Don’t Pay Attention To The Battleships

On Friday The Center for Security Policy posted an article about the Biden administration’s relationship with China. Things are not always what they appear to be.

The article reports:

Anyone who has seen a magic show understands the principle of sleight of hand. While the audience is looking one way, the real action is happening elsewhere. There is no real magic involved. It is all a trick.

You can see this technique on display in the actions of the Biden administration right now vis a vis China. Two U.S. carrier battle groups are in the vicinity of the contested South China Sea. Every day their presence is appropriately trumpeted through the mass media outlets that function as the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. The implication is clear. Joe is no Communist lackey. He can get tough with Xi if he has to.

Meanwhile, back home, something very different is happening.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) uses propaganda and influence operations as a means of projecting its power and weakening its enemies. Chief amongst the targets for these kinds of operations is the United States. These operations are not run on some kind of ad hoc basis. They are coordinated and directed at a national level by the CCP’s United Front Work Department.

The article reminds us that the goals of the United Front system are undermining social cohesion, exacerbating racial tension, and influencing politics. It is designed to destroy China’s enemies from within. Sound familiar?

The article continues:

Chinese “Confucius Institutes” on dozens of U.S. campuses are part of the United Front Work Department. These institutes are present today in some 500 K-12 schools and 65 colleges in the United States. The institutes are staffed by Chinese nationals. They exist to feed students and faculty positive images of Communism and the Chinese Communist Party.

Confucius Institutes are run by the government of China. They are propaganda arms of the CCP operating on our soil and shaping the minds of our young people who then go on to careers in business, academia, and the government. Criticism of the Confucius Institutes in the United States has been appropriately intense in recent years. Many colleges have forced them off-campus.

In its last days, the Trump administration proposed a rule that would have required American schools and universities to disclose their partnerships with Confucius Institutes. China is in the process of rebranding its Confucius Institutes and looking for ways to continue pumping propaganda into the minds of our young people without being detected by American authorities. The rule proposed under President Trump would have gone a long way toward blocking those efforts and illuminating what the CCP was up to.

No more. The Trump proposal was withdrawn from consideration on January 26, 2021. No explanation by the Biden administration was given, but then none was really necessary.

The article cites the relationship between Joe Biden’s Secretary of State, Tony Blinken, and the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement that Joe Biden established in 2018 at the University of Pennsylvania. The Center is largely funded by the Chinese Communist Party and is part of the United Front.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. This does not look good for America.

This Is Not A Step Toward Peace

Yesterday The Center for Security Policy reported the following:

President Joe Biden has halted the sale of F-35 stealth jets to the UAE, even though they were promised as part of the Abraham Accords.  The administration has raised concerns the UAE might use these jets against the Houthis.

The Houthis have no air force and they have only rudimentary air defenses.

The UAE has a decently-sized air force made up of seventy seven F-16’s and sixty three Mirage 2000’s.

In respect to the Houthi insurgency in Yemen, the UAE operates with Saudi Arabian air assets.  Saudi Arabia has 42 F-15’s , 74 light attack F-5’s and 44 Tornado fighters.

The Houthis are designated by the government of Yemen as a “terrorist militia.” They are Shiite Muslims attempting to take over the country. They are supported by Iran.

The article concludes:

The Israelis are already deeply alarmed and, while not explicitly stated, if the administration goes ahead with its JCPOA plan, the Israeli Air Force will attempt to take out Iran’s nuclear and missile assets if given the go-ahead. From Israel point of view, Iran is already close to an atomic weapons breakout, but the US backing for the JCPOA is likely to give the Iranians cover to really accelerate their nuclear drive. Starting last month, Iran was enriching uranium (U-235) at 20%. Once there is enough U-235 at 20%, it is relatively easy to increase the U-235 percentage to 95%, what is needed for an atomic bomb.

There is yet another consequence. Iran is pursuing different ways to make atomic weapons, using either a pure uranium bomb (like Hiroshima), boosted bombs (perhaps using thorium which is available from North Korea), or alternatively building plutonium-based weapons. Plutonium weapons require a complex triggering mechanism as opposed to a uranium bomb that can employ a much simpler gun-type initiator. Unlike the Nagasaki bomb that was plutonium-based, the Hiroshima U-235 bomb did not require testing because the mechanism was simpler.

The regional issue is whether to wait for Iran to have nuclear weapons or to preempt and destroy Iran’s weapon’s making facilities and missile launch platforms.

Meanwhile the Biden decision no doubt will confirm a looming Israeli view that the US administration is tilting to Iran and that the nuclear threat will get worse unless it is countered. In short, the Biden decision is destabilizing.

This decision will not bring peace.

Heading In A Dangerous Direction

On Friday Caroline Glick posted an article at the Center for Security Policy about the cancel culture that has reared its head in America.

The article reports:

The talking heads on TV, Democrats and a smattering of anti-Trump Republicans insist that the fault for all of America’s political woes lies with former president Donald Trump and the senators and congressmen who joined him in questioning the results of the election in several swing states. For refusing to set aside evidence of widespread election fraud, they stand accused of inciting an insurrection and so endangering the foundations of American democracy. Trump was impeached for his statements at the Jan. 6 rally. And Democrat lawmakers are calling for Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley to be expelled from the Senate for questioning the electoral college votes from states with widespread allegations of election fraud.

The accusers forget conveniently that Democrat leaders from Nancy Pelosi to Hillary Clinton have insisted since November 2016 that Trump’s electoral victory was “illegitimate” and the job of good Americans was to “resist” his “regime.”

They forget as well that Democrat lawmakers objected to the certification of the electoral college ballots in 2016. And when their objections failed to overturn the election results, a protest broke out in the visitors’ gallery of the Capitol. Several protesters were arrested.

No one in the media or in the coastal elite ever accused Pelosi and Clinton of inciting an insurrection even as hundreds of thousands of protesters filled the streets demanding that Trump be overthrown.

The article refers to the current cancel culture as “The Great Purge.”

The article notes:

The grave danger to American democracy emanates from the unprecedented fusion between the Democratic Party and corporate America. Political philosopher Angelo Codevilla referred to this unity of forces as a ruling “oligarchy” that is replacing the American Republic.

The emerging “oligarchy” is currently enacting something that can rightly be dubbed, “The Great Purge.”

The Great Purge, an event without precedent in American history, isn’t about one side seizing the levers of power for itself. It is about one side denying the other side the right to even vie for power.

The purpose of The Great Purge is not to replace Trump loyalists with Biden loyalists in positions of power in government. Such replacement happens as a matter of course every time a new administration comes into office. The purpose of the Great Purge is to “cancel” the Republican Party and its voters as a legitimate political force and so transform the United States into something approaching a one-party system. To achieve this goal, the Democrats in government and their partners in the corporate and big tech media are using their power to repress, silence, ruin and criminalize tens of millions of private citizens for the “crime” of supporting Trump and the Republican Party.

Please follow the link above to the article. The article includes a link to a site where the article is more fully posted. The article provides numerous examples of people who were prevented from earning a living because they were Trump supporters. This should not be acceptable in America. Remember the words of Jewish historian Edwin Black who has stated that the three steps to the concentrations camps in Germany were identify, exclude and confiscate (or deprive of a way to make a living). We are rapidly approaching the third part of that paradigm.

Two Very Different Solutions To A Problem

Lifesite News reported yesterday that United Nations Secretary-General, António Guterres, has announced the creation of a fund for addressing the global coronavirus pandemic. Isn’t that nice? He is asking nations to contribute the equivalent of at least 10 percent of the annual income of the entire planet to a massive “human-centered, innovative and coordinated stimulus package” that would be administered at the international level. The United Nations is so well managed that we are going to give them more money? I don’t think so.

The article reports:

Guterres also wants 100 billion USD for the World Health Organization, whose president has been blamed for helping to cause the coronavirus pandemic by repeating in January the Chinese government’s false claim that COVID-19 is not transmissible to humans.

He also wants the same organization to build an “interconnected Global Health Emergency System for data, workforce, and supplies.”

The same WHO that told us that the coronavirus was not transmitted person-to-person and that China has done an excellent job of handling the virus? Again, I don’t think so.

There is, however, another suggestion that I think puts the responsibility where it belongs. Breitbart reported yesterday that Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) believes that China should consider waiving some of that debt given the communist nation’s role in the spread of the COVID-19/coronavirus.

The article reports:

During an interview that aired on Huntsville, AL radio WVNN’s “The Jeff Poor Show,” when asked, Blackburn explained ways to hold China accountable for the global pandemic, noting her effort to officially recognize China’s role and the debtor relationship the United States has with China.

“Indeed there is,” Blackburn replied. “One of the things is my Senate Resolution 553, which it expresses the sense of the Senate — that we know this came from Wuhan, China, and that they hid the information and were not transparent, that they blocked the World Health Organization and the CDC from coming into help. They tried to blame it on the U.S. military. And we hold them accountable.”

For the losses accrued from the pandemic, Blackburn called on China to forgive a portion of the debt owed to them.

“I will tell you I think we need to look at the fact that China owns over a trillion dollars of our debt,” she said. “They like investing in us. Why do they like that? Because we are a safe debt for them — a safe place for them to put their money. And knowing that they have made a global pandemic worse than it ever would have been because of their action — they should waive some of our debt. They have caused us a tremendous amount of loss of life, loss of businesses, suffering, inconvenience, shutting down our economy.”

Another component the Tennessee Republican argued for on the accountability front was to bring elements of manufacturing back from China to the United States.

“These are all things that we should take into consideration — bringing our manufacturing back, not only our pharmaceutical manufacturing — I was working with one of my colleagues today,” Blackburn explained. “There are other things we can bring back and put America back in the manufacturing business.”

For those who want to investigate the role of Chinese propaganda in the spread of the coronavirus, today The Center for Security Policy posted a timeline of events surrounding the beginning and spread of the coronavirus. It’s a rather long timeline, but it illustrates the role that the tyrannical Chinese state played in spreading the virus by misstating information and lying about the numbers of people in China impacted by it. The fact that the global migration that occurs around the Chinese New Year went on as usual without any government warnings has a lot to do with the worldwide pandemic we are currently seeing. The fact that the World Health Organization was sharing Chinese propaganda rather than valid health information is also a concern.

There needs to be a financial penalty placed on China for their behavior during the outbreak of the coronavirus. Had the Chinese acted quickly to contain the virus and accepted the help offered to them by other countries, the virus might be a thing of the past by now.

The Murder Of An American Patriot

Philip Haney was well known in intelligence circles. He was an honest man who told the truth and blew the whistle on some of the ‘questionable’ practices of the Obama administration. He was well respected and totally honest in his assessments of terrorist threats. He was murdered in California earlier this week.

Law Enforcement Today posted an article this morning.

The article reports:

We have a quick update for the story we broke earlier today in the apparent murder of our friend, Philip Haney. We will continue to provide details as they become available.

While we and The Gateway Pundit are the only outlets covering this developing news, conversation on Twitter is exploding. 

LET broke this tragic news to the nation this morning. 

A screen shot taken from Frank Andrew Bostom’s Twitter feed shows what appears to be a statement from Frank Gaffney, the Executive Chairman of the Center for Security Policy. 

The statement reads: 

“As you may know, we lost this week one of our most brilliant, most dedicated and most devout comrades-in-arms: Philip Haney. 

While the details are sketchy at the moment, Phil went missing on Wednesday in the area he called home in northern California to which he returned after the passing of his beloved wife, Francesca, following a long struggle with a series of terrible health afflictions. On Friday morning, a sheriff’s deputy finally found his body with a gunshot wound to the chest. 

As of now, we have no word about suspects or motives. 

It is hard to overstate the magnitude of this loss to the cause of freedom…”

The article includes a screenshot of a tweet by Andrew Bostom:

I never met Philip Haney, but I am familiar with his work. He was a dedicated patriot. He will be missed. Hopefully those responsible for his death will be found quickly and arrested.

The Obvious Is Sometimes Overlooked

On Friday, Frank Gaffney, Jr., posted an article at the Center for Security Policy about America’s dependence on China for the manufacturing of drugs.

The article reports:

Communist China has been waging “unrestricted warfare” against this country for decades. One of its most devastating lines of attack in that war has been the hollowing out of America’s industrial base. 

A stupefying case in point is the Chinese Communist Party’s success in destroying our nation’s capacity to manufacture prescription drugs – to the point where we are virtually completely dependent on China for our medicines. 

A recent poll of likely voters found that 83% were concerned about such a dependency. 76% worried that China may cut off the supply, devastating our health care system and people.

Rosemary Gibson, the co-author of China Rx, has warned about such a scenario for years. Now, in the midst of the coronavirus crisis, it is upon us. We need immediately to heed Ms. Gibson’s call urgently to reconstitute an America First drug manufacturing capability.

We have achieved energy independence which has increased our influence around the world. Now it is time to achieve drug independence.

 

Why Candidates For Office Need To Be Vetted Carefully

When the current House of Representatives was seated in January 2019, Ilhan Omar, Ellison’s successor as representative from Minnesota, and Rashida Tlaib, the newly-elected representative from Michigan, were both sworn into Congress using copies of the Quran. Why is that important? Because the Quran and the U. S. Constitution are incompatible.

On December 3, 2019, the Center for Security Policy posted the following Press Release:

The Center for Security Policy is pleased to announce the publication of a new monograph by Stephen M. Kirby Ph.D. entitled Islamic Doctrine versus The U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials. Dr. Kirby’s timely book anticipates the 2020 election season to come with a consideration of how starkly Islamic Law differs from the U.S. Constitution in a work that is at once informative, sober, and scholarly.

Building on a series of essays that author and scholar Dr. Kirby first published at PipelineNews.org, this new book from the Center expands on the myriad ways in which Islamic Law (shariah) is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution. After introducing an overview of Islamic doctrine in brief form, Dr. Kirby then focuses on six key Amendments to the Constitution as enshrined in the Bill of Rights. In choosing these six, he both educates and horrifies any who may not have been aware of the sheer physical brutality of shariah, even aside from its explicit and tyrannical antipathy to individual liberty, free speech, and concepts such as equality of all before the rule of man-made law and government by consent of the governed.

The Center’s publication of Dr. Kirby’s book could hardly be more timely, as Muslim Brotherhood/HAMAS front groups such as CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) and its affiliate at Jetpac, Inc. make no secret of their intention to seed this country’s political electoral process with selected, vetted, and groomed candidates who are aligned with the Brotherhood’s jihadist agenda to foist shariah on an unwilling—but all-too-often unaware–-American electorate. Written in a lucid, readable style that takes the Bill of Rights Amendments 1, 2, 4, 8, 13, and 14 in turn to contrast them with the utter lack of those Amendments’ protections under shariah,  Islamic Doctrine versus The U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials provides a useful handbook for the patriot citizen who understand that shariah is antithetical to the Constitution, but would like some additional pointers to rebut the plethora of Islamic apologists and taqiyya operatives out there.

The final chapter of the monograph offers even more specific ideas for those who may attend an upcoming rally, speech, or townhall featuring a Muslim candidate for office at whatever level, from local to the U.S. Congress. Here, Dr. Kirby provides a set possible questions that might be posed (with courtesy and respect) to such a candidate to help discern exactly where that candidate stands with respect to the obligatory adherence to shariah that is binding on all Muslims.

The monograph is included in the article, along with links to buy the paperback or Kindle version or download the free PDF. Considering the many conflicts between the Quran and the U.S.  Constitution and the principle of taqiyya, this is a very timely work. The Quran advocates shariah law, which is totally antithetical to the rights of women and general personal freedom. As voters, we need to make sure we do not open the door for shariah law to come to America.

This is how women dressed in Iran before the Revolution:

Now dressing like that would get you arrested. We don’t want that here.

How Soon We Forget

Most Americans are rejoicing at the killing of Qassim Soleimani, an Iranian terrorist with immense amounts of American blood on his hands. The political left and its media allies are anything but joyful–they want to know the justification for killing a man responsible for the killing and maiming of many American soldiers. Where were these outcries when President Obama was using drone strikes to kill American citizens without honoring their constitutional rights?

On May 30, 2012, The New Yorker posted an article that included the following:

The Obama Administration has sought and killed American citizens, notably Anwar al-Awlaki. As the Times noted, “The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel prepared a lengthy memo justifying that extraordinary step, asserting that while the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process applied, it could be satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch.” In other words, it’s due process if the President thinks about it. One wonders how low the standard for “internal deliberations” are—if it might be enough if Obama mulled it over while walking his dog. And if an American whom the President decides is a threat can be assassinated in Yemen, where Awlaki was hit, why not in London, or Toronto, or Los Angeles? (Awlaki’s teen-age son, an American citizen who had not been accused of anything, died in a separate strike.)

The New Yorker was one of the few publications questioning what was going on.

The conservative media has a much more realistic view of the killing of Soleimani.

Frank Gaffney, Jr.,  posted the following at the Center for Security Policy today:

President Trump’s liquidation of Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian terrorist with immense amounts of American blood on his hands, has not only exacted a measure of revenge for Iran’s murderous jihadism. He has struck a direct blow at the regime in Tehran that brutally oppresses its own people and increasingly threatens ours. 

Soleimani’s assassination must now be followed up with an intensified campaign aimed at empowering Iranians to bring about, at last, the removal from power of the rest of the thugs who have, for forty years, called for “Death to America.”

As we take necessary steps to deter the mullahs’ retaliation in-theater, we must also act immediately to roll up Soleimani’s foreign legion, the terrorist group known as Hezbollah. It has units inside the United States who inevitably will be ordered, later if not sooner, to attack targets in this country.

The Washington Examiner reported yesterday:

The U.S. killing of Qassim Soleimani In Baghdad on Thursday ends an enduring threat. At least in the short term, however, it will unleash Iranian retaliation. The leader of the external action arm of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Soleimani long led that regime’s efforts to destroy its enemies and expand its revolution.

From an explosive campaign that killed hundreds of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, to supporting Bashar Assad’s regime with legions of Shiite fighters and IRGC operatives, to conducting a campaign of bombings and assassinations and intimidation across the world, Soleimani was a master of his very dark arts. He was a serious and continuing threat to U.S. lives and interests. Indeed, Soleimani masterminded a failed 2011 plot to blow up the then-Saudi ambassador and dozens of diners in a Washington, D.C., restaurant.

Still, Soleimani’s killing, apparently alongside Abu Mahdi al Muhandis, the Kataib Hezbollah leader responsible for recent rocket attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, is striking. Trump might call it justice for this week’s attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, or the recent killing of a U.S. contractor in Iraq, or an act to disrupt Soleimani’s plotting against America. Regardless, it illustrates a major strategic escalation in President Trump’s Iran policy. Soleimani’s standing in Iran and the IRGC in particular makes President George W. Bush’s 2008 killing of top Lebanese Hezbollah leader Imad Mughniyeh seem irrelevant in comparison. This is a very big deal.

Trump’s shift here is hard to overestimate. Until now, Trump had been keen to keep avenues of diplomatic intercourse open toward Iran. Trump had avoided direct military retaliation against Iran even after it downed a U.S. drone last summer. But this killing slams the door on diplomacy in a most public way. Soleimani was a hero of the revolution and will now be regarded as an heir to Husayn ibn Ali, the martyr of Shiite martyrs. Revenge will now rise to the very top of Iran’s agenda. A global terrorist campaign of uncertain duration is likely. In the context of Iranian domestic political instability and deep economic pressures on the regime, Iran might also use this killing as an excuse to destabilize oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz. Each of those developments would require immediate American deterrent response.

We have killed an important terrorist. There will be a response. However, the response will no longer be under the leadership and direction of that terrorist. I am not sure how much we have impacted the worldwide terrorist network that Soleimani led, but we have impacted it. The killing of Soleimani is important for the future of Iran and the future of terrorism worldwide. Hopefully it is a step toward freedom in Iran.

A Disturbing Comment

The Center for Security Policy posted an article today with the headline, “‘Thank God for the deep state’: Former CIA chief says anti-Trump forces ‘responding to a higher call.’”

Wow. The deep state believes that it is their job to overthrow a duly-elected President. What manner of pride and self-importance (and treason) is this?

The article reports:

Former CIA acting Director John McLaughlin expressed his gratitude for the “deep state” and their effort to get President Trump impeached.

McLaughlin, who was the acting director in 2004, embraced the idea of a “deep state” with the intent of ending the Trump presidency at an event on Wednesday hosted by the Hayden Center.

“There is something unique you have to agree that now the impeachment inquiry is underway, sparked by a complaint from someone within the intelligence community, it feeds the president’s concern, an often-used term about a ‘deep state’ being there to take him out,” Margaret Brennan, the moderator for the event hosted, asked McLaughlin.

“Thank God for the ‘deep state,’” he responded.

McLaughlin went on to praise the intelligence community whistleblower who came forward to file a complaint regarding Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which led to the impeachment proceedings that are currently going on in the House of Representatives.

“Everyone here has seen this progression of diplomats and intelligence officers and White House people trooping up to Capitol Hill right now and saying these are people who are doing their duty, who are responding to a higher call,” said McLaughlin. “With all of the people who knew what was going on here, it took an intelligence officer to step forward and say something about it, which was the trigger that unleashed everything else.”

They are not responding to a higher call–they are undermining an elected President. They are not the Commander-in-Chief. They did not run for office and win an election. They are delusional to believe that they should have more power than the President just because he is upsetting their apple cart. In a world where we had an objective media and equal justice under the law, these people would be tried for treason.

Foreign Policy Wisdom

The Center For Security Policy posted the following Secure Freedom Minute on July 26:

In recent days, fast-boats of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have seized oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz.  This action has followed a series of other direct and indirect Iranian provocations, including attacks on shipping, Saudi oil infrastructure and U.S. assets in Iraq.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, a pair of Chinese long-range bombers joined two of their Russian counterparts and one of the Kremlin’s command-and-control aircraft in conducting a deliberate provocation in the airspace over islands claimed by South Korea and Japan. An extraordinary three hundred warning shots were fired in two separate instances before the intruders departed the area.

Make no mistake: These are probing actions designed to test the readiness and resolve of the United States and its allies. As with any bully, a failure to demonstrate both will result in more aggression worldwide.

This is a lesson we should have learned a long time ago.

Who Is In Charge In Washington?

Center for Security Policy President Fred Fleitz asks a question we all need to know the answer to. Evidently some of our intelligence people are ignoring direct legal orders from the President. Later, the discussion turns to the situation on our southern border.

Misleading The Public About International Affairs

NBC News posted an article today about the relationship between President Trump and the nation of Turkey.

The article reports:

As Trump administration officials presided over the second day of an international conference in Warsaw dominated by calls to ratchet up pressure on Iran, one longtime U.S. ally and NATO member was noticeably absent — Turkey.

Snubbing the gathering in Poland, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Thursday attended a rival conference in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, where he planned to meet his Russian and Iranian counterparts to work out a final settlement of the war in Syria.

The dueling summits illustrate President Donald Trump’s struggle to forge a united front against Iran, and reflect Turkey’s drift away from Washington as it finds common ground with Moscow and Tehran, experts and former officials said.

These three paragraphs are totally misleading and paint a negative picture of President Trump’ foreign policy that is totally inaccurate. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan became President of Turkey in 2014. He had previously served as Prime Minister from 2003 to 2014. As he moves Turkey in the direction of an Islamic State, it is only natural that his friendly relationship with America would deteriorate rapidly.

On July 28, 2014, The Jerusalem Post reported:

Harold Rhode, a senior fellow at the New-York-based Gatestone Institute and a former adviser on Islamic affairs in the office of the American secretary of defense, told The Jerusalem Post in an interview on Sunday that the real issue in the ongoing conflict is that Turkey and Qatar are supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas in their goals.

“[Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdogan has been associated with the Muslim Brotherhood long before he was prime minister,” Rhode said.

It should now be clear to all that Erdogan “is now out of the bag,” Rhode said, adding that US President Barack Obama does not speak to the Turkish leader anymore despite previously describing him as one of his closest friends among the world’s leaders.

“Erdogan is doing whatever he can to help Hamas,” he said, asserting that it will only hurt the Palestinian people in the end.

On January 7, 2019, Clare Lopez posted an article at the Center for Security Policy that stated:

As National Security Advisor John Bolton heads to Turkey today for discussions about President Trump’s announced decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syrian battle spaces, he might question Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan about his expressed intent to re-establish the Ottoman Empire and how Erdogan calculates U.S. policy in the region to figure into that ambition.

He might cite from Erdogan’s February 2018 assertion that “modern Turkey is a ‘continuation’ of the Ottoman Empire,” or ask exactly what Erdogan meant when, in November 2018 he declared that “Turkey is bigger than Turkey; just know this. We cannot be trapped inside 780,000 kilometers [Turkey’s total area].” He might perhaps ask also what exactly Erdogan meant by threatening the U.S. with an “Ottoman Slap,” in reference to American support for Kurdish forces fighting against the Islamic State.

Then there was the November 2018 “International Islamic Union Congress,” held in Istanbul. Headed by Erdogan’s chief military advisor, Adnan Tanriverdi, the event’s participants endorsed the aim of “unity of Islam” through establishing the “Confederation of Islamic Countries.” It was not entirely clear how or if such a “Confederation” would differ from a Caliphate or Islamic State.

Clearly, U.S. objectives for the region are not the same as Turkey’s.

I don’t think President Trump is the problem in our relationship with Turkey.

Do The Statements Line Up With The Actions?

Yesterday CNS News posted an article that reported the following:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday reiterated that “Democrats are committed to border security” after President Donald Trump agreed to a deal to re-open the government for three weeks while the White House and Democratic congressional leaders negotiate over Trump’s proposed border wall.

“And we have no complaint,” Pelosi said on Friday.

The article continues:

“We look forward to Congresswoman Roybal-Allard [D.-Calif.] taking the lead in terms of the substance from her standpoint as Chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee and commend, again, our Chair of the Appropriations Committee [Nita Lowey (D.-N.Y.] for her leadership on this,” Pelosi said. “They bring knowledge, they bring perspective, they bring the enthusiasm of the consensus of our Caucus to that conference.”

So let’s take a look at Congresswoman Roybal-Allard for a minute. The Center for Security Policy put her on a list of “national security failures” – legislators who scored a total of less than 25%, based on all scored votes for which they were present. The Center’s findings indicate 149 Members of the House of Representatives and 46 Senators are national security failures based on their voting record in the 111th Congress.

It gets better. Opensecrets.org listed the details of the Congresswoman’s campaign contributions:

I am not sure that this is the most qualified person to put on the committee. California has been something of a shining example of the negative impact of unchecked immigration on a state’s finances and quality of life.

Somehow I am not looking forward to rational solutions to the problem at our southern border from the Democrats on the Homeland Security Subcommittee.

Is There A Problem?

President Trump made a very generous offer to the Democrats in the House of Representatives today regarding border security on our southern border. Unfortunately it is a pretty safe bet that they will turn down the offer. So exactly what is at stake?

On January 7th Christopher Holton posted an article at The Center For Security Policy about the security threat on our southern border. It is a rather detailed article, and I suggest that you follow the link above and read the entire article.

Here are some of the highlights:

For instance in May 2001, former Mexican National security adviser and ambassador to the United Nations, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, reported, that ‘Islamic terrorist groups are using Mexico as a refuge.’

There is no way to estimate how many jihadists may already have crossed into the U.S. from Mexico. But the time to play politics with the border issue is long past. The shallow sloganeering and race-baiting that have dominated the national debate about border controls should be recognized as what they are: hindrances to sane and sensible national defense measures.

…Mexicans trying to enter the U.S. illegally are often simply processed at the border and sent back. But Mexico won’t allow us to send citizens from other countries back through Mexico, and under U.S. law, they’re entitled to a formal deportation hearing. The immigration service lacks beds to hold them, so the vast majority of OTMs are released from custody and asked to voluntarily return for their court date.

For instance, in 2005 alone, there were estimated to be 71,000 such OTM fugitives.

…The intrepid Todd Bensman of the excellent Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has provided the highlights of that report’s findings:

• The recent migrant caravans originating in Central America have included “several SIAs (Special Interest Aliens), and potentially” known or suspected terrorists traveling toward the U.S. border.

• The U.S. Department of Homeland Security continues to prioritize the SIA threat as one of the top threats to the homeland because of the consistently “large number” of individuals from special interest countries that travel to the Western Hemisphere using illicit pathways.

• Written ISIS materials and publications have encouraged ISIS followers to cross the U.S. Southwest Border.

• DHS Border Patrol Agents “routinely” encounter SIAs at the border using routes controlled by transnational criminal organizations.

• Statistics on the number of known or suspected terrorists on routes to the border are often classified, but the threat posed by “the existence of illicit pathways into the United States” highlights that “border security is national security” as terrorist groups seek to exploit vulnerabilities among neighboring countries to fund, support, and commit attacks against the homeland.

• The report lists five open-source, unclassified cases representing the types of individuals and threats associated with illicit routes to the homeland. (CIS recently compiled and published a list of 15.) A number of heavily redacted cases are included in which biometric enrollment information uncovered suspected terrorists in 2013, 2015, and 2018.

• The frequency of international flights from special interest regions into Latin America and the Caribbean continues to increase due to economic and governance challenges in those countries that create an attractive environment for illicit SIA travel to the U.S. border.

• ICE Homeland Security Investigations is deeply enmeshed in investigations and operations throughout Central America to counter human smuggling organizations that move SIAs in Panama, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Brazil.

• The United States-Canada border “is also susceptible to exploitation by SIAs.”

It’s time for the politicians in Washington to stop fooling around and secure the border. The next terrorist attack in America will be on their hands.

We Need A Wall

The following was posted at CBN recently:

As President Donald Trump and congressional Democrats remain at an apparent impasse over the border wall, the commander in chief is drawing criticism for shutting down the government. Others, however, insist the wall is necessary, saying the president must stand up for national security.

CBN News‘ Charlene Aaron spoke with Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney about why he believes it’s so important for the president to win this particular battle over immigration.

I realize that a five minute video is a lot to post on a blog, but it is worth listening to. Frank Gaffney has been involved in national security for a long time and knows what he is talking about.

Why Are All These People In Djibouti?

This is a map showing the location of Djibouti:

Many years ago at a Marine Ball in New Orleans, I sat next to a young officer who had recently returned from Djibouti. I asked him what he had done there, and he responded very politely by telling me everything I wanted to know about Djibouti except what I had asked him. I wondered, but let it go. That was at least twelve years ago, and Djibouti is still an important place to the world’s most powerful nations. One look at its location explains why.

On Friday, the Center for Security Policy posted an article with the title, ” Arms Trafficking on the Rise in Djibouti.” So what is this about?

The article reports:

Attention was brought this week to the growing issue of arms trafficking in the East African nation of Djibouti, which has seen a spike in recent years. Driving the problem is the instability and ongoing conflict in neighboring countries such as Yemen, Somalia, and Sudan. The negative attention comes as Djibouti is trying to establish itself as a developed and economic upstart nation.

…Djibouti’s lack of internal conflicts, its surge of economic investments and its resulting economic growth, have all led to increased stability not present in its neighboring countries.  Driving these positive developments are its access to both the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, resulting in its labeling by some as the “most valuable real estate” in the world.

Another major component of Djibouti’s growth has been the military presence of several major world powers within its border such as the United States, France, China, and Japan. France was the first power to establish a military base there as the former colonial power in the region, although budget constraints will require them to close this in the near future. The United States has a strong military presence in Djibouti as the central location of its African-based operations known as AFRICOM. The only foreign bases of both China and Japan are in Djibouti, and India is looking to build a base there in the coming years. The main interest of these countries in Djibouti is the country’s strategic positioning near the Bab-el-Mandeb strait and the Horn of Africa.

…China has the largest presence in Djibouti, given its large development and business presence, and owns a significant amount of the nation’s debt. To this point, the United States sought reassurance earlier this year by the Djiboutian Foreign Ministry that Djibouti’s relationship to China would not overshadowed their agreement with the United States. Despite these assurances, concern over China’s heavy presence in Djibouti, and its ability to remain a neutral partner, continues to increase.

As Djibouti’s economy and international profile continue to grow, interest in the strategically located African nation will continue to increase from world powers and transnational criminals alike who look to profit from the country’s exponential rise.

Stay tuned. This growing country in one of the most unsettled regions of the world is very strategically located. The military buildup by foreign interests in Djibouti is not accidental.

Political Attacks On Good People

Paul Mirengoff posted an article at Power Line today about the appointment of Fred Fleitz as chief-of-staff of the National Security Council. The smear campaign against a good man has begun. Yesterday the Washington Monthly posted an article calling Fred Fleitz a Neo-Nazi.  He is not a neo-Nazi–but he is a man who understands the threat of radical Islam. They describe him as the anti-Muslim senior vice-president of an Islamaphobic think tank and now NSC chief of staff. The think tank they are referring to is the Center for Security Policy headed by Frank Gaffney. The Center for Security Policy has been one of the few honest sources for information on Sharia Law and the attempts to infiltrate Sharia into our government. They are described as Islamaphobic just as anyone who understands the threat of Sharia extremists in America is described.

The article at Power Line concludes:

The previous administration did not take the danger seriously. Or maybe it just couldn’t discern an Islamic radical group when it saw one.

Adam Kredo of the Washington Examiner argues that members of the Obama administration are instrumental in the slander of Fleitz. He notes that “organizations closely tied to the Obama administration” have led the charge. Kredo cites the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Southern Poverty Law Center. He also includes or Anti Defamation League which is currently headed by Jonathan Greenblatt, a former Obama administration official.

Desperate to defend Obama’s major legacy item — the Iran nuclear deal — Team Obama has a strong interest in bringing down John Bolton and Fred Fleitz, as it brought down Michael Flynn. But CAIR, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and even the Washington Post aren’t the FBI. These outfits are just shouting into the wind. But that doesn’t make some of the shouting any less despicable.

There are many places in our government that need to be revamped after the damage done by the last presidential administration. The National Security Council is one of those places. The appointment of Fred Fleitz is definitely a step in the right direction.

 

Fighting Back Against Misinformation

On Monday The Center for Security Policy posted an article about the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and their hate group map.

The article reports:

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has reportedly removed the “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists” from its website after being faced with a lawsuit.

 Attorneys for a leading British Muslim reformer, Maajid Nawaz, threatened legal action over his being included in the list, according to National Review.

 The list also included female genital mutilation victim Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer and Frank Gaffney.

The SPLC report, which still exists in PDF form, was first published in December 2016 and was intended to be a resource for journalists.  It reads, “A shocking number of these extremists are seen regularly on television news programs and quoted in the pages of our leading newspapers. There, they routinely espouse a wide range of utter falsehoods, all designed to make Muslims appear as bloodthirsty terrorists or people intent on undermining American constitutional freedoms. More often than not, these claims go uncontested.”

Maajid Nawaz, who founded the anti-extremist think tank Quilliam Foundation in London, said on a podcast with Joe Rogan that the report was taken down under legal threat in the past few days.

Nawaz said, “We have retained Clare Lock, they are writing to the Southern Poverty Law Center as we speak. I think they’ve got wind of it – the Southern Poverty Law Center – and as of yesterday, or the day before, they’ve removed the entire list that’s been up there for two years.”

The problem with the SPLC’s hate map is that anyone who disagreed with the liberal agenda is listed as a hate group and anything said against the liberal agenda as hate speech. The people who have spoken out honestly against Sharia Law and the attempts to bring it to America have been charged with hate speech. Telling the truth is characterized as hate speech according to the SPLC. This is reminiscent of the purging of the Department of Homeland Security of documents related to terrorism (article here):

In October 2011, elements of the American Muslim Brotherhood wrote the White House demanding an embargo or discontinuation of information and materials relating to Islamic-based terrorism. The letter was addressed to John Brennan, who at the time was Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.  Days later John Brennan agreed to create a task force to address the problem by removing personnel and products that the Muslim Brotherhood deemed “biased, false, and highly offensive.” This move in effect allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to control the information given to the people charged with stopping the terrorism initiated by groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. At this point, the 9/11 reports and other actual historic documents were altered to make them compliant with the new paradigm. (I thought only the Russians rewrote history.)

The Center for Security Policy article concludes:

Family Research Council Executive Vice President General Jerry Boykin denounced the SPLC as “probably one of the most evil groups in America. They’ve become a money-making machine and they’ve become an absolute Marxist, anarchist organization.”
The SPLC website says “The organizations on our hate group list vilify others because of their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity – prejudices that strike at the heart of our democratic values and fracture society along its most fragile fault lines.”
The SPLC did not respond to a question why they have removed the “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists”.

America’s future security depends on an informed public. Organizations like the SPLC misinform the public about the dangers around them. Meanwhile some forces within our government work to prevent law enforcement from having the information they need to protect us. If Americans do not wake up, we will have to explain to our children and grandchildren how we lost their freedom.

When The Media Does Not Tell The Truth, It Puts All Of Us At Risk

Tommy Waller at the Center for Security Policy posted an article today about a recent media story that totally misinformed the public. The media story in question  was a two-and-a-half-minute segment on an NPR show discussing the threat of an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) strike from North Korea.

Exactly what is an EMP strike and how does it work? Our electrical grid, satellites, computers, etc. all depend on an even flow of electricity. If you disrupt that flow and burn out a significant amount of the equipment that distributes that electricity in the process, you can cause some serious problems to America. It could be months before food, water, gasoline, natural gas, electricity, etc., could be delivered to the people impacted by an EMP. Detonating a nuclear bomb in the atmosphere will disrupt the electronics for a large area. There is some discussion about how large that area would be, but think of the impact of wiping out the electrical power and the equipment that distributes it in a large section of America.

A website called future science details a brief history of the impact of an EMP:

Starfish Prime

On July 1962, a 1.44 megaton United States nuclear test in space, 400 kilometers (250 miles) above the mid-Pacific Ocean, called the Starfish Prime test, demonstrated to nuclear scientists that the magnitude and effects of a high altitude nuclear explosion were much larger than had been previously calculated.  The detonation time was July 9, 1962 at 09:00:09 Coordinated Universal Time, (which was 8 July, Honolulu time, at nine seconds after 11 p.m.).  The coordinates of the detonation were 16 degrees, 28 minutes North latitude, 169 degrees, 38 minutes West longitude.7  The actual weapon yield was very close to the design yield, which has been described by various sources at different values in the very narrow range of 1.4 to 1.45 megatons. 

The Thor missile carrying the Starfish Prime warhead actually reached a maximum height of about 1100 kilometers (just over 680 miles), and the warhead was detonated on its downward trajectory when it had fallen to the programmed altitude of 400 kilometers.  The nuclear warhead detonated at 13 minutes and 41 seconds after liftoff of the Thor missile from Johnston Island.9

Starfish Prime also made EMP effects known to the public by causing electrical damage in Hawaii, about 1,445 kilometers (898 miles) away from the detonation point, knocking out about 300 streetlights, setting off numerous burglar alarms and damaging a telephone company microwave link.7

Starfish Prime was the first successful test in the series of United States high-altitude nuclear tests in 1962 known as Operation Fishbowl.  The subsequent Operation Fishbowl tests gathered more data on the high-altitude EMP phenomenon, especially the Bluegill Triple Prime and Kingfish test of October, 1962.8

The EMP damage of the Starfish Prime test was quickly repaired because of the ruggedness (compared to today) of the electrical and electronic infrastructure of Hawaii in 1962.  Realization of the potential impacts of high-altitude nuclear EMP became more apparent to some scientists and engineers during the 1970s as more sensitive solid-state electronics began to come into widespread use.

The relatively small magnitude of the Starfish Prime EMP in Hawaii (about 5600 volts/meter) and the relatively small amount of damage done (for example, only 1 to 3 percent of streetlights extinguished)10 led some scientists to believe, in the early days of EMP research, that the problem might not be as significant as was later realized.  Newer calculations7 showed that if the Starfish Prime warhead had been detonated over the northern continental United States, the magnitude of the EMP would have been much larger (22 to 30 kilovolts/meter) because of the greater strength of the Earth’s magnetic field over the United States, as well as the different orientation of the Earth’s magnetic field at high latitudes.  These new calculations, combined with the accelerating reliance on EMP-sensitive microelectronics, heightened awareness that the EMP threat could be a very significant problem.

As late as the 1980s, some distinguished scientist published articles which cast doubt on the magnitude of the E1-EMP.  Those scientists did not have access to some critical classified information that has subsequently been declassifed.  This primary mistake that these scientists made was apparently a large underestimation of the coherence of the pulse.  The initial electrons are knocked out of atmospheric molecules almost simultaneously over a large region.  The electrons then spiral almost simultaneously around the Earth’s magnetic field lines.  This results in a very narrow pulse of extremely high field strength, but one that last for less than a microsecond.  Each high-energy electronic emits only a very weak pulse, however a typical nuclear weapon produces about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ten septillion) of these high-energy electrons all spiraling around the geomagnetic field lines simultaneously.

We have the information showing the dangers of an EMP. Although much of that information is classified, enough of it is available to scientists for them to understand the risks.

However, not all scientists are paying attention.

The Center for Security Policy article reports:

At 5:10AM ET on 27 April 2017, the Morning Edition program at National Public Radio (NPR) broadcast a segment titled “The North Korean Electromagnetic Pulse Threat, Or Lack Thereof.”  An audio recording of this segment can be found here:   http://www.npr.org/2017/04/27/525833275/the-north-korean-electromagnetic-pulse-threat-or-lack-thereof

The 2 minute 26 second segment was in response to an interview of Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey from 26 April, where Ambassador Woolsey discussed the EMP threat posed by North Korea:  http://www.npr.org/2017/04/26/525675203/former-cia-director-james-woolsey-on-trumps-first-100-days)

In the 27 April broadcast, NPR’s science editor – Geoff Brumfiel – gave prominent treatment to Jeffrey Lewis of the Middlebury Institute of International Studies.  Mr. Lewis not only dismissed the North Korean EMP threat but ridiculed it by laughing out loud at the comments of a former Director of the CIA discussing a real, present, and existential threat to the nation.

Mr. Lewis, who claims to be a nuclear expert, has been denigrating EMP for the last 6 years.   Aside from his brief time as an intern the Pentagon, he has never served in the DOD or intelligence community and his formal education is in policy studies and philosophy rather than engineering or nuclear weapons design.  Yet NPR’s editors thought it appropriate to champion not only his “analysis” but his obtuse laughter at a sobering subject that is one of the most important of our time.  It is clear by the way Geoff Brumfiel edited this broadcast that he sought to denigrate not only the topic of EMP, but also James Woolsey, the U.S. Military, and the U.S. Congress – since the Ambassador has warned for years about the EMP threat and the DOD and Congress have appropriated billions of dollars to protect America’s strategic forces against it.

This is an example of irresponsible journalism.

The article at the Center for Security Policy continues:

Evidently, National Public Radio, an organization whose operating expenses are paid in part by the U.S. taxpayer, considers it appropriate to promote ridicule of anyone concerned with the threat from Elecromagnetic Pulse, when the nation’s most informed authorities on EMP consider it to be a real, present, and existential threat to the country and it’s population.

In response to this abject failure in journalism, Center for Security Policy founder and president – Frank J. Gaffney Jr. – recently authored a formal letter to Senator Roy Blunt and Congressmen Tom Coles, who serve on their chambers’ respective Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittees.   This letter calls on these men and these subcommittees to hold NPR accountable for dereliction of its public trust.

We encourage all Americans who are concerned about EMP to join Frank, The Center for Security Policy, and The Secure the Grid Coalition in holding to account National Public Radio.  We encourage you to inform your own elected representatives of this journalistic malfeasance and to confront NPR directly through messages to its Ombudsman and Management by submitting your own comments at the following link:

https://help.npr.org/customer/portal/emails/new?i=1&s=Morning%20Edition

The article at the Center for Security Policy reminds us that we need to beef up our missile defense programs to protect us from this threat. We also need to remember that when North Korea (or Iran) blows up a missile in mid-flight, it may not be an accident–it may be a practice run.

Vetting The Candidates

Tim Kaine is the Democratic candidate for Vice-President. He is a former governor of Virginia and seems to be well-liked. However, there are some elements of his background that are troubling.

The Center for Security Policy reminds us that in 2010 then Democratic National Chairman Tim Kaine attended the annual fundraising banquet of the Islamic Center Dar Al Hijrah in the Washington DC suburbs.

The article reports:

The reasons the others (seven elected officials were “invited”: former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, now Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA), Sen. James Webb (D-VA), Fairfax Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Sharon Bulova, Fairfax Supervisor Penny Gross, and Virginia State Delegate Kaye Kory….Within a few days, Senator James Webb and State Delegate Kaye Kory‘s names were removed from the invitation.)  should not legitimate the Dar Al-Hijrah fundraiser, we had written them, included the Islamic Center’s continued support for the Dar al-Hijrah imam in 2001, Anwar Al-Awlaki, the senior al-Qaeda recruiter for three 9/11 hijackers, imam and mentor to the accused 2009 Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan who killed 13 people, and online mentor to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the suspect in the Christmas Day 2009 attempt to blow up  Northwest Airlines Flight 253.   We described several other Dar Al-Hijrah leaders linked to terrorism and supporting violent jihad against America, including the current imam who will host the April 3 event.

This is not the kind of company American political leaders should be keeping.

The Hill posted a story about some of Tim Kaine’s background and beliefs on Friday.

Here are some excerpts:

According to the mediaTim Kaine took a life transforming “mission” trip to Latin America in 1980. Conveniently left out of these stories, are the radical reality of the Cold War in Latin America and Tim Kaine’s Soviet sympathizing mentors. In fact, whatever Kaine’s intentions, he more likely met Karl Marx than Jesus Christ while there. 

Connect the dots with a little history, and an alarming picture emerges of Kaine’s adventures with radicals and revolutionaries in 1980s Latin America.

Reports indicate that in Honduras, “Mr. Kaine embraced an interpretation of the gospel, known as liberation theology…”

Liberation theology is not standard Catholic doctrine–it is more in line with the preaching of President Obama’s friend Reverend Wright.

The article reports:

Journalistic and academic research has now shown that Liberation Theology itself was quite possibly a product of a Kremlin disinformation campaign designed to undermine the Church and bring Catholic countries into the Soviet sphere. The top-ranking Soviet Bloc defector of the Cold War, Gen. Ion Pacepa admits that he was personally involved in the operation.

And contrary to the myth, this was never Pope Francis’ theology of choice.

The article concludes:

In Virginia he ran as a moderate and ruled as a liberal. Today he runs as a “Pope Francis” Catholic but on abortion and marriage, Kaine opposes Francis.

On the conscience rights of groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor, Kaine sided with Obama. Francis sided with the Little Sisters, whom he visited in Washington a year ago to publicly show his support.

As in the 1980s, Kaine’s “Catholicism” serves neither his Church nor his country, but a Leftist political agenda that has proven to be on the wrong side of the Church, on the wrong side of history, and against the interests of freedom and the United States.

I struggle with people who claim to be Catholic and support abortion. The Catholic Church has been on the front lines of the abortion issue since Roe v. Wade. They have set an example that I wish the other churches in America would embrace–the idea that your faith influences your moral and political choices. Tim Kaine may call himself a Catholic, but it is obvious that he does not believe the teachings of the Catholic faith.

Hiring The Best Talent

Newsmax reported yesterday that Presidential candidate Ted Cruz has chosen his national security team. The team includes former Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams, former Missouri Sen. Jim Talent and former U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy.

The article lists other members of the team:

  • Stewart Baker, former assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Health and Human Serves and general counsel of the National Security Agency.
  • Ilan Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council.
  • Retired Army Lt. General William Boykin, executive vice president of the Family Research Council.
  • Fred Fleitz, a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst.
  • Randy Fort, who has served in senior intelligence positions in the Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations.
  • Frank Gaffney Jr., president and CEO of the Center for Security Policy.
  • Nile Gardiner, a former aide to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
  • Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
  • Katharine Gorka, president of the Council on Global Security.
  • Steven Groves, a senior research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
  • Mary Habeck, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
  • Kristofer Harrison, a co-founder of the China Beige Book who once served in the George W. Bush White House.
  • Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain.
  • Michael Ledeen, an author who serves at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
  • Clare Lopez, a vice president at the Center for Security Policy.
  • Robert O’Brien, a partner at the Larson O’Brien LLP law firm in Los Angeles.
  • Michael Pillsbury, who was a Reagan campaign advisor in 1980.
  • Charles Stimson, the senior legal fellow and manager of National Security Law Program at the Heritage Foundation.
  • Daniel Vajdich, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.
  • Christian Whiton, a former State Department senior advisor in the Bush administration.

There are a few of these team members I have personally met, and I am totally impressed by this team. I am impressed by the fact that this team is knowledgeable and pro-Israel. The relationship between America and Israel has been strained under President Obama, and I believe this team will work to repair that relationship. I am also impressed with the inclusion of Frank Gaffney, Jr., Clare Lopez, and Retired Army Lt. General William Boykin in this team. All of them are well-versed on the Middle East and the threat of radical Islam. This national security team would do an excellent job of handling threats to America. They are all amazing people.

Smile, You Are Being Manipulated (Again)

I repeat. I am not a supporter of Donald Trump. I am, however, a supporter of an honest press and honest reporting. In the coverage of Donald Trump, there is no danger of either. Donald Trump is currently being drawn and quartered in the press for recent remarks about suspending Muslim immigration to America.

This is the direct quote taken from First Coast News:

“Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.”

He was referring to a poll taken by The Polling Company for the Center for Security Policy (CSP).

The Center for Security Policy has replied to criticism of this poll:

In June 2015, the Center for Security Policy commissioned a nationwide online survey among 600 Muslim adults (age 18+) living in the United States.  The methodology used for this online survey instrument is consistent with international industry standards outlined in the ESOMAR Guideline for Online Research. The Center for Security Policy stands by the findings in our nationwide poll and we invite anyone to view its findings.

This is what the poll found:

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”  When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.

These notions were powerfully rejected by the broader population according to the Center’s earlier national survey.  It found by a margin of 92%-2% that Muslims should be subject to the same courts as other citizens, rather than have their own courts and tribunals here in the U.S.

Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

By contrast, the broader survey found that a 63% majority of those sampled said that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted.”

Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.

The results of this poll are much more of a problem than any statement made by a political candidate.

I would also like to mention that Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from entering the United States unless they opposed the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency. This is noted in a Front Page Magazine article from yesterday. The press is attempting to manipulate the American public into calling Donald Trump a racist, bigot, whatever. They have misquoted him and ignored his evidence. Again, I am not supporting him for President, but I don’t like the media thinking they can choose the Republican candidate. If the Republicans allow that, they are the stupid party and deserve to lose.

What A Good Nuclear Agreement With Iran Would Look Like

Frank Gaffney, Jr., posted an article at the Center for Security Policy today describing what a good nuclear agreement with Iran would look like. Please follow the link to the article to read the details, but here are the basic points:

1. No uranium enrichment.

2. No plutonium-producing reactors.

3. Robust verification.

4. Questions must be answered about Possible Military Dimensions (PMDs).

5. Lift sanctions in stages in response to Iranian compliance.

6. Iran must curtail and agree to limitations on its ballistic missile program.

7. Iran must agree to end its meddling in regional conflicts and sponsorship of terror.

8. Iran must cease its hostility toward Israel.

9. Iran must release all US prisoners.

If these points were included, the agreement would work. An agreement that does not include these points is not worth the paper it is written on.

Why We Seem To Have No Coherent Policy Regarding Islamists

Last Tuesday, the Center for Security Policy posted a story documenting a House Intelligence Committee Member’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. This is not really news–the Obama Administration is rife with people who have family or other connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. This partially explains why the Obama Administration has provided so little assistance to Egyptian President al-Sisi in his fight to end the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (where the group began).

The article at the Center for Security Policy reports:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi recently appointed Rep. André Carson (D-IN) to a coveted position on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.  This panel is charged with oversight of the United States’ most sensitive national intelligence capabilities and operations.  These include any directed at Islamic supremacists seeking to impose worldwide – through violent and, where necessary, through stealthy forms of jihad – the totalitarian program they call shariah.

Preeminent among the practitioners of this jihadist agenda is the Muslim Brotherhood.  In fact, according to evidence introduced by the U.S. government into the Holy Land Foundation trial in 2008, the Brotherhood’s self-declared mission in America is: “a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands [i.e., those of non-Muslims] and those of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” (From the 1991 Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, Government Exhibit 003-0085, 3:04-CR-240-G.)

It is, therefore, problematic and potentially detrimental to the national security that Rep. Carson has extensive and longstanding ties to organizations and individuals associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.  As established in a dossier and video released today by the Center for Security Policy, the Indiana congressman has an extensive record of involvement with, support of and support from a virtual Who’s Who of Brotherhood front organizations in America and leading figures in the jihad movement in this country.  The dossier makes it clear that, as a group, they have “a documented history of serving as unregistered foreign agents, engaging in material support for terrorism and possessing direct ties to the Brotherhood’s Palestinian franchise, Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.”

If the American media were doing its job, this would be called treason.

The article reminds us:

It is wholly unacceptable to have as a member of a key congressional committee charged with overseeing U.S. intelligence and counterintelligence an individual with extensive personal and political associations with the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihadist infrastructure in America.  At a minimum, Rep. Andre Carson’s presence on the House Intelligence Committee will necessitate restrictions on his access to classified information about the presence and operations in this country of what amounts to a subversive Islamist Fifth Column and his participation in the panel’s deliberations concerning how it can best be countered.

If voters do not start paying attention to what their representatives do soon and voting against those that are not acting in the voters’ interests, they will find themselves in an unrecognizable country with their freedoms being taken away and replaced by the sort of legal systems the Founding Fathers sought to avoid.

 

The Canadians Get It Right

The Center for Security Policy posted an article yesterday about one aspect of the Countering Violent Extremism Summit hosted by President Obama. The Canadian Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness The Honorable Steven Blaney outlined the Canadian view on Islamic terrorism.

The article reports that view:

1. The threat is global: Unlike President Obama, whose Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIS seeks to limit U.S. options to just Iraq and Syria, we must recognize  the global element of the threat is vital. Jihadists from Somalia to France and from Mali to Norway are all looking to harm the U.S. and their allies wherever they can. Unless our response is equally global, it can not succeed.

2. The threat is jihad: Our enemies say they are called to wage jihad, a term which is defined by Islamic law. Reliance of the Traveller (a reputable book of Shafi’i Islamic law) establishes that, “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.” That many individuals who identify as Muslim may not subscribe to this doctrinal requirement is a positive, but nonetheless the preference of individuals does impede the significance of a doctrinal requirement that motivates a large segment of a population..

3. The threat is a movement. It is not merely ISIS which has declared war against us and must be combated. Rather our fight is with all those who subscribe to the movement’s ideology which obliges them to wage war in order to “establish the religion.” Individual groups and leaders may morph, change or evolve, but the ideological heart of the movement remains the same, and until that is addressed, we will not prove victorious. And as a movement, those responsible for spreading and indoctrinating the ideology are as important (if not more so) than the frontline jihadists who engage in fighting or acts of terror.

Our Canadian neighbors understand the threat and are ready to fight back, even as our President is still quibbling over what to call it.