matters anyway, because it is all really a distraction from Benghazi.

5. Gay Rights Lead To Economic Collapse

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins has been dismayed by growing calls within the GOP to “agree to disagree on social issues” like marriage equality. Perkins insists that treating gay people equally under the law will have dangerous, unforeseen economic consequences.

He explains that gay rights will weaken America in the eyes of the world, encouraging countries like Russia to move against the US Dollar and throw the economy into chaos. “So there goes the economy all because we ignored the morality of the issues of this administration,” Perkins warns.

4. CIA Ruined Feminism

InfoWars host Alex Jones warned this week that “true feminism,” which he explained is all about preserving the patriarchy and maintaining high fertility rates, is under attack by Beyoncé Knowles-Carter and secret CIA agents like Gloria Steinem.

Feminism, Jones added, has become “a top down system of control used to divide and conquer and is run by powerful individuals who care little for actual women’s rights.” He also blamed “establishment feminism” for things such as genetically modified foods, vaccines, estrogen mimickers and metrosexual men.

3. Obama Giving China, Islamists Control Of The Internet

A decision to relinquish federal control of the Internet has sparked outrage from Republican politicians and Fox News pundits, who argue that the move will empower countries like China and Russia. As it turns out, the decision, which has been in the works since 1998, actually limits the influence of other governments and the United Nations.

But the world of right-wing conspiracies seem impenetrable to such facts. Take for example a recent warning from Center for Security Policy head Frank Gaffney, who predicted that “stealth jihadist groups” will now have increased control of the Internet.

2. Antichrist Alert

It turns out that Hillary Clinton isn’t the Antichrist after all, as it is Barack Obama who really has been the Antichrist all along. Mark Creech of the Christian Action League, which is the American Family Association’s North Carolina chapter, wrote that America will soon be destroyed like Babel for putting Obama, whom he seems to think is the Antichrist, in the White House.

Religious Right columnist Michael Bresciani didn’t go as far as Creech but noted that the Antichrist will look a lot like Obama: “Being the incarnation of the Devil himself means that his view is always the exact opposite of God and is always wrong. A perfect type of the antichrist is Barack Obama.”

1. Missing Plane Coverage Is A Distraction From Benghazi

Since the sad and cynical politicization of the 2012 Benghazi attack will never end, conservative media personalities are now charging that coverage of the missing Malaysia Airlines plane is a media strategy to distract from Benghazi. Of course, repeated reports — including a GOP-led House study — have discredited the conspiracy theories surrounding the attack and its aftermath, but Fox News is intent on incorporating Benghazi into its Malaysia Airlines reporting.

Bill O’Reilly said the press is only covering the Malaysia Airlines incident because it “doesn’t want to cover important stories like the IRS and Benghazi” while Peter Johnson Jr. wondered why “newscasts don’t focus on things like Benghazi, Fast & Furious, and IRS.” Fellow Fox News hosts Andrea Tantaros and Ralph Peters compared the missing plane to the Benghazi attack.

Right Wing Leftovers - 3/18/14

  • The next release from EchoLight Studios under CEO Rick Santorum is a TV movie called "The Redemption of Henry Myers" that will air on the Hallmark Channel.
  • Frank Gaffney offers a hearty "thank you" to Jerry Boykin because he deserves gratitude, "not cheap shots from critics far more deserving of the public revulsion they’re trying to foment against him."
  • Gary Bauer is mad at Guinness, Heineken and Sam Adams: "Far too many corporations are becoming active combatants in the culture war, fighting against the Judeo- Christian values cherished by so many of their consumers."
  • Gary Cass says that "because he does not believe in God, [Bill] Maher has no basis for morality. Apparently Maher does not see the utter futility of his feigned moral outrage."
  • Finally, while speaking of Maher, MRC's Dan Gainor says those on Left hate Christianity so much they would "kick us out of the country, lock us up, or shoot us," if they could.

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.”
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious