Tag Archives: Blasphemy/Slander

Radical Islam’s Global Reaction: The Push for Blasphemy Laws

Free speech is under attack in the West, and it’s under attack from abroad. For years radical Islamists have targeted embassies abroad and individuals at home for “insulting” the Prophet Muhammad. And now diplomats and heads of state from Islamist countries are using international oganizations to pressure the West to criminalize blasphemy and are even lobbying for a global censorship regime.

The most recent assault began in Cairo on September 11, 2012, when a deranged mob attacked the US Embassy, breached its walls, and hoisted the black flag of al-Qaeda. Similar scenes of violence and mayhem broke out from Tunisia to Indonesia. Allegedly—although not in the case of the attack in Benghazi that led to the assasination of Ambassador Christopher Stevens—because an Egyptian-American Copt no one had ever heard of before uploaded the trailer for an amateurish anti-Muhammad movie called “The Innocence of Muslims” to YouTube.

The United States government went directly to cringe mode and spent as much time condemning the video as it did the mob.

It started with an official announcement on the Twitter page of the US Embassy in Cairo: “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others,” the message said. The White House distanced itself and said that response was neither official nor authorized, but Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said something similar a couple of days later. The video, she said, is “disgusting and reprehensible” and “we absolutely reject its content and message.”

There’s no point defending the video aside from its right to exist. I’ve seen it. It’s ludicrous. Clinton’s reaction is normal. But there’s a problem. She’s the chief diplomat of the United States. Condemning random trash on the Internet isn’t her job, not even in response to an international incident. Her statement should have been the same as if an Oscar-winning film inspired a riot.

“There are more than three hundred million ways in which Americans expressing themselves might give offense to those who make it their business to be offended,” Lee Smith argued in the Weekly Standard. “Is the White House going to put every American crank on speed-dial so it can tell them to shut up whenever a mob gathers outside a US embassy or consulate?”

Islamist governments sensed weakness, an opening, an opportunity. The United States was saying they had a point! So they took the next logical step.

Just weeks after the riots, the freshly chosen presidents of Egypt and Yemen took to the podium at the United Nations and demanded that blasphemy be outlawed everywhere in the world, including in the United States. “Insults against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, are not acceptable,” said Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi. “We will not allow anyone to do this by word or by deed.” “There should be limits for the freedom of expression,” added Yemen’s president, Abed Rabbu Mansour Hadi, “especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures.”

Saudi Arabia went even further and advocated an international censorship body to crush blasphemy on the Internet. “There is a crying need for international collaboration to address ‘freedom of expression’ which clearly disregards public order,” the government said.

That’s where things stand. Condemning what they call widespread “Islamophobia,” religious authoritarians are asserting themselves, both violently and diplomatically, while the West cowers and says they’re right to be angry. Hillary Clinton even says she personally shares their anger.

This will not do. It will not do at all. Instead, the United States should go on the offensive and demand that blasphemy be legalized in every country on earth.

This Islamic jihad against free speech started in 1989, when Iran’s tyrant Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for the murder of British novelist Salman Rushdie because the author supposedly blasphemed the Islamic religion in his novel The Satanic Verses. Dozens of people connected with him, his book, and his publisher were attacked—some even killed—in countries as far away as Japan. Bookstores in the United Kingdom and United States were firebombed. The British government took the threat so seriously it provided Rushdie with an around-the-clock armed security detail, and he had to live in hiding under an assumed name for years.

Though the Rushdie affair looked like an extreme outlier event for a while, it turned out to be only the prologue for an ever more sordid drama. In 2004, an Islamist fanatic stabbed Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh to death right out in the open on an Amsterdam street in retaliation for a short film called Submission that Van Gogh made with Somali-born feminist and Dutch member of Parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The killer used a butcher knife to pin a note to his corpse that said Hirsi Ali was “next.” She stayed on in the Netherlands under armed guard for a while, but later had to move to the United States.

The Van Gogh murder inspired a wave of attempts on the lives of more “blasphemers.” An assassin attacked Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard in front of his granddaughter in his own house with an axe. Terrorists from a number of countries, including the United States, conspired to kill Swedish artist Lars Vilks. Seattle Weekly cartoonist Molly Norris entered the FBI’s witness-protection program after American-born Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki (whom the United States later atomized with a Hellfire missile) placed her on a hit list for suggesting that cartoonists all over the world should draw the Prophet Muhammad on the same day.

Those incidents targeted individuals, which is bad enough. But then six years ago, Middle Eastern outposts of the Western democracies came under fire. In early 2006, riots exploded across the Muslim world after the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad. The Danish embassies in Pakistan, Syria, and Lebanon were attacked. A mob set the embassy in Beirut on fire. The Danish and the Norwegian embassies in Damascus were set on fire. More than one hundred people were killed.

That was the prologue to the recent unpleasantness that started in Cairo. It took a while, but the worldwide anti-blasphemy campaign has finally mushroomed into a serious menace. The aggressive demands of the Saudis, Egyptians, and Yemenis to use the law and the police to smash what offends them everywhere on the planet is what we all should expect since Western governments are not fighting back with strong and unequivocal support for free speech.

The other side has the momentum right now. Brazil banned “The Innocence of Muslims” outright. A court went so far as to order the arrest of Google’s highest-ranking executive in the country since YouTube, which Google now owns, refuses to take down videos when it’s told.

The California branch of the phony civil rights group CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) now openly says it wants blasphemy banned in the United States. “There should be laws against hate speech that leads to violence or criminal activities,” said Rashid Ahmad, the founder of CAIR’s Sacramento chapter. “Because of the film we’ve lost so many lives—the filmmaker has blood on his hands.”

Feeling that they have the wind at their backs, ten thousand Muslims protested Google’s London offices for failing to censor the film. Sheikh Faiz al-Aqtab Siddiqui spoke at the rally and made what is perhaps the most absurd argument yet. “Terrorism,” he said, “is not just people who kill human bodies, but who kill human feelings as well.”

Let’s pretend, just as a thought experiment, that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution doesn’t exist, that the American government could ban blasphemy if it felt like it without getting mauled by the Supreme Court and the public. Now imagine the size of the repressive bureaucracy required to scrub not just YouTube but the entire Internet, including all national media from the New York Times to your mom’s Facebook page, of everything that might offend mobs waving terrorist flags.

It would never happen even if it were possible. Aside from the likes of CAIR activists who get red in the face over imagined discrimination against Muslims for a living, no American constituency exists to support anti-blasphemy legislation, not even on the right- or left-wing lunatic fringes. Christians and Christianity are mocked and derided every single day without anyone seriously calling for censorship. Here’s but one example: a current Broadway play called The Book of Mormon, written by Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of South Park, lampoons the religion of Mitt Romney, the most powerful Republican in the United States last year, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, one of the most powerful Democrats. Yet we don’t hear even the meekest of peeps in favor of censorship from either party or from even the most sensitive Mormons. That’s because we settled this hundreds of years ago.

Western Europe’s prohibitions against blasphemy took a serious beating in the eighteenth century by intellectuals and free thinkers of the Enlightenment. Getting centuries of reactionary plaque off the books hasn’t been easy. Anti-blasphemy laws are still in place in some parts of Europe, though they’re hardly ever enforced. The United States, though, forged a new constitution from scratch at that time. The first and only sentence in the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits prohibitions against blasphemy. It has been in place for more than two hundred years.

The Middle East has some serious catching up to do. It might even happen eventually. Americans are hardly the only people concerned about this. People in Muslim countries are, too. Tunisia’s Islamist party Ennahda has been pushing to ban blasphemy in the new constitution, but its leaders have been facing so much resistance from the country’s liberal and secular parties for so long that in October 2012 they finally caved in and dropped it. To be sure, Tunisia is as decadent as a pot-hazed Amsterdam brothel compared with Saudi Arabia, but both countries are Arab and Muslim.

Hillary Clinton made a few good points at the United Nations back in September when the Egyptian and Yemeni government pushed to impose their prejudices on the rest of us. “None of us can insulate ourselves from insult,” she said. “In the time since I began speaking just minutes ago, more than three hundred hours of video has been uploaded to YouTube. Some of it, no doubt, is vile. Some of it, no doubt, is offensive to my religion or yours. But we must not give these views power they do not deserve.”

She’s right, of course, but she’s still on the defensive. She’s explaining why we shouldn’t criminalize blasphemy in the United States. But she’s not even quite doing that right. It’s fine that she’s arguing in a diplomatic way that those who are offended need to grow up and get over it, but she’s eliding the most crucial point, that the persecution of blasphemers is tyrannical. It wouldn’t just be tyrannical in the United States. It’s tyrannical in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and everywhere else.

You don’t have to approve of blasphemy or religious “hate speech” to understand why it must be protected. Free speech is irrelevant if offensive speech isn’t protected. “Have a nice day” isn’t prohibited anywhere, not even in North Korea. “The Innocence of Muslims” video is legitimately offensive to some people. That’s why we have to protect it. And that’s what the US government needs to be arguing rather than getting up in front of a microphone and trying to smooth things over by saying the mob has a point or that Egypt’s push for a blasphemy ban is understandable. What is Clinton supposed to say when rioters don’t have a point? The Iranian government does not have a point about Salman Rushdie’s novel, nor did the butcher of Theo Van Gogh have a point about Submission.

Aside from the fact that they’re tyrannical, anti-blasphemy laws don’t even make any sense on their own terms. Gregory Paul said it best at the online magazine Op-Ed News. “According to Islam,” he wrote, “Jesus Christ was a mere mortal prophet. He was not the Son of God who is God as per the Holy Trinity of God, the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost. Therefore, Islam is inherently committing blasphemy against Christianity and risks offending Christians. Since Islam is blasphemous, and since blasphemy must be illegal in all nations, then Islam must be illegal in all countries.” Not just Islam, but all three Abrahamic faiths could be made illegal according to the anti-blasphemy laws the Islamists wish to foist on the world.

The solution to this sort of absurdity could not be more obvious: no anti-blasphemy laws. Anywhere.

The United States won’t win this argument anytime soon, but the other side won’t win it either—not when death squads commit acts of terrorism and murder, not when mobs set embassies on fire, not when heads of state make retrograde speeches at the United Nations, not even when weepy protesters demonstrate peacefully. We’re all stalemated here whether we like it or not, but that’s hardly a reason to let tyrants and terrorists set the terms of debate. The US needs to go on the offensive, not only against any and all who would dare to murder in the name of their God, but also against every government in the world that has medieval laws on the books—beginning with those that demand we scrap our hard-won, time-worn Constitution because they can’t handle the Internet.

Paul Marshall and Nina Shea published a grim book in 2011 called Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes Are Choking Freedom Worldwide. They conclude that “in Muslim-majority countries and areas, restrictions on freedom of religion and expression, based on prohibitions of blasphemy, apostasy, and ‘insulting Islam,’ are pervasive, thwart freedom, and cause suffering to millions of people.” Tragically, those millions will have to keep suffering for a while. But Westerners will have to put up with it as well—until the Middle East’s worst reactionaries understand they can’t win. The way to convince them they’re destined to lose is by showing them, as unambiguously as is possible, that keeping their own backward laws on their books is the most they’ll ever get.

Michael J. Totten is a contributing editor at World Affairs and the author of three books, including Where the West Ends and The Road to Fatima Gate.

Mightier Pen 2012: The Media, the Election and National Security

On December 11, 2012 the Center for Security Policy honored radio host and bestselling author Monica Crowley with the Mightier Pen Award and hosted its annual National Security and New Media Conference.


The 2012 Mightier Pen Award

The Mightier Pen Award recognizes journalists who promote the need for robust US national security policies through the indispensability of American strength to preserving international peace. As a political and foreign affairs analyst, Monica Crowley has been a long-standing supporter of the Center’s belief that America’s national power must be preserved and properly used; for it holds a unique global role in maintaining peace and stability. Ms Crowley’s new book, What the (Bleep) Just Happened?, asks the questions that are on the minds of Americans today and makes the case for a “great American comeback,” including a return to the security posture that made America great.


The Media, the 2012 Election and National Security

In addition to the Mightier Pen Award, the Center’s National Security and New Media Conference will bring together some of the the most experienced and provocative voices in journalism to address several problems in mainstream media reporting on national security topics, with an emphasis on the recent presidential election.

Beyond Bias: The Mainstream Media

Outraged.  That’s how Americans feel about the performance of the mainstream media in the 2012 election season.  From the New York Times to the networks, CNN and of course, MSNBC, they have now moved far beyond their role as impartial journalists into active political operatives.  What happens to a nation when the mainstream media overwhelmingly become the propagandists for the Left? Featured panelists:

  • Richard Miniter: Columnist, Forbes Magazine and New York Times best-selling author and investigative journalis;
  • Bill Gertz: Senior Editor, Washington Free Beacon, Columnist, Washington Times and Best-selling author of six books on national security; and
  • Andrew McCarthy: Columnist, National Review Online and PJMedia, Executive Director, Philadelphia David Horowitz Freedom Centerand Former chief prosecutor in the 1993 WTC bombing

To the Rescue: The New Media & National Security

The election was the worst of times for the old mainstream media – but the best of times for the independent new media investigative reporters who are reinventing American journalism.  All our panelists broke major stories during the campaign, as new media pioneers setting the highest standards for professional journalism.  Can they and their colleagues become the future of a free press in America? Featured panelists:

  • Tiffany Gabbay: Assistant Editor, The Blaze;
  • Peter Schweizer: Founder, Big Peace (Breitbart.com); William J. Casey Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University; New York Times and Washington Post best-selling author; and President, Government Accountability Institute
  • John Nolte: Editor in Chief, Big Hollywood (Breitbart.com)


Transcripts are on the following pages.

Benghazi: US Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine

On November 13 at Hillsdale College in Washington, DC, the Center for Security Policy presented a live-streamed panel discussion with three of America’s top experts on the shariah doctrinal threat to national security. Dr. Andrew Bostom, Diana West and Stephen Coughlin will be joined by Frank Gaffney to discuss, “Benghazi: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine.”


Benghazi: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Featuring nationally-recognized experts and authors:

  • Moderator: Frank J. Gaffney Jr., President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy



FRANK GAFFNEY: This promises to be a most informative and hopefully very constructive contribution to our understanding of what has happened, most immediately, in Benghazi, Libya, on 11 September 2012. But much more broadly, what is happening – what has happened since that terrible day in which four of our countrymen, including our ambassador to Libya, were murdered.

I am Frank Gaffney with the Center for Security Policy, and I have the privilege of moderating this conversation. This will, I hope, be a particularly useful exercise in connecting the proverbial dots. There are many of them now checkering the landscape and they’re much in need, it seems to me, of that connective tissue. The kind of information that will make sense, hopefully, of what’s going on in both Benghazi and elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa and the Muslim world, as it’s called much more broadly. And indeed what’s going on here. We will be, I trust, discussing with our panel the nature of the relationship that the United States now has with the Muslim world, specifically as a result of the policies of the Obama administration.

I know we will be talking a bit at least about what I consider to be the absolute essence of the connective tissue between all of these dots, namely, shariah. The totalitarian, supremacist, Islamist program that its adherents seek to impose on all of us. I expect that in the course of our conversation, we’ll have a chance to visit about some of the manifestations of our policy approach to Islam in general and shariah specifically as it has been evidenced in such things as the counter-insurgency strategy, the so-called COIN strategy, whose principle author, as you know, has recently become the object of considerable controversy, shall we say. General David Petraeus. And whose current principle implementer is now also embroiled in controversy. The commanding general of our forces in Afghanistan, General John Allen. To visit about these issues, to illuminate them, to help us all – and most especially, those who will be holding in the next few days not one, not two, but three different hearings that will, we’re told, examine and hopefully elevate the sorts of questions that we’re addressing today, are three, as I say, of the best minds I know in this part of the battlespace in this part of the free world at the very least.

Our first speaker will be Dr. Andrew Bostom. Andy is, by my lights, one of the great renaissance men of our time. He’s not only a serious medical doctor, but he has also become one of our time’s, I think, leading authorities on this phenomenon of shariah. What it means for various minorities, notably the Jews, and for the rest of us who love freedom and seek its survival. His newest book, which is very much on point, and which we commend to you, is Shariah Versus Freedom. Andy will speak first and I think provide some important context for the rest of this discussion. Diana West is, I think, well known to this audience. As a nationally syndicated columnist, a remarkably powerful writer and thinker. But also the author of a marvelous book, Death of the Grownup. She will be commenting on the Benghazi-gate story as it fits into this paradigm of shariah and what it means for all of us. And finally, and certainly not least, Stephen Coughlin. Steve has served his country in uniform, rising to the rank of a major in the intelligence branch in the United States Army. He was called up and served after 9-11 and became the duty expert for the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Islam and the threat that its shariah adherents, particularly, pose to the rest of us. His master’s thesis has become one of the seminal works – and I think will become the subject of, or the bulk of a new book that we’re anticipating will be out shortly, entitled Catastrophic Failure.

ANDREW BOSTOM:  J. B. Matthews, who announced a career as a communist front operative to become one of the world’s foremost anti-communist authorities on such groups, observed in his 1938 Odyssey of the Fellow Traveler, it cannot be denied that communists and their sympathizers object not only to a denunciation of communism, but also to a calm and critical examination of its principles and practices. Strange as it may seem, communists denounce those who merely cite the things of which communists themselves openly boast in their own public statements. Matthews observations from nearly seventy-five years ago are apposite to the discussion today, because he captures the shared reactions by both advocates of and apologists for two totalitarian ideological systems which are eerily similar. Modern communism and still-unreformed pre-modern Islam.

Indeed a contemporary humorist of Matthews had cogently highlighted the striking similarities between Islam and communism, referring to the communist’s creed with this aphorism. There is no god and Karl Marx is his prophet. Alas, in our present stultifying era that increasingly demands only a hagiographic view of Islam, even such witty illuminating aphorisms may become verboten. Witness president Obama’s stern warning during his Tuesday, September 25th, 2012 speech to the UN General Assembly when he proclaimed the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. The travails in Libya and among the broader Middle Eastern Muslim participants in the Orwellian named Arab Spring demonstrate graphically how enforcing barbarized views of Islam which ignore Islamic doctrine in history intend a policy debacle. First, I will summarize the salient features of shariah, Islamic law, and its appeal as demonstrated by recent polling data from Libya’s North African Muslim neighbors, Morocco and Egypt. Then I will trace briefly how what my colleague Diana West has aptly termed our making the world safe for shariah policymaking mindset operated and continues to prevail in Libya. Derived from Islam’s most important canonical texts, the Koran and Hadith, and their interpretation and codification by Islam’s greatest classical legists, shariah, Islamic law, is not merely holistic in the general sense of all encompassing, but totalitarian. Regulating everything from the ritual aspects of religion to personal hygiene to the governance of a Muslim minority community, an Islamic state, bloc of states, or global Islamic order. Clearly this latter political aspect is the most troubling, being an ancient antecedent to more familiar modern totalitarian systems. Specifically, shariah’s liberty-crushing dehumanizing political aspects feature open ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order. Rejection of bedrock Western liberties. Including freedom of conscience and speech. Enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death. Discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast vulnerable pariahs. And even Muslim women to subservient chattel. And barbaric punishments which violate human dignity. Such as amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption. But this – but is this ancient brutally oppressive totalitarian system still popular amongst the Muslim masses? Particularly in North Africa? In a word, yes. Polling data released April 24th, 2007, from a rigorously conducted face to face University of Maryland worldopiniondynamic.org interview survey of the Muslims conducted between September 9, 2006, and February 15th, 2007, 71 percent of the one thousand Moroccans and 67 percent of the one thousand Egyptians surveyed, desired this outcome to unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or caliphate.

The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a caliphate was strongly suggested by a concordant result. 76 percent of Moroccan Muslims and 74 percent of Egyptian Muslims approved the proposition, quote, to require a strict application of shariah law in every Islamic country. Libyan rebel spokesperson, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, born in 1952 in al-Bayda, one of the first cities to rise against Gaddafi, studied law and Islamic jurisprudence in Benghazi before embarking on a legal career that culminated in his appointment in 2007 as Gaddafi’s minister of justice. A foreboding wikileaks memo from February 27th, 2010, revealed, quote, in the course of the discussion of the criminal code, Abdul Jalil abruptly changed the subject from freedom of speech to the, quote, Libyan people’s concern with the US government’s support for Israel. He averred the Libya cares deeply about Muslims everywhere and about Muslim countries. In his view, the root cause of terrorism stems from the perception that Europe and the US are against Muslims, unquote. But in August of 2011, Abdul Jalil’s vision for Libya was apparent in his championing of Libya’s draft constitution whose salient feature was part one, article one which stated, Islam is the religion of the state and the principle source of legislation is Islamic jurisprudence, shariah. Following Gaddafi’s removal, Sunday, October 23rd, 2011, pronouncement by Abdul Jalil, now the leader of Libya’s transitional council, reiterated the overarching general role of shariah and including this specific example, he, Abdul Jalil, also announced the annulment of an existing secular family law that limits the number of wives a Libyan male can take, contradicting the provision in the Muslim holy book, the Koran. This would be Koran 4:3, which is the fourth chapter, third verse, that allows men up to four wives. Thus liberated Libya appeared bent on reinstituting shariah based polygamy in pious conformity with Koran 4:3. Simultaneously, in late October, 2011, reporter Sharif al-Halwa [PH] confirmed that the al-Qaeda flag was aloft on the Benghazi courthouse.

Several months later, during a trip to Libya in early 2012, al-Halwa noted the al-Qaeda flag was still flying atop Benghazi’s courthouse. But more importantly, he ventured to the jihadist flashpoint of eastern Libya, Derna, to expose Libya’s shariah enforcers. Unofficial Derna leader and local al-Qaeda head, Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi proclaimed if you establish the shariah, we’re with you. We’re your soldiers. We’re ready to die alongside you if you establish shariah law. “Al-Qaeda in Libya: A Profile” was an August, 2012 report prepared by the combating terrorism technical support office, a Pentagon program office. Within a month of the murderous 9-11-12 attacks which left four dead, US Libyan ambassador Stevens, two heroic former Navy Seals, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, and a US Air Force veteran, Sean Smith. The report emphasized how al-Qaeda senior leadership working via a large, powerful, and well-established jihadist infrastructure in Libya, including prominently Ansar al-Sharia, the group responsible for the Benghazi consulate attack, sought to capitalize on US and NATO supported insurrection which toppled the Libyan despot Gaddafi and fulfill its goal of making Libya part of an eventual transnational caliphate. A sizable Ansar al-Sharia public rally during June, 2012, was highlighted in the August, 2012 Pentagon report which also noted the unwillingness of Libya’s shariah supporting central government to contend with these ostensibly more radical avatars of shariah supremacism. With resigned sobriety, the Pentagon report emphasized how such jihadist al-Qaeda discourse resonates among a significant swath of the Libyan population. Finally, the Pentagon report’s executive summary raises serious questions about the callous inattention to security for US diplomatic and ancillary personnel in Benghazi. And more importantly, the abysmal see no shariah failure of imagination regarding overall US policy in Libya which has embedded the most fanatical jihadist extent of al-Qaeda itself. The report concluded – and I want to read this to you – al-Qaeda has established a core network in Libya. But it remains clandestine and refrains from using the al-Qaeda name. Ansar al-Shariah, led by Sufyan Ben Qumu, a former Guantanamo detainee, has increasingly embodied al-Qaeda’s presence in Libya as indicated by its active social media propaganda, extremist discourse, a hatred of the West, especially the United States. Al-Qaeda adherents in Libya used the 2011 revolution to establish well-armed, well-trained, and combat experienced militias. The al-Qaeda clandestine network is currently in an expansion phase. Running training camps and media campaigns on social media platforms such as Facebook and YouTube. However, it will likely continue to mask its presence under the umbrella of the Libyan Salafist movement and, with it, shares a radical ideology and a general intent to implement shariah in Libya and elsewhere.

And one of the apparent US avatars of this grossly misbegotten policy is now its most prominent victim-cum-martyr. Namely Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Diana West has brought to my attention two profoundly disturbing classified cables written by Stevens during 2008 which captured this warped mindset. Stevens made a pilgrimage to eastern Libya, Derna. The longstanding proud hotbed of jihad, which was a hub of the aggressive late 18th through early 19th Century North African Barbary jihad campaigns against the US. Moreover, even the absence of strict shariah compliance, anthropologist Evans-Pritchard’s 1949 characterization revealed how the Muslim Bedouin of eastern Libya compensated for the less than assiduous fulfillment of the ritual requirements of Islam by their jealous commitment to jihad. And here’s Evans-Pritchard’s description. It would also be a questionable judgment to assert that the Bedouin of Saranaga [PH] that’s eastern Libya, are not religious because they do not pay attention – the same attention – to outward ritual as do townspeople and peasants, for piety and holiness as we’ve often been admonished, are not the same. Perhaps the Bedouin make up for their shortcomings by their enthusiasm for the jihad, holy war, against unbelievers. They consider that they have fulfilled their obligation under this head in ample measure by their long and courageous fight, formally declared a holy war by the caliph of Islam, at the time, against the Italians, French, and British. A Bedouin once said to me when I remarked how rarely I had seen Bedouin at prayer, but we wage – but we fast and wage holy war, unquote. The 2008 cables reveal Stevens cavorting with the very Libyan Muslim denizens of Derna who are proudly sending their sons to be homicide bombers, etceteras, in Iraq, attacking and killing or grievously wounding US troops there at the highest per capita rate of any location in Islamdom.

One memo is more than sympathetic to this hotbed of jihadism. It is almost reverent. Stevens repeats uncritically their self-characterization as being like Bruce Willis in the movieDie Hard. Even entitling his cable as “Die Hard in Derna”. And one can perhaps see, as Diana West suggests, the germ of the idea for the strategy ultimately employed to overthrow Gaddafi spearheaded by jihadists like Stevens’ colleagues. The horrific depressing spectacle of our great nation’s willing exploitation by violent shariah supremacists brings to mind a remarkably candid assessment by the 18th Century Moroccan Sufi master, Ibn Ajiba from his Koranic commentary, a work I was made aware of by my colleague Mark Duri [PH] describing unabashedly the purpose of the humiliating Koranic poll tax of submission for non-Muslims brought under Islamic hegemony by jihad, who become so-called dhimmis, as per Koran 9:29. Ibn Ajiba makes clear the ultimate goal of its imposition was to achieve what he called the death of the soul through the dhimmi’s execution of their own humanity. Here’s what he said. The dhimmi is commanded to put his soul, good fortune, and desires to death. Above all, he should kill the love of life, leadership, and honor. The dhimmi is to invert the longings of his soul, he is to load it down more heavily than it can bear until it is completely submissive. Thereafter, nothing will be unbearable for him. He will be indifferent to subjugation or might. Poverty and wealth will be the same to him. Praise and insult will be the same. Preventing and yielding will be the same. Lost and found will be the same. Then, when all things are the same, it – the soul – will be submissive and yield willingly what it should give. Cynically ignoring shariah doctrines and practices that permanently endanger the life, liberty and property of non-Muslims, US policymakers, epitomized by the murdered Libyan ambassador Stevens, have sacrificed US lives and our nation’s soul. Thank you.

DIANA WEST:  Benghazi is a very complex story. I think it’s one of the most complex episodes that our nation has gone through in some time. It is complicated on many different levels. And my fear, actually at this point, now that we have some media attention on the concurrent scandals, is that we will lose the larger story. Right now, we’ve got the security breach story, we’ve got the who knew what when story, and we have the Petraeus and General Allen stories fogging our minds, perhaps. But I think that the – while these are necessary points to nail down and necessary scandals to reveal, there is the un-discussed and unnoticed larger scandal, which is the fact – as Andy was alluding to – that the Obama administration supported al-Qaeda forces in Libya against Gaddafi, who up until the time he was killed, was an ally against al-Qaeda forces worldwide. So another way of saying this, really, the way I like to say it, is that in Libya, Uncle Sam joined the jihad. Now how this might have come about is a very crucial policy to understand. It’s something we don’t talk about. It isn’t acknowledged.

But once you start burrowing into this via Benghazi, I think we have a chance, at least, to bring the facts to light. I believe it’s come about through a willful reckless disregard and/or a suppression of Islamic theology, of Islamic jihad, of Islamic jihad to spread shariah. And whether this is from out and out Islamic sympathies or from negligence, from ignorance – excuse me, pardon me – such a reckless disregard of the Islamic factors has paradoxically permitted our policymakers to ally the United States with proponents of world Islam, which would be shariah, Islamic law, caliphate, which all of these things, it must be remembered, are the endgame of jihad. So I look at Benghazi and I see this policy having blown up in our faces. But so far, this is not part of our debate. But this is the very blindness – just to give you a very small example, that in the very first place, permits a United States diplomatic compound to be guarded from a barracks inside the walls by a local militia called the February 17th Martyrs Brigade. This has been discussed, trip – you know, just falls off the lips trippingly, of congressional witnesses in the media, no one stops to explain, to consider, what does that mean? What is local militia? Andy just gave you a little bit of flavor of what the local militia pool might be in eastern Libya. And I will repeat that eastern Libya sent more fighters to kill and maim Americans in Iraq per capita than anyplace in the world. And it’s a quite intense difference between Libya’s numbers and Saudi Arabia’s numbers. I’ve forgotten my little graph today, but its well more – substantially more per capita than even Saudi Arabia. That’s the local. February 17th Martyrs Brigade. What’s February 17th? Well, February 17th, most people will remember, is February 17, 2011, was the day of rage, so called, on which Benghazians kicked off the revolution against Gaddafi. But, February 17th, 2006, is actually the day they were marking in 2011. This is a day that doesn’t enter into our consciousness. But it should. February 17th, 2006 was the date of another day of rage when thousands of Benghazians left the mosques after Friday prayers and attacked the Italians consulate, burned it, the Italians had to be evacuated for fear of their lives. And this was done to punish Italy for the temerity of having a minister who went on Italian television to declare that freedom of speech was a cornerstone of Western liberty, that the Danish cartoonists at that moment the subject of tremendous pushback and rioting across the Islamic world for the Mohammad cartoons of a tiny newspaper in Denmark, that declared solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, and for this, he was fired the next day by then prime minster, Berlusconi. And I suggest, I argued, this was in compliance with Islamic law. Berlusconi was demonstrating that Italian – his Italian government – was under Islamic law and prohibited such criticism, prohibited such statements, you know, supporting freedom of speech, supporting Western liberty, but it wasn’t enough for Benghazi. Three days later, the Benghazis attacked the consulate.

So this is February 17th. Now how about the martyrs? The martyrs are the eleven, twelve, about a dozen, Benghazians who were shot and killed by Gaddafi’s police guarding the Italian consulate. There was no loss of Italian life in this attack. There were martyrs to the cause, to the jihad against the West. And so, I mean, a normal person has to scratch his head and say, how could the United States allow the February 17th Martyrs Brigade inside an American compound to guard American interests? That’s what we’re dealing with. But that is what we’re not dealing with because we don’t know this, we aren’t told this. Our leaders hide this and our press doesn’t seem to care. That’s an example. I could go through the same litany with another local militia, the Libya Shield, but maybe we’ll wait for the question and answer period. It’s even worse than the prominence of the February 17th Martyrs Brigade. Benghazi, by the way, means City of Martyrs. So I mean you have to know the territory you’re in. So this is where we are. And the point that I would like to also make is that this was not some ad-hoc security engagement. That only – they couldn’t find anyone else to guard the compound. And they didn’t know better. This was policy. And we see this in the cables that have been released by the House government oversight committee from the regional security officer at the time, Eric Nordstrom, discussing the fact that this was State Department policy, to transition security to locals. So this wasn’t just, you know, what are you getting locally? This was a policy. And it wasn’t working, which is exactly why they were calling for Americans to come and help shore up the security that they knew was a shambles. So you have to wonder where this policy came from. And it didn’t begin in the spring of 2011 when Ambassador – not yet Ambassador Stevens, but Christopher Stevens was famously dropped into Benghazi to be point man to the so-called rebels in eastern Libya. It didn’t begin with the February 17th2011 day of rage. I don’t know if it was in place. I would like to find more about the program that Gaddafi oversaw – his son oversaw to release scores of al-Qaeda members from Libyan prisons in 2010. I don’t know how much that America was involved in that. But I do know that our ambassador at the time was present at one of these ceremonies.

This policy was a long time coming and we know something about it from the cables – the cable flow released, thankfully released by WikiLeaks. I am actually a big fan of WikiLeaks, because our government has too many secrets. And this kind of policymaking should not be secret from us. I can’t speak to Stevens’ motivations in reading his cables. But I’m trying to track his policy and there are certain themes that emerge. And I would say the first set of cables, I would draw to your attention, were written in late 2007 and the first half of 2008. And they related – they were not only by Stevens, there were some other diplomatic personnel from the embassy in Tripoli. Stevens was not the ambassador, but he was a high diplomat. And they were tracking the well being of two released Guantanamo detainees, who had been repatriated to Libya to go into Libyan prisons. One of them is very interesting to us because Andy just mentioned his name. His name is Sufyan Ben Qumu. And he was picked up off the field – out of the field in 2002 by the Americans in Afghanistan, Pakistan area. He was known to be – or discovered to be – an al-Qaeda member, a Libyan Islamic fighting group member, which was the al-Qaeda affiliate at that time. He was also with bin Laden in Sudan. He was in the training camps in Afghanistan, you know, down the line. And these cables track the well-being of – there was another man, but I haven’t found links on him yet, so I’ll concentrate on Ben Qumu, but they track what the prison life was like, whether they’re getting coffee or tea, how much exercise, family visits. Great interest in his well being in getting visits to, you know, some kinds of monitoring of their prison term. It’s very strange. No real explanation lies in these cables as they’re written. It’s just you notice two, maybe even more, cables that I’ve looked at that, over time, tracking what’s going on with Ben Qumu. Now, he was released as part of the reconciliation when these jihadists promised not to be violent anymore and they were released and all of them were out by 2010. And he later became a leader of the February 17th revolution in eastern Libya.

Now when you think about Stevens coming back to Libya in February – in the spring of 2011, it’s almost impossible to imagine he would not have had some dealings with this man and those dealings need to be revealed. We need to find out what American policy was toward an al-Qaeda leader like Ben Qumu. Who, kicker, is now the leader of Ansar al-Sharia. Which is thought to have – believed to have led the attack on the US compound in September. So, I mean, the tragedy, the irony, the outrageousness, is just mind-boggling. But I would hazard that no one here has read this before because it has not – it has not been reported. And the links have not been made. And yet they are online, available to any reporter who’s spending time looking at this, and any policymaker as well. The second set of cables, the other set of cables I wanted to bring to light, had to do with Stevens’ own interest in eastern Libya in 2008, this is right after the US discovered a cache of documents that showed that the Libyans were sending more per capita fighters. And what he understood with his cable work and with his footwork in eastern Libya was that jihad was a cultural norm, that these people were proud of sending these fighters into Iraq. And yet by the end of this series of cables, he has decided to decouple this Islamic imperative to fight and insert the “Die Hard in Derna” theme and sort of de-Islamize the entire motives of this area, to sort of take Islam out of their culture. It’s so important to their culture and yet his recommendations, going back to the States, was we start to see this suggested, maybe if we got rid of Gaddafi, everything would be all right. And so I wonder if maybe the Arab Spring policy really had its beginnings in 2008 in eastern Libya with diplomats such as Stevens. I wouldn’t single him out as being the single architect, but you start seeing the groundwork laid. This needs much more work.

STEPHEN COUGHLIN: What I’m going to do is talk about an outlier Benghazi issue, the issue always referenced in Benghazi, but never actually pursued in its own right, and that has to do with the issue of the YouTube clips. And how do you explain a near pathological obsession with trying to hang it up on there. And I think it’s very important because I think that the underlying issues surrounding the need to support the YouTube narrative is every bit a threat to the national security of this United States as what happened in Benghazi. And it needs to be understood in its own right. Joseph Piper wrote a philosophy tract back in the 1970s. He was a German philosopher. And it was called “The Abuse of Language and the Abuse of Power” where he tried to explain to Germans in the 1970s how when the Nazis abused language they came to be able to abuse power. And it’s very important because one of the things he pointed out is once the current social norm – people’s understanding of reality is based upon what he called a pseudo-reality, you almost have to treat the truth as propaganda just to get it heard. And I would like to point out, we are there, okay? The things that are being discussed here. Andy went deep, so you’re not going to find that on YouTube. Diana went and did some research on this. But the underlying facts to almost a hundred percent of what we say is obviously true to anybody who makes a decision to actually research this. There is not some major competing issue on facts between what we’re saying and what the other side says. One is templated against a pseudo-reality that is not real but enforced. And the other is true to the exclusion of what is being told in that pseudo-reality. And I think that’s very important to keep in mind.

On the 23rd of September, on “60 Minutes”, everybody heard the comments about the bumps in the road. And president Obama got a lot of flack for the term bumps in the road, but nobody picked up what he said afterwards. He said, there are going to be a lot of bumps in the road. In a lot of these places, the one organizing principle has been Islam. The one part of society that has been completely controlled by the government. I actually agree with president Obama on that comment. I would like to point out al-Qaeda has said their exclusive organizing principle is Islam. As defined in Islamic law. The Muslim Brotherhood has said their exclusive organizing principle is Islam as defined in shariah law. And of course the OIC, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation says their exclusive organizing principle is Islam. I say that I agree with this, in fact, I agree with it so much so that I made it the point of my thesis in 2007 to point out that those national security individuals with responsibility for War on Terror issues who do not know that organizing principle are guilty of malpractice. Or are looking at malpractice. In fact, there is simply no comprehending what’s going on without reference to that. And yet here we have it. The one thing that you can be run out of government for is to dare to talk about the one organizing principle that makes everything make sense. And why am I bringing that up? Without this knowledge, you can hardly understand the policies and objectives of the most powerful driving forces in the Islamic world, by which I’ll say two of them. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. I will tell you, these entities are almost off the discussion boards in almost every government entity. And if they’re not, they’re propagandized understandings of it. In fact, the article to be written one day will be the article that talks about the two most powerful people in the world that nobody knows anything about. And yet they are clearly driving everything from the Arab Spring to other events, the YouTube clip. And that is Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu – I’m sure many of you are saying, who? And yet he is the head of the OIC. And a man named Yusuf Qaradawi. He is the person calling the shots on the Arab Spring. He’s called the shots on all of them. And, you know, here’s how hard it is to find that out. Do a Google search. Do a Google search. But because their names aren’t there, because their driving force is actually Islam, everything they see seems incoherent. It will be incoherent. The enemy plans to win the war by making it not understand their organizing principle. So this brings up the whole point of talking about the YouTube clip. These entities, the OIC and the Muslim Brotherhood remain opaque so long as we don’t understand who they are or what they represent. And we will never really be able to get the full sense of what the YouTube clips are about. As of course everybody’s heard, the Benghazi event was blamed on the YouTube – the clips. I’ll just talk – I’ll use the word clip.

Okay, I’m going to treat this as a completely severable event. Although people can get into questions about whether they are severable,  I think at this point we could say, you had the YouTube incident that started at the Cairo embassy on September 11th. And then you had the events at Benghazi. And for this purpose, let’s keep them as severable. Let’s take a look. On September 11th, at the beginning of the day, I believe the Cairo embassy was closed with a posting saying, the embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims as we cut off efforts to offend believers of all religions. We firmly reject the actions of those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. I’m one of those people who believe that you do not have the right to make a – do something, make a bad decision.  You actually don’t have any rights at all. And of course, I don’t want to get into whether people – what people think about the YouTube clip itself, I would just get – I’ll just make the point that if the Supreme Court says Nazis can march in Skokie, if the Supreme Court says that some artists can put a crucifix of Christ in a vat of urine, then I’m really not prepared to hear issues about other people’s feelings. I really am not. That is whether I like it or not or whether I agree with it or not, that’s the law of the land. So I think it really means something that our State Department is putting out a message that runs counter to the First Amendment free speech right of an American, who’s actual message I don’t actually personally even have to agree with to make that point. I’m told that when the day of – when the protest happened in front of the Cairo embassy, it was a regular Egyptian soiree. The relatives of both the Blind Sheik and Zawahiri, the number two in al-Qaeda, showed up.

The very next day, the president of the UN commented on the events and nothing about – nothing about what was going on at Benghazi made it. What did he say? He condemns and deplores in the strongest terms any acts of defamation of religions and religious symbols and he said that such acts amount to – to incitement to hatred and xenophobia. And could lead to international instability. He went on to say, that states have to intensify international efforts to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding amongst civilizations. So to prevent indiscriminate targeting of religions and cultures. By reaffirming their rights to freedom of expression, he calls for the observance of obligations in accordance with international law. Obligations to curb freedom of speech. Okay? Now, clearly, he’s talking about what was the topic of the YouTube clip. Now, interestingly enough, the 14th of September, no less than twenty-six embassies, there were no less than twenty-six events around the world, including, I think, sixteen or seventeen embassies in the Muslim world, where there were protests having to do with this video clip. Now with this same narrative, with the same words, with the same directives. Now, we are going to be told that it was completely, you know, coincidental. Spontaneous. That these things exploded all over the world at the same time, same place, on the same message. I will be one of those people who will tell you of course this was choreographed. Of course it was planned. And the major topic of discussion coming up later in the month of September at the UN, in the General Assembly, was going to be defamation of religion. And I will argue that we really need to understand that. And I just read what the president of the UN said. So I want to ask you if it doesn’t sound very familiar with – remember when I talked about the OIC? 2005? Well, in 2005, the OIC, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation put out something called a Ten Year Plan. And the Ten Year Plan was to make all references to subordinate all freedom of speech law in the world, subordinated to Islamic laws and Islamic notions of slander. How many people are aware of that? Raise your hand. Okay. Because let’s just compare what the – what the president of the UN said.

And see what the OIC said. From paragraph three of the combating Islamophobia, which was released in 2005. The UN is to endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia and to call upon all states to enact laws countering it, including deterrent punishment. That means that you, an American citizen, inside the United States, could be punished for defaming what – for saying something Islam deems is inappropriate for it. How many people think that that would be a catastrophic breach of the First Amendment? Okay. So this whole thing we saw with the YouTube clip was a rerun of the cartoon crisis in Europe in 2006. Where you had a day of rage followed by various statements, all of the messages choreographed. And almost none of it, by the way, almost none of it coming from al-Qaeda. It was OIC and MB voices. Okay? It is today. So it’s also just like the Pope’s Regensburg speech back in 2006, remember? Day of rage. You can’t say that. So this defamation of Islam, day of rage cycle, is something that we have seen repeated over and over again. Of course, we saw it twice in Afghanistan with the Koran burning. What is the objective of these days of rage? To get US leaders and US thinkers to get so intimidated by Islam that they will pass laws to curb defamation of Islam as a crime. Are we not there? Just think about that. So the OIC’s ten year program of action seeks to subordinate free speech including the First Amendment to Islamic notions of free speech. As bad as Benghazi is, and it was bad, it’s an attack on people and places and it’s an event – but the YouTube clip represents an attack on the integrity of the Constitution of the United States itself. And I will tell you, if it is breached, the Constitution is done Cause our constitution cannot stand a breaching of the First Amendment. That’s why it is the First Amendment. And that’s why understanding the YouTube clip is more important than Benghazi. And I fully believe Benghazi is very important. But it was so important that the YouTube clip narrative follow through that it seems to me that maybe the Obama administration was willing to take the hit on Benghazi. But I keep asking myself, how did they prioritize their effort that they stuck to this? So the OIC has been promoting this UN resolution to get the ten year plan passed for a long time.

This last iteration was resolution 1618, okay? They watered down the language so it would be politically appropriate for the West and saw they could slide it through. The question isn’t is the OIC going to try to get to us through the UN? The troubling question is why did our State Department agree to work with the head of the OIC to make this a law, get this resolution passed in the UN with the clear intent of implementing it against US citizens? Cause that would be the follow line. Of course, on October 15th – excuse me, on July 15th – on July 15th, 2011, our Secretary of State met with the head of the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, remember, that’s the second time I’ve mentioned his name. The one you never heard of. And yet our Secretary of State, in his temple, agreed with him that she would use the best efforts of our State Department to seek passage of resolution 1618. But the OIC clearly states it reflects the implementation of their ten year plan. Okay? It was actually authored by them. Not only did Hillary Clinton agree to that, but she agreed – she agreed that she would use some old fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming so that people won’t – will feel they have the support to do what we abhor. Does anybody – is anybody bothered that our State Department, our embassies, have been in the business of condemning an American’s free speech right to foreign entities? Agreeing with foreign entities that they will go after Americans in an extra-legal way to do this? Does anybody else have a problem with that? Does anybody else have a problem with the fact that our elected leaders on both sides of the aisle want to run from this? Because if they’re running from this, they’re running from the most sacred duty that they have and that is to support and defend the Constitution. And it’s to support and defend the Constitution.

The layers that make this ambiguous to people are layers that are only to ambiguate people who want to be confused. Because this is direct. The OIC announced it in their Ten Year Plan. They make it clear that resolution 1618 is it. And it would call for the subordination of the First Amendment in the United States. There is no ambiguity here. And we can’t allow our people to hide behind this. Because this is what we stand for. So but didn’t the YouTube clip – didn’t the guy who created the YouTube clip, wasn’t he subjected to peer pressure and shaming? How many people know he was convicted and sent to jail? Okay. Where is the ACLU on this? Anybody who wants to get – if anybody thinks this is not – he’s not in prison because of a First Amendment issue, I just don’t understand that. So what I would like to point out in conclusion, I will conclude, is that for those who find this to be new information, it may be time to question what you think you know about what’s going on in the Islamic world. And I will tell you, you should start with the Arab Spring. So concerned was certain members of Congress with this – and this is my concluding remark – Congressman Franks, as the chairman of the subcommittee on the Constitution, asked the assistant secretary, Tom Perez, whether the State Department would ever entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion.  I mean, basically give effect to 1618. And Perez refused to answer, being asked this three times. So then I would just like to end this with the fact that this is not theoretical. It’s not something in the remote future. It’s happening now. Thank you.

FRANK GAFFNEY: I think that was a pretty extraordinary rendering of the problem. And I think we have circulated, if not we will before the program is over, some specific questions that we think are warranted coming out of both the analysis that you’ve just been treated to and any other information that’s available now. I encourage you also to look for a new film that is currently making its way I think through a distribution deal that hopefully will be available soon, a trailer for it can be found at silentconquest.com. And it picks up on a number of these points. In fact, I believe several of our speakers are featured in it. To help make the case that this business in Benghazi is not an isolated incident. It is very much of a piece with the larger problem that we’ve been addressing thus far. With that, I’ll be happy to open up the floor to questions. When you have a microphone presented, I would ask you to identify yourself and any organizational affiliation you may have. Let’s start right here.

QUESTION: Bill Murray. Religious Freedom Coalition. I can start with the ending.  The same song ends the same way. Most of the conservatives, our conservative senators, our conservative groups, the only anger they had over Libya is that Libya wasn’t – the Libyan government wasn’t being overthrown fast enough and al-Qaeda wasn’t being installed quick enough. We now are in Syria and the biggest concern of our conservative senators and our conservative groups is that the secular government of Syria isn’t being overthrown fast enough and al-Qaeda isn’t being put in power quick enough. Now, you know, when both sides of the aisle want to put the two and a half million Christians in Syria, put their heads on the chopping block, so that they’re all killed, persecuted, and sent off, at what point do we stop supporting as conservatives anybody that has a gun that wants to overthrow somebody and start to look at who the hell they are?

DIANA WEST:  I don’t think anyone – any of us would have anything to counter what you’re saying. Of course, it’s an outrage. I think that part of the problem is that these ideas and these problems, this notion of America supporting al-Qaeda is not discussed. It’s not admitted. You have to kind of read your own tea leaves or read what we write, which is just out there in the mainstream. And our candidate, our standard bearer of the Republican party last week who lost, did not bring these things up, didn’t enter into a debate, weren’t asked – this, in a sense, the Islamic prohibition on criticism of Islam is in effect. I’ve maintained that for more than a decade. We don’t talk about it because we can’t. We think we can’t. And I think that’s why we end up in this situation of serving al-Qaeda, serving the global caliphate, etceteras, and putting these governments in power.

ANDREW BOSTOM: Bill, we midwived shariah based constitutions in liberated Iraq, in liberated Afghanistan, we sat by idly as the Syrian Christian population was decimated in liberated Iraq. We had the case where the Vatican had to intervene to save a quote, unquote apostate in Afghanistan. This is a policy that we’ve had from the very beginning, certainly post 9-11, where we are willfully blind to the doctrine in these societies that prevails. And it prevails amongst the so-called moderates and amongst those who are more radical who, in essence, are really just more impatient to impose the shariah in its full forms.

STEPHEN COUGHLIN:  I’m just trying to think of – the power of ignorance is really extreme. I mean, when you take a look, what happens, one of the comments that has started to really grate on me is someone will say, I’ll say something and they’ll say, well, yes, that’s a real good man. Or that’s  a real good woman. Meaning, they know them, they like them, they’ve gotten their sense of them. And they’re a really good person. And it’s grated on me because those really good people have been making decisions that have caused this country to suffer severely. It has caused people – it has caused the people under them to die. And they died because of their ignorance. And at a certain point, at what point does ignorance at the top level constitution sedition or constructively so? Because some of these people, they’re getting people killed. Now I have no doubt that when we talk to those conservatives, they’re going to give us this whole people – that, every bit as delusional as the left leaning argument is the one that has fixed on the conservative side. That everybody wants to have rights like Americans. This is the face of al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the OIC that categorically denies not only those rights, but the basis for those rights. So I think the thing about this is we really have to start being not nice about this. And saying, you know, not only did we knock out Gaddafi and install al-Qaeda, everything you needed to know about who they were, you could have done a Google search in real time. Not only that, but if you just read some of the newspapers and understand what they meant, you would have seen that Yusuf al-Qaradawi was the person who was launching these initiatives. So this is my way of saying for those conservatives, that’s it.

FRANK GAFFNEY: Let me just add one quick point, this ignorance is in part spawned by something that Steve alluded to, namely, the purging of those like him and for that matter others, both in uniform and out, and files and briefing materials and the like which has spoken the truth. So the ignorance is not simply accidental or a lack of diligence, it’s that we have submitted to the point where we’ve made ourselves blind. At, I think, a further example of our submission, more generally.

QUESTION (ARTHUR GREEN):  I was in the Foreign Service. I served in Doha, the home base of Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi. My question is for Mr. Coughlin. If the Brotherhood and the OIC are the building blocks of the jihadism, who are the NGOs in the international media who are the purveyors of the information?

STEPHEN COUGHLIN: Well, I didn’t really come prepared to talk about who those players are, but I think that you have an elite media. I think they have constructed a meme, a narrative. If the OIC was to come out and say, we’re going to impose Islamic law of slander on the non-Muslim world, people would say, get out of here. They were very aware – I have this little booklet, I brought it just in case something like this would come up. This is a book about the OIC written by the triple IT. The International Institute of Islamic Thoughts. A Muslim Brotherhood front group. And they were talking about the OIC in this book and it was written in 1988. You know, all the time we’re being told that the OIC – that the Muslim Brotherhood is a criminal organization, you just get this double message. Sheik Qaradawi has lived quite well in Doha. So it’s my way of trying to answer – so they knew in the 1980s that this word homophobia really caused people to reel back. Okay, so they created the term homophobia. And they thought they knew they couldn’t really get the West to buy off on Islamic law and the brutal suppression, but what they could do is mask their entire narrative in the postmodern meme. The diversity narrative. And then just put it in right after the word homophobia. Racism, sexism, transgender, blah, blah, blah. Homophobia, Islamophobia. And they knew that they would get the entire media to bite. Because I will say that, yes, I do believe that there are some very evil people who are very aware of what they’re doing. For example, I’m not convinced that Hillary Clinton knew what she was agreeing to when she agreed to that. I think she just thought it was another part of the diversity narrative. And that’s where you get to the point where you say, well, don’t you have a duty to know who these people are? All you have to do is go online to find it.

FRANK GAFFNEY: But it has to be said, if Hillary Clinton has, sitting at her right hand, as a person on whom she relies – don’t take my word for it, the Washington Post said so, for advice on matters involving the Arab world, the Middle East, a woman who has been tied personally as well as through her family to the Muslim Brotherhood for twelve years, that has to have some likely bearing on the decisions or at least the thinking that Mrs. Clinton has been doing in these matters. And that is not an isolated example as we hope all know. We have a course on this subject called muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com.

DIANA WEST: Frank, I just want to add one little tag team on that which is that, speaking of Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s aide, over the summer, when this came to light, I wrote one of my – I write a syndicated column that used to appear in the Washington Examiner and I wrote about this, I reported on what was going on on the Hill with the congressmen and the denouncements by Senator McCain and the issue about Huma Abedin, and the Washington Examiner refused to run it. I don’t know exactly why, but it refused to run it and that’s how this works. You know, in terms of the suppression.

QUESTION (ADM. ACE LYONS):  I’m chairman of the Center’s military committee. I want to go back to the issue we all seem to dance around. I want to know why the ambassador was there on the night of 9-11. And let me preface that by saying, look, we had the Blue Mountain security manager that afternoon say, hey, there’s something wrong. He puts out a message on his two radios and his cell phone. He bails out of Benghazi on a flight. Three hours before the attack, you have roadblocks, checkpoints set up that the Turkish counsel general had to go through to get to the consulate. Now nobody can tell me, he gets to the consulate for his meeting with Stevens and says, oh, by the way, I went through all your checkpoints, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah. Why didn’t Stevens leave with the counsel general or why did he stay there? Pass my question to the panel here. Your wisdom on this.

DIANA WEST:  It’s not knowable at this point. But there are many rationales, but it does – I’ve looked into it a little bit. I mean, I wonder why, first, I wondered whether as an ambassador he could have left. And I found out that he could. And in fact, you could say that there is – he bears some responsibility for the casualties that followed in not leaving that dangerous situation. We don’t know – we don’t know what the Turkish counsel and he met about. We do know that there was a serious CIA mission in Benghazi that may have seemed to him more important than their safety. Or going back to what I was trying to illustrate, he may have felt so comfortable with these people that he never thought something like this could happen to him. Because he knew them. And he had great affinity for them. And their cause.

FRANK GAFFNEY:  Let me just add two other data points to the ones that Ace mentioned. One is that the folks in the compound knew that they were being surveilled the morning of the attack. Early in the morning as a matter of fact. And it prompted one of the victims, Mr. Smith, to write on – as you probably have seen – an online gaming site, that if we survived the night, I think it went on to say, we’ll be playing games again tomorrow, but there was reason to believe, as you say, Admiral, that there was something going down. Yes, sir?

QUESTION (BOB PETRUSAK):  I’m a retired state prosecutor. And I’ve always been very interested in the trial of the Blind Sheik. His conviction for seditious conspiracy and in our failure of our government to follow up on that and pursue convictions of other persons involved in similar activity. And having heard Mr. Coughlin talk about sedition – mention the word sedition, and also talk about Islam as a strategy, I’m very interested in the question of whether or not we as a society should regard Islam or perhaps Islamism as a massive seditious conspiracy that is contrary to our law?  Now, by Islamism, I mean, not the Muslim going to the mosque to pray. But the whole notion that society and politics should be controlled by Islam. And I believe I heard you, Mr. Coughlin, you mentioned Islam as a strategy, did I not – and I presume that’s what you mean? The whole notion that Islam should control society and politics?

STEPHEN COUGHLIN:  I think what I was pointing out was when president Obama gave a speech about the fact that Islam was the single organizing principle that that is declared to be the single organizing principle by which the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, and even the OIC say drives them. To which, I think you could take it to mean Islamic law. Now I don’t think we have to get into the hyper, you know, controversy of what Islam does or doesn’t stand for to point out that the Muslim Brotherhood explicitly states that their understanding of Islamic law requires them to wage jihad till the world’s been claimed for Islam. And when they make reference to Islamic law, they actually nail down real Islamic legal statements to say that. Now my experience has been not that people come up and come up with a competing argument or a, you know, different version of Islam. They try to shut down the debate. They don’t want it talked about. And I think one of the reasons is, is because there seems to be a super-tight fit between what the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda and the OIC says is Islamic law and what their doctrines say it is. And I have just always noticed that our moderate friends will say stuff like, well, this is just what I choose not to believe. Or if I brief somebody who – at very senior levels of our national security – and I will brief something to the effect, well, brief it to the point where it’s just locked down, we have the Muslim Brotherhood saying or al-Qaeda saying, we’re going to do it based on Islamic law.

In fact, this is Islamic law. And then we find a contemporary Islamic jurist saying that. We find a classical Islamic jurist saying that. And we see them both quoting the same hadith and the same Koranic verses for it. So what happens isn’t that they say, my gosh, you’ve nailed this down. This meets a burden of proof that basically will call for a summary judgment. No, they’ll say, well, I just choose not to believe that. What do you do? So I think the point of it is, we don’t have – this is a very important point to me – we don’t have to prove what is or is not true Islam although I think we can win this positively on that point. All we have to do is prove the enemy we fight says that’s the true Islam that they rely on to kill you. And so long as you have that right, you have what constitutes the basis of their threat doctrine. And the simple fact of the matter is, and there are people here who know me from historically, I have put a brief together that calls things in advance for years now. And it’s not just they kind of sort of happen the way we’re briefing years in advance. They happen exactly the way it’s briefed. And so we – the two issues need to be understood as separate. Cause it’s entirely conceivable, yet every bit as lethal, that the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda misinterpret Islamic law, but they’re still killing you. And therefore, you’re still dead. Okay? And you still have to defeat it. So there’s two questions there. And as a national security issue, the debate is resolved at the point at which you fix that doctrine, right or wrong, as the basis for a stated threat doctrine. Does that answer your question? And we can simply nail that down. It’s not just that you have the case with the Blind Sheik. You also have the Holy Land Foundation case. Where once you have the first conviction – you were a prosecutor, it’s pretty close, shooting fish in a barrel, getting the next round of prosecutions. I mean, there are complexities and stuff, but – and those were shut down. They were ready to go.

ANDREW BOSTOM: My real job is as an epidemiologist and so I’m very comfortable looking at data. And we have extraordinarily alarming data from the Muslim community in this country. And it’s not just recent data. It goes back even before 9-11. Detroit area mosques, there was a survey that 81 percent of respondents endorsed the application of shariah law where Muslims comprised a majority of the population. Now, that’s not a theoretical concern when you look at the behavior, the actual behavior, of the Dearborn community where they try and impose, you know, Islamic laws, sanctions, against proselytization, for example. And we’ve had notorious cases to that regard. The Center was involved in what I think was an outstanding – the only way you can do it – study of a representative sample of a hundred US mosques. And 81 percent of them were fomenting jihad. This is not a small number, 81 percent. You don’t have to be a biostatistician to understand 81 percent. We have the assembly of Muslim jurists of America. This is a mainstream teaching organization. Every year, it trains North American imams throughout the US and Canada. This organization, just go online and read the fatwas, read the advice they’re giving to Muslims that right in and ask questions about shariah related topics sanctioning punishment for blasphemy, sanctioning punishment for apostasy, seeking – speaking very disparagingly of other faiths, sponsoring female – supporting female genital mutilation. I mean, just go down the gamut of things that are quite offensive to us that are part and parcel of the shariah. This is a mainstream organization. There were just data that were published, it was a convenient sample. It wasn’t the perfect, random digit dial sample, but it was a convenient sample of six hundred Muslims that was published by Wenzel Associates in conjunction with World Net Daily, these Muslims – who, by the way, were of higher socioeconomic status and better education, so if anything, they should be more moderate by Western standards, 60 percent of them reject our First Amendment. These are data. These are not figments of people’s imagination. We have a serious problem.

QUESTION (DAN POLLACK):  A couple of you pointed out that the leaders of the attack on the consulate was a graduate of our Guantanamo school for terrorists, you know, continuing education, I wanted to – looking at things from his point of view, I’ve often been struck by how it must seem to these Muslims who are dedicating their lives to damage the West and yet actions taken by the West seem to lend them support. Is there an element of this, I’ve often thought that back in the days following the ‘67 Arab/Israeli War, the Arab and the Muslim cause seemed on its hind legs cause they were losing. If anything, they seem more susceptible to losing once you start them on the losing path. And I think they interpret all of this bending over backwards by the United States and Europe to give them an advantage as God’s will and if we can only find some spots to tactically exploit this. I’m interested in each of your reaction to our actions that seem to empower them. And how that results internally in our enemies.

DIANA WEST: The first thing that comes to mind in terms of our empowerment of the Islamic world is the Islamization of our military forces in this past nearly decade of wars. And this should be of grave concern because the military has imbibed Islamic law as part of this counter-insurgency idea that was, of course, spearheaded by General Petraeus, CIA director Petraeus. As a way to make them like us. As a way to win them over, win hearts and minds, all of these phrases are apt. And what it has done is forced us to submit all the further. And when you have the United States military submitting, I don’t think they’re really stoppable until you cease and desist. I think the way Israel is being treated is another huge encouragement. If Israel goes down, I think Europe is next. And then us, or at the same time, I mean, these are very serious invitations to jihad. And we make it very easy for them. Again, because we have already entered into this deep submission.

ANDREW BOSTOM:  I think the issue that Diana has focused on in the military is the lynchpin issue, in fact. Our – I experienced this firsthand. I was actually out in Ft. Leavenworth when Petraeus was still there. And having been quite familiar with the academy, you know, the medical school is an Ivy League medical school and my research, non-medical research, forced me to be on the campus a lot, it’s frankly insane what goes on there in terms of the bowdlerization of Islamic history and doctrine in any of the related courses. But in fact, that mentality is pervasive amongst the so-called academics that are recruited into our military institutions. With rare exceptions like Steve, who didn’t stay there. And actually knew what he was talking about and has predicted the failures of the policies. I mean, it’s turning reality on its head by, exactly what Steve said, creating this false reality. I could not believe, it happened in a formal lunch session, being with pseudo-academics out at Ft. Leavenworth who sounded like, you know, the most revolting drivel mongering leftists that I’ve had to deal with in the mainstream academy.

STEPHEN COUGHLIN: So those who can’t teach at community college then go teach at US military academies or advanced military institutes. That’s a horrible thing to – I do know some very good professors, but sometimes you see the people kind of crowd the back of a room in a presentation, they’re kind of like, wow. If you look at a book called Reliance of the Traveler on the section on jihad, there’s a section that quotes the Koran and do not call for peace when it is you who have the upper hand. Okay? I want you to think if you’re that – why you wouldn’t think, you not only have won the war, but you’re in the process of rolling us up. Okay, it think that, you know, I think we’ve hit on it a couple of times, I was remiss maybe in bringing it up, it’s very easy for the Muslim Brotherhood to be successful over there when the people advising our senior leaders are the Muslim Brotherhood here. People like Mohammed Morsi joined the Muslim Brotherhood when he was going to the University of Southern California. Did you know that? Okay.

The number two guy in the Muslim Brotherhood, you know, maybe successor to Qaradawi, was the imam in Ohio, Hilliard, Ohio. The man who was teaching our troops at Ft. Hood and Ft. Bliss before they deployed, Louis Safie, was the man that Qaradawi picked to run the Syrian – what was it called? The Syrian National Council. I mean, Steve, how do you know we picked him? Because it was in an article, lets be clear, translated from English to English, where they said so. That this stuff is just simply out there. And so when you know that you’re the people driving the train and you know that your senior leaders are so afraid to lose their job by not agreeing with them on something, you know, look at the COIN, look at the COIN where they decided that the preference for our combat forces in Afghanistan was going to be the protection of Afghan civilians. So it’s not to upset anybody when you had the pure homicide of our officers, green on blue, what was the solution? Not to talk about the fact that maybe the Karzai regime is penetrated. But to blame our soldiers for their own murder. So when you see that going on, when you take a look at our COIN and the COIN is based on satisfying the Afghans, formally and informally, where the Afghan government, based on the constitution we wrote formally subordinates to Islamic law, you really should see this type of activity as foreseeable. It’s certainly the normal consequence of subordinating your COIN to a government and to a people who subordinate themselves to a form of law that sees you as always being wrong and it always being your fault.

FRANK GAFFNEY:  Let me make one additional quick addition to this litany. And literally, we could spend the afternoon enumerating these. But just to this point, imagine the takeaway from these Islamists around the world, the jihadists, that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top military officer of the United States, uses a press conference to excoriate a distinguished serving officer teaching at one of these military institutions. For having offended Islam. In his brief. Ruining the man’s career as well as sending an unmistakeable signal to the rest of the cohort that don’t even think about doing that. Not just the teachers, but the students. This is submission. And I think there are people on this panel who know the Koran a lot better than I do, but that phrase keeps coming back to me, make them feel subdued. Part of this dhimmitude phenomenon and there’s o question that you behave as we are, submissively, you are incentivizing them do more of that making us feel subdued through violence among other means.

DIANA WEST:  Well, just to add – to bring it back to Benghazi, the same Joint Chiefs chairman made a phone call to pastor Terry Jones on September 12th, asking him to withdraw his, essentially, movie blurb, his support for the YouTube clip, innocence of Muslims. Actually made a phone call to an American citizen asking him to withdraw his opinion of a creation of another American citizen or someone protected by our laws.

QUESTION (RON THOMPSON): I’m a graduate of Georgetown law. I sent you a paper recently after you gave me your business card. I’m a former member of the DC bar. And I still, to take what Bob said a step further, there’s still one step that hasn’t been taken, and as a lawyer, I’d like to offer this, I would like – because I think we’re hypnotized by the word religion, and I heard a couple of things said today, once single word by you, Dr. Bostom, that was a little bit of a red flag, you talked about unreformed Islam, implying that there’s some reformed Islam that would be a good thing, which I have trouble with, so my question is, is it possible – and I’m trying to write a paper on this – that Islam is not a religion for purposes of the word religion in the First Amendment? Because there are six elements to the First Amendment. And the first one, the first wording of the amendment talks about establishment of religion. Well, as I understand the definition of Islam, somebody correct me if I’m wrong, it’s inseparable from being the established religion or if it’s established, so I’ll repeat – and the other five elements, which I won’t take time to go through, for the First Amendment, is it possible to argue, take sort of a total intellectual offensive, and argue that Islam is not a religion for the purposes of how that word is used in the First Amendment of the Constitution?

ANDREW BOSTOM: There is a historical record which would argue in your favor. That Islam, of all the major faiths, and I’m not just talking about Judaism and Christianity, I’m talking about Buddhism, Hinduism, etceteras, has found it impossible, till now, to separate religion from state. It’s simply found it impossible. So I guess you could say it’s a theoretical possibility, but – and some Muslim states, you know, Ataturk tried his experiment. It was a brutal experiment. And he really wound up substituting a form of Turko-centric racism for Islam. Now it had some tangible benefits. Certainly for Muslim women. It didn’t help the minorities at all. Didn’t help them a wit. Became something of an ally, some would argue, in terms of the struggle against communism. But I think your point is very well taken. A wonderful anthropologist who was not an Islamophobe, Gelder, after struggling with the study of Islamic societies from the perspective of an anthropologist wrote a book that was actually fairly well received in the early 1980s by Muslims. Ten years later, he concluded that Islamic societies, based in 1991, compared to a hundred years earlier, had actually regressed. And he said, as a respected anthropologist, he had never seen societies that were so resistant to secularization. And this was his final lament on the subject.

STEPHEN COUGHLIN:  I think that one of the reasons the book Shariah: The Threat was written was because if you use the word Islam, you’re talking about the whole thing. If you focus on just shariah, you’re raising the point that the point at which Islam intersects with the Constitution, it’s the point at which it’s not a theological issue, it’s a legal issue. And in that regard, I think that there’s a very real strategy to always put Islam on you as an exclusively – in exclusively First Amendment terms. Islam itself doesn’t actually define itself purely as a religion. It defines it as a complete way of life governed by Islamic law, which it defines as the law of the land. Now the books I get on shariah don’t refer to itself as religion, they refer to themselves as law, and they make it clear they mean the law of the land. One of the things I’d like to point out is when you decide to go down the road to look at this, you read their law pure, like you were doing comparative law. And you don’t read into what they say anything that comes from your Western legal or Western religious understanding of things. You read it as they say it. Now, I think it’s very important – I try to get people to really argue this strictly from the perspective of not the First Amendment, but Article 6 of the Constitution. This Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land. And at every point down the line where Islamic law runs counter to that principle, it folds. Okay? And that becomes a unilateral decision. And it’s not up for, you know, people can make a decision whether that’s too hard for them to live in this country. I’m not asking for that. But I think that people who allow that to be folded, who are under their own oath to the Constitution, are letting it slide. And I think it’s just very important, cause I do think, yes, you can make that argument. They certainly don’t want you to make that argument. By they, I mean, the Muslim Brotherhood and groups like that.

QUESTION (REV. LOU SHELDON):  Thank you, Frank. And I want to commend all of the speakers. They’ve done an excellent job of telling us how close to our backside these alligators are. And second, I think I’d like to hear comments from you, where do we go from here? Do we just go home and cry? [LAUGHTER] Do we go into recovery? Or are there some kind of marching orders that you can give? Because we know we might not necessarily have a true friend at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or in the Department of State or other places and all them things that have been mentioned about those that did stand up and be counted. But the time has come that we’ve got to do this, because you can hear the chains rattling just down the stairs from this building.

DIANA WEST: Yes, well, it’s always an important  question and it is a hard question to answer. Except insofar as speaking out, being unafraid, having no fear in terms of discussing this and meeting this, and also my concrete wish would be that we could – we could early retire the senior leadership of the United States military. Because they are at the point where they are so beholden to these Islamic norms that they have put our troops in uniform in great jeopardy and we have lost many lives because of it.

ANDREW BOSTOM:  Far be it for me to put a Panglossian gloss on this, but frankly, again, when I look at polling data, I think the American public, despite all the obfuscation, despite the fog machine, despite the apologetics, I sense that they understand that there’s a very serious problem. Rasmussen – I know he’s in ill repute now, maybe because of the election, but he wasn’t that far off. He’s published polling data within the last year that shows that most Americans and 63 percent believe there’s a fundamental conflict between Islam and Western Civilization. That there’s a complete rejection of the shariah in another set of polling data, which was actually a bipartisan poll of Pat Caddell and John McLaughlin, thirteen to one, Americans reject any application of shariah in the United States. Very few Americans are sanguine about the Arab Spring. You know, 70, 70 percent plus are not the least bit sanguine about it. I think we have to find representatives who will stand up and speak to a preexisting constituency.

STEPHEN COUGHLIN:  You know, when I first started having troubles making these briefings, I didn’t realize I was out on a limb doing them inside the Pentagon. But it needs to be made very clear that the purging of the language in my issue started when I was still – when Bush was still the president. You might want to talk about this administration, how we don’t have a friend there, I think the real possibility is we only have the illusion of friendship in the other administration. And in fact, there’s a part of me that believes that Benghazi became something of a kind of a harbinger to people, not just because of Benghazi and the election, but for people who want their presidents to actually believe in something. His decision to play the calculating calculations that caused him not to say something would be the same ones that caused a person who really believed in the integrity of this country and standing up on something to take a stand.

And so I think at a much – even separate from Benghazi itself, was the fact of, you know, it seems to me that the Republican party today stands for taping together a whole bunch of constituencies. And throwing them a bone and not meaning any of it. And then, you know, telling them to take a ride if they don’t like it. So I would like to say that I think that what to do, I think that Andy’s right. I think that there is clear evidence when polling is taken, that the public is aware of this issue and they’re growing in numbers in terms of what they think and what they see, despite the fact of what you hear. So I think people have to get smart. And I think they have to get mad. And they have to realize that, yes, you’re going to get your five thousand votes from a Muslim Brotherhood movement, but we’re going to make it clear to you that you’re going to lose a hundred thousand votes because of it. Because the Constitution is not negotiable. And that’s just the way it is. And I think that people really have to – when I say get smart, not just get smart knowing the issue, but get smart in getting your friends informed. And getting informed in a credible way. And not say things that cause you to look like a fool. Make sure you know what you’re saying. These people will attack. They attack fast, they attack hard. Every congressperson I’ve ever met who thought, well, we know, we’re politicians, we know what it is, and the opened up their mouth, and then got hit, and they didn’t see it coming. And they run for cover. And I don’t mean this to disparage anybody who may think I’m talking about them, because I may not be talking about them, but my whole point here is, this – the other side doesn’t look at this as a political game. They look at it as war. Okay? And you need to understand that this is a winner take all kind of thing.

FRANK GAFFNEY:  This is a perfect point on which to conclude. I must tell you that I’ve learned so much from these folks, not just today, but through their writings and through my interactions with them, and we try to distill some of it down and that course that I mentioned earlier, free online video course called Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within and the entire tenth part of the course, building, I hope, on what Steve has admonished us to do, namely, to become knowledgeable about these threats, is devoted to what we do about it. It’s very practical in terms of instruction. It talks about what we can do as individuals. It talks about what we can do as members of groups. Like those represented here. And it talks about what we have to do as citizens of this country. And I hope that it will be something that both those of you here in this room will take to heart and those of you joining us through the miracle of live streaming will also take a look at. Because, to the extent that you do indeed take away from these kinds of comments not only more questions that have to be addressed and hopefully will be, especially if we’re demanding that they be addressed on Capitol Hill in the next few days, but that we as people who love this country have to do what our predecessors have done before us, which is insure it survives for the next generation. And that will not be done if we sit passively by as our freedoms are being eroded and ultimately destroyed by people who, as Steve has said, think they are at war with us. So with that, I want to thank all of you for being here, those who’ve joined us via the internet and most especially, if you will join me please in thanking this extraordinary panel.

Well done. Thank you all.

Silent Conquest

On September 25, 2012, President Obama astonished many Americans by declaring, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” This is a sentiment espoused by radical Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Taliban and al Qaeda. Worse yet, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, revealed the lengths to which the Obama administration is prepared to go to enforce this view when she told the family of a former SEAL killed last month in Benghazi that the producer of a video she falsely claimed precipitated that attack would be “arrested and prosecuted.” He was subsequently taken into custody and remains in jail.

Now, the powerful documentary SILENT CONQUEST explains why these affronts to the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech are not isolated incidents. Rather, they are part of an ominous pattern of Team Obama’s 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.

The film features interviews with U.S. and foreign legislators, journalists, national security and other experts and Muslim, former Muslim and non-Muslim activists including:

Best-selling author Mark Steyn; Rep. Allen West, Member of Congress;Geert Wilders, Member of the Dutch Parliament; Baroness Caroline Cox, Member of the British House of Lords; ACT! for America founder Brigitte Gabriel; scholar and author Daniel Pipes; American Islamic Leadership Council founder Zuhdi Jasser; former Muslim and author Nonie Darwish; former Defense Department official Frank GaffneyLord Malcolm Pearson, Member of the British House of Lords; Naser Kader, Member of the Danish Parliament; author and financial terrorism expert Rachel Ehrenfeld; author Pastor Mark Durie, as well as others.

SILENT CONQUEST offers a frightening insight into the extent to which Europe, Canada and the United Nations have already succumbed to the restrictions of shariah blasphemy laws. Its stark warning about the Obama administration’s substantial efforts to accommodate them here, as well, is a wake-up call for every American.

The documentary was produced by Sanctum Enterprises, LLC. For a limited time, SILENT CONQUEST can be viewed for free at silentconquest.com.




For more information about the film and its subject matter or to arrange interviews with the film’s featured authorities, contact David Reaboi of the Center for Security Policy at 202.431.1948 and dreaboi@centerforsecuritypolicy.org ormedia@www.silentconquest.com.

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public.

For more information visit www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org

Vote for Obama to restrict free speech

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, theOrganization 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.

Consider a few of the other examples “Silent Conquest” itemizes with help from an array of U.S. and foreign legislators, analysts in national security and other fields, and Muslim and non-Muslim activists (this columnist among them):

The Obama administration co-sponsored in March 2009 a resolution in the U.N. Human Rights Council that basically endorsed the unacceptability of any expression that offends Islam.

In Cairo in June 2009, Mr. Obama declared, as part of what Mitt Romney and others have called his “apology tour”: “I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

In July 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton launched with the OIC the Istanbul Process, a multilateral effort to find ways to accommodate Muslim demands for restrictions on free speech. On that occasion, she declared that among other means put in the service of this dubious objective would be “old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming.”

Mrs. Clinton evidently has found such methods inadequate. In the aftermath of the murderous attack on our diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, she joined Mr. Obama and others in insisting – despite abundant evidence to the contrary – that it had been precipitated by a “disgusting and reprehensible” act of free expression, namely, a video denigrating Muhammad produced by a California man. According to Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, one of the former Navy SEALs killed while heroically defending the CIA’s annex and his comrades, Mrs. Clinton told him that the government was going to “arrest and prosecute” the filmmaker. Shortly thereafter, the American who had given offense was indeed taken into custody and will remain there, at least until after the election.

Then there’s this, just in: The man selected to perform the investigation into the Benghazi debacle for the State Department – whose results will only become available after Nov. 6 – seems committed to the Shariah blasphemy agenda as well. As reported by syndicated columnist Diana West, in the course of his Oct. 23 appearance on a panel at Washington National Cathedral titled “The Muslim Experience in America,” retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering “made an ominous call for ‘strong efforts to deal with opinion leaders who harbor [anti-Islam] prejudices, who espouse them and spread them.'” He went on to endorse the characterization of another panelist, Islamist apologist James Zogby, who claimed “the racism [of U.S. soldiers] was really intense.” Mr. Pickering even seemed to suggest that the U.S. armed forces are “the enemy.”

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?

Obama’s National Security ‘Not Top 10’ of 2012

In years past I have conducted an annual review of ongoing catastrophic failure that is Barack Hussein Obama in all things related to terrorism and national security (see my previous year-end reviews for 20112010 and 2009). But with America just hours away from deciding its next president for the next four years, I thought it timely for a pre-election review of Obama’s national security ‘Not Top 10′ for 2012.

These are listed in chronological order, not order of importance.

1) Dept. of Homeland Security Lexicon Brands Libertarians and Conservatives as ‘Militia Extremists’ in violation of its own policies (Feb. 2012)

Straight out of the gate in 2012, the Obama administration continued its branding of conservative ideas as extreme and threats to the nation. In February I reported on a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) lexicon that linked ‘militia extremists’ with “the belief that the government is deliberately stripping Americans of their freedom” and opposing “many federal and state authorities’ laws and regulations (particularly those related to firearms ownership)”. Added to that, Homeland Security observed that such extremists “often belong to armed paramilitary groups”, meaning that you don’t even have to belong to a militia to be a ‘militia extremist’. One wonders if they have the NRA in mind when mentioning “armed paramilitary groups”?

Two days after my report appeared the U.K. based Reuters rolled out an article that breathlessly reported, “Anti-government extremists opposed to taxes and regulations pose a growing threat to local law enforcement officers in the United States, the FBI warned”, basically reinforcing the narrative expounded in the DHS lexicon.

Curiously, the words “Islamic”, “Muslim” and “jihad” were all missing from the DHS lexicon. Not only that, but branding those with mainstream political ideas as ‘extremists’ ran afoul ofrules promulgated by DHS in October 2011 that warned, “Training should be sensitive to constitutional values” and “Don’t use training that equates religious expression, protests, or other constitutionally protected activity with criminal activity.”

Then in June I reported that another DHS-funded study produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) at the University of Maryland was caught editing out well-documented acts of Islamic terrorism inside the U.S., such as the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, from its terrorism database.

The codebook underlying the START study, also funded by DHS, branded popular “tea party” views as ‘right-wing extremism”, claiming that such ‘extremism’ “may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”

As I noted at the time, START was basically saying that if you’re fiercely nationalistic (pro-American), anti-global (anti-UN), suspicious of centralized federal authority (like the Framers), reverent of individual liberty (like Patrick Henry), and believe in “conspiracy” theories (like the federal government allowing the sale of assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels to justify limiting American’s rights under the Second Amendment, a la Fast and Furious), then you too are on the “extreme right-wing.” All on the taxpayer dime.

2) FBI Directive OKs U.S. Government Outreach to Members of Terrorist Groups, Supporters (March 2012)

As part of a widespread Obama administration ‘Islamophobia’ witch hunt in U.S. government agencies, Matt Vadum at Breitbart News reported that the FBI had produced a document it called “Guiding Principles: Touchstone Document on Training” to justify an ongoing purge of its trainers and training material. Among the provisions of this “Touchstone Document” is the statement that “mere association with organizations that demonstrate both legitimate (advocacy) and illicit (violent extremism) objectives should not automatically result in a determination that the associated individual is acting in furtherance of the organization’s illicit objective(s).”

The net effect of this new FBI policy is that membership in a terrorist organization, or support for “legitimate” goals of terrorist organizations, does not hinder your relationship with the FBI for ‘outreach’ purposes nor make you a suspect for any investigation.

The motive for this new policy was the problematic issue that virtually all of the U.S. government’s Muslim outreach partners have been identified by the FBI and/or the Department of Justice (DOJ) in federal court as fronts for terrorist organizations or havedirectly supported terrorist organizations. The problem is that the U.S. Supreme Court found otherwise in Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder (2010), where the court upheld provisions of the PATRIOT Act that makes even support for “legitimate” objectives of a terrorist organization a violation of federal law.

The FBI’s “Touchstone” policy of ignoring support for terrorist organizations in its ‘outreach’ to the Muslim community is part of a larger trend during the Obama administration of rolling out the red carpet for Islamic extremists. At the same time that the FBI was announcing its new policy, as Michelle Malkin recently reported, Hisham al-Talib, who has been identified by the U.S. government as being a senior U.S. Muslim Brotherhood leader involved in organizations supporting terrorism, being invited to the White House in March to help assist the administration in its reception of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leaders several weeks later. A more recent report by the Investigative Project on Terrorism found a whole string of Islamic extremists regularly visiting and consulting with the White House.

This explains the admission of a senior White House outreach official back in June to Neil Munro of the Daily Caller that the Obama administration has conducted “hundreds” of meetings with terrorist front group CAIR in violation of a longstanding ban by the FBI with the group for its terror support (a ban that would run afoul of the FBI’s new ‘Touchstone’ policy). And as reported on Friday, it also explains the DCCC fundraiser featuring House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in Washington D.C. attended by many U.S. Muslim Brotherhood figures, including CAIR co-founder Nihad Awad.

One corrosive effect of this outreach was noted by Kerry Picket at the Washington Times, who reported that these same organizations now deemed ‘moderate’ by the Obama administration has helped shape our national security policy. That might explain the complete meltdown in our Middle East foreign policy.

3) Top State Dept. Official States Violence by Nigerian Islamic Terrorist Group ‘Is Not Religiously Driven’ One Day After Church Bombing on Easter Sunday (April 2012)

Just one day after the Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram (meaning, “Western education is forbidden”) bombed an Easter day service in Kaduna, Nigeria, killing 39 Christian worshippers, the State Department’s top official for Africa, Assistant Secretary of State Jonnie Carson, gave a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) where he said, “I want to take this opportunity to stress one key point and that is that religion is not driving extremist violence either in Jos or northern Nigeria.” Carson made the same claim in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 27th, while noting that the State Department has a $700,000 program to “strengthen the conflict prevention capacity of religious leaders.”

This was patently absurd as Boko Haram itself, who has conducted bombings and killings targeting Christians in Northern Nigeria virtually every week, says that their violence is in furtherance of establishing an Islamic state and implementing Islamic law. But if Boko Haram’s terrorism is not religiously driven, then whey does the State Department have a $700,000 program targeting religious leaders?

In July, Carson was up on Capitol Hill again, defending the State Department’s decision to not name Boko Haram as a designated terrorist organization after so designating three of its top leaders just a few weeks before. Even more embarrassing for Carson, as he was defending not designating them a terrorist group, he was identifying Boko Haram as a terrorist group while being questioned by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Africa.

Questioning the State Department’s decision not to designate Boko Haram, Eli Lake of theDaily Beast quoted one official who explained that the Obama administration’s refusal to act against Boko Haram was based on political and policy considerations, not whether they were in fact a terrorist organization engaging in terrorist acts of violence.

4) Obama Admin Flies Member of Designated Terrorist Group to Washington D.C. for Meeting with President’s National Security Staff in White House, Vows to Admit More Terrorist Members to U.S. (May 2012)

Another bombshell article from Eli Lake reported that Hani Noor Eldin, a member of the Egyptian terrorist group Gamaa Islamiya, was issued a visa in violation of federal law and flown in May to the U.S. by our government as part of an official delegation from Egypt. The State Department’s website identifies Gamaa Islamiya as a specially designated terrorist organization, and as Lake noted in his report, Eldin readily acknowledges his membership in the group, which recently announced that they were prepared to fight to install Islamic law in Egypt, even using violence.

Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post also reported that among Eldin’s tour stops in Washington D.C. was the White House, where he met with members of Obama’s senior National Security team. During that meeting, Eldin reportedly pressed the Obama administration for the release the ‘Blind Sheikh’ Omar Abdel Rahman, the leader of his terrorist group who is currently serving a life sentence in U.S. federal prison for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the planned follow on ‘Day of Terror’ attacks. (More on the Blind Sheikh later.)

Incensed members of Congress demanded answers from the Obama administration, but received none. In fact, when DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano was asked about Eldin’s visa and the violations of federal law to grant it by House Homeland Security Committee chairman Rep. Peter King (R-NY), Napolitano doubled down on the administration’s positionand vowed that more members of designated terrorist groups would be allowed to enter the U.S.

5) Hillary Clinton Excludes Israel from International Counter-terrorism Forum (June 2012)

When Hillary Clinton opened the Global Counterterrorism Forum in its inaugural meeting in Istanbul in June, there was one country curiously absent from the convocation – America’s closest Middle East ally, Israel. That country’s absence, and apparently Hillary’s deliberate decision to exclude them, is made all the more curious since not only has Israel had the most experience dealing with terrorism, but is frequently the target of it. However, two of the world’s most active supporters of terrorism, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, were founding members of the forum.

Israel’s exclusion from the proceedings was questioned by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), who sent a letter to Hillary protesting her decision.

Obama administration and congressional sources confirmed to Adam Kredo of theWashington Free Beacon that Israel was deliberately excluded from the forum founded by the U.S. in order to appease Arab countries that are openly hostile to Israel’s very existence. Kredo quoted Democratic strategist Josh Block, who questioned the Obama administration’s position, saying, “How Israel could be excluded from another meeting of an anti-terror forum that we chair is beyond comprehension, especially one that focuses on victims of terrorism.”

6) SECDEF Panetta Declares Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi ‘His Own Man’ (July 2012)

As I reported here at PJ Media back in August, the willful blindness of the Obama administration to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s duplicity was on full display when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta traveled to Egypt and met with newly-elected Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, who ran as a candidate for the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party. In a press conference during his trip, Panetta declared that Morsi was “his own man” and dismissed concerns that Morsi’s past history with the Muslim Brotherhood (including his calling in 2010 for the expulsion of all U.S. ambassadors from the Middle East as Muslim Brotherhood spokesman) would influence his decision-making in his new office.

In the weeks that followed, Morsi demonstrated how clueless Panetta was by selecting members of the Muslim Brotherhood to top positions and appointed even more hardline Salafists to high placed government positions, while excluding women, Christians and secularists.

Two weeks after Panetta’s comments, Morsi selected a known Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood supporter as his vice president. Islamists also represented the bulk of Morsi’spresidential team and governors.

Meanwhile, it seems that despite the removal of longtime dictator Hosni Mubarak, the first 100 days of Morsi’s administration sees him continuing Mubarak’s brutality, with 88 citizens tortured and 34 killed by his Islamist-led government during that period.

But at least Morsi is his own man, if Panetta were to be believed.

7) Hillary Clinton Apologizes to Pakistan for Their Border Attack on U.S. Troops,Pakistan Bills U.S. Taxpayers for War on Terror (July 2012)

Also in July, Hillary Clinton formally apologized to Pakistan for an incident in November 2011, in which ISAF troops conducting operations near the Afghanistan/Pakistan border werefired upon by Pakistani troops, which prompted a NATO airstrike that killed several Pakistani soldiers. Yes, you read that correctly – our government apologized for Pakistan attacking our own troops. Joint Chiefs Chairman Dempsey had earlier refused to apologize for the incident. The apology was widely seen as a resolution to reopen shipping routes through Pakistan for U.S. troops in Afghanistan that had been closed since the U.S. attack that killed Osama bin Laden in May 2011.

A few weeks later, Pakistan sent the U.S. a bill for $500-$600 million for its claimed expenditures in fighting terrorism. And yet not even a year prior the former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen had testified before Congress citing Pakistan’s direct involvement with terrorist groups in Afghanistan that were targeting and killing U.S. soldiers. No question was ever publicly raised about Pakistan’s complicity in sheltering bin Laden for nearly a decade, or for the arrest and 33 year prison sentence imposed on the Pakistani doctor that had assisted the CIA in identifying bin Laden’s compound down the road from Pakistan’s military academy in Abbottabad. Nor has the Obama administration addressedPakistan’s support for terrorist organizations, including Lashkar-e-Taiba that conducted the November 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai, India.

The Obama administration notified Congress that Pakistan may submit as much as $1.1 billion in back expeditures for repayment by U.S. taxpayers. Perhaps those taxpayers should be asking why Pakistan is getting anything at all?

8) Obama Administration Ignores Danger Signs Prior to Benghazi Attack, Begins Cover-up Following (Sept. 2012-Present)

The attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya is the subject of much discussion in the past two months, and it may prove to be the defining moment of the Obama administration as a lasting testament to his catastrophic national security and foreign policies. While the establishment media for the most part have ignored the tough questions about the terror attack, the reporting by Catherine Herridge and Jennifer Griffinat Fox NewsEli Lake at the Daily Beast/Newsweek, and Sharyl Attkisson at CBS News, among others, have been outstanding, making a review of the events in Benghazi here unnecessary.

After the elections this coming Tuesday, attention about what happened leading up to the attack and the Obama administration’s apparent cover-up will continue to warrant attention. Despite some initial investigations by Congress, there remain a number of outstanding questions:

What were the reasons behind the rejected requests for additional security?

Why did the State Department ignoring the warning signs of past incidents in Benghazi?

On what basis was it decided to use the Martyrs of the Feb. 17th Revolution Brigade as local security?

Why did the system fail to recognize and respond to the signs of surveillanceand an impending assault the day of the attack?

Who denied the CIA requests for help during attack and why?

Why was a key White House counterterrorism task force not convenedduring attack?

Why did it take a week for anyone in the Obama administration to admit this was a terrorist attack?

What can be attributed to the failure of the FBI to get to the the scene for 24 days, and then only stay for 24 hours?

What was Amb. Stevens was doing in Benghazi and what was the ultimate purpose of the U.S. mission there?

Why have U.S. authorities been unable to question a suspect in Tunisia?

Why did the administration falsely blame an American filmmaker for inciting the attack when they knew 2 hours after the incident it was a planned and coordinated terrorist attack?

That last question leads to the following…

9) Obama Joins with Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to Push Defamation of Islam Prohibition at United Nations (Sept. 2012)

The initial response to the Benghazi terror attack by the Obama administration was to blame the violence on the 14 minute “Innocence of Muslims” film trailer that had been posted on Youtube. They even pushed U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice out to the Sunday morning talk shows the following weekend to push that false narrative.

On Sept. 11th, even before the attack in Benghazi, crowds began to attack the U.S. embassy in Cairo. That prompted the embassy to take to its Twitter account to attack the free speech of American citizens, denouncing the “Innocence of Muslims” film trailer, saying “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.” The White House was compelled to disavow the Cairo embassy tweet, and it was eventually deleted.

Yet two days later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech where she again attacked the film trailer as “disgusting and reprehensible”, inciting others to attack the free speech rights of U.S. citizens, and prompting Islamic groups here and abroad to rail against the First Amendment protections and call for criminalizing ‘defamation of religions’. The reckless comments by the Obama administration also gave license to attack our embassiesall across the Middle East.

But in fact, this agenda was something the Obama administration had signed onto long before the Benghazi attack. In July 2011, Hillary Clinton partnered with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to advance the international criminalization of blasphemy of Islam, a task this administration has taken seriously as seen in a review of their actions in accordance with the OIC’s stated agenda:

Dec 2005: Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) establishes 10 year plan of action that includes international criminalization of ‘Islamophobia’ thru U.N.

July 2011: State Dept and OIC meetings on “Istanbul Process”, Sec. Clinton tells OIC that U.S. government will use “old fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” against ‘Islamophobia’

Sep 2011: WIRED’s Spencer Ackerman begins series of articles attacking individuals within US government for ‘Islamophobia’

Oct 2011: 57 Muslim groups send a letter to White House demanding “purge” of all counterterrorism training materials and “reeduction” of all FBI agents exposed to ‘Islamophobic’ training

Oct 2011: DOJ Civil Rights Division meeting with Islamic groups to discusscriminalizing criticism of Islam as ‘discrimination’

Oct 2011: Joint Chiefs of Staff issues action directive to screen trainers for military intelligence, psyops based solely on Ackerman’s WIRED report

Nov 2011: White House responds to Muslim groups “purge” demand letter,agrees to set up inter-agency task force, including extremist Muslim groups, to oversee FBI counterterrorism training development

Dec 2011: Hillary Clinton holds closed door meeting with OIC to advance ‘Istanbul Process’

Dec 2011: Passage of UN Resolution 16/18 drafted by OIC and backed by the U.S.

Jan 2012: West Point cancels address by decorated founding member of Delta Force after complaints from Hamas front group CAIR

Feb 2012: Islamic groups meet with FBI to ensure compliance with demanded ‘Islamophobia’ purge

Jun 2012: Five members of Congress (“National Security 5″) send letters to Inspectors General at five U.S. government departments and agencies asking for investigations into influence of Muslim Brotherhood on U.S. policy

July 2012: Media and political officials launch campaign against Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) for raising influence of individuals and groups named by DOJ as Muslim Brotherhood in federal court

July 2012: Top DOJ Civil Rights official refuses to vow to Congress not to push blasphemy laws

Sep 2012: Obama admin blames attacks on US embassies on movie trailer

Sep 2012: Encouraged by Obama admin’s denunciation of movie trailer OIC vows to push thru blasphemy resolution at UN, claiming that the film is part of a larger anti-Muslim conspiracy

Sep 2012: In U.N. General Assembly speech, Obama says “the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”

Sep 2012: ‘Innocence of Muslims’ filmmaker arrested and imprisoned, with his first court hearing to conveniently occur three days after presidential election

It is hard to imagine that given the considerable time and effort this administration has devoted to pushing the criminalization of blasphemy, particularly that of Islam, that they would relent in their attacks on the First Amendment in another four-year term.

10) Obama Considers Transfer of ‘Blind Shiekh’ Omar Abdel Rahman to Egypt(Sept. 2012)

As the Obama administration was trying to get its story straight on what exactly happened in Benghazi, Glenn Beck reported exclusively at The Blaze on Sept. 17th the shocking news based on a tip from inside the State Deparement that that Obama was considering a request from the Egyptian government to transfer the ‘Blind Sheikh’ Omar Abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence in federal prison after his conviction for sedition for authorizing attacks against the U.S., including the 1993 World Trade Center attacks.

The continued imprisonment of the Blind Sheikh was one of the grievances listed byOsama bin Laden’s 1996 fatwa against America, and Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi promised in a rally prior to his election that he would secure the release of the Blind Sheikh. As reported here at PJ Media on Sept. 10th by Raymond Ibrahim – one day prior to the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo – that Egyptian media was reporting that terrorist groups had threatened to burn down the embassy to pressure the U.S. for the Blind Sheikh’s release. In July, the Blind Shiekh’s son had threatened the employees of the U.S. Embassy calling for his father’s release.

Following Beck’s report, the administration offered highly parsed denials. The New York Post confirmed with an Obama administration official that the Egyptian government had made the request and House Homeland Security Committee chairman Rep. Peter King (R-NY) confirmed that such a transfer was actively being considered. In response, eight prominent GOP House committee chairmen sent a letter to Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder strenuously opposing any such considerations.

It was only after former Attorney General Mike Mukasey, who as a federal judge had presided over the Blind Sheikh’s trial, blasted the administration in an editorial published in the Wall Street Journal that the White House finally said unequivocally that the Blind Sheikh would stay in prison in the U.S.

Egyptian President Morsi apparently wasn’t convinced of the White House’s stated position, since the following day he stated that he would work for the transfer of the Blind Sheikh back to Egypt – the very thing the Obama administration had just denied they were contemplating. And Middle East media reports indicated that the transfer of the Blind Sheikh had already been considered by the White House earlier this year in the negotiations over the release of American NGO workers imprisoned there, including the son of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

In the event of Obama’s electoral defeat on Tuesday, might he consider such a release as a lame duck? Might another conveniently timed terror attack convince Obama that a deal might be worth doing? If so, with Constitutional powers of pardon and commutation there would probably be nothing that Congress could do to stop him.

Four More Years?

At the end of 2011 I predicted that if Obama’s record in his first three years were any indication, his first term may rival the catastrophe of the Carter administration. One year later, I suspect that Barack Obama’s epic of failure over the past four years may go down as one of the worst national security disasters in American history. And there is now considerable evidence to support that view. My prediction for 2013 is that the illicit assistance that the U.S. has provided to Syrian rebels (a story I recently reported on), much as it did in Libya, and the subsequent blowback will be one of the biggest national security stories of the year.

There are many other stories I could have included in this list, such as the declaration by the Obama administration back in April that the “War on Terror is over”, or the selection by the State Department last month of an Islamic extremist that had previously had hisappointment to a national terrorism commission withdrawn over his support for terrorist groups to represent the U.S. at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) human rights conference in Vienna.

What might we see if Obama is reelected this week? I predict not only more of the same, but an unleashing of this administration – free from the worries of future reelection – that would further imperil America’s national security.

If he is defeated, there is much to be concerned about with a lame duck Obama presidency, as his administration tries to ‘lock-in’ much the institutionalization of his policies as possible. I expect we’ll see even more shocking details emerge concerning the Benghazi attack directly implicating the White House in a cover-up and possibly even more (such as the possible Fast & Furious Libyan arms running connection to Syria). If Obama wins, the likelihood that the insider leaking continues will diminish as insiders will run for cover in self-protection. As Kerry Picket at the Washington Times reported last week, the Obama administration has gone after whistleblowers unlike any of its predecessors.

On Tuesday, much will be decided. In terms of national security the question the American voting public will have to answer is whether we can afford four more years of Barack Obama in the White House?

Patrick Poole is a national security and terrorism correspondent for PJMedia. Follow me on Twitter.

‘We must be allowed to insult each other.’

The Obama administration’s controversial response to the crisis surrounding the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi is slowly inching towards center-stage as an issue in these last weeks leading up to the November elections.  Moderator Candy Crowley caused a fracas in the latest debate when she affirmed President Obama’s contention that he had used the words ‘act of terror’ when describing the violent events of 9/11/12 the following day.

Perhaps the most troubling product of ‘Benghazi-gate’ has been the administration’s preference to blame the attack on acts of free expression in the United States, rather than the agency of the jihadists in Libya who murdered four Americans including the ambassador.  This tendency culminated in Obama’s September 25 speech to the U.N. General Assembly in which he stated, ‘The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.’



But there has been a backlash among those who believe cherished Western traditions of free speech and expression must trump the impulse to appease shariah-adherent forces who wish to effectively impose blasphemy laws on a global scale.

The latest artist to lend his voice to this cause is Rowan Atkinson, a veteran British comedian known primarily in the U.S. for his Mr. Bean character.  Atkinson has launched a campaign for a change in the law that bans ‘insulting words and behaviour’ in the United Kingdom.

Rowan Atkinson: we must be allowed to insult each other 

AFLC Demands End to Taxpayer Funding of Sharia

Today, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, asking the Court to review an appellate court decision which held that a federal taxpayer lacked “standing” to challenge the constitutionality of the federal government’s use of taxpayer funds to support sharia.

This past June, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that a federal taxpayer lacked “standing” to challenge the government’s use of taxpayer funds to support sharia-based activities.  The case, Murray v. United States Department of Treasury, et al., was brought by AFLC Co-Founders and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise on behalf of plaintiff Kevin Murray, a taxpayer and former combat Marine who served in Iraq.  The federal lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleged that the U.S. government’s takeover and financial bailout of AIG violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in that taxpayer dollars were directly funding AIG’s sharia-based businesses.

Muise, who drafted the petition and argued the case before the Sixth Circuit, commented: “The Sixth Circuit’s decision directly conflicts with controlling Supreme Court precedent, which holds that a federal taxpayer has standing to advance an as-applied Establishment Clause challenge to the impermissible use of congressionally-appropriated federal tax funds.  Here, there is no question that federal tax money was being used to fund Islamic religious practices in violation of the Constitution.  The Sixth Circuit’s decision effectively immunizes congressional spending that supports sharia from an as-applied constitutional challenge, thereby undermining the fundamental purpose of the Establishment Clause.”

At the time of the government bailout beginning in September 2008 and continuing to the present, AIG was – and still is – the world leader in promoting sharia-compliant insurance products.  As the Sixth Circuit acknowledged in its opinion, “‘Sharia’ refers to Islamic law based on the teachings of the Quran.  It is the Islamic code embodying the way of life for Muslims and is intended to serve as the civic law in Muslim countries.”  Moreover, sharia is the legal doctrine that demands capital punishment for apostasy and blasphemy and provides the legal and political mandates for global jihad followed religiously by the world’s Muslim terrorists.  By propping up AIG with taxpayer funds, AFLC argued, the U.S. government directly and indirectly promotes Islam and, more troubling, sharia.  In addition, as the Sixth Circuit noted in its opinion, Murray objects to the use of his tax money to support sharia because it “forms the basis for the global jihadist war against the West and the United States.”

After a year of document requests, depositions of current and former government witnesses, and three separate subpoenas issued to AIG and the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Yerushalmi and Muise filed a motion for summary judgment in 2010, arguing that the undisputed facts demonstrate that the government, through its absolute control and ownership of AIG, and with tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, has directly and indirectly promoted and supported sharia as a religious legal doctrine in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Indeed, in its opinion, the Sixth Circuit acknowledged that “AIG subsidiaries ensure the Sharia-compliance of its SCF products by obtaining consultation from ‘Sharia Supervisory Committees.’  The members of these committees are authorities in Sharia law and oversee the implementation of SCF products by reviewing AIG’s operations, supervising the development of SCF products, and evaluating the compliance of these products with Sharia law.”  The court further acknowledged that “AIG’s subsidiaries received a significant portion of the funds AIG received from the federal government” and that “[s]ix AIG subsidiaries have marketed and sold SCF products since AIG began receiving capital injections from the federal government.”  Most important, the court acknowledged that “[n]either party disputes that Treasury Department financing supported all of AIG’s businesses, including the subsidiaries that marketed SCF products.”

Yerushalmi remarked, “This case is ripe for review and reversal.  If the government is permitted to take over a major insurance company with taxpayer dollars and use those tax dollars to promote sharia, an Islamic religious doctrine, then the Establishment Clause is meaningless when dressed up as the government doing business.  Once again, we see our Constitution being cast aside when Islam is involved.”

Published at American Freedom Law Center

Muslim-American Interfaith Group Calls for Blasphemy Laws

The United Muslim Christian Forum, a friendly-sounding “interfaith” group issued a press release on September 18 demanding the prosecution of the makers of the low-quality Innocence of Muslims film that appeared on YouTube. The Islamist agenda of the group is in written form but if the past is any indication, that won’t stop elected officials and Christian leaders from embracing it in order to prove their tolerance.

The United Muslim Christian Forum (UMCF) is an entity of the Muslims of the Americas, whose members follow a cleric in Pakistan named Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani that refers to Osama Bin Laden as a “Saudi activist.” The group says it has 22 “villages” across the country, such as “Islamberg” in Hanock, N.Y. and “Islamville” in York County, S.C.

Gilani also leads Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a group that the State Department said in 1998 is an “Islamic sect that seeks to purify Islam through violence.” In 2009, I obtained a video of Muslim women receiving guerilla warfare training, complete in military fatigue, at “Islamberg.” This should raise questions about the purpose of Islamberg’s 24th Annual Ladies Summer Camp in July 2011.

The UMCF press release claims that the film is part of a conspiracy involving “media terrorism” to cause war between Muslims and Christians and its content should not be protected as free speech. It quotes an unidentified citizen as saying it is “barbarous treason.”

“Therefore we demand immediate action by the appropriate government agencies to stop this film and bring its perpetrators to justice for this malicious hate speech,” it says.

Anti-Semitism is at the core of UMCF’s drive to forge a Muslim-Christian coalition. Its websitestates that the 9/11 attacks were “Stage One of getting the Western World, on behalf of the Jews, to go to war with the Arab world.” Gilani says “Jews are an example of human Satans” and that he’s never encountered an honest Jew.

A number of officials and Christian leaders have embraced the UMCF even though this extremism can be easily found with a simple Google search or review of the group’s website. A photo of Binghamton Mayor Matthew T. Ryan standing with the UMCF sign is on the home page of the website to this day.

The most recent event held by the UMCF was on April 21 at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, S.C. The two Christian speakers were Reverend Sam McGregor of Allison Creek Church and a missionary named Ryan Peters. The UMCF’s main speaker was Khalifa Hussein Adams and the text of his speech is online.

“[Jesus] is a role model for the Sufis, as opposed to the Jews who deprived him of the honor of being born to a Blessed virgin mother. They also conspired to take his life. He was called the son of an illegitimate birth while his mother was termed a woman of ill repute. Perhaps you are well aware of the fact that the Jews brought false allegations of sedition and rebellion against Jesus son of Mary to their Roman masters. Because of this, they say he was crucified,” Adams said.

Adams claims that UMCF’s goal isn’t to convert Christians to Islam, but the text of his speech tells a different story. He says that anyone who believes that Jesus was crucified “must also believe that these Roman and priests were more powerful than God…[and] be prepared to disbelieve in Almighty God, His power and Jesus son of Mary.”

He also made the unbelievable statement that “no Muslim, which you may refer to as an orthodox Muslim, has ever been charged with any act of terrorism within or outside of the United States of America.” He condemned the Muslim Brotherhood and said all terrorist acts are done at the hands of Wahhabists and Shiites who aren’t real Muslims. He said that the members of Muslims of the Americas are the only ones that truly follow Islam.

I heard a similar theme when I attended a UMCF event on April 16, 2011 in Owego, N.Y. One of the speakers was the city’s mayor at that time, Edward Arrington, who is also the chairman of the Deacon Board at the First Baptist Church of Owego. Father Timothy Taugher of Blessed Sacrament Church in Johnson City and Professor Diane O’Heron of Brome Community College, a UMCF board member, also spoke.

The keynote speaker was Muhammad Ali Qadiri, the “mayor” of the Muslims of the Americas site in Red House, V.A. He preached that the U.S. may be destroyed by Allah over Pastor Terry Jones’ burning of the Quran. When I confronted him about his group’s anti-Semitism, he said, “We are trying not to get into the bashing business anymore” but they stand by their statements. His reaction to Gilani’s anti-Semitism was, “it is what it is.” His answer to a question about gunfire being heard at his group’s “villages” was, “What is wrong with shooting your gun in the United States of America?”

The UMCF also held a parade in Binghamton to honor Jesus Christ. According to a local news report, 700 Muslims and Christians attended, with Muslims of the Americas members traveling from as far away as Canada and the Caribbean. An advertisement for the event told attendees not to wear “military-style clothing.”

Advocacy for blasphemy laws and anti-Semitism isn’t what a genuine “interfaith” group is about. The UMCF was created for the sole purpose of making over the image of Muslims of the Americas. The press release and speech at Winthrop University show that the goal is unchanged: To promote the anti-Semitic Islamist ideology of Muslims of the Americas and Sheikh Gilani.

This article was sponsored by the Institute on Religion and Democracy.

The Post-Constitutional President

Team Obama insists that next month’s presidential election is “a choice, not a referendum.”  It sure seems to be with respect to the two candidates very different views on the Constitution.  Mitt Romney makes plain at every turn his commitment to that document, while Barack Obama’s conduct in office has marked him as the post-constitutional president.

Consider just a few examples of Mr. Obama’s systematic disregard of, contempt for and/or deviation from a national charter he swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend:

  • President Obama has simply refused to uphold federal laws with which he disagrees, including the Defense of Marriage Act and immigration statutes.
  • After confirming that, in the absence of congressional authorization, he lacked the authority to give what amounts to an amnesty to young illegal aliens, President Obama went ahead and declared it by executive fiat.
  • Despite repeated congressional objections to federal purchase of a state prison in Thomson, Illinois to which the Obama administration has sought to relocate jhadists currently held as detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Mr. Obama last week authorized its acquisition for $165 million.
  • Ever since it came to office, the Obama administration has sought to accommodate Islamist demands that freedom of expression be curbed, lest it offend Muslims and stoke violence.  For example, in 2009, it co-sponsored a UN Human Rights Council resolution along those lines.  In 2011, it launched the so-called “Istanbul Process” to find common ground with proponents of shariah blasphemy laws who seek to strip us of our First Amendment freedoms.
  • And in September 2012, President Obama announced at the United Nations: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” – a stance indistinguishable from that of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban and al Qaeda.
  • A particularly ominous example of Mr. Obama’s post-constitutional presidency involves his abdication of his first duty as Commander-in-Chief: to secure the common defense.  Having successfully engineered two rounds of deep defense budget reductions totaling some $800 billion over the next ten years, the President is intent on inflicting a further, devastating half-a-trillion dollar, across-the-board cut pursuant to a process known on Capitol Hill as sequestration.

There is no getting around it:  Cuts of this magnitude are going to result in tremendous disruptions of defense programs and attendant job losses in the associated industries.  A federal law known as the WARN Act requires companies with more than 100 employees to give them notice of potential lay-offs sixty days in advance.  With sequestration due to kick in on January 2, 2013, that means the mandatory warning of potential pink slips to come would arrive just before the November 6th election.

To avoid such a particularly untimely reminder of the president’s dismal stewardship of his economic as well as national security portfolios, in July the Obama Labor Department issued guidance to defense contractors saying that the WARN Act’s requirements would not be enforced.  The pretext given was that, since sequestration’s potential effects on particular contracts had not been specified, there was insufficient basis to know the extent of the impact on employment and, therefore, the statute would not apply.

Of course, one reason the potential effects of sequestration are not known with precision less than three months before they are statutorily required to go into effect is that the Obama administration has ordered the Pentagon not to make any plans for implementing that next round of cuts.  This directive was reaffirmed on September 27th.

Then, Team Obama advised contractors the next day that, as The Hill reported: “They would be compensated for legal costs if layoffs occur due to contract cancellations under sequestration – but only if the contractors follow the Labor [Department] guidance.”  In other words, the administration now wants the taxpayer to pick up the tab for violations of the law by those it has induced to engage in them.

Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte, respectively of Arizona, South Carolina and New Hampshire, have been among those tirelessly warning for months of the catastrophe sequestration will inflict on the U.S. military.  They issued a joint statement in response to the president’s latest post-constitutional action which said, in part, “The Obama Administration is cynically trying to skirt the WARN Act to keep the American people in the dark about this looming national security and fiscal crisis.  The president should insist that companies act in accordance with the clearly stated law and move forward with the layoff notices.”  (Detailed estimates of the magnitude of that crisis as it is likely to manifest itself in states, counties, cities and congressional districts across the country can be obtained at www.FortheCommonDefense.org/reports.)

In an important essay published on September 24th in the Wall Street Journal, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey called on legislators to put Mr. Obama on notice: If, as widely expected, he proceeds after the election to yield to Islamist demands that he transfer (presumably to Egypt) or release the lead conspirator in the first World Trade Center attack, Omar Abdul Rahman, it “could be considered the kind of gross betrayal of public trust that would justify removal from high office.”  The same should apply to Mr. Obama’s palpable contempt for the Constitution – something sure to be even more in evidence if he secures reelection and, as he says, “more flexibility” in a second term.