Frank Gaffney

Horowitz: Obama will use Climate Change to 'Control Your Environment' and 'Everybody's Life'

David Horowitz talked to Frank Gaffney today on Secure Freedom Radio about what to expect in President Obama’s second term, where Horowitz warned that while the government through health care reform can “control your health, now they’re going to control your environment.” He said that the movement for environmental protection is America’s “biggest threat” because it is working with Obama to impose government “control over everybody’s life” under the excuse of preventing climate change, “the chimera of the left.” He even brought up the debunked claim that Obama will enforce a light switch tax.

The far-right author demanded that Republicans read his book Radicals: Portraits of a Destructive Passion and learn that Obama is following the playbook of Saul Alinsky. Horowitz details how Saul Alinsky came up with the absolutely novel idea that politicians should make compromises, try to pass their policy agenda when they can and run negative advertisements against their opponents.

Horowitz also seems to be under the impression that Romney did not respond to any of the negative ads against him and did not go negative against Obama. “Character assassination is the middle name of every Democratic political operative,” Horowitz maintained, “What is wrong with Republicans that they don’t understand that this is a war? And the other side is playing for keeps.”

Horowitz: Alinsky advised, do what’s possible, not your ideal, make compromises, which Obama has done and he’s turned off some of the left because of it. SO he’s going to continue to fund the left with taxpayer money, that’s a given, that’s where the Stimulus money went, it went to the unions, he’s going to fund the unions. He’s going to pursue this other chimera of the left, the climate change, because it means control over energy policies. They actually want to control when you turn on your light switch, they want to tax you for the energy that you use. I have to tell you, this is the biggest threat, that environmental movement. That’s the powerful movement because it means control over everybody’s life. They won Obamacare and control your health, now they’re going to control your environment.

Gaffney: And energy. David, what would you recommend to the loyal opposition as to what it should be doing to contend with this radical and his agenda for the next four years?

Horowitz: Read my book. The big problem here is conservatives understand policy issues very well, they’re wonks like Paul Ryan. Romney by the way could have won this election if he had made Rubio his vice presidential candidate, as much as I admire Paul Ryan, it was Rubio we should’ve picked for the politics of it. But the main thing is you have to understand your enemy, it’s not good enough to do the policy, people never get to hear the policies. Romney never appeared to half the electorate, what appeared were all those negative campaign ads and that’s just what politics is about. You have got to understand how dedicated and vicious your opponents are. Stop calling them liberals and hopefully some people will read my book because my book is portraits of threes people so you understand who they are.

Gaffney: Right. One of the things that just jumps off of the pages is something that we saw play out, right out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook, I think it was “Rules for Radicals #11,” in which he said, select a target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it. If that wasn’t the script for taking down Mitt Romney I don’t know what was. Horowitz: Yes. Character assassination is the middle name of every Democratic political operative, and everybody who is a conservative knows it, we’ve all been victims of it. It’s not a secret, everybody said, everybody said, this will be the dirtiest campaign ever and Obama has nothing to run on, he has to demonize Romney. And when he did that, did the Romney campaign respond? No. What is wrong with Republicans that they don’t understand that this is a war?

Gaffney: They have to read your book, that’s for sure.

Horowitz: And the other side is playing for keeps.

Gaffney: Obama's Re-Election will Lead to the Loss of Free Speech

Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy in the Washington Times today predicts (without any evidence, of course) that President Obama will impose constraints on the freedom of speech if he is re-elected. His column promotes a new movie called “Silent Conquest” and borrows liberally from the film’s promotional materials. The film claims Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have accepted “submission to the stealthy Islamist effort to enforce in this country the supremacist doctrine known as shariah and its prohibition of any expression that ‘offends’ Islam or its god, prophet or followers,” and features Gaffney along with other anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists like Rep. Allen West (R-FL), Brigitte Gabriel, Geert Wilders, Mark Steyn, Daniel Pipes and Nonie Darwish.

Gaffney centers his argument on a resolution pushed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation that targets blasphemy. However, the resolution failed and the Obama administration opposed it. But Gaffney maintains that Obama “has been enabling in this country an insidious effort by Islamic supremacists” and has put “persons with extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood” in places of power. He warns Obama and his allies may “redouble their efforts to restrict your freedom of expression” and accelerate “efforts to appease Islamists [that] are imperiling our country and freedoms” if he wins re-election.

As Americans go to the polls, many factors may influence how they vote for president. Among those — if not pre-eminent among them — should be the kind of country they want to bequeath to their children. It is unlikely that most voters would knowingly and deliberately opt for a candidate who appears determined to make the United States a nation that does not respect and safeguard our most foundational constitutional right: freedom of expression.

It may seem unbelievable that anyone running for the presidency would even consider such a betrayal of the oath of office governing that position, let alone work toward that end. Yet, as a new film, “Silent Conquest,” makes clear, 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.

The documentary opens with Mr. Obama’s astounding pronouncement at the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 25: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” This sentiment could have been expressed as easily by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Taliban or al Qaeda. Unfortunately, it is but one of many manifestations of an Obama policy approach that 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.



The question is this: If given a second term, will President Obama and those he is entrusting with policymaking and advisory roles — including persons with extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood — redouble their efforts to restrict your freedom of expression? Or will they recognize, in this regard at least, that their efforts to appease Islamists are imperiling our country and freedoms?

Unfortunately, there seems to be little reason to expect such a fundamental and much-needed course correction should Mr. Obama be re-elected and obtain, in his words, “more flexibility.” That is especially true in light of the decline of respect for the right of free expression in other quarters that this president seems to hold in higher esteem than our own nation and its Constitution. As “Silent Conquest” powerfully documents, this trend to submit to Shariah blasphemy codes is even further advanced in Europe and the United Nations.

Before you cast your vote Tuesday, reflect on this: Are you willing to bet your country and your personal freedoms on the proposition that four more years of Mr. Obama’s efforts to emulate the euro-U.N. types in accommodating the Islamists won’t wind up “fundamentally transforming” the America we pass on to our children, to their great detriment — and ours?

Diana West: Benghazi Attack was a 'Fortunate Event' Because it Helps Romney

Last time we reported on conservative columnist Diana West, she and Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy were agreeing that President Obama is ineligible to be president because his birth certificate is likely a forgery. Gaffney hailed West, who also collaborated with him on his “Team B II Report: Sharia: the Threat to America” [PDF], for her birther “research” and called her a “hero of the Republic.”

West appeared on Gaffney’s radio program once again this week to discuss the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi attack. West said that the attack was a “fortunate event” because it is “grabbing people’s attention so that we can understand what’s wrong with the American ‘Arab Spring’ policy that Obama has been executing,” giving Mitt Romney an opportunity to criticize Obama’s “lies” and policies “supporting jihad, Muslim Brotherhood actors.”

West: As you and I have discussed, I strongly feel that Benghazi is almost in a strange way a fortunate event. Not obviously having to do with any of the actual killing and destruction and harm it’s done to our country, but in the sense of grabbing people’s attention so that we can understand what’s wrong with the American ‘Arab Spring’ policy that Obama has been executing. In a sense that’s what I would have wanted in a Republican nominee to use Benghazi as a teaching school, taking it down the line, whether it’s presidential lies, administration lies, whether it’s security failure and whether it’s sort of the über-theme, the failure of supporting jihad, Muslim Brotherhood actors across the Middle East and how it comes back to bight you every time.

Gaffney: Yes, you have written brilliantly about this.

Has the Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrated the Romney Campaign?

Anti-Muslim activists on the Right have consistently warned that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the Obama administration. But if their unhinged McCarthyism is to be believed, then Mitt Romney’s campaign has been penetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood as well, as Romney’s campaign has named George Salem, Samah Norquist and David Ramadan “National Co-Chairs of Arab Americans for Romney.”

Pamela Geller labeled George Salem’s Arab American Institute a “nototrious anti-Israel Israel [sic] organization” composed of “Islamic supremacists” and led by a “Jew hater.” She even suggested that the AAI seeks “Jewish annihilation” by backing Mideast peace efforts.

Geller, Frank Gaffney, Robert Spencer, William Murray, Andrea and James Lafferty and others sent a letter to Edwin Meese demanding he withdraw his endorsement of Virginia Del. David Ramadan because of his purported ties to Muammar Gadaffi and “radical views,” including his support for the right to build the Park 51 Islamic Community Center. James Lafferty said Ramadan is an “extremist” who should not even “be allowed to continue to live in the United States,” and Geller said he is a “stealth jihadist” and a “Muslim Brotherhood plant.”

Perhaps no chair of Romney’s committee is despised more than Samah Norquist, wife of conservative leader Grover Norquist. Glenn Beck and Jerry Boykin have said that Norquist is a lackey for the Muslim Brotherhood and according to anti-Muslim activists like Gaffney and David Horowitz, Norquist secretly converted to Islam and joined the Muslim Brotherhood at the behest of his wife. Conservative attorney Cleta Mitchell wrote in a report for the American Conservative Union that she is “certain that Mr. Gaffney’s hatred [for Norquist] is further fueled by the fact that Grover is married to a Muslim-American woman (who also has worked for the United States government in very responsible positions, I might add!).”

Of course, these spurious claims against Ramadan, Norquist and Salem are just as baseless and wrong as their attacks against the Obama administration and the Muslim-Americans serving in it.

But while extremists like Geller, Gaffney, Horowitz and others are quick to attack Obama with such bogus charges, for some reason it seems unlikely Romney will receive similar treatment.

Gohmert: Obama Administration is 'Getting Advice' from 'People who are in the Muslim Brotherhood'

Fresh after his speech insisting that President Obama is reestablishing the Ottoman Empire, Texas congressman Louie Gohmert told anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney that the Obama administration is “getting advice on how to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood from people who are in the Muslim Brotherhood.” He claimed that the Obama administration is sending money to “radical jihadists” in order to “buy [them] off,” not understanding that they can only use “raw power” against those who worship “a radical, mean-spirited, hateful Allah that these people that twist Islam believe in.”

Gohmert, who signed letters with Michele Bachmann calling for an anti-Muslim witch hunt within the administration that were ultimately rejected but lauded by Gaffney and Newt Gingrich, charged that Muslim Brotherhood agents may be the ones shaping Obama’s foreign policy. Gohmert claimed that Muslim Brotherhood operatives are involved in Janet Napolitano’s “super-secret, trusted, Homeland Security advisory council” but said she won’t give him the names. He also criticized Napolitano for allowing an Egyptian lawmaker to meet with members of the U.S. government in Washington, even after he was vetted by Homeland Security, the State Department and the Secret Service, because he is a member of a political party tied to a listed terrorist organization that has since renounced violence.

Gohmert: This administration thinks they’re going to buy off bullies, radical jihadists who want to destroy our way of life, they don’t understand that when you try to pay off a bully that wants to hurt you, not only do they not love you but they don’t respect you, they have more contempt for you, and this administration does not get that the only thing they understand is raw power and response that kills them and their beliefs of a radical, mean-spirited, hateful Allah that these people that twist Islam believe in. It tells them, ‘ah, Allah must not like what we’re doing’ because the United States had just overwhelmed and kill all of those who were trying to kill them.

Gaffney: Congressman, I mentioned that Newt Gingrich called you one of the National Security Five. That was in connection with a series of letters that you and Michele Bachmann and others sent out back in June asking about people who are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, the prime mover behind much of this jihadism around the world, inside our government. You’ve not gotten answers to those inquires as I understand it, but as I understand it against the backdrop of this bewildering response by the administration, do you think that that may have something to do with the influence operations that these sorts of people are running inside the wire of our government?

Gohmert: I think it tells us very clearly that we are getting advice from people who are either A) intentionally misinforming them or misadvising them, or B) they are getting information from people that don’t have a clue about how to deal with our problem. It certainly is consistent, Janet Napolitano as you recall could not even tell me how many of her super-secret, trusted, Homeland Security advisory council or counter-violent extremism working group were actually Muslim Brotherhood. She didn’t know. When I brought up the fact that immediately before that there was a member of a known terrorist organization that had been allowed in the White House, she wasn’t even aware of it, she said that wasn’t true, but the next day when she was testifying before the Senate all the sudden she’d become aware of it and was able to talk about it but said ‘oh well he was vetted a number of times.’ These people have no idea what’s really going on, they are getting terrible advice from whomever and it certainly consisted with them getting advice on how to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood from people who are in the Muslim Brotherhood.

Group Spearheading Anti-Muslim Witch Hunt to Honor Peter King

Congressman Peter King (R-NY) will receive an award tonight from the right-wing Center for Security Policy, the group led by Frank Gaffney that is behind the anti-Muslim witch hunt advocated by King’s Republican colleague Michele Bachmann.

Last year, King hosted roundly-criticized hearings on the “radicalization” of Muslim-Americans and continued to make the false claim that 80 percent of U.S. mosques are “controlled by radical imams.” While King did not sign Bachmann’s letters targeting Muslim-American officials serving in the Obama administration, Gaffney was behind the misleading information that led to Bachmann’s letters.

Along with the Family Research Council’s Jerry Boykin, who authored the CSP’s “Team B II Report, Sharia: The Threat to America,” Gaffney warned that Huma Abedin and other Obama administration officials are part of a stealth Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. government. The CSP even hosted a National Press Club briefing by Andy McCarthy to defend Bachmann’s witch hunt. However, when asked about Gaffney’s support for birther conspiracy theories or his belief that Obama is a secret Muslim, McCarthy admitted that Gaffney’s views were “nutty.”

Gaffney may be giving King his “Keeper of the Flame” award, but he accused King’s leader, House Speaker John Boehner, of “parroting the Muslim Brotherhood line” by denouncing Bachmann’s witch hunt. King is even receiving the award despite signing Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge, as Gaffney believes that Norquist is a Muslim Brotherhood agent, a claim that has gotten Gaffney banned from two leading conservative conferences.

Romney Adviser John Bolton Warns the Obama Administration might 'Reinstitute Blasphemy Laws'

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton, who now serves as a foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney, appears to be taking a page from Michele Bachmann with a new claim that the Obama administration is going to begin limiting free speech and expression to prohibit anti-Muslim rhetoric. While speaking to Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio, Bolton agreed with Gaffney that the State Department under Secretary Hillary Clinton is working with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to curtail the freedom of speech and begin “reinstitute blasphemy laws.” He even warned that there are people within the Obama administration who have hate speech laws “on their agenda” and made the absurd assertion that Secretary Clinton is opposed to the freedom of expression.

Listen:

Bolton: I am very worried that under the Obama administration we are submitting to this claim that people have to temper their free speech rights to be respectful of what the OIC claims is the appropriate standard. Take the US embassy in Cairo’s first statement which apologize for this film as if appeasement was going to stop the mob from coming over the embassy’s wall, while it’s true that the Obama administration repudiated that statement honestly if you look carefully at what the President and particularly Secretary Clinton said since then they still are apologizing for this act, scurrilous though it might be, of an American private citizen. And it ties in directly — it’s a direct analytical predicate for the claim that it’s the movie that’s the whole problem with the riots and demonstrations in the Middle East. I think this is something that we need a broader public debate about because the notion that somehow we’re going to reinstitute blasphemy laws in the United States is something the overwhelming majority of Americans would react instinctively against.

Gaffney: Yet we are seeing as a result of something called the Istanbul process, which as you mentioned Secretary State Hillary Clinton has been involved, John Bolton, which produced last December a resolution in the Human Rights Council which is aimed at trying to prevent defamation of religions and goes beyond really what Mrs. Clinton has talked about in terms of ‘old fashioned peer pressure and shaming’ as instruments of suppressing free expression that offends Muslims. It seems uniquely geared towards Muslims by the way, I’ve not heard anybody saying we have to be impede people from being critical of Christians or Jews or Hindus or anybody else. But John Bolton to the extent to what we have been seeing elsewhere around the world, notably the prosecution of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and Lars Hedegaard in Denmark and Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant in Canada to what amounts to hate speech. Do you think we’re on a track in this country, maybe under the guise of incitement, of a similar kind of constraint on freedom of expression if the Obama administration has its way?

Bolton: I think there are people who clearly have that on their agenda; I don’t see how we can blanket that reality. I do think that it comes in with a deceptively cautious approach to say ‘we just want people to be respectful,’ well fine that’s a decision each individual makes. But the whole point of our first amendment which I think distinguishes us from every other country around the world and is another example of American exceptionalism is that the government does not interfere with the content of speech, that is up to the political opinion of each speaker. That favorite liberal icon, Justice Brennan, in that famous iconic case New York Times v. Sullivan, said that debate in America should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open, and I say I stand with Justice Brennan and against Secretary Clinton on that point.

Gaffney: Amen.

Rachel Maddow Slams Paul Ryan for Appearing at Conference with Extremists

Last night on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow called out Paul Ryan for speaking at the Values Voter Summit and lending credibility to the bigotry and pure crazy on display at the conference. Her report provided crucial context on the extremists who are appearing at the conference – something that has been sorely lacking in most media coverage so far.

Maddow paid particular attention to three anti-Muslim activists that we regularly cover – Jerry Boykin, Kamal Saleem and Frank Gaffney. As I said yesterday, the Values Voter Summit is making a mockery of diplomacy and the threat of terrorism by featuring Saleem, who has made a career for himself as a fake former terrorist, and Boykin and Gaffney, who are leading forces behind the Huma Abedin smear and helped spark anti-American protests in Egypt.
 
Watch:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Romney Adviser Says Obama 'Quit' War on Terror, Wants Investigation into Supposed Muslim Brotherhood Infiltration

Walid Phares, a controversial (to say the least) member of Mitt Romney’s Foreign Policy and National Security Advisory Team, is accusing President Obama of trying to “quit the ideological confrontation” with radical Islamic groups while speaking with Frank Gaffney this week.

Phares: Since 9/11 our military, our security agencies have been very successful, every battle we fought against the jihadists in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the elimination of their leaders, our military, our intelligence, was successful. Where we were not successful was ideologically, the political response, specifically of this administration. The last two years, probably (inaudible), but this administration has decided to quit the ideological confrontation and that's why we're not ending this war.

Phares also said that the Muslim Brotherhood has succeeded in penetrating “the national security apparatus” and political institutions, and that many Muslim-American organizations are actually fronts for the Brotherhood. He even alleged that the Obama administration is now doing the work of the Brotherhood and deliberately undermined “our capacity as a nation and as a government to understand where the threat is coming from,” demanding Congress investigate the supposed infiltration.

Gaffney: Walid, I'd like you to drill down for a minute on as you say sort of the Stalinist version of this Sharia, jihadist enterprise. Civilization jihad, to what extent are you concerned about the role being played by Muslim Brotherhood affiliated entities inside the United States as they seek to perhaps keep us witless about the threat that they represent and maybe even encourage this focus on this shiny, dangling object of al-Qaeda, recognizing that it will not be the thing that it is decisive in this war if we even succeed in defeating al-Qaeda.

Phares: Absolutely, Frank, actually in my book, the first post-9/11 book published "Future Jihad: Terrorist Stratgies Against America," I probably was the first one to expose the network of Muslim Brotherhood fronts, on a strategic level of course, at which basically the main role is to penetrate the national security apparatus, to penetrate the political institutions of the United States would it be political parties, administrations, as much placement of advisers to a point whereby our policy with regard to the Middle East and our policy with regard to jihadism in the United States is now being advised and suggested to by Muslim Brotherhood either fronts or advisers or sympathizers, and that's a real threat and a real problem to our national security. If our government, bureaucracy, policy makers, media and others to understand and analyze the threat they rely on advisers and experts who basically are sympathizers with the Muslim Brotherhood, or at least present them differently than what they are, we are in big strategic trouble.

Gaffney: And is there any question that this is going on at the moment, Walid Phares? You know a lot about these various front organizations. The Islamic Society of North American, for example, whose president Mohamad Magid is a routine guest in all of the cabinet offices involved in the security portfolio and the White House as well. I believe the President sat next to him at the recent Iftar Dinner, actually flanked by him on the one side, Mohamed Morsi, and by Huma Abedin on the other. To what extent are such organizations the catalysts for the civilization jihad you're warning about?

Phares: There's public relations side of it, strategic communications side, that the MB front or ally or sympathizers are performing inside government, and there is something more serious to me which is the actual texts, they are producing actual memorandums that become policy. You and I are aware of that one memo that was issued by so-called Muslim-American organizations, if you check on them they are mostly Muslim Brotherhood organizations and not the moderate ones, that memo was the basis for another U.S. government memo that banned the use of words, the words of references to jihadism and caliphate over the past four years. That basically was a major strike against our analysts, against our capacity as a nation and as a government to understand where the threat is coming from. That is an issue that should be raised in Congress and in the presidential debates, I hope.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher: Obama is 'Pandering to Radical Islamic Forces' and to Blame for Ambassador's Death

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) is joining Mitt Romney in accusing President Obama of “sympathizing” with radical Islamists, telling Frank Gaffney in an interview yesterday that the attack on the embassies in Libya and Egypt are a result “of years of pandering to radical Islamic forces which has been conducted by the President of the United States himself.” According to Rohrabacher, Obama has only tried to “apologize” and “is incapable of being aggressive” when it comes to fighting radical Islamists.

Later, Rohrabacher even falsely claimed that Obama refuses to “even condemn them for their murderous activities” and blamed the President for the death of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya: “now even our ambassadors are being assassinated and this is a result of that attitude being presented on our behalf by this administration.”

Listen:

We are reaping the rewards of years of pandering to radical Islamic forces which has been conducted by the President of the United States himself. His first act of president was to go over in the Middle East and basically apologize to all of these different countries and various groups of Islamic leaders throughout the Middle East and basically leaving the impression that he believed that the bad blood between us is caused because the United States being insensitive to Islam. Well, that was interpreted as weakness, the fact that since then we haven't been able to back up the Iranians who are struggling against their mullah dictatorship, how many times have we criticized and actually come down aggressively against those people in the Islamic world who are killing Christians? We can't even do that. So we have a President of the United States who is incapable of being aggressive and an out loud and angry voice putting radical Islam where it belongs.

...

Mitt Romney by stepping up and pointing out that you do not apologize for standing up for freedom of speech or freedom of religion, you don't apologize to a radical Islamic group that murders other human beings because they disagree on their religious values or want to express that they think Islam may be incorrect here and there or even basically someone who wants to have a very heavy attack on the basic fundamentals of Islam in terms of intellectual discourse. Instead what we've got is we have to walk on eggs, we have to be so sensitive that we can't condemn those people when they're out in the name of retaliating against us for disagreeing with Islam. We can't even condemn them for their murderous activities, and now even our ambassadors are being assassinated and this is a result of that attitude being presented on our behalf by this administration.

Who's Who at the Values Voter Summit 2012

This weekend Republican and conservative leaders, including GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, are set to address the Religious Right's Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C.

Gaffney Upset that Jews, Gays and Feminists Haven't Embraced his Anti-Muslim Efforts

Yesterday on Secure Freedom Radio, Frank Gaffney hosted the vociferously anti-Muslim, anti-gay, anti-Obama Rabbi Aryeh Spero to discuss his new book, “Push Back: Reclaiming the American Judeo-Christian Spirit.” Gaffney asked Spero why women’s rights and gay rights advocates, along with “the Jews who make up many of the most visible members of the international or at least domestic left,” are “making common cause” with Islamists.

In Gaffney’s view, any opposition to efforts by him and other anti-Muslim activists to undermine the religious freedom and civil rights of Muslim-Americans is tantamount to the promotion of Sharia law and Islamism. Spero replied to Gaffney’s ridiculous question by claiming that the left has “partnered up with Islam” and have become “tools of Islam” in order to bring about “the destruction of Judeo-Christian ethos” and “the destruction of the historic American civilization.” Spero also falsely claimed that feminists and gay rights supporters are silent on abuses in Muslim-majority countries, which is of course not the case.

Gaffney: We’re often struck by the seeming commitment of those you’ve properly characterized as leftists seeking a transformation of the United States, to the Islamists who are seeking their own transformation of the United States and indeed the entire world. To what do you attribute the fact that despite when you’ve used the terms misogyny, the hatred of women, that the Islamists routinely engage in as they promote Sharia with a community of people who are all about feminism; the antipathy of the Islamists to homosexuality yet being supported by people who prize homosexual rights and have many of them in their ranks; the artists; the Jews who make up many of the most visible members of the international or at least domestic left. How can they possibly be making common cause against the culture, the Judeo-Christian culture of America with people who so clearly oppose them on all of those fronts?

Spero: Now this is actually what I consider the most important question of the day: how is it that those on the left who are always championing certain rights are now partnered up with Islam who is the very antithesis of the rights that the left is always championing. I think it forces us to see the left in a light that we’ve never saw before. I don’t think that the left is concerned is concerned so much with civil rights. If they were the feminists would be the first ones condemning what is happening to women all throughout the Muslim world and they are quiet and the people on the left and the homosexual lobby would be condemning Islam for what they’re doing in curtailing freedoms and killing homosexuals. I think what we now see, what the left has always wanted or what the left wants today is the destruction of Judeo-Christian ethos and I think that they want the destruction of the historic American civilization.



Spero: The left, who wish to control, they think that they are going to live with this blissful partnership with Islam becomes stronger in the country; they’re going to share all this power with Islam. Fools that they are, they are being used by Islam, they are tools of Islam, but it is we who will be the victim.

At the end of the interview, Spero said that Obama is a Marxist who identifies with “Muslim Brotherhood Islam,” which Gaffney agreed with.

Spero: This election’s very important because the General, the poster child behind the economic Marxism and transnationalism and the acceptance of Muslim Brotherhood-type Islam is Barack Obama. How this happened to America is a very unfortunate and alarming condition that we are faced with that we elected a man that basically did not believe in Americanism, he’s an economic Marxist and he identifies with Islam but actually it’s the Muslim Brotherhood Islam that he identifies with.

Gaffney: You’re absolutely right.

Dinesh D'Souza Says Obama is 'Weirdly Sympathetic' to Terrorists, Sees them as 'Freedom Fighters'

While promoting his new movie about President Obama on conservative radio shows, Dinesh D’Souza accused Obama of viewing the U.S. as an “evil empire” while sympathizing with anti-American terrorists.

D’Souza told Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio that Obama “subscribes to a very radical Third World ideology” and that he thinks “from Obama’s point of view we are the ‘evil empire.’”

D’Souza: We normally think we’re having a policy debate between liberals and conservatives who agree about goals but disagree about means. I think when you’re dealing with a Bill Clinton for example that is true, we all want a prosperous economy, we all want America to be a force for freedom in the world, we’d like America to stay number one as long as possible. I think Obama stands outside this consensus and he does so not because he’s a traitor but because he subscribes to a very radical Third World ideology that sees America has the rogue nation in the world. You’ll remember Reagan’s phrase ‘the evil empire’ referring to the Soviet Union, I think from Obama’s point of view we are the ‘evil empire,’ we are the one who needs to be contained.

In an interview with Janet Mefferd, D’Souza claimed that Obama “is weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadis who are captured in Iraq or Afghanistan” and “views those guys in favorable terms.” D’Souza says Obama thinks America is an “evil power” and sees “the Muslims who are fighting against America” as “freedom fighters.”

Mefferd: What do you think, a lot of people have talked quite a bit about to the degree to which Obama will reach out to the Muslims, give them a pass, give them special treatment, how does that fit into the whole narrative about anti-colonialism?

D’Souza: It fits in this way Janet, because I think Obama is weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadis who are captured in Iraq or Afghanistan, giving them constitutional rights, wanting to close down Guantanamo or when Obama keeps taking the Palestinian position against Israel, some people think that the reason he does this is because he must be a secret Muslim himself. I think that’s wrong. But what I do think Obama thinks is he thinks, ‘look, America is the evil power occupying these poor Third World countries, so the Muslims who are fighting against America are freedom fighters, they’re like Mandela, they’re like Gandhi, they’re like Obama’s own dad fighting to push the British out of Kenya.’ He views those guys in favorable terms and he sees America, not Iran or North Korea, but America as the rogue nation that has to be pulled back.

According to D’Souza, this is all because of Obama’s lefty mom who “wanted to marry a Third World anti-American guy” and “cultivated in Obama this sort of anti-capitalist and somewhat anti-American ideology.” D’Souza explains that Obama’s mom “rebelled against her family and her church and her country” and saw “America as a force for evil in the world,” and Obama learned from her and his leftist “surrogate fathers” a “Third World ideology.”

D’Souza: Actually the mom, Obama’s mom, whom Obama portrays as this Midwestern girl from Kansas, but really no, she became an atheist and a leftist and at times even almost a communist, she would say things like ‘what’s wrong with communism?’ and she wanted to marry a Third World anti-American guy and in succession she married two of them. She was the one that cultivated in Obama this sort of anti-capitalist and somewhat anti-American ideology and then of course Obama, once it took, throughout his life would go looking for other guys, mentors, surrogate fathers if you will, who are like his dad and like his mom and then he would study under them and learn chapter and verse of this Third World ideology.

Mefferd: So interesting his mom, a lot of people may say, why would she deliberately seek out a Third World anti-capitalist?

D’Souza: That seems so odd doesn’t it? But it happens in America sometimes, it certainly happened in the ‘60s. Obama’s mom was sort of a ‘60s girl before the ‘60s, she rebelled against her family and her church and her country. In a way, she began to see America as a force for evil in the world.

Frank Gaffney Accuses the SPLC of Endorsing 'Anti-Semitism and Hatemongering'

Anti-Muslim activist and conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy is joining other conservatives in blasting the Southern Poverty Law Center, and last week on Secure Freedom Radio told CSP’s Fred Grandy that the group is “in the service of people who are really the perpetrators of the worst of the anti-Semitism and hatemongering” by opposing anti-gay and anti-Muslim hate groups. Grandy even said that the group is a “decidedly an anti-Semitic organization” because it calls out the extremist views of Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz.

Listen:

Grandy: The Southern Poverty Law Center, which at least generations ago had a very pristine reputation when we were still fighting the civil rights battle, but now they’ve sunk to a new low and of course one of their partners in this effort right now is the Muslim Public Affairs Council with whom they have conspired to create what is not just I think a coalition of hate crimes centered on organizations like the Family Research Center [sic] because of their support of traditional marriage but this has now become decidedly an anti-Semitic organization as well, tearing into Daniel Pipes at the Middle Eastern Forum or David Horowitz at his Freedom Center and of course we’re part of that mix as well. Interestingly enough Frank, when they were having this conversation on the phone, this conference call about hate crimes the night after the shooting at the Family Research Center [sic] no mention of that hate crime was even brought up.

Gaffney: This is a really extraordinary thing, as you say the Southern Poverty Law Center has fallen dramatically from its past and is now in the service of people who are really the perpetrators of the worst of the anti-Semitism and hatemongering and so on.

Today in the Washington Times, Gaffney said that “the SPLC is hanging out with today’s counterpart to the KKK and the pre-eminent threat to civil rights” and aiding the advancement of Sharia law. “If you lawfully object to, say, the erosion of traditional marriage or open borders, you stand to be condemned by the SPLC as a hater,” Gaffney said. “It seems that if you are militantly in favor of the radical homosexual agenda or racist groups such as La Raza, however, you get a pass from that organization.”

Last week’s near-massacre at the Family Research Council (FRC) put into sharp relief a curious fact: The people most aggressively denouncing others for their “hatemongering” sure are engaging in a lot of it themselves, with dangerous and potentially lethal repercussions.

Take, for example, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Back in the heyday of the civil rights movement, the SPLC helped counter the Ku Klux Klan and other racists and anti-Semites. At the moment, though, the SPLC is hanging out with today’s counterpart to the KKK and the pre-eminent threat to civil rights — especially those of women — in America: Islamists bent on insinuating here their anti-constitutional, misogynistic and supremacist doctrine known as Shariah.

A case in point occurred Wednesday night, just hours after a gunman named Floyd Lee Corkins entered the headquarters of the FRC. Mr. Corkins apparently was bent on killing as many of the center’s employees as possible, perhaps because of the social conservative group’s listing (along with this columnist and a number of others) earlier this year by the SPLC as among the worst hate groups and bigots in America.

It turns out that, as with the Family Research Council, what seems to qualify one for smearing by the Southern Poverty Law Center is disagreement with its political agenda. If you lawfully object to, say, the erosion of traditional marriage or open borders, you stand to be condemned by the SPLC as a hater. It seems that if you are militantly in favor of the radical homosexual agenda or racist groups such as La Raza, however, you get a pass from that organization.

Gaffney Says McCain and Boehner are 'Parroting the Muslim Brotherhood Line' by Condemning Bachmann's Witch Hunt

Cliff Kincaid of America’s Survival, who recently led the “Lenin and Sharia” conference on the supposed links between Communism and radical Islamists, today joined Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio to once again defend Michele Bachmann’s anti-Muslim witch hunt. But before they could get to that, the two attacked conservative activist Grover Norquist, whom Gaffney has consistently demonized as a Muslim Brotherhood agent. Gaffney said that his ten part “Muslim Brotherhood in America” course proves that Norquist and his Brotherhood allies are copying the “kind of subversive, clandestine operations that the Communists ran in their heyday in this country”:

Gaffney: Cliff Kincaid, one of the things that jumps out at you as you look at this material in the course and Grover’s friends in the Islamist Brotherhood infrastructure in the United States is how closely it seems to track, almost maps perfectly really, to the kind of subversive, clandestine operations that the Communists ran in their heyday in this country. You’ve developed a tremendous expertise on that subject and I wonder what particularly in your own program about Lenin and Sharia, did you find much evidence of the connection being more than coincidental there?

Kincaid: We did, Frank. This is where Grover’s conduct leaves me almost speechless. I mean here’s a guy who did recognize during the Reagan years the Communist threat and who now seemingly can’t see that we’re up against a global Islamic terrorist threat operating through front groups. That’s exactly what the Communists did.

Later, Gaffney claimed that John McCain and John Boehner, who along with many other Republicans denounced Bachmann’s witch hunt, were “sort of parroting the Muslim Brotherhood line” by defending Huma Abedin from Bachmann’s attacks. Kincaid recommended the House restore the Internal Security Committee, which was originally called the House Un-American Activities Committee, and said that neither Abedin nor President Obama could pass a background check:

Gaffney: They’re not simply imitating what the Communists did, the Communists trained them in how to run what the Brotherhood calls civilization jihad. As you know this is not necessarily terrorism, at least at the moment it’s a pre-violent form of creating the conditions of the battlefield that will enable the violent kind of jihad ultimately to be very successful. Cliff, one other thing that I’m struck by that seems to be an important parallel and it brings us back to the Grover Norquist element here; we’ve also been hearing of course from John McCain and Speaker of the House John Boehner lately, among others, sort of parroting the Muslim Brotherhood line on a number of issues, notably the revelations that the deputy chief of staff to the Secretary of State, Huma Abedin, has extensive personal as well as family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Give us a sense of how this is a throwback to the earlier revelations, among others, by J. Edgar Hoover of what the Communists have done on the other side.

Kincaid: You would think that somebody like a McCain who is of course a war hero who came out of the Hanoi Hilton would understand the similarities between what the Communists have tried to do to us and now what the global Islamists are effectively doing to us. Yet we noticed, Frank, a couple years ago that he seemed to go haywire on this whole thing, after warning about the Muslim Brotherhood he suddenly shows in Washington at an event honoring Al Jazeera and then he shows up making these comments on the Senate Floor in criticism of the conservative members of the House who have raised concerns about security problems at the State Department and other agencies.

This is something that requires frankly the Congress to take a harder look; I wish we could go beyond just asking the inspectors general to look at this problem. We have long at America’s Survival advocated the return of the House and the Senate, but they can do it in the House, of the House Internal Security Committee to issue subpoenas, to bring in and require testimony from these people, to get to the bottom of it in public hearings as to the security problems in the State Department. Who gave Huma Abedin a security clearance? Does she in fact have one? We don’t even know that. I do know that I’ve taken a look at the standard form 86, 127 pages long that she was supposed to fill out and if she had filled it out, and let’s face it even the President couldn’t pass a basic background check, but if she had filled it out truthfully she wouldn’t be in that position today.

Gaffney: Amen, Cliff Kincaid, you are as always a great, great authority on these issues.

Andy McCarthy Describes Frank Gaffney's Claims as 'Nutty,' Then Denies Doing So

National Review columnist Andy McCarthy held a press conference today alongside Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy to defend the credibility of Michele Bachmann’s anti-Muslim witch hunt. However, McCarthy got tripped up after Nick Sementelli of Faith in Public Life asked him about Gaffney, who introduced McCarthy at the briefing, and his extremist views.

Gaffney is a birther, and in fact he dedicated an entire radio program to promote the birther conspiracy, and also thinks that President Obama may be a Muslim:

What little we know about Mr. Obama’s youth certainly suggests that he not only had a Kenyan father who was Muslim, but spent his early, formative years as one in Indonesia. As the president likes to say, “much has been made” — in this case by him and his campaign handlers — of the fact that he became a Christian as an adult in Chicago, under the now-notorious Pastor Jeremiah A. Wright.

With Mr. Obama’s unbelievably ballyhooed address in Cairo Thursday to what he calls “the Muslim world” (hereafter known as “the Speech”), there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself.

When Sementelli asked McCarthy about Gaffney’s claims, McCarthy went on to call such views “nutty” but then denied that he was referring to Gaffney.

Watch as McCarthy stutters through his answer and attempts to Sementelli’s questions:

Romney Met Thursday with Top Anti-Muslim Activist and Leading Backers of Bachmann Witch Hunt

On Friday, Mitt Romney declined to condemn Rep. Michele Bachmann’s witch hunt against Muslim Americans in the federal government, breaking with GOP leaders like Senator John McCain and Speaker John Boehner. He said that “those are not things that are part of my campaign.” If that’s the case, then why did Romney hold a closed-door meeting the evening before with high-profile supporters of Bachmann’s effort, including Jerry Boykin, a leading figure in the anti-Muslim movement?
 
As Politico reported, Romney met privately on Thursday evening in Denver with a select group of right-wing activists. Of the four participants named by Politico, three are outspoken proponents of Bachmann’s witch hunt. Gary Bauer and James Dobson wrote to John Boehner to praise Bachmann’s “good judgment, undeniable courage, and great patriotism” for “bravely demanding answers to matters essential to the safety of the American people and our Armed Forces.” Meanwhile, Boykin signed on to a separate letter expressing “strong support for congressional efforts to illuminate and address the danger posed by influence operations mounted by the Muslim Brotherhood against government agencies.” He also claimed that “Huma [Abedin] is not the only person who has penetrated our government” and wondered aloud if President Obama is a Muslim Brotherhood member.
 
Boykin, however, is more than just a cheerleader for Bachmann – he’s a leading force behind the effort to drive Muslim Americans out of public life. Boykin recently became the Executive Vice President of the Family Research Council, but he’s best known as the lieutenant general who was rebuked by President Bush in 2003 and Defense Department investigators in 2004 for aggressively attacking Islam – in uniform – in the midst of two wars and an expansive anti-terrorism effort in the Middle East and South Asia.
 
Now retired, Boykin is on a mission to save the country from Sharia law and Islamic infiltration, which he sees lurking in every shadow and around every corner. His rhetoric is often bigoted, and he regularly traffics in wild-eyed conspiracy theories – like the one about Obama creating a Hitler-style militia to force Marxism on the American people or the one about international bankers plotting to form a Marxist, global government. (Don’t just take my word for it, see below for links to some of Boykin’s bizarre and disturbing pronouncements.)
 
Boykin, who last made headlines in January when he withdrew from speaking at West Point under pressure from cadets, faculty and outside groups, has argued that Muslims are not protected by the First Amendment and that there should be no mosques in America. In 2010, he joined forces with Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, and other anti-Muslim activists to form the so-called Team B II. The real Team B was an analysis commissioned by the CIA in the 70s of the threats posed to the US by the Soviet Union. Team B II, co-led by Boykin, presented itself as performing a similar analysis of “an even more insidious ideological threat: the totalitarian socio-political doctrine that Islam calls shariah.”
 
The group issued a report in September 2010, “Shariah: The Threat to America,” which won praise from Bachmann and Rep. Trent Franks, who appeared with Gaffney at a press conference announcing the report. Among the key findings of the report was that the Muslim Brotherhood “has succeeded in penetrating our educational, legal and political systems, as well as top levels of government, intelligence, the media, and U.S. military, virtually paralyzing our ability to respond effectively.”
 
Nearly two years later, Bachmann, Franks and three colleagues fired off letters to federal inspectors general alleging infiltration by the Muslim Brotherhood and requesting an investigation. The second paragraph of their letter, which fingered Huma Abedin, cited a series of web videos by the Center for Security Policy. The videos, available at MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com, are narrated by Gaffney and lean heavily on Boykin’s Team B II report.
 
Remarkably, the efforts described above have spilled into Egyptian politics, with unfortunate consequences. As the New York Times reported in mid-July, many opponents of the Muslim Brotherhood, citing statements by Bachmann, Boykin, and Gaffney falsely believe that “the Obama administration harbors a secret, pro-Islamist agenda” and may have even “plotted to install the Islamist party’s presidential candidate in office.” As a result, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s motorcade “was pelted with shoes and tomatoes by Egyptian protesters” motivated by conspiracy theories that “originated with American conservatives.” With Egypt on the brink, nonsense like this only serves to undermine American diplomacy, just as his comments years earlier in uniform undermined American efforts to win hearts and minds abroad and likely put soldiers at increased risk.
 
Does Romney really think Boykin is an appropriate person to meet with? Did the meeting participants discuss Bachmann’s efforts with him? This is serious stuff that Romney should have to address. It was easy enough for him to sidestep the Bachmann question earlier, but given his meeting the evening before, he needs to be asked anew about Bachmann and Boykin.
 
As promised, here are some highlights of Boykin's conspiracy-mongering and Muslim-bashing:
“We have incrementally moved towards Marxism and now I think it's at an accelerated pace. ...
 
One of the things that Hitler did was he established the Brownshirts. ... Well, in the lead-up to the election, during the campaigns, our current president said very openly, and you can find it on YouTube, if I am elected President, I will have a national civilian security force that is as large as and as powerful as the US military.
 
For what? Why do you need a national civilian security force?
 
Now most people say, well we haven't seen any signs of the administration doing that. Until you go back and read what nobody in Washington read, and that's the health care legislation that lays out a provision for the commissioning of officers to work directly for the President in time of a national emergency.
 
Now what would bring about a national emergency? An economic collapse, a terrorist attack, a natural disaster - we talked about all those things here - which would then allow for martial law. The foundation has been laid.”
“We need to recognize that Islam itself is not just a religion - it is a totalitarian way of life. It's a legal system, sharia law; it's a financial system; it's a moral code; it's a political system; it's a military system. It should not be protected under the First Amendment, particularly given that those following the dictates of the Quran are under an obligation to destroy our Constitution and replace it with sharia law.”
“No mosques in America. Islam is a totalitarian way of life; it’s not just a religion. … But Islam, we need to think Sharia, it is not just a religion it is a totalitarian way of life. A mosque is an embassy for Islam and they recognize only a global caliphate, not the sanctity or sovereignty of the United States.”

"If you look at Hitler, one of the most disgusting things I hear is for people to call Hitler the extreme Right. The absolute opposite was true. It was the National Socialist Party. He was an extraordinarily off the scale leftist. 

But many Jews in America, for example, can't identify with the Republican Party because they're called the party of the Right, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth."

 

Right-Wing Activists Warn Obama is working with Islamists to bring down Christianity, the West and America

Frank Gaffney last week hosted George Neumayr of the American Spectator, who co-authored the new book No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom with Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly, to discuss what Gaffney calls the “Red-Green axis,” or the supposed alliance between progressives and radical Islamists. According to Gaffney, Obama “is the personification” of this liberal-Islamist partnership, “it comes together with him.” Neumayr came to a similar conclusion, telling Gaffney that Obama’s views on religion and abortion rights show that he has made Christianity his enemy and is consequently aiding Islam. “This unholy alliance between Obama and Islam is in part based on the common enemy they share, which is Christianity and the West,” Neumayr said, while Gaffney added that it reveals a hostility to “American civilization more broadly.”

Neumayr: He picks on Christians because I guess they won’t fight back as strongly and because he thinks that Christianity is irrational, in fact he pretty much says that in “The Audacity of Hope,” he uses the tale of Abraham and Isaac to say that religion is basically an irrational thing and shouldn’t be a basis for our laws. The irony of his use of that story of course is that he himself as a state senator couldn’t bring himself to vote against infanticide; Abraham put down the knife, Obama’s friends at Planned Parenthood don’t put down the knife, they’ve killed untold numbers of unborn children under Obama and he doesn’t have a problem with that and he wants us to pay for it. So I think this alliance, this unholy alliance between Obama and Islam is in part based on the common enemy they share, which is Christianity and the West.

Gaffney: And I would argue American civilization more broadly.

The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Neumayr later added, was also an attack on Christianity as Obama may begin to have “Christian chaplains and privates” be “court martialed” during his second term.

Neumayr: We have a quote in here, actually comes from the Washington Times originally, but it’s actually a very revealing quote from Lt. General Thomas Bostick, who’s the army’s deputy chief of staff in charge of personnel, he told soldiers in Germany , he said, ‘unfortunately we have a minority of service members who are still racist and bigoted and we’ll never be able to get rid of all of them but these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program and if they can’t they need to get out.’

Gaffney: This is the homosexual agenda, specifically.

Neumayr: Yes, this is with respect to Obama’s position on gay rights. What we say in the book is that if he wins a second term we should expect resistant traditional Christian chaplains and privates to be court martialed; we will probably see that in the second term.

Gaffney: Or drawn and quartered as the case may be.

Right-Wing McCarthyism: Bachmann Wallows in a Deep Pool

USA Today editorialized this week against the rank McCarthyism of Rep. Michele Bachmann and several of her colleagues.  PFAW’s Right Wing Watch has covered the representatives’ letter, which cited professional Islamophobe Frank Gaffney as it sounded the alarm about Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the US government and urged an investigation of Huma Abedin, a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  Says USA Today:

Their letter is a masterpiece of innuendo. Abedin, a U.S.-born Muslim married to a Jewish ex-congressman, is suspect because she "has three family members … connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations."

Even the innuendo is thin: Pressed for proof, Bachmann wrote that a law review article said Abedin's father, who died when his daughter was a teenager, founded an institute that had the "support" of a man who headed another group that was "aligned" with the Brotherhood. This is two decades and several degrees of separation from Abedin in 2012, but that's how a guilt-by-association smear works. Like all cheap magic, it loses its power once you know the trick.

Well put, but one small quibble: the editorial was headlined “Bachmann’s Islamist scare relaunches McCarthyism.” In fact, right-wing McCarthyism has been thriving since President Obama’s election, as documented in PFAW reports here and here.

PFAW Foundation

Rep. Trent Franks Echoes Frank Gaffney Word for Word while Defending Anti-Muslim Witch Hunt

If you need any more evidence that anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney is influencing Republican members of Congress to push a witch hunt against Muslim-Americans public servants, look no further than Gaffney’s interview with Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) today on Secure Freedom Radio. Franks, who is partnering with Rep. Michele Bachmann in her effort to investigate a supposed “penetration” by the Muslim Brotherhood into the U.S. government has apparently adopted Gaffney’s specialty vocabulary. Gaffney regularly warns of “civilization jihad,” “lawfare” and “pre-violent” techniques in his conspiracy-laden diatribes against Muslims in government; in the interview today, Franks echoed back all three phrases.

Franks told Gaffney that Muslim Brotherhood agents are trying to use “use our laws and our commitment to freedom and freedom of speech, which we all believe in desperately, but they hide behind it to couch what otherwise might be called sedition.” Later, the congressman claimed that if people do not listen to his warnings about the Muslim Brotherhood, “then that little unpleasantness on 9/11 has completely gone over our heads.”

Listen:

Gaffney: The central thrust of this effort really is not just that the administration doesn’t seem to understand it but that they seem to be perhaps receptive but at least being seriously subjected to an influence operation by these Muslim Brotherhood operatives. To what extent is there in your estimation enough of a basis for concern that this is done in a systematic, disciplined, rigorous way, I guess the Brotherhood calls it civilization jihad, to warrant an investigation by these inspectors general as you’ve requested?

Franks: The bottom line is the same ideology that precipitated the planning of the attacks that we suffered on 9/11 is the same ideology that gives impulse or animates this pre-violent type of jihad where we face this civilizational jihad, I think you’ve used the term, and I think it’s a very, very accurate term of where they are trying to work within our own system. I hear the term lawfare quite a lot, where they use our laws and our commitment to freedom and freedom of speech, which we all believe in desperately, but they hide behind it to couch what otherwise might be called sedition and hide behind it and call it freedom of speech.

Gaffney: Or freedom of religion.

Franks: That’s probably the worst of all.



Franks: The bottom line is that these letters were about the Muslim Brotherhood and if we don’t have the Muslim Brotherhood figured out as a hostile organization in the United States then that little unpleasantness on 9/11 has completely gone over our heads and I find that astonishing beyond my ability to articulate.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious