Some of the biggest applause lines at today’s “Nevada National Security Action Summit,” hosted by the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney, have been comments accusing President Obama of being a secret Muslim and deliberately trying to bring down the country.
John Bolton, an ambassador to the United Nations during the Bush administration who has since become a conservative activist, offered more of the same in his address to the summit, which will also feature at least three Republican presidential candidates.
“The fact is, Barack Obama does not view American national security as one of his priorities,” Bolton said. “It gets in the way of what his real priority is, and he told us very candidly in the 2008 election, it was to fundamentally transform the country. And national security just distracts from that.”
He told the crowd that Obama’s supposed indifference to national security shows that it must be the first priority for electing a next president.
“And I think that you can see the risks that we’ve undertaken over the last seven and soon to be eight years by electing somebody who’s utterly unqualified to think through foreign policy issues, who simply doesn’t care about them,” he said. “The net effect of Barack Obama’s presidency will show that the biggest threat to national security we have is sitting in the Oval Office, because he’s indifferent to national security.”
Admiral Ace Lyons, who received an award from CSP alongside Sen. Jeff Sessions earlier this year, took a question from a woman in the audience who told him, “I’d like to know why no one — that’s literally no one — is gutsy enough to call a Muslim a Muslim in our White House. It’s pretty obvious that he is.”
After what appeared to be a brief consultation with Gaffney, Lyons responded: “Well, all I can say is he certainly acts the part, doesn’t he?”
It’s hardly surprising that Lyons got that question since he spent his entire speech claiming that President Obama is deliberately working to take America down from within with the help of the Muslim Brotherhood, which he said has infiltrated every U.S. national security agency and is shaping foreign policy.
“When the president of the United States is not interested in America leading or America winning, then you understand that greatest threat to our national security resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,” Lyons declared to applause.
Obama, he said, has been pushing policies that are “anti-American, anti-Western, but pro-Islam, pro-Iranian and pro-Muslim Brotherhood.”
“I have to ask you,” he said. “Why would an American president embrace the Muslim Brotherhood when their creed is to destroy America from within by our own miserable hands and replace our constitution with Sharia law? It makes absolutely no sense.”
McCarthy told Gaffney that Trump is “bloviating us into important issues, particularly in the immigration area, that we need as a matter of policy to consider carefully” and has either wittingly or accidentally gotten Americans to discuss whether Islam is in fact a religion that deserves religious protections under American law.
“And I don’t know how much he actually knows about Islam, I don’t know how much he actually knows about immigration law, but he has certainly pushed us into what I think is … the central question that everything else flows from, which is, is Islam, strictly speaking, a religion as we understand religion in the West?” McCarthy said.
“The reason that that’s important,” he explained, “is that we have obvious legal restrictions on using religion as a litmus test for a variety of things, not least immigration.”
McCarthy, for his part, concluded that Islam is not a religion but instead “has ambitions to be more than a religion, that is to say that it is an ideological, sweeping system that does not recognize a division between spiritual life on the one hand and political and civic life on the other,” and therefor does not deserve the same legal protections.
“I don’t know whether Trump is up on these nuances or not, but certainly he has provoked a discussion where we have to start to consider it,” he added.
Gaffney, displeased that the press was prompted by Trump’s comments to revisit Gaffney’s long history of anti-Muslim conspiracy theories , then asked McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, to reassure listeners that while there are “conspiracy theories,” there are also “conspiracies,” such as the Muslim Brotherhood’s infiltration of the U.S. government.
“There is, at the moment, a considerable effort being made to deprecate yours truly and our center and, I think, others who have been pointing out the kinds of information that you have so well, that this is, oh, just sort of conspiracy theorizing and to be dismissed as such,” Gaffney said. “In your experience, Andy, obviously there are conspiracy theories, but is it not also the case that there are conspiracies? And would you characterize what’s going on with the Brotherhood in America at the moment, including inside our government, as a conspiracy?”
“At the U.S. attorney’s office, we used to say that you can’t have a conspiracy without a conspiracy theory,” McCarthy agreed.
Gaffney, like Trump, promotes birther conspiracy theories along with bizarre claims that Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia law advocates are taking over the U.S. government and both political parties, touted his poll as “an insight into how the Muslims that we polled felt and it’s worrisome.”
“Fortunately, Donald Trump, like you, I’m not endorsing him, I’m not speaking of his fitness, I’m just saying that in response to events that have taken place in this country and elsewhere in recent months has recognized what I think most Americans recognize, that we don’t actually want more jihadists in this country,” he said, insisting that Americans “don’t think augmenting them willy-nilly in the name of some kind of sense that they are entitled to come here is a sound policy.”
He continued: “We have called for a moratorium on the introduction of still more Muslims, particularly from countries with a tradition of Islamic supremacism.”
Gaffney wasn’t alone. Fox News pundit Todd Starnes also defend the GOP presidential front-runner plan:
So the answer is to allow unfettered Muslim immigration — and just pray nothing happens?
Less happy about the development were the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney and the Center for Military Readiness’ Elaine Donnelly, who spoke about the policy change on Gaffney’s “Secure Freedom Radio” program on Friday.
Gaffney added that such developments are “so clearly at odds with the concepts that are absolutely central to the military’s whole raison d’etre, and yet that’s being thrown to the side in favor of gender quotas and lower standards and otherwise accommodating the ‘Lean In’ agenda.”
“There will be a price to pay,” Donnelly agreed. “Women will pay the price, unfortunately. Men will as well. Our national security will suffer as a result of this decision.”
Conservative media consultant Don Feder, who among his projects serves as a spokesman for the World Congress of Families, wrote on his GrasstopsUSA website today that instead of calling for tighter gun laws in response to the recent mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, President Obama should have “called for bi-partisan Islam control.”
This “Islam control,” Feder writes, would include banning Syrian refugees from the U.S., accepting only Christian refugees in the future, requiring the FBI to “stake out every mosque in the country” and demanding that every national security official be personally approved by John Bolton, Dick Cheney and anti-Muslim activist Frank Gaffney:
Instead of targeting gun owners, try to imagine Obama saying that San Bernardino shows the need for "bi-partisan support for Muslim control." After it stopped foaming at the mouth, the Committee on American Islamic Relations would have called it racist and paranoid, and not at all nice. The suggestion would have been condemned by every Democratic presidential candidate. And the Norwegian Nobel Committee would have taken back Obama's Peace Prize.
How would Islam control work?
• The administration would cancel plans to bring 85,000 Syrian refugees to America, in the calendar year that began on October 1, including many jihadi sleepers.
• Potential refugees would have to pass a religious test (Christians yes, Muslims, no) which Obama recently condemned as "un-American."
• The FBI would stake out every mosque in the country. According to a random survey of 100 U.S. mosques, undertaken by the Mapping Sharia In America Project, three in four either had imams who preached holy war or jihadist literature on the site.
• National Security officials would be screened by a panel composed of former UN Ambassador John Bolton, former Vice President Dick Cheney and Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy. Then we wouldn't end up with the politically lobotomized, like Obama's ISIS Czar Robert Malley, who in a 2010 documentary suggested that Hamas was basically the Palestinian equivalent of the Salvation Army.
Feder also gloats that he knew immediately that the perpetrators of the San Bernardino shooting were Muslim because of the U.S. mass shootings with multiple gunmen in the last 15 years, only two have been “committed by non-Muslims.” He doesn’t mention that there have been only three such incidents in that time period.
How did I know San Bernardino was another episode of the Wonderful World of Jihad when only the bare facts were known? Because it had the earmarks. Guess how many mass shootings in the United States in the last 15 years involving more than one gunman were committed by non-Muslims? Exactly two — including Columbine.
In an interview with the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney last week, conservative author Diana West lamented that the “messianic cult of multiculturalism” is giving cover to “the population replacement of the West by the rest of the world” in the form of immigration, praising Donald Trump for bringing “this issue into political forums that it never, ever entered before.”
Claiming that multiculturalism allowed Europeans to ignore “the obvious signs that we were about to enter this violent stage of jihad,” West said that the U.S. is on a similar precipice thanks to immigration from Latin America.
“What’s happening in Europe is happening here, we have a similar immigration phenomenon coming up from Latin America, primarily, and … many others from across the world coming across our borderless southern flank,” she said. “But this is the same thing we’re seeing with the immigration coming into Europe. This is the destruction of the West, this is the population replacement of the West by the rest of the world, by what we call the Third World, by the Middle East, by Islam, by Africa, by South America, this is all happening and it needs to be understood in a totality.”
“And, yes, I would hope there is a concerted effort to push back,” she added, “and this is where we see the phenomenon of Donald Trump having brought this issue into political forums that it never, ever entered before, so for that we can be thankful and build.”
This is a dream come true for the anti-refugee movement in the U.S. which had already been trying to claim that Syrian refugees — who go through a long and arduous security screening process before being admitted to the U.S. — represent a threat to national security.
The leading activist focusing specifically on preventing the resettlement of refugees in the U.S., Refugee Resettlement Watch’s Ann Corcoran, wrote on her blog today that other commitments kept her from writing much today, “But, LOL!, there are so many people writing about refugees now that I can soon retire!”
Prominent anti-Muslim activist Frank Gaffney responded to the news of the Paris attacks by calling for “a moratorium on Muslim migration” to the U.S., circulating a post from Corcoran calling for the same.
Pamela Geller predictably went even farther, writing on her blog yesterday that President Obama “should be brought up on charges” if he allows any more Muslims into the U.S.
NO MUSLIM MIGRANTS. Obama should be brought up on charges if he moves forward and brings these murderers here. They mean to kill us.
As refugee resettlement experts explained to Politifact last month, trying to game the refugee resettlement process would not be a likely method for an ISIS terrorist trying to reach the U.S.:
Those 10,000 aren’t necessarily the type of people who would be ISIS operatives as Trump fears, according to Mock.
"The priorities go to torture survivors, people with serious medical conditions, children and teens on their own, and women and children at risk," Mock said. The people selected undergo screening by state agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security. The process can take years.
That doesn’t make for an efficient method of terrorizing the United States, Foundation for Defense of Democracies senior fellow Daveed Gartenstein-Ross said. While it’s a legitimate concern that there are ways of beating the screening process, he said, there would be more efficient ways for ISIS cells to reach America than what Trump is fearing.
"Instead of sitting around hoping you win the refugee lottery and then wait years, then pass the screening to get to America, it would be much easier for a terrorist group to send a person through Europe or put them onto an airplane to the United States," Gartenstein-Ross said. "If they could otherwise pass the refugee screening process, they could certainly get on an airplane."
As the libertarian Niskanen Center notes, “not one” of the millions of refugees admitted under the U.S. refugee resettlement program since 1980 “has committed an act of terrorism in the U.S.”
Conservative columnist Diana West claimed in an interview with the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney this week that feminism helps lead to sexual violence because it means that women are no longer "prized and defended."
Apparently referring to a horrific case in Rotherham, England, where authorities turned a blind eye for years to a sexual exploitation network run by five men of Pakistani heritage, West warned of "Muslim rape gangs in the United Kingdom" and immigrant "street crime" in rest of Europe, which she naturally blamed partly on feminism.
"If young girls, if young women are not prized and defended by a civilization, there is no civilization," she said. "And it’s one of those things that we can say has come under attrition through feminism, through all manner of desensitization, through pornification —"
"To say nothing of political correctness," Gaffney interjected.
"When Donald Trump talks about cherishing women, I think that’s a beautiful phrase," West added.
Gaffney, of course, blamed immigration for the whole thing, which he said is the "president’s determined hope here as well."
After the Southern Poverty Law Center, followed by Media Matters and Right Wing Watch, pointed out that Gaffney had lavished praise on a white nationalist activist, Gaffney wrote that he had simply wanted to discuss “a recent article” by Taylor and was “unfamiliar with Mr. Taylor’s views on other matters and did not discuss or endorse them.” He said that if he had known Taylor’s full history, he would not have invited him on the program, and then pulled the interview with Taylor from his website.
Now Taylor is fighting back, writing an open letter to Gaffney accusing him of caving to “lefty” organizations when “there has been no criticism of you from any conservative source.” He reminds Gaffney that “you were aware of some of my views, and found them insightful.”
Taylor notes that the article that Gaffney “admired” was very clear about his “basic views on race.” Indeed, Taylor’s article, “Is This the Death of Europe?,” begins with a quote from “The Camp of Saints,” a book that the SPLC notes “is revered by American white supremacists”; in the first paragraph, he warns that “a million wretched, brown-skinned people” wanting to “feed on the wealthy white West” will eventually ensure that “Europe is snuffed out”; and so on from there.
From Taylor’s open letter to Gaffney:
Mr. Gaffney, these people are not your friends. They hate you. They want to silence you and drive you out of respectable society. Why do you let them decide whom you may invite on your program? Why do you let them set the bounds of legitimate discussion? This is the great and perhaps fatal weakness of “conservatives”–to have conceded some strange moral power to people who hate them.
The statement on your website says you weren’t aware of all of my views when you invited me on your program, and that you now find you disagree with some of them. I believe you. But you were aware of some of my views, and found them insightful. I’m sure you don’t insist on complete agreement with all your guests. Why does disagreeing with me on some matters make me a pariah? Because the SPLC says so?
Removing our interview from your website does not mean it never happened. We will be posting a transcript shortly. What is much more dismaying is what removing the interview says about you. If you wanted to make a record of our disagreements, the manly thing would be to invite me back on your program and explain to me why I am wrong.
To your credit, you did call me personally to tell me that you were taking down the interview. I salute you for that. But your reasons made no sense. You said you were opposed to all forms for supremacy: white, black, or Hispanic. I tried to explain that wanting to live in a majority-white society is no more “supremacist” than Japanese wanting to live in a majority-Japanese society or Israelis wanting to live in a majority-Jewish society. In fact, my basic views on race should have been clear in the article “ Is This the Death of Europe?” that you admired.
It is a great pity that your name and mine have been linked in yet another success by people who despise you–and me–to stamp out the public exchange of views they don’t like. You care deeply about the preservation of certain values; so do I. But we must never trim our sails for fear of what our detractors might say. We will never succeed if we let our enemies set the boundaries of how we should act.
Ann Corcoran, the head of Refugee Resettlement Watch and the leading voice against efforts to settle refugees in the United States, warned last month that President Obama is using Syrian refugees as part of his plot to “diversify every town in America” as he goes about “changing America by changing the people, literally.”
Corcoran, who has previously warned that refugee resettlement is being used to “rub diversity in the noses of conservative communities” and push “the whole multicultural meme,” told the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney on his “Secure Freedom Radio” program, “There’s going to be a demographic examination of your town to see how diverse you are, and you will be rewarded if you’re sufficiently diverse and you will be not rewarded with government grants and so on and so forth if you’re insufficient in the diversity area. It is really, he is changing America by changing the people, literally.”
Gaffney shared Corcoran’s concerns, saying that Obama “was about the fundamental transformation of America, and a key element of that strategy, it certainly seems, through the refugee resettlement and other techniques … has been to change the population, change the demographics of our society.”
Gaffney then asked Corcoran to respond to “a working hypothesis of mine” that refugees are being resettled in places where the Obama administration wants to change the political “representation.”
Corcoran agreed that “it seems to me that they’re targeting districts that have been traditionally red districts or red states,” like Texas and her “very conservative, very insular community” in Maryland that “would have been the last place on earth you would think would be the best place to bring a bunch of third-world refugees.”
Yesterday, anti-Muslim activist Frank Gaffney had on his radio show well-known white nationalist Jared Taylor, who has called African-Americans “crime-prone” and “deviant” and said that his goal is to ensure the “ biological and cultural continuity” of white people in America. On the show, Gaffney said that he “appreciated tremendously” Taylor’s work. While that’s all heinous on its own, seven of the Republican presidential candidates have appeared on Gaffney’s program or spoken at his events, including recent campaign events in early primary states.
People For the American Way President Michael B. Keegan responded with the following:
“This is a new low, even considering how hard all the leading Republican candidates have been courting the xenophobic Republican base enthralled with Trump.
“All of the Republican candidates should cut ties with Gaffney immediately and refuse to go on his show or speak at future events he sponsors. The Republican Party should not give any space to white nationalism.”
Additional background on Gaffney, Taylor, and the connections that Trump, Carson, Huckabee, Santorum, Paul, Jindal, and Cruz have to Gaffney can be found here, from People For the American Way’s Right Wing Watch.
This is all despite Gaffney’s long track record of pushing outrageous conspiracy theories , including birther and “secret Muslim” theories about President Obama, panic about Sharia law coming to the United States, and embarrassing campaigns against people he thinks are infiltrating the American government or the GOP or the NRA or CPAC on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The two discussed their aversion to the Syrian refugees fleeing to Europe. Gaffney asked Taylor, according to SPLC’s transcript:
At some point there will be a very vigorous resistance to the infusion into these countries of large numbers of people who don’t assimilate, many of them Muslim who bring with them a Sharia ideological program that is antithetical to the culture and civilization and polities of European nations. Do you anticipate, as we’re seeing now evidence of increasing violence, notably against women, on the part of these refugees, not all of them by any means but some, rapes now becoming a serious problem in some of the refugee holding areas, and demonstrations and in some cases worse that are breaking out in various parts of Europe when they’re not accommodated to their satisfaction, that you may see in fact Europe devolving once again into the types of cataclysms that it has from time immemorial with, you know, blood letting taking place. Is that overreaching at this point or perhaps just a distant possibility?
We have unleashed now what would not be an exaggeration to call almost demonic forces. We have close to a million now of these so-called refugees, most of whom are young men. They are young, single men. Most of whom have never seen a woman in a bikini in their lives. Most of them are part of, as you say, this Sharia culture that despises any woman who walks around with her face uncovered, with her legs bare. These people are going to be all sorts of trouble for Europe for many, many years to come.
Taylor is an unapologetically racist activist. He has written that "Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears"; he has urged white people to “rekindle” their “instinctive preference for their own people and culture.” Taylor has been active in the effort to build alliances between American white nationalists and the European far-right, participating in a meeting in Budapest last year, where he told his “European brothers” that “the genetic and cultural effect of alien immigration is no different from armed invasion.”
While Taylor is largely shunned by mainstream right-wing circles, he has expressed an affinity for Donald Trump, telling the New Yorker that “I’m sure he would repudiate any association with people like me, but his support comes from people who are more like me than he might like to admit.”
When Media Matters asked Gaffney to explain his interview with Taylor, CSP sent them a statement claiming that Gaffney invited Taylor exclusively to discuss refugee policy and “was unfamiliar with Mr. Taylor's views on other matters and did not discuss or endorse them.” The group did not explain how Gaffney was able to lavish praise on American Renaissance without being familiar with its contents.
While Gaffney’s already lengthy record of extremism hasn’t yet caused major GOP figures to distance themselves from him, Gaffney’s decision to elevate Taylor and his work should cause him to lose all credibility among candidates and officials who wish to be taken seriously in the future.
UPDATE: In a statement on the Center for Security Policy's website, the group says that Gaffney's compliments to Taylor were "routine" and that if he had done his "due diligence" before the interview, he would not have invited Taylor as a guest:
Yesterday’s program included a conversation with Jared Taylor concerning a recent article by him addressing the dire implications for Europe, its people and civilization of large numbers of migrants from nations in which shariah-adherence is the norm. The host was unfamiliar with Mr. Taylor’s views on other matters and did not discuss or endorse them.
Subsequently, Mr. Gaffney had a chance to examine those views and the American Renaissance website on which they appear. There is much there with which he strongly disagrees. Had due diligence been done beforehand, such disagreements would have resulted in Mr. Taylor not being invited on the show, routine compliments to such guests not made and an offer to appear again not extended.
Yesterday on “Secure Freedom Radio,” Andy McCarthy joined Center for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney to discuss the Senate’s failure to pass a resolution blocking the Iran deal, castigating Republicans for their inability to defeat the nuclear accord. Gaffney and McCarthy reasoned that Republicans must have been secretly hoping that the Iran deal would survive congressional resistance.
The two linked the GOP’s supposed unwillingness to block the agreement to donations the party and party leaders have received from the aerospace company Boeing, which they believe stands to profit handsomely from the loosening of sanctions against Iran.
Boeing, they agreed, should be chastised for effectively aiding the Iranian government and the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah.
As it would happen, Boeing is also a donor to none other than the Center for Security Policy.
Eli Clifton pointed out last year that Boeing, along with defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman, contributed to Gaffney’s group in 2013, in Boeing’s case to the tune of $25,000.
We hope that Gaffney can reassure us that his group is not part of the Boeing conspiracy to further Iran’s influence in the Middle East.
Gaffney reacted today to the controversy over the arrest of Texas 14-year-old Ahmed Mohamed, who brought a homemade clock to school to show off to his teachers, by claiming that police and school officials were right to be suspicious of the Muslim student:
Officers said Ahmed was being "passive aggressive" in his answers to their questions, and didn't have a "reasonable answer" as to what he was doing with the case. Investigators said the student told them that it was just a clock that he was messing around with.
"We attempted to question the juvenile about what it was and he would simply only say it was a clock. He didn't offer any explanation as to what it was for, why he created this device, why he brought it to school," said James McLellan, Irving Police.
Police confiscated the case along with Ahmed's tablet computer.
In addition to calling police, Ahmed said the principal suspended him for three days.
The police apparently refused to believe that maybe Ahmed’s clock was just that, a clock, and were convinced that there must be some nefarious reason why a student who has taken an interest in engineering would build a clock to show his engineering teacher.
UPDATE: Lee Fang notes that Gaffney and Jim Hanson of the Center for Security Policy have continued to make absurd claims about the case:
The Center for Security Policy, a think tank that routinely partners with prominent Republican politicians, including many of the current presidential contenders, is defending the arrest of 14-year-old Muslim high school student Ahmed Mohamed for bringing a homemade clock to school.
Americans across the country expressed outrage at the news that Mohamed was handcuffed by police officers in Irving, Texas, on Monday, suspended from his high school, and accused of making a bomb after the electronic components he had connected to make his own digital clock beeped during English class.
But Center for Security Policy vice president Jim Hanson argued on his organization’s podcast that the clock “looks exactly like a number of IED triggers that were produced by the Iranians and used to kill U.S. troops in the war in Iraq.” He said the clock “was half a bomb.”
Frank Gaffney, the center’s founder and president, agreed with Hanson, while suggesting that there is reason to be suspicious of “what we’re told was a clock” because “the story is not being fully explored and explained.”
Gaffney also said that the entire controversy over Mohamed’s clock appeared to be an “influence operation” by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil rights group that Gaffney claimed is using “professional victim-promoting” to wage a “civilization jihad” in connection with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Today, conservative reality TV stars Donald Trump, Sarah Palin and Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson will be addressing a rally headlined by Ted Cruz and Glenn Beck in opposition to the Iran nuclear accord.
With such an all-star lineup, it may be easy to miss that one of the rally’s sponsors is none other than the Center for Security Policy, a far-right group led by anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney.
Gaffney’s role in organizing an event headlined by the likes of Cruz, Beck and Palin — who all believe that Sharia law is comingtoAmerica — may be fitting, considering that Gaffney is one of the most unintentionally hilarious right-wing conspiracy theorists out there:
In the run-up to the 2012 election, Gaffney accused the Obama administration of supporting a United Nations resolution that would have legitimized blasphemy laws. In reality, the Obama administration actually forcefully opposed the resolution in question, with the president personally speaking out against blasphemy laws during a United Nations address.
But that didn’t stop Gaffney from claiming that the exact opposite had happened and warning that the president would begin to ban anti-Islamic speech in the U.S. as he pushes “the Sharia blasphemy agenda of our enemies, that is to say suppressing freedom of expression in this country which is our constitutional right.”
“President Obama, from his first months in office, has been enabling in this country an insidious effort by Islamic supremacists to keep us from engaging in speech, videos, training or other forms of expression that offend Muslims, their god, prophet and faith,” he wrote, warning that Obama has “brought U.S. diplomacy and government practice into closer and closer alignment with the demands of Islamists that such 'slanders' be prohibited and criminalized.” By giving “policymaking and advisory” roles to “persons with extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood,” Gaffney claimed, Obama is going to try to “restrict your freedom of expression.”
Back in 2013, as Sen. Ted Cruz was wondering out loud if Chuck Hagel, then the nominee to serve as U.S. secretary of defense, was secretly working for North Korea or Saudi Arabia, Gaffney was just asking if Hagel was in fact be an Iranian secret agent.
“You couldn’t find a guy who has been more active in terms of promoting the interests of Iran at the expense of the United States than Chuck Hagel other than somebody who is actually an Iranian agent,” he said. “I’m not suggesting that he is, I don’t know, but I certainly think that’s the point of comparison here because it’s almost that full-throated.”
“Ms. Abedin was brilliantly placed to run Islamist influence operations for sixteen years under the recently departed Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton,” he said.
6) Restore HUAC
In order to find all of these Muslim Brotherhood agents who have infiltrated the U.S. government, Gaffney said that we need “a new House Anti-American Activities Committee” to find the “treasonous” actors inside the administration.
7) Chris Christie Committed Treason
Gaffney was very offended in 2011 when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie derided the “crazy” rhetoric about Sharia law coming to the U.S. In fact, he was so offended that he thought Christie could be committing “misprision of treason,” or the act of concealing treasonous acts against the U.S.
On his “Secure Freedom Radio” program last week, Frank Gaffney hosted Adm. James “Ace” Lyons, a former commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet who has since become a fixture at right-wing conferences, where he promotes various anti-gay views and conspiracy theories about President Obama making way for Sharia law in America.
Gaffney asked Lyons about Pentagon’s plan to work toward allowing transgender people to serve openly in the armed forces, saying, “One of the things that I just can’t get my head around is what do you when you have to have — as apparently the administration is going to insist — transgender individuals as well as females on these vessels. How does that work, practically speaking?”
Lyons called the plan “pure nonsense” and cited Paul McHugh to claim that “transgender is not a civil rights issue, it is a mental disorder,” saying that all transgender people need is to be “treated” and “returned to a normal lifestyle.”
Lyons then paraphrased the late conservative writer Stan Evans, saying that “the gay, lesbian, transgender lifestyle is nothing but a return to a pagan ethic…which has led to the downfall of previous civilizations.”
“Well, it would certainly seem on its face to be incompatable with a warrior and a successful military,” Gaffney responded.
E.W. Jackson, the Virginia pastor and GOP politician, joined Frank Gaffney on his “Secure Freedom Radio” program earlier this month, where the two discussed the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and efforts to allow transgender people to serve openly in the military.
“The lesbian, transgender, bisexual military is what the president is creating for us, and it’s sad,” Jackson declared, alleging that President Obama “is much more interested in turning the military into some sort of sexual experiment than he is in making it the finest fighting force in the world.”
Gaffney asked Jackson, who now works as a Fox News contributor and Family Research Council senior fellow, if allowing LGBT people to serve openly is not just a “wrecking operation against the military” but also an effort to “do over the United States itself as a society.”
Jackson responded that Obama wants to allow LGBT people to serve in the military because he doesn’t believe in America or want the military to be effective: “I don’t think he wants the military to be militarily effective, because I don’t think he believes in it, I don’t think he believes in its mission, because, frankly, and I know this sounds extreme but it’s what I believe in my heart, I don’t think he fundamentally believes in the nature of this country or its mission.”
Gaffney asked his guest, Family Research Council official Jerry Boykin, to comment on the “vulnerability” exposed by the fact that Kerry “is involved through the marriage of his daughter with Iranians, some of whom live in this country but some of whom have family in Iran” and by the controversy over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email address.
Boykin responded that Gaffney should add to his threat list Huma Abedin, the Clinton aide who was at the center of a Gaffney-led witch hunt against Muslim Americans in the federal government.
“Add that into the equation and you have to ask yourself, how can a guy like John Kerry with that kind of connections to Iran through marriage actually be credible in terms of dealing with the Iranians,” Boykin said.
Gaffney concluded that Kerry should be impeached for the nuclear deal: “My feeling is that the guy should be impeached, really, for the conduct that he has engaged in this deal. As you say, it fits a pattern of betrayal of our country going back to his time as a veteran of the Vietnam War, but it’s now reached a level where the dangers are so immense to all of us.”
Later in the program, Gaffney asked Boykin about the Pentagon’s plan to eventually allow transgender people to serve openly in the military, which Boykin unsurprisingly said wouldn’t “contribute to readiness.”
But Gaffney wanted to go even further, claiming that allowing transgender people to serve “actually harms readiness.”
“I feel lots of this stuff, whether it’s gays in the military, or whether it’s the impact of women in conduct, to say nothing of this transgender stuff, it is a net very, very harmful,” he said, claiming that it’s all part of the Obama administration’s “wrecking operation” against the military.