During an appearance on The Janet Mefferd Show this week, Frank Gaffney of the far-right Center for Security Policy argued that the Obama administration has a “determination to pursue what amounts to the Sharia blasphemy agenda of our enemies” by “suppressing freedom of expression in this country.” Gaffney was referring to the arrest of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man behind the anti-Islam film “The Innocence of Muslims.”
Of course, Nakoula was not arrested for his role in the film but for violating his probation stemming from a 2010 bank fraud conviction. Gaffney also maintained that “he is the only person who has thus far been incarcerated as a result of this [Benghazi] episode,” even though just over a week ago a suspect in the attack was arrested in Libya and late last year suspects were arrested in Egypt and Tunisia.
Mefferd: What about Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the filmmaker who last we heard is still in jail, what are we to make of that, the fact that he blasphemed Islam so-called and is still in jail.
Gaffney: Well this is a critically important point, Janet; he is the only person who has thus far been incarcerated as a result of this episode. And more to the point, what we have now is growing evidence of the Obama administration’s willingness and indeed determination to pursue what amounts to the Sharia blasphemy agenda of our enemies, that is to say suppressing freedom of expression in this country which is our constitutional right, which is a scandal further.
The congressman even agreed with Gaffney when he made the egregious claim that the Obama administration wants to “prop up” the Iranian regime.
Rohrabacher also suggested that the US should arm the Mujahedeen-e Khlaq (People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran), which last year was delisted as a foreign terror organization. Gaffney’s CSP has criticized the MEK as being a “pro-Saddam Hussein group” and noted its record of violence.
Rohrabacher: In order to accomplish what we need to have accomplished in Iran is regime change and we haven’t gone down anything in that direction and we—
Gaffney: Arguably to the contrary, we’ve been helping prop up the regime in the face of a lot of opposition at home.
Rohrabacher: Well that’s it. With the opposition at home we should be supporting all of those people within Iran who are enemies of the mullah regime. I just came back from a congressional delegation to Central Asia and we met with leaders of the MEK who are an anti-Mullah group and they are controversial to some people but the bottom line is they are actually fighting the mullahs, the mullah regime. We should be indiscriminately working with those groups that want to eliminate the mullah regime and hopefully will replace it with a democratic government. I support for example the Baloch, there are six million Balochis in the southern part of Iran, they are Sunnis I might add, and they are persecuted by these mullahs and I have been doing everything I can to support the insurgency and the independence of Balochistan. There are several groups, there are Kurds in Iran. We have not done anything to actually support the enemy of our enemies unlike Reagan which ended the Cold War because he supported the enemy of our enemies rather than deploy American troops everywhere.
Family Research Council vice president Jerry Boykin has joined the right-wing smear campaign against John Brennan and Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s nominees to lead the CIA and the Department of Defense, respectively.
In an interview with fellow anti-Muslim activist Frank Gaffney, Boykin said that Hagel “has demonstrated some rather anti-Semitic tendencies in not being willing to stand with Israel” and that Brennan is “very sympathetic to the jihadist cause.”
Boykin added that Brennan “personally brought in a number of very subversive elements and individuals into our government” and “helped to place them in positions of great influence within our government, including the White House.”
Boykin: He also I believe has demonstrated some rather anti-Semitic tendencies in not being willing to stand with Israel. So I’m very concerned, that’s the best that we can do as a nation? If you look at his hearing it was probably the worst showing for any nominee in my lifetime so I’m very concerned.
Gaffney: I think rightly so. Let me ask you about one of the other nominations, John Brennan. I imagine you crossed paths with him during your time in the United States government including your service as the deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, what do you make of his, well, I think most charitably it’s described as willful blindness about that threat, that enemy posed in the form of an existential threat I think not just to Israel but I think to all of us in the form of Islamism.
Boykin: Yeah I’m very concerned about Brennan, I’m more concerned about Brennan than I am Hagel. I’m concerned about both of them but Brennan’s track record of not being willing to acknowledge that Al Qaeda is actually executing Islamic theology, is motivated by fundamental Islamic theology. Brennan is a guy who has A) not been willing to acknowledge that this is what motivates them but B) he has personally brought in a number of very subversive elements and individuals into our government, he has helped to place them in positions of great influence within our government, including the White House. Brennan has been very sympathetic to the jihadist cause.
Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families appeared on the End Times show, Understanding the Times with Jan Markell, to warn that Obama’s nominees are further proof of his “affection for and affinity for the Islamic world.”
A lot of the things we see the President doing, his appointments, his speeches, the events he has at the White House that are often pro-Islamic events, all these things taken together is just a reflection of the fact that this is the first President in modern times that has been so overt in his hostility to Israel and so clear about his affection for and affinity for the Islamic world.
Bauer argued that if “men and women of faith walk away and leave the battlefield to our opponents” then Obama and his appointees will continue to show “softness towards radical Islam” and wage an “assault on normal marriage.”
They want us to run away from the fight and to give up so then they can make the country into something quite different than the kind of America that we want it to be. So whether it’s Israel or bad appointments like Chuck Hagel, government getting bigger, taxes going up, the deficit out of control, softness towards radical Islam, all these issues are all incredibly important, the assault on normal marriage. The last thing America can survive right now is if men and women of faith walk away and leave the battlefield to our opponents.
For decades, the Right has attempted to discredit Hillary Clinton with attacks ranging from the disturbing (killing people) to the bizarre (killing cats). But after serving four years as Secretary of State, Clinton is leaving office with sky-high approval ratings. Before she steps down on Friday, we decided to look back on some of the most extreme and befuddling accusations she has faced from the far-right during her term as the nation’s top diplomat.
When she did testify, she faced redundant and ill-informed questions from Republicans like Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson, who skipped a classified briefing on the incident, and Kentucky senator Rand Paul, who admitted he had no proof to back up his claim that the Benghazi mission was used to send arms to Syrian rebels.
Anti-Clinton conspiracy theorists claim that her supposed Muslim Brotherhood sympathies have turned her into a covert advocate of Sharia law. Bachmann said that Clinton was working “to take away the free speech rights of the American people” and “our right of free speech and expression, religious practice, freedom of assembly, freedom of the printing press” in order to “empower the Islamists.”
Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy claimed that Clinton had accepted “submission to the stealthy Islamist effort to enforce in this country the supremacist doctrine known as shariah” and the Family Research Council’s Jerry Boykin said the administration had shown “support for the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into our government.” Rick Joyner, the televangelist who has worked closely with Gaffney and Boykin, was left wondering why Clinton was “advocating” Sharia:
4. LGBT Rights Advocacy Will Destroy America
While the Right’s Benghazi, Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia law claims didn’t hold water, they at least got one thing right: Clinton acted as a champion for LGBT equality while leading the State Department. The Religious Right fumed at her work on behalf of gay rights and exploded inanger following a speech in Geneva in which she defended the rights of LGBT people and called for the decriminalization of LGBT status.
Liberty University’s Mat Staver warned that Clinton was backing a “radical sexual anarchist agenda” while Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention said that Clinton’s support of “sexual paganization” would bring about God’s judgment on America. Pat Robertson reacted to Clinton’s speech by warning that God may destroy the U.S.
5. Clinton Opposes Religious Freedom
All of the conspiracy theories and accusations seem to come together in an attempt to smear Clinton as an enemy of religious freedom. Conservatives argued that she was using both gay rights and Sharia law to undercut Christianity and religious freedoms.
At the Values Voters Summit, phony “ex-terrorist” Kamal Saleem even warned that Clinton was planning to “shut down” churches and synagogues this month. Since Clinton serves just one more day at the job, she better speed up with her diabolical plans!
The last few years have been tough on Elaine Donnelly, as the Phyllis Schlafly protégé appears to have lost the battle over her group’s two main priorities: maintaining the ban on openly gay service members and excluding women from combat positions. Donnelly, the head of the Center for Military Readiness, appeared on Secure Freedom Radio last week with Frank Gaffney to demand that Congress intervene and block the Obama administration from permitting women to serve in combat.
She predicted that “lives are lost” if women have the opportunity to serve in such units, which she arged would make the military’s mission “more difficult [and] more dangerous.” “This is the political agenda of the President,” Donnelly said, “we see the outgoing Secretary of Defense planting on the Pentagon the flag of feminism right next to the LGBT gay activist flag.”
Gaffney: What does it mean for the war fighting capabilities of the United States that we are relaxing the standards or we are enabling people who will not be able to meet them to get access to and become part of the military cadre?
Donnelly: When you complicate matters in infantry battalions you make life and missions there more difficult, more dangerous, bottom line: lives are lost. There is no excuse for doing this. We know that women are promoted at rates equal to or faster than men and it’s been that way for decades. This is the political agenda of the President that is being imposed on the one institution or the one organization that he can order as Commander-in-Chief and everybody has to salute and make it work. That includes the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they are going along with this even though they have not disclosed the results of the marine tests. Now if the marine tests supported the goal of women being in the infantry, don’t you think we would’ve heard about it by now? Instead, we see the outgoing Secretary of Defense planting on the Pentagon the flag of feminism right next to the LGBT gay activist flag. These people are in charge of the Pentagon unless Congress intervenes and Congress has the responsibility to intervene. Under the Constitution, Congress makes policy, not the President, not the Joint Chiefs and certainly the field commanders who will have to implement these diversity metrics in order to get promoted.
The Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney and National Review columnist Andy McCarthy were unimpressed with President Obama’s second inaugural address, despite all its references to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. On yesterday’s edition of Secure Freedom Radio, McCarthy told Gaffney that the president is “taking out a contract on the Constitution as we know it.” Gaffney responded that the president “wrapped himself in a sort of nostalgia for the Constitution” while in fact being “rather contemptuous of it.”
McCarthy: I think what Obama’s trying to do -- and a lot of us who followed his career warned about this back in 2007, 2008 -- is really consummate the ambition of FDR to change the very nation of the American system, and certainly to change the nature of our constitutional framework from a charter of negative liberties, which is the protection of the American people against the adhesions and the extreme maneuvers of government, to basically a contract of the have-nots against the haves with government as the intermediary for demanding what government must do for people. With the big problem with that being, number one, what is your license to take from me, which is certainly not what the country was founded on. And number two, enough is never enough with the left. So even if you were to institute such a system it quickly becomes unsustainable.
Gaffney: Yeah, I take it you don’t mean “contract” in the sense of “taking out a contract” on somebody, but it certainly sounds as though that might be the gist.
McCarthy: It’s certainly taking out a contract, it’s taking out a contract on the Constitution as we know it.
Gaffney: Yeah. Even as we talked about with Dr. Paul Kengor earlier, and even as he wrapped himself in sort of nostalgia for the Constitution, he certainly showed himself to be rather contemptuous of it.
On Monday, People For the American Way delivered a petition with 178,000 signatures to House Speaker John Boehner calling for the removal of Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Bachmann, one of Congress’ leading purveyors of conspiracy theories, earned rebukes from Boehner and others last year when she accused several Muslim-American government employees, include top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, of being secret agents of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The petition, to put it mildly, hit a nerve among Bachmann’s allies in the anti-Muslim Right. FrontPageMag, an online outfit led by David Horowitz, has published a fullthreearticles defending Bachmann and accusing PFAW of “smearing” the “vindicated” Bachmann by launching an “all-out war” on her. In one article, Robert Spencer of JihadWatch argues, “If they really had any genuine concern for the American way, instead of calling for her removal from the Intelligence committee, the People for the American Way would be calling for Bachmann to be appointed to chair that committee.”
Horowitz and Spencer aren’t the only ones coming to Bachmann’s defense. The Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney, who was the source of the bulk of Bachmann’s accusations against Abedin, and conservative columnist Diana West discussed the petition on Wednesday’s edition of Secure Freedom Radio. People For the American Way, Gaffney suggested, is part of the “Red-Green Axis” and should be called instead “People For the Islamist Way”:
Gaffney: I wanted to turn to a woman who has probably understood this jihadist enterprise, most especially the civilization jihadist element of it, that is to say the so-called non-violent -- actually pre-violent form -- that we’ve talked about in the book that you contributed marvelously to, Sharia: The Threat to America, namely Michele Bachmann. She has been savaged now for almost a year for having actually raised an alarm about some of this. What’s going on with her at the moment and what should our listeners be thinking about it and doing?
West: Well, you have People For the American Way, a leftist advocacy group, actually putting together a petition asking to have Speaker John Boehner to remove Michele Bachmann from the House Intelligence Committee. Now this actually all ties in to what we were talking about already because FOX has also savaged Michele Bachmann, specifically going back to last summer when she and a few of her colleagues were raising questions about Muslim Brotherhood penetration into the United States government. Specifically, one of the cause celebre was the perhaps penetration, her question of the secretary of state’s office with her top aide being Huma Abedin, who we’ve spoken about before. And this is one of these…
Gaffney: Closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Gaffney: I think what we’re really getting at here is Michele Bachmann is being vilified for having exposed some of that influence operation, penetration problem and she should be, if anything, lauded for it, not taken to task by the Red-Green Axis, as they call it, doing business under the form of People For the Islamist Way.
Frank Gaffney hosted Andrew McCarthy of the National Review yesterday on Secure Freedom Radio where he warned that People For the American Way is “promoting the Islamist agenda in the attack on Michele Bachmann” and should really be called the “People For the Islamist Way.”
McCarthy joined Gaffney to defend the Minnesota congresswoman, who smeared Muslim-Americans in government including Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin, and onceagain argue that Bachmann is the real victim. He said that PFAW and other progressive groups have “decided to ‘bork’” Bachmann “because she has been so effective.” Gaffney said that the petition was part of the “red-green axis” that exists “between the left and the Islamists.”
Gaffney: Let’s start with a woman that I think we both admire, who has been vilified in both Democratic and Republican circles, shamefully, for having had the courage to speak the truth about a problem that you have documented, most especially involving the woman that I guess caused so much controversy when Michele Bachmann and four of her colleagues asked the perfectly reasonable question: how did Huma Abedin with her ties to the Muslim Brotherhood get a security clearance and what influence is she having on policy? Give us your read on the fact that the so-called People For the American Way and I must say it sounds much more like it’s the People For the Islamist Way is up to when they try through a very substantially subscribed-to petition to have Michele Bachmann thrown off the Intelligence Committee in the House?
McCarthy: Well it seems to me Frank that it means that Michele has irritated all the right people who ought to be irritated. The American people ought to understand since we’re talking about People For the American Way that that organization is a contrivance of a far-left television icon of the 1970s and 80s named Norman Lear who was instrumental in the slander of Judge Robert Bork, so much of a slander that Judge Bork’s name became a verb in our modern lexicon and Michele Bachmann is the latest person that the left has decided to ‘bork’ because she has been so effective and because she’s been a staunch defender of American national security.
Gaffney: Andy McCarthy you have also drilled down in your writings about the axis, some call it the red-green axis, between the left and the Islamists. This certainly seems to be a prime example of it as you say with Norman Lear’s background and the role that they are playing and in this instance promoting the Islamist agenda in the attack on Michele Bachmann.
Frank Gaffney is demonstrating once again why even an increasing number of Republicans aren’t taking him seriously anymore, as he is attacking President Obama’s nominee to head the CIA for speaking Arabic. In his Washington Timescolumn today, Gaffney said that counterterrorism adviser John Brennan’s knowledge of Arabic and past role as CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia are actually negatives and reveal his terrorist sympathies. Gaffney also took issue with Brennan’s resistance to using the term “jihad” and argued that Brennan is “the single most important enabler of the Islamic supremacists’ agenda in government today” as he “has helped legitimate, empower, fund, arm and embolden them abroad, and embraced and appeased them here at home.”
Mr. Brennan is a textbook example of a U.S. official who has “gone native.” He speaks Arabic and was formerly the top CIA officer in Saudi Arabia. He has shown himself to be deeply sympathetic to Islamists — for example, excusing and dissembling about their commitment to jihad and the necessity of not offending them.
After President Obama himself, Mr. Brennan is, arguably, the single most important enabler of the Islamic supremacists’ agenda in government today. In his role as homeland security adviser to the president — a position that does not require Senate confirmation and that he was given as a consolation prize when it became clear that he might not be confirmable as CIA director back in 2009 — Mr. Brennan has helped legitimate, empower, fund, arm and embolden them abroad, and embraced and appeased them here at home.
Of particular concern is the fact that Mr. Brennan has presided over the policy of engaging the Muslim Brotherhood, which has consequently been portrayed by a politicized intelligence community as “largely secular” and “eschewing violence”; the shredding of training briefings and the proscribing of trainers that might upset Muslims by telling the truth about Shariah and the jihad it commands; the penetration of U.S. agencies by Muslim Brotherhood-associated individuals as employees or senior advisers; and misrepresentations to Congress about the true, jihadist character of the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi this past Sept. 11.
Ordinarily, a president should be given wide latitude by the Senate to appoint those he wants to staff his administration. This is no ordinary time, though, and this is no ordinary president or administration. The circumstances are such that a Team Obama that is pursuing so dangerous a policy course must be challenged and impeded, not encouraged and abetted.
The Senate’s constitutional responsibility to confirm senior executive branch appointees is one of the few it hasn’t compromised or allowed the president to expropriate. It must exercise its authority to assure “quality control” with respect to his picks for top national security Cabinet posts.
Indeed, the fact that Mr. Obama seeks not one or two but three individuals who share his determination to achieve the radical and dangerous national security transformation he seeks in his second term demands that senators defy him. After all, should the Senate fail to object to this trajectory by rigorously debating and defeating any — and preferably all — of these problematic choices, its members risk not only allowing but becoming party to the realization of a world without America.
Frank Gaffney appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday to warn that President Obama’s Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel is not only “a guy who cannot be all that concerned about the men and women in uniform” but also a “shill” for Iran. Gaffney, whose anti-Muslim activism is so extreme that it has even drawntheire of many Republican groups, told Mefferd that Hagel is acting just like an Iranian spy.
“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,” Gaffney 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.”
Mefferd: Obviously people have been talking about Chuck Hagel and his anti-Israel position; he also has a lot of interest in disarming us, doesn’t he?
Gaffney: He is a man who served in the military with distinction in Vietnam, by virtue of that I think many, including veterans groups, have been inclined to think he’ll be a formidable ally of the men and women in uniform. I think that’s anything but the case. To be frank about it, a guy who believes that you can further eviscerate the funding for the Defense Department suggests to me he’s a guy who cannot be all that concerned about the men and women in uniform because it ensures that they will not have the wherewithal that they require to protect us. That’s obviously not good for us but it isn’t going to be very safe or healthy for them either as they go into war without that kit.
Mefferd: Right and you would think that Iran getting excited about Chuck Hagel’s nomination would tip off a few people that this is probably not in the best interest of the United States to have Chuck Hagel in this job.
Gaffney: He’s earned the support of the Iranian regime. I have to say, over many years he has shilled for them it seems at just about every turn. He has objected to sanctions, I guess there have been one or two votes where he played along with it, but mostly he’s been objecting to it certainly since he left the Senate. He has categorically rejected the idea that we might have to use military force to prevent the sort of threat that I believe is now imminent in terms of a nuclear armed Iran. He has been exceedingly aggressive in promoting the idea that we need to engage with them on essentially whatever terms they demand. In other words, 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. 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.
Conservative columnist Diana West returned to Frank Gaffney’s show, Secure Freedom Radio, where the two agreed that President Obama is going to gut the Constitution in order to bring about a “dictatorship.” Gaffney pointed to an op-ed by Louis Michael Seidman which criticized the Constitution’s “archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions,” and then connected Seidman to…Obama. How you might ask? Well, they are both constitutional law professors, Gaffney explains, so they must share the same views on the suitability of the Constitution in today’s society and both support “a kind of post-constitutionalism.”
West agreed with Gaffney’s claim that Obama is putting Seidman’s take on the Constitution into practice and went on to argue that he is undermining the rule of law and promoting “totalitarianism.” Gaffney also warned that “freedom of speech” is “very much on the line.”
Gaffney: There’s a kind of betrayal being proposed at the moment, it’s been quite formally now advanced in the form of a column that’s getting a lot of attention but less formally it seems to be the practice of the Obama administration, a kind of post-constitutionalism. Louis Michael Seidman who is a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, the profession that of course our President had prior to entering public life at the University of Chicago, it was entitled back in December 30, 2012, “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.” Do you think, Diana West, that’s in fact what we are doing now increasingly in the government of the United States under President Barack Obama?
West: Yes, I do. I think that this is another evolution that has been a long time coming; this is not a brand new development. However, the boldness and the frontal assault of such a notion is going to increasingly gain currency and what we are actually doing is watching the disillusion of rule of law and the increasing elevation of the rule of men, by men I mean women as well, but in terms of a rule of a person who is not bound by the law. This leads to dictatorship, it leads to totalitarianism, it leads to the end of liberty. It’s a terrible development and it’s dire. I can’t overstate the seriousness of this notion gaining currency, particularly in law schools. This is a tremendous threat and unless our legislators, unless our pundits, our people, our town halls, our tea parties get involved in such a matter it is going to sweep us over.
Gaffney: Not least, and this is an area I know you’re following very closely Diana West and we will discuss with you again in the weeks to come in 2013, the effect on some of our most fundamental freedoms. For example, freedom of speech, the ability to have this kind of conversation where it might give offense to Muslims, is very much on the line.
It is always fascinating to watch far-right activists claim that Muslims should be stripped of their First Amendment rights while denouncing the Obama administration for allegedly trying to undermine the freedom of religion all in the same breath.
After Schlafly named a series of lawsuits (most of which had no connection to the Obama administration) that she says prove Obama is hostile to the First Amendment, Gaffney asserted that Obama is not only trying to impose a “secularist agenda” but also champion “unalloyed efforts to promote Islamism.” He argued that Obama has a “profound affinity for” Islamism and asked Schlafly how that squares with his secularism.
Schlafly, however, couldn’t come up with a coherent answer besides arguing that Obama is wrong for saying that “we are not a Christian nation” since that’s “what the founding fathers were saying all the time.”
Gaffney: These seem sort of like small and unconnected assaults, but one of the places where we see and you write very powerfully about, this coming to ahead as you say, is the exception to his secularist agenda, which seems to be President Obama’s profound affinity for and I would argue unalloyed efforts to promote Islamism. Tell us what that’s about and how that’s translating into further problematic behavior with respect to our religious freedoms.
Schlafly: Well my book, No Higher Power, shows how he is trying to completely secularize our country but he is giving a pass to Islam. You find that he doesn’t attack Islam and he went over to one of those countries and announced that we are not a Christian nation, but America is a Christian nation, look at all of our founding documents and what the founding fathers were saying all the time and the very beginning. It is very peculiar the way he gives a pass to Islam.
Maybe Schlafly and Gaffney can read Thomas Jefferson’s autobiography where he explicitly states that Muslims have religious freedom and no religion has a privileged status, or see the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli negotiated by George Washington and ratified unanimously under John Adams which reads in part:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility [sic], of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and, as the said States never have entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) appeared on conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney’s show yesterday where they railed against President Obama over his speech at the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Symposium. Gaffney claimed that Obama was practicing “national security fraud” and is “misleading the American people” by heralding new efforts to curtail the proliferation of nuclear weapons, while Inhofe said that the dream of Obama and the far-left is to disband the military altogether. “The far-left doesn’t think we need a military to start with, they really don’t,” Inhofe told Gaffney, “They would never say that but they do believe that.”
Gaffney: I just have to ask you about this. President Obama made a statement yesterday that just is stunning. He said to a group of nuclear disarmament enthusiasts: ‘We’re moving closer to the future we seek. A future where these weapons never threaten our children again. A future where we know the security and peace of a world without nuclear weapons.’ Senator, I suggest to you that represents national security fraud. I just wonder, knowing what you do about the proliferation of nuclear weapons not just in Iran but the buildup by the Chinese that have just tested a new long-range missile from mobile launchers capable of reaching this country, what on earth is the president doing misleading the American people?
Inhofe: I think that you and I have a problem. We don’t stop and realize that we are dealing with people—the far-left doesn’t think we need a military to start with, they really don’t. You’ve heard me say this before, they really believe if all countries would just stand in a circle and unilaterally disarm and hold hands then all threats would go away, they believe that. They would never say that but they do believe that.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) spoke to anti-Muslimconspiracytheorist Frank Gaffney yesterday on Secure Freedom Radio where he alleged that the Obama administration actively aided Al Qaeda and follows the advice of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Texas congressman partnered with Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and a group of Republicans to demand investigations of Muslim Americans serving in the administration, with Bachmann warning that Muslim Brotherhood secret agents have successfully conducted “deep penetration” of the U.S. government. After the witch hunt was roundly criticized by Democrats and Republicans alike, Bachmann ended up literally running away from reporters.
Yesterday, Gohmert told Gaffney that the anti-Muslim investigations are needed more than ever, arguing that Obama made such “horrendous decisions” by backing “revolutions in Northern Africa and across the Middle East and to the Far East” that it is likely because the “administration had a bunch of Muslim Brotherhood members giving them advice.”
Gaffney: Congressman Gohmert let me just ask you quickly because you were one of five members of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich called you all the National Security Five, who back in June of this year wrote letters to Inspectors General of five different departments raising the question that some of these dismal policies that have resulted in the Obama administration embracing Islamists at home as well as abroad and finding itself I would argue squarely on the wrong side of history as far as freedom is concerned, may be a function of these Muslim Brotherhood associated individuals who are serving in or advising the Obama administration. Looking at what’s happening now, looking at what has developed since you wrote those letters, do you feel that that issue should be raised anew and much more aggressively as Congress looks into the fiasco in Benghazi and now more recently in Egypt?
Gohmert: Absolutely. I think it almost makes a prima facie case when you look at the decisions made by this administration over the last couple of years, or actually all four years. You look at the decisions it made especially in the last two years in going through the revolutions in Northern Africa and across the Middle East and to the Far East, and the only way you can explain the horrendous decisions that were so completely wrongheaded would be if this administration had a bunch of Muslim Brotherhood members giving them advice.
Gohmert, of “terror babies” distinction, later maintained that Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood take over Libya (they didn’t) thanks to help from the Obama administration and also talked about how Palestinians are actually a new group because they didn’t live in the area when King David ruled.
It wasn’t enough to send verbal accolades; this administration sent planes and bombs and support to oust Gadhafi so that Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood could take over Libya. Some of us were fussing about it back then but we faced what was then ‘all the rage’ and that was you know Muslim Brotherhood taking over, call it Arab Spring, call it Arab Winter, whatever you want to, but it was disastrous unless you were wanting a new Ottoman Empire to take place and that’s what this administration helped jump start. So with that same kind of spirit and enthusiasm and excitement that we saw from this administration as Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood took over in Libya and has now taken over in Egypt, now we’re seeing that for the Morsi brokered temporary peace. There is not going to be any peace in the Middle East until the Palestinians—and Newt Gingrich is right, that’s a relatively new term, they certainly weren’t around 3,000 years ago when King David was ruling from Hebron for seven years and then Jerusalem.
The Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney dedicated Wednesday’s edition of Secure Freedom Radio to discussing the Benghazi attack and the resignation of Gen. David Petreaus with leaders of the anti-Muslim Right. He spoke first with conservative columnist Diana West, who in October claimed that the Benghazi attack was a “fortunate event” because it brought attention to the Obama administration’s “supporting jihad.”
West – who explored similar ground in a WorldNetDaily column yesterday -- told Gaffney that Petreaus’ extramarital affair was “apiece” with the entire philosophy behind the counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, claiming that American troops are now being ordered to “revere the Koran” and “look the other way” at “polygamy, pederasty, abuse of dogs.”
“I’m not surprised to see the men who prosecuted this doctrine, Gen. Petraeus, Gen. Allen, and who else, we don’t even know how many others, showing such immoral leadership and such corruption of their own personal lives,” she said.
West: In a sense, we live in a COIN [counterinsurgency] world, because I think the doctrine that Christopher Stevens and the Bush administration and of course the Obama administration was pushing was this notion, if you do enough to please the Islamic world you can work with them. But in that process, you become part of the submission. You adopt so much of the Islamic worldview that you lose your own. And I think the counterinsurgency doctrine exemplifies this with guns. It’s a matter of appeasing Islamic masters, of satisfying Islamic norms in order, the idea is to win them over to your side. But you no longer have a side once you’ve given over freedom of speech, which the military essentially gave over in ordering men to revere the Koran and never speak ill of it, once you give over the notion of outrage over polygamy, pederasty, abuse of dogs, which the military institutionalizes in forcing our men to look the other way at these behaviors, which are norms in Afghanistan. You have given away yourself, you no longer have yourself, and as these men come home when these attitudes towards corruption – everything in Afghanistan is done with money, you know jizya, the amounts of, your persuading people to do things not because you’re right or according to the law, but because you pay them, these things are going to seep back into our society. And this tolerance of polygamy, pederasty, etc. is going to seep back in. These are dangerous things, we’re no longer ourselves.
West: The notion of protecting the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan, which is at the heart of COIN, over protecting American forces in the field, I believe is an immoral doctrine. And I’m not surprised to see the men who prosecuted this doctrine, Gen. Petraeus, Gen. Allen, and who else, we don’t even know how many others, showing such immoral leadership and such corruption of their own personal lives. I don’t think it’s far afield, I think it’s all apiece of a larger philosophy.
Gaffney: Symptomatic of a larger problem, one I think that those of us who revere the military and its place in our society as our defenders must take very much to heart.
Elsewhere in the program, Gaffney spoke with author Andy Bostom, who claimed that President Obama has adopted what he sees as the West’s “cultural self-loathing.” Gaffney agreed, adding that “it really speaks to the psychology of this guy… this hostility to the United States.”
Bostom: I think we’re coming to a phase in the West where this sort of cultural self-loathing. Our engagement now in these wars, the way we’ve conducted them, may be the apotheosis of this trend, this completely self-destructive self-loathing. And our president seems to have totally bought into this mentality that somehow, you know, all the ills of the world are due to western attacks, to hegemony and colonial…and this is all the detritus of the colonial empire, and we are a guilty people, we are a guilty civilization, and he is actualizing policies, it seems to me, based on this mindset. And al Qaeda’s a great example. On the one hand, they aren’t even Muslims, according to our president and his advisors, they’re some sort of vague manifestation of extremism that has nothing to do with Islam, that has nothing to do with Muslims, that’s a sui generis phenomenon or something, but we are incalculably wrong in almost everything we do.
Gaffney: That’s such a telling insight, Andy Bostom. It really speaks to the psychology of this guy, and we’ll be speaking momentarily with Dr. Paul Kengor about his sort of upbringing and influences that may have helped shape this hostility to the United States. But to the extent that it really is translating now into fundamentally misunderstanding the danger that’s being posed to us and therefore making absolutely impossible our success in contending with it, it really is a disaster of the first order and something that I pray we will have members of Congress addressing in the course of these hearings starting this week.
Kevin Drum of Mother Jones today wonders how the right-wing speculation of a Benghazi cover-up makes even “a lick of sense,” and so he may want to hear what conspiracy theorists and conservative activists Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy and Jerry Boykin of the Family Research Council have to say. The two were leading authors of the 2010 “Team B II Report: Sharia: the Threat to America” [PDF], about how the implementation of Sharia law in the U.S. due to high-level Islamist infiltration is imminent, if not already occurring, and are now pushing claims that the Benghazi incident was all part of a pro-Sharia scheme to limit free speech in the U.S. and even aid terrorists.
Gaffney argued in the Washington Times that the initial reaction to the Benghazi attack proves that the State Department is “committed to the Shariah blasphemy agenda” and in an interview with Sandy Rios of the American Family Association, he maintained that the Obama administration wanted to cover up “secret arm shipments” to Al Qaeda. Of course he began his inflammatory remarks by stating, “I don’t know the truth just yet.”
I don’t know the truth just yet but I will tell you this, I believe what Chris Stevens was doing there was known to be an exceedingly dangerous thing to do and that he did so without adequate regard for the safety of either himself or the people with him. And he did it I think for a compelling reason, and that is that they were trying to figure out how to do damage-limitation on the cover being blown on secret arms shipments that he was facilitating to the so-called opposition in Syria which includes we know, Al Qaeda.
Meanwhile, Boykin told Lee Webb of Christian Broadcasting Network’s NewsWatch, who asked if David Petraeus was “actually blackmailed” by the Obama administration, that Petraeus was “held hostage” by the administration and resigned as the head of the CIA because “he reached a point where he was unwilling to continue spouting the party line [on Benghazi] to the American public and continuing to breach his own integrity.”
Does Boykin know this for sure? Nope. Like Gaffney, Boykin preceded his wild speculation by noting, “I certainly don’t have any insider information” about the scandal surrounding Petraeus, who while speaking to CNN said that “this has nothing to do with Benghazi.”
Boykin also alleged that the government was “trying to cover up” a scheme in Benghazi to “funnel weapons and material to Syrian rebels”…before adding, “now, I don’t know that that’s the case.”
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.
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?