Tag Archives: John McCain

Congo Headed To The Point of No Return

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)  President Jospeh Kabila announced last week there may be no election this November. The DRC is experiencing a culmination of internal and external factors that threaten the countries fragile stability.

Kabila has followed a long line of African leaders who’ve entrenched themselves in office, which include Mobutu Sese Seko, Idriss Deby, Idi Amin, and Yoweri Musevini. Each supersedes their country’s constitution, became embedded corruption, and establish autocratic regimes.

Earlier this week a congregation of Kabila opponents arrived in Washington, D.C. and urged the U.S. congress to take immediate action against Kabila and his administration, ideas included freezing financial assets and restricting foreign travel. The Obama administration has tried with little success to get the Kabila administration to cooperate on issues of human rights and democracy. Obama lack of urgency may now further alienated the DRC and make relations between the U.S.and DRC obsolete.

Olivier Kamiatu, former minister to Kabila and current member of the national assembly, noted that Kabila has sabotaged the electoral process and has implemented a “policy of chaos and fear.” In contrast, Congo ambassador Francois Balumuene noted Kabila is committed to holding fair and peaceful elections, and under no circumstances can Kabila change the constitution.

Senator John McCain wrote a letter to Balumuene this past April, about a report from Human Rights Watch, noting the country’s arbitrary arrests and unlawful detentions.

Tensions only escalated earlier this month, when DRC presidential candidate Moise Katumbi was charged of hiring American mercenaries, as part of his security detail. On May 13, DRC police fired tear gas at Katambi and his supporters as they marched to the prosecutors office in Lubumbashi.  Katumbi was hospitalized  for six days for respiratory distress after inhaling tear gas. On May 19, 2016, the Kabila government put out an arrest warrant for Katumbi.

The Daily Mail reported on May 21, 2016, that Katumbi had been flown to South Africa for further medical treatment, and deemed a wanted man by the Kabila government. In addition, Darryl Lewis,  security advisor for the Jones Group, who was sent down to assist with Katumbi’s security detail,  was arrested and accused by the DRC justice minister of being a mercenary sent to kill Kabila.

Since its independence from Belgium in 1960, the DRC has never had a peaceful transition of power in a democratically elected process, and Kabila’s defiance is only going to make the transition all the more difficult. Kabila has been in power for fifteen years, finishing the remainder of his fathers term who was assassinated in 2001, and winning to highly disputed elections in 2006 and 2011.

More than a decade has passed since Congo’s last conflict, but the eastern region of the DRC remains a hostile environment. Scores of rebels and armed militias still operate in the area, and have been known to launch attacks on civilians.  According to the United Nations more than 2.7 million Congolese were internally displaced during the two DRC conflicts.

Last February, 21 Hutus were killed and another 40 injured by rival Union of Patriots for the Defense of Innocence (UPDI) and NDC (Nduma Defense of Congo) rebels. Tensions have been rising since the Rwandan Hutu militia (FLDR) began operating in Eastern Congo, and have been accused by authorities of killing 14 Nande in the North Kivu province. In 2015, the Congolese Army launched an offensive against the FLDR which displaced many FLDR fighters throughout East Congo.

Many African leaders are concerned that DRC’s political climate could spill over to any of the nine African states that shares its borders. The most notable ongoing internal conflict is in Burudni, a tiny nation just east of the DRC. Burundi has been engaged in a violent conflict for over a year, when President Pierre Nkurunziza announced he would run for a third term; this lead to civil unrest and now rebel forces are  in a violent campaign against Buruni government forces. The DRC has been sending reinforcements to back the Knurnziza regime defeat the rebel groups and prevent refugees from crossing over into the DRC.

Kabila’s desperate means to remain in power now threatens not just the DRC but the political stability of neighboring African states.



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.

Center releases 2011-2012 Congressional National Security Scorecard

The Center for Security Policy released today its 2011-2012 Congressional National Security Scorecard for the 112th Congress.  The scorecard– which scores all Representatives and Senators on key national security votes in their respective chambers over the past two years– is available both as a single document [PDF] and as a series of individual online reports focusing on each legislator’s national security votes, grouped by state.

The Center scored a total of 22 votes in the U.S. House of Representatives, and 8 votes in the U.S. Senate.  Topics covered included defense sequestration, nuclear deterrence, terrorist detainee policy, the USA PATRIOT Act, North Korea, Taiwan, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Law of the Sea Treaty.

The Center has identified 227 Champions of National Security in the House, and 38 in the Senate, each of whom scored 85% or higher.  Additionally, the Center has identified 149 Lowest Scoring Legislators in the House, and 44 in the Senate, each of whom scored 25% or lower.

The Center’s President and CEO, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., commented:

At a time when threats to the United States are multiplying by the day, this election is enormously consequential for our national security.  It is imperative that the American public be able to assess how our legislators have voted on a range of defense, foreign policy and homeland security matters.    By definition, scorecards look only at issues that were brought to a vote.  While they do not, therefore, reflect other initiatives – on and off Capitol Hill – that also contribute to the totality of a legislator’s views and record, this product is a valuable starting point for understanding and evaluating the role your elected representatives are playing at this critical moment for our national security.


DOWNLOAD the Center for Security Policy National Security Scorecard for the 112th Congress (2011-2012) (PDF: 55 pages; size: 870K)

2012 Scorecard




Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska)* Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Alabama)
Rep. Martha Roby (R-Alabama) Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Alabama)
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Alabama) Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Alabama)
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Alabama) Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Arkansas)
Rep. Tim Griffin (R-Arkansas) Rep. Steve Womack (R-Arkansas)
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Arizona)* Rep. Trent Franks (R-Arizona)
Rep. Ben Quayle (R-Arizona) Rep. Dave Schweikert (R-Arizona)
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Arizona)* Rep. Wally Herger (R-California)*
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-California) Rep. Jeff Denham (R-California)
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-California) Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-California)
Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-California) Rep. “Buck” McKeon (R-California)
Rep. David Dreier (R-California) Rep. Jane Harman (D-California)*
Rep. Ed Royce (R-California) Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-California)*
Rep. Gary Miller (R-California) Rep. Ken Calvert (R-California)
Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-California) Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California)*
Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-California) Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-California)
Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colorado) Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colorado)
Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado) Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colorado)
Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Florida) Rep. Steve Southerland (R-Florida)
Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-Florida) Rep. Richard Nugent (R-Florida)
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Florida) Rep. John Mica (R-Florida)
Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Florida) Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-Florida)*
Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Florida) Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Florida)
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Florida) Rep. Connie Mack (R-Florida)
Rep. Bill Posey (R-Florida) Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Florida)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida) Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Florida)
Rep. Allen West (R-Florida) Rep. Sandy Adams (R-Florida)
Rep. David Rivera (R-Florida) Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Georgia)
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Georgia) Rep. Tom Price (R-Georgia)
Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Georgia) Rep. Austin Scott (R-Georgia)
Rep. Tom Graves (R-Georgia) Rep. Paul Broun (R-Georgia)*
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Georgia)* Rep. John Barrow (D-Georgia)
Rep. Tom Latham (R-Iowa) Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)*
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Illinois)
Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Illinois) Rep. Bob Dold (R-Illinois)
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Illinois) Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Illinois)*
Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-Illinois) Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois)
Rep. Bobby Schilling (R-Illinois)* Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Illinois)*
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Illinois) Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Indiana)
Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Indiana)* Rep. Dan Burton (R-Indiana)*
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana)* Rep. Larry Buchson (R-Indiana)
Rep. Todd Young (R-Indiana) Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas)
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kansas) Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-Kansas)
Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Kentucky)
Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Kentucky) Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Kentucky)*
Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Kentucky) Rep. Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana)
Rep. Jeff Landry (R-Louisiana)* Rep. John Fleming (R-Louisiana)
Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-Louisiana) Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana)
Rep. Charles Boustany (R-Louisiana)* Rep. Andy Harris (R-Maryland)
Rep. Dan Benishek (R-Michigan) Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Michigan)
Rep. Dave Camp (R-Michigan) Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan)
Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Michigan) Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Michigan)*
Rep. Candice Miller (R-Michigan) Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI)*
Rep. John Kline (R-Minnesota) Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-Minnesota)
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-Minnesota)
Rep. Todd Akin (R-Missouri)* Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Missouri)
Rep. Sam Graves (R-Missouri) Rep. Billy Long (R-Missouri)*
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Missouri) Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Missouri)
Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R-Mississippi)* Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Mississippi)
Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-Mississippi) Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Montana)
Rep. Renee Elmers (R-North Carolina) Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-North Carolina)
Rep. Howard Coble (R-North Carolina) Rep. Sue Myrick (R-North Carolina)
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) Rep. Rick Berg (R-North Dakota)
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Nebraska) Rep. Lee Terry (R-Nebraska)
Rep. Adrian Smith (R-Nebraska) Rep. Frank Guinta (R-New Hampshire)
Rep. Charlie Bass (R-New Hampshire) Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-New Jersey)
Rep. Jon Runyan (R-New Jersey) Rep. Chris Smith (R-New Jersey)
Rep. Scott Garrett (R-New Jersey) Rep. Leonard Lance (R-New Jersey)
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) Rep. Steve Pearce (R-New Mexico)*
Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nevada)* Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nevada)
Rep. Pete King (R-New York)* Rep. Bob Turner (R-New York)*
Rep. Michael Grimm (R-New York)* Rep. Nan Hayworth (R-New York)
Rep. Richard Hanna (R-New York) Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY)*
Rep. Tom Reed (R-New York) Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio)
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) Rep. Robert Latta (R-Ohio)
Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) Rep. Steve Austria (R-Ohio)
Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-Ohio) Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio)*
Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Ohio)* Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio)
Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio) Rep. John Sullivan (R-Oklahoma)*
Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Oklahoma) Rep. Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma)
Rep. James Lankford (R-Oklahoma) Rep. Greg Walden (R-Oregon)
Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pennsylvania) Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA)
Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Pennsylvania) Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA) Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pennsylvania) Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Charles Dent (R-Pennsylvania) Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pennsylvania) Rep. Todd Platts (R-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Tim Scott (R-South Carolina) Rep. Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina)
Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-South Carolina) Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina)
Rep. Kristi Noem (R-South Dakota) Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tennessee)
Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN)* Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tennessee)
Rep. Diane Black (R-Tennessee) Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee)
Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-Tennessee) Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)
Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas)
Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Texas) Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas)
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas)
Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas)* Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas)
Rep. Michael Conaway (R-Texas) Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas)
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas)
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas)*
Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) Rep. Francisco Canseco (R-Texas)
Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Texas) Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas)
Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) Rep. John Carter (R-Texas)
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)
Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Virginia)* Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Virginia)
Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Virginia) Rep. Robert Hurt (R-Virginia)
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia) Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Virginia)*
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Virginia) Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA)
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Washington)* Rep. Cathy McMorris Rogers (R-WA)
Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Washington) Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin)*
Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wisconsin) Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wisconsin)
Rep. David McKinley (R-West Virginia) Rep. Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV)
 Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming)*

NOTE: Legislators with an asterisk next to their name, although not present for every scored vote, voted in a manner consistent with national security on 85% or more of the scored votes for which they were present.




Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Alabama)
Sen. John Boozman (R-Arkansas) Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona)
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut)
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia)
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia) Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) Sen. Michael Crapo (R-Idaho)
Sen. Dan Coats (R-Indiana) Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas)
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky)
Sen. David Vitter (R-Louisiana) Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi)
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi) Sen. Richard Burr (R-North Carolina)
Sen. John Hoeven (R-North Dakota) Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Nebraska)
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire) Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma)
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Sen. John Thune (R-South Dakota)
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tennessee)* Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee)
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin)
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyoming)* Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming)*


NOTE: Legislators with an asterisk next to their name, although not present for every scored vote, voted in a manner consistent with national security on 85% or more of the scored votes for which they were present.

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.

A Disturbing Event: The American Conservative Union Embraces an Islamist

The conservative movement appears to be at a crossroads in its approach to the threat of Islamic supremacism—not only abroad but at home. Does the emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood as the dominant force of the “Arab Spring” bode ill for America? Or is the Brotherhood merely another “political actor” as the Obama administration would have us believe? Is Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, a potential security risk worth investigating, as Representative Michele Bachmann and four conservative congressmen have suggested? Or is the mere raising of this question a witch-hunt, as Senator John McCain and Speaker John Boehner and numerous Democrats maintain?…

The full article can be read at frontpagemag.com.

The G.O.P.’s One-Legged Stool?

Ronald Reagan forged a winning electoral majority on the stable foundation of what he described as a three-legged stool: fiscal discipline, traditional values and peace through strength.  He understood it to be an appealing platform to the American people writ large, including of course economic, social and national security conservatives and the rest of his Republican Party.

Unfortunately, it seems increasingly, that today’s Republicans want to bet that they can regain the White House by cutting off two legs from that stool – disregarding, if not dismissing outright conservative social issues and national security themes.

A case in point came last week as the G.O.P.’s 2012 presidential nominee, Governor Mitt Romney, declared that his campaign was “not going to talk about” the Left’s attempt to punish the owners of Chick-fil-A for their stand on gay marriage.  Neither would it be talking about the request made by Rep. Michele Bachmann and four of her colleagues for an investigation into Muslim Brotherhood influence operations that appear with increasing success to be targeting the Obama administration.

Whatever one thinks about marriage between people of the same sex, surely a man running as a business-friendly candidate would say whether he favors boycotts of privately owned businesses on the basis of the beliefs of their shareholders?

Similarly, the Republican standard-bearer could surely observe that there are statutes and administrative guidelines designed to protect individuals and the government from the possibility that foreign associates may seek to exercise influence on family members, friends, colleagues or their federal agencies that employ them.  He could make clear that he supports the rights of members of the House of Representatives to inquire whether there have been breaches of those rules.  He can say that he’s reserving judgment on their concerns until we learn the results of the requested Inspector General inquiries.

Instead, Gov. Romney is signaling an indifference to these topics – and, in the process, sending a message that can only alienate those for whom such issues are not just important but determinative of their votes.

In past elections since the Reagan era, Republican establishment candidates and their strategists have taken the support of conservatives of all stripes for granted, sometimes contemptuously declaring “they have nowhere else to go.”  Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush (during his reelection race) and John McCain are testament to the failure to appreciate that, while conservatives may not vote for their opponent, they do have somewhere to be on election day:  They can stay home

Mitt Romney is not exactly enjoying a surfeit of enthusiasm for his candidacy as it is.  Failing to address matters of concern to the various parts of the Republican base – and to the future of our nation – is a formula for his defeat, no matter how compelling his position may be on economic and fiscal matters, the one leg of the stool on which his campaign currently rests.

It happens that there is another powerful reason for addressing in particular the national security portfolio and the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood.  The next Commander-in-Chief will inherit a world substantially remade by the Obama Doctrine: “emboldening our enemies, undermining our friends and diminishing our country.”

Arguably, nowhere is that more true than in the parts of the globe where the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies are ascendant.  That rise – and all that it portends for our one reliable ally, Israel, and what remains of our “friends” in the Mideast, South Asia, North and sub-Saharan Africa – will present grave challenges to our security and other interests.

We need to know how the man who would replace President Obama will contend with such a threat.  To do so, we at least need to understand whether he regards it as such.  And, if so, whether he is going to allow some of the factors that appear to have contributed to it – namely, the access the Obama administration has afforded to its councils to individuals with documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood – to operate in his campaign and White House.

It is gratifying that Mitt Romney did not join some other Republicans in denouncing Representatives Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, Trent Franks, Lynn Westmoreland and Tom Rooney for seeking answers to these sorts of questions as they relate to the present administration.  Still, if he wants to become the leader of the Free World in the next one, Gov. Romney is going to have to address the mortal threat to it posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its civilization jihad – a stealthy, insidious form of subversion that will, unless checked, remove all three legs of the Reagan “stool” and the constitutional republic it has helped build and preserve.

The Atlantic Whitewashes Islamist Groups in Abedin Controversy

After a week of evidence coming to light about the connections of Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief-of-Staff Huma Abedin to Islamist groups, the Muslim Brotherhood and internationally-designated terrorist enities, the response from the left is ridicule, misrepresentation, caricature and—on the most damning evidence—utter silence. 

A cartoonish chart prepared by The Atlantic’s Serena Dai includes jaw-dropping distortions of Islamist groups—several being officially-designated terrorist groups—to make Abedin’s family and personal connections with them seem benign. 

The blue dots populating “Alleged Connection between Huma Abedin, Muslim Brotherhood, and other things that are bad” are laughably incomplete. In her effort to paint these multiple and serious affiliations as a comical six degrees of separation  to the Muslim Brotherhood (and provide talking points to that effect to others in the left media), Dai whitewashes the fact that most of the organizations listed can reasonably be considered Brotherhood fronts, or, at minimum, heavily populated by Muslim Brothers or ideological Islamist fellow travelers. 

The controversy surrounding Huma Abedin—and, importantly, the extent to which her connections to Islamist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, alarmingly seemed not to factor into a background check—arise from letters to Inspector Generals of five departments written by a group of Congressmen Newt Gingrich recently dubbed the “National Security Five.” Examining these connections are crucial in light of the advice the Deputy Chief-of-Staff is giving to her boss, the Secretary of State, at a time when Islamist groups openly declaring jihad against America are being rewarded by the Obama administration with legitimacy in the political process. 

Most egregiously, Dai’s chart omits the closest connection Abedin has to Islamist groups and individuals: she was, herself, an assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs for seven years along with terrorism financier Abdullah Omar Naseef. The Journal and the Institute for which her father also worked, was the brainchild of Naseef, who found time to found the Rabita Trust (banned by US Treasury just after 9/11) and serve as secretary general to the Muslim World League (MWL), a group founded by the trusted deputy and son-in-law of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and, reportedly, one of al Qaeda’s prime sources of funding. When looking for a head of the Rabita Trust, Naseef turned to Wael Hamza Jalidan, who had, by then, been an associate of Osama Bin Laden in al Qaeda. 

In other words, many of the people and groups with whom a man like Naseef surrounds himself (at minimum) tend to be what you’d call “problematic,” and a locus of these links should (again, at the very minimum) give a background investigator pause—or, more sensibly, ring the alarm bells—if he finds not one but several links to Naseef or people like him. 

For example, Huma Abedin is linked to Naseef in several ways: (1) herself, through her employment at an organization Naseef founded and chaired, the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs; (2) through her mother, who was also employed by Naseef’s IMMA; (3) through her late father, who served with Naseef as part of the Muslim World League; and finally (4) through her brother, a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, a group which includes Naseef as a board member. That’s a cluster of associations with merely one man, and that one man is a terror funder. 

But let’s pause for a moment. These links are not “guilt by association”—a term the left has wrung of any meaning, transformed into an all-purpose self-satisfied comeback. As Andy McCarthy explains:

A person is not required to have done anything wrong to be denied a high-ranking government position, or more immediately, the security clearance allowing access to classified information that is necessary to function in such a job. There simply need be associations, allegiances, or interests that establish a potential conflict of interest… Government jobs and access to the nation’s secrets are privileges, not rights. That is why the potential conflict needn’t stem from one’s own associations with hostile foreign countries, organizations, or persons. Vicarious associations, such as one’s parents’ connections to troublesome persons and organizations, are sufficient to create a potential conflict.

In an effort to caricature the exhaustive research done by Walid Shoebat, Andy McCarthy, the Center for Security Policy, and others, the Atlantic proceeds to whitewash and downplay as uncontroversial the individuals and groups that the Abedin family is deeply connected with. A sampling:

Dai’s description for the group Abedin’s mother founded, the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), is cynically deceptive: “Its website states a goal of defending women’s rights.” In Arabic, its website also recommends repeal of laws forbidding female genital mutilation, child marriage, and marital rape. For justification of these barbaric positions clearly in conflict with the mandate of “protecting women’s rights,” IICWC turns to Yusuf al-Qaradawi—the infamous Hitler-praising cleric who is considered to be the Muslim Brotherhood’s chief jurist. Oh, and according to the IICWC’s own website (again, in Arabic), Qaradawi was also the author of the group’s charter.

In addition, the Atlantic omits references to Women in Islam, the book Saleha Abedin and her IICWC published, translated into English and distributed through the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), the organization with which Huma Abedin herself was employed. Excerpts of the book were published by the Center for Security Policy, including a chapter arguing for women’s participation in armed jihad, stoning or lashing for adultery, curtailing free expression based on what would benefit Islam, and more. To establish these positions—again, as far from a western notion of human rights as you can get—the book relies on extensive citations from opinions of Muslim Brotherhood figures like Qaradawi and Sayiid Qutb, the ideological inspiration for nearly every modern jihadist group, including al Qaeda.

Moving on, there’s the International Islamic Council for Da’wah and Relief (IICDR), which Dai refers to as a group that merely “connects various Islamic organizations.” You could say that. You could also say it was banned in Israel for funding Hamas as part of a scheme by the very same Qaradawi and his Union For Good. Saleha Abedin attended IICDR’s board meetings, and their own websites and publications acknowledge the linkage. 

On to the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), which Dia euphemistically says, “helps the social development of Muslim youth.” As Andrew McCarthy—who has published invaluable information on Abedin’s connections and putting them into context, recounts: 

Its principal role is the indoctrination of young Muslims in supremacist ideology. As outlined in one of its pamphlets, Islamic Views, it aims to “teach our children to love taking revenge on the Jews and the oppressors, and teach them that our youngsters will liberate Palestine and al-Quds [i.e., Jerusalem] when they go back to Islam and make Jihad for the sake of Allah.” As Matthew Levitt extensively details in Hamas: Politics, Charity and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad, WAMY has been a financial supporter of Hamas and al-Qaeda.

“An Islamic organization aiming to further the religion” is how Dai gingerly describes WAMY’s parent organization, the aforementioned World Muslim League (WML). Ian Johnson’s bestselling investigative book on the Muslim Brotherhood in the west, Mosque in Munich, details the development of the WML as an innovation of the Brotherhood at the highest levels, led by Said Ramadan. 

And on and on. 

This episode illustrates the extent to which the left is determined to downplay the explicit danger of well-funded Islamist groups and individuals, ranging from the ideological incubators of shariah and jihad to actual government-designated terrorist sponsors. Rather than being the hyper-partisan defense of Huma Abedin that the writer intends, this piece—and the accompanying chart—willfully contributes to a lack of understanding of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood that threaten our way of life, our freedoms, and our national security.

Even more, the hyperventilation on this issue by the likes of CNN’s Anderson Cooper, the evening lineup of MSNBC, John McCain, and Keith Ellison (who’s got his own Muslim Brotherhood ties) has the effect of legitimizing the Muslim Brotherhood and similar radical groups, effectively delivering the American Muslim community into its hands. If any criticism of the Brotherhood or its court-established front groups is tantamount to Islamophobia and is off limits, then our national security is in a perilous place. And, like their efforts to destroy anti-communists during the Cold War, we’ve got the left to blame.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s American Defenders

On Wednesday, John Brennan, US President Barack Obama’s assistant for homeland security and counterterrorism, made a quick trip to Israel to discuss Hezbollah’s massacre of Israeli tourists in Burgas, Bulgaria last week.
Hopefully it was an instructive meeting for the senior US official, although his Israeli interlocutors were undoubtedly dumbstruck by how difficult it was to communicate with him. Unlike previous US counterterror officials, Brennan does not share Israel’s understanding of Middle Eastern terrorism.
Brennan’s outlook on this subject was revealed in a speech he gave two years ago in Washington. In that talk, Brennan spoke dreamily about Hezbollah. As he put it, "Hezbollah is a very interesting organization."
He claimed it had evolved from a "purely terrorist organization" to a militia and then into an organization with members in Lebanon’s parliament and serving in Lebanon’s cabinet.
Brennan continued, "There are certainly elements of Hezbollah that are truly a concern for us what they’re doing. And what we need to do is find ways to diminish their influence within the organization and to try to build up the more moderate elements."
Perhaps in a bid to build up those "moderate elements," in the same address, Brennan referred to Israel’s capital city Jerusalem as "al Quds," the name preferred by Hezbollah and its Iranian overlords.
Brennan’s amazing characterization of Hezbollah’s hostile takeover of the Lebanese government as proof that the terrorist group was moderating was of a piece with the Obama administration’s view of Islamic jihadists generally.
If there are "moderate elements," in Hezbollah, from the perspective of the Obama administration, Hezbollah’s Sunni jihadist counterpart – the Muslim Brotherhood – is downright friendly.
On February 10, 2011, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper made this position clear in testimony before the House Select Committee on Intelligence. Clapper’s testimony was given the day before then Egyptian president and longtime US ally Hosni Mubarak was forced to resign from office. Mubarak’s coerced resignation owed largely to the Obama administration’s decision to end US support for his regime and openly demand his immediate abdication of power. As Israel warned, Mubarak’s ouster paved the way for the Muslim Brotherhood’s ascendance to power in Egypt.
In his testimony Clapper said, "The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ is an umbrella term for a variety of movements. In the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular which has eschewed violence and has decried al-Qaida as a perversion of Islam. They have pursued social ends, betterment of the political order in Egypt, etc."
Watching Clapper’s testimony in Israel, the sense across the political spectrum, shared by experts and casual observers alike was that the US had taken leave of its senses.
The slogan of the Muslim Brotherhood is "Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Koran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the path of Allah is our highest hope." 
How could such a high-level US official claim that such an organization is "largely secular"? 
Every day Muslim Brotherhood leaders call for the violent annihilation of Israel. And those calls are often combined with calls for jihad against the US. For instance, in a sermon from October 2010, Muslim Brotherhood head Mohammed Badie called for jihad against the US. 
As he put it "Resistance [i.e. terrorism] is the only solution against the Zio-American arrogance and tyranny, and all we need is for the Arab and Muslim peoples to stand behind it and support it."
Badie then promised his congregants that the death of America was nigh. In his words, "A nation that does not champion moral and human values cannot lead humanity, and its wealth will not avail it once Allah has had His say, as happened with [powerful] nations in the past. The US is now experiencing the beginning of its end, and is heading towards its demise."
The obliviousness of Brennan and Clapper to the essential nature of Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood are symptoms of the overarching ignorance informing the Obama administration’s approach to Middle Eastern realities.
Take, for instance, the Obama administration’s policy confusion over Syria. This week The Washington Post reported that the Obama administration lacks any real knowledge of the nature of the opposition forces fighting to overthrow the Syrian regime. Whereas one senior official told the paper, "We’re identifying the key leaders, and there are a lot of them. We are in touch with them and we stay in touch," another official said that is not the case.
As the latter official put it, "The folks that have been identified have been identified through Turkey and Jordan. It is not because of who we know. It’s all through liaison."
The fact that the US government is flying blind as Syria spins out of control is rendered all the more egregious when you recognize that this was not inevitable. America’s ignorance is self-inflicted.
In the 16 months that have passed since the Syrian civil war broke out, the administration passed up several opportunities to develop its own ties to the opposition and even to shape its agenda. Two examples suffice to make this clear.
First, in October 2011, according to the Beirut-based Arabic news portal al Nashra, Dalia Mogahed, Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, blocked a delegation of Middle Eastern Christians led by Lebanon’s Maronite Patriarch Bechara Rai from meeting with Obama and members of his national security team at the White House. According to al Nashra, Mogahed canceled the meeting at the request of the Muslim Brotherhood in her native Egypt.
The White House canceled the meeting days after Rai visited with then French president Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris. During that meeting Rai angered the French Foreign Ministry when he warned that it would be a disaster for Syria’s Christian minority, and for Christians throughout the region, if the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad is overthrown. Rai based this claim on his assessment that Assad would be replaced by a Muslim Brotherhood- dominated Islamist regime.
And nine months later it is obvious that he was right. With Syria’s civil war still raging throughout the country, the world media is rife with reports about Syria’s Christians fleeing their towns and villages en masse as Islamists from the Syrian opposition target them with death, extortion and kidnapping.
Then there are the US’s peculiar choices regarding the opposition figures it favors. Last August, in a bid to gain familiarity with the Syrian opposition, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with opposition representatives at the State Department. Herb London from the Hudson Institute reported at the time that the group Clinton met with was dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Members of the non-Islamist, pro-Western Syrian Democracy Council composed of Syrian Kurds, Alawites, Christians, Druse, Assyrians and non-Islamist Sunnis were not invited to the meeting.
Clinton did reportedly agree to meet with representatives of the council separately. But unlike the press carnival at her meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood members, Clinton refused to publicize her meeting with the non-Islamist opposition leaders. In so acting, she denied these would-be US allies the ability to claim that they enjoyed the support of the US government.
The question is why? Why is the Obama administration shunning potential allies and empowering enemies? Why has the administration gotten it wrong everywhere? 
In an attempt to get to the bottom of this, and perhaps to cause the administration to rethink its policies, a group of US lawmakers, members of the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees led by Rep. Michele Bachmann sent letters to the inspectors-general of the State, Homeland Security, Defense, and Justice departments as well as to the inspector-general of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. In those letters, Bachmann and her colleagues asked the Inspectors General to investigate possible penetration of the US government by Muslim Brotherhood operatives.
In their letters, and in a subsequent explanatory letter to US Rep. Keith Ellison from Rep. Bachmann, the lawmakers made clear that when they spoke of governmental penetration, they were referring to the central role that Muslim groups, identified by the US government in Federal Court as Muslim Brotherhood front organizations, play in shaping the Obama administration’s perception of and policies towards the Muslim Brotherhood and its allied movements in the US and throughout the world.
That these front groups, including the unindicted terror funding co-conspirators, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), play a key role in shaping the Obama administration’s agenda is beyond dispute. Senior administration officials including Mogahed have close ties to these groups. There is an ample body of evidence that suggests that the administration’s decision to side with the hostile Muslim Brotherhood against its allies owes to a significant degree to the influence these Muslim Brotherhood front groups and their operatives wield in the Obama administration.
To take just one example, last October the Obama administration agreed to purge training materials used by US intelligence and law enforcement agencies and eliminate all materials that contained references to Islam that US Muslim groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood had claimed were offensive. The administration has also fired counterterrorism trainers and lecturers employed by US security agencies and defense academies that taught their pupils about the doctrines of jihadist Islam. The administration also appointed representatives of Muslim Brotherhood-aligned US Muslim groups to oversee the approval of training materials about Islam for US federal agencies.
For their efforts to warn about, and perhaps cause the administration to abandon its reliance on Muslim Brotherhood front groups, Bachmann and her colleagues have been denounced as racists and McCarthyites. 
These attacks have not been carried out only by administration supporters. Republican Senator John McCain denounced Bachmann from the floor of the Senate. Republican Senator Marco Rubio later piled on attacking her for her attempt to convince the administration to reconsider its policies. Those policies again place the most radical members of the US Muslim community in charge of the US government’s policies toward the Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadist movements.
It is clear that the insidious notion that the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate and friendly force has taken hold in US policy circles. And it is apparent that US policymaking in the Middle East is increasingly rooted in this false and dangerous assessment.
In spearheading an initiative to investigate and change this state of affairs, Bachmann and her colleagues should be congratulated, not condemned. And their courageous efforts to ask the relevant questions about the nature of Muslim Brotherhood influence over US policymakers should be joined, not spurned by their colleagues in Washington, by the media and by all concerned citizens in America and throughout the free world.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

The Muslim Brotherhood, Clinton State Department, John McCain and Todays Lax Security Mindset

There was a time when it was considered necessary and proper to be concerned about possible foreign influences in US government and military service. Way back in 1981 when I first filled out forms as part of the process for joining the US military (it was a DOD form, I don’t remember the number) I had to answer a specific question regarding travel. The question asked if I had traveled to any of a list of nations after certain dates (all communist bloc countries) with a date listed by each nation (the date that each country had turned communist).

Anyone who joined the military in the Cold War era probably remembers this form and this question. If the answer to the question for any of the nations involved was "yes" you had to provide a complete explanation for the reason for the trip, when it took place, etc. Having never visited countries like Cuba, North Korea, East Germany, the Soviet Union, etc., I can’t say that I know what the process would have been had I answered yes.

But the point is, if you wanted to join the US military and you had even visited any communist countries, the Department of Defense wanted to know about it.

Fast forward to today. We are locked in a mortal struggle against a force not unlike communism. In fact, it has been called "communism with a god." That force is Islam as defined by the Shariah doctrine which forms the basis for it. There are certain countries and organizations that are prominent in the enemy threat doctrine. Yet, to my knowledge, today we have no similar safeguards in place to what the DOD had during the Cold War years to check on the influence of foreign powers on American institutions.

For instance, are any questions ever raised about travel to Iran, Syria or Sudan, three countries on the State Department’s list of terrorist sponsoring nations? For that matter, what about travel to Yemen, like Carlos Bledsoe did where he was indoctrinated to wage jihad in the USA by Anwar al-Alwaki? What about travel to the tribal areas of Pakistan, where the Times Square bomber traveled and received training? For that matter, how about travel to Saudi Arabia? After all, the Salafi strain of Islam that gave birth to Al Qaeda has its seat there and most of Al Qaeda’s cannon fodder seems to come from Saudi Arabia.

Then there is the whole present question of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is best described as the forefather of all modern Jihadist terrorist groups. Its apologists and proponents claim that the Muslim Brotherhood has completely eschewed violence, yet the available evidence proves otherwise. HAMAS was founded as a Muslim Brotherhood wing and has been designated a foreign terrorist organization by the US State Department. HAMAS is one of the deadliest Jihadist organizations in the world, having carried out numerous Islamikaze bombings. And make no mistake, HAMAS has a large presence inside the USA.

There seems to have developed in recent years some romanticized view of the Muslim Brotherhood among certain naive political factions in the USA–and not just Democrats. Rather than being viewed as an organization in the political wing of a global insurgency, the Muslim Brotherhood is unfortunately being embraced in the West and the US. Senator John McCain, for instance, seems to have become smitten with the Muslim Brotherhood after meeting with them for a few hours in Egypt. But no one has embraced the Muslim Brotherhood quite like the Obama administration. The Obama administration has established close ties to Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the US and met with them at length and frequently. All indications are that the Muslim Brotherhood plays a prominent role in the Obama administration. Organizations like CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations) and ISNA (the Islamic Society of North America) were named unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terrorism financing conviction in US history. (Attorney General Holder declined to prosecute these organizations when he came to office, despite intentions by others in the Justice Department to do so.) In the Holy Land Foundation trial, in documented evidence that was stipulated to by the defense, both CAIR and ISNA were identified as Muslim Brotherhood organizations.

And yes, a high-level member of the Clinton staff at the State Department, Huma Abedin, comes from a prominent Muslim Brotherhood family. Her father, her brother and her mother all have prominent positions in the Muslim Brotherhood apparatus. If during the Cold War such a person came from a family with extensive ties to the Communist Party of Romania or East Germany, there would have been ample reason to conduct a security investigation. But in today’s politically correct surreal world of Washington DC "go along to get along" culture, it seems that no questions can be raised. This is the same culture that looked the other way while a known Jihadist, Major Nidal Hassan, hid right out in the open in the US Army spouting Islamic Jihad doctrine, culminating in the terrible terrorist attack at Fort Hood.

Well, the Center for Security Policy DID raise questions. The Center produced a 10-part video course on the Muslim Brotherhood in America that every American should watch: http://www.muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com. Among others members of Congress, Michelle Bachmann has written a letter to inspectors general of key Washington departments inquiring as to Muslim Brotherhood influence in Washington’s halls of power. For her trouble, the likes of Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Anderson Cooper and a host of Leftist media from the Huffington Post to the Los Angeles Times and MSNBC have attacked Rep. Bachmann.

They have all done so in a total vacuum of knowledge about the Muslim Brotherhood, the Holy Land Foundation trial and American fronts like CAIR and ISNA.

The Center has published a rebuttal to this shrill, emotional criticism.

This all stems from a complete failure of our leadership to put America on a war footing in the wake of 9/11. Our leaders have failed to identify the enemy. They have failed to even try to understand the enemy threat doctrine. In fact they have even denied that an enemy threat doctrine even exists. As a result of this culture, an imperialist, nefarious organization with long-standing ties to terrorism and with goals identical to those of Al Qaeda itself, namely the Muslim Brotherhood, is treated as a friend, rather than as a foe. If you even suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood might be an enemy of America, Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Anderson Cooper will attack you as if you are a wild-eyed bomb-thrower. We are indeed through the looking glass.

Center Responds To McCain On Muslim Brotherhood; Invites Dr. Saleha Abedin To Discuss Her Policy Positions

Washington, D.C.:  Senator John McCain weighed in today on an intensifying controversy concerning the influence being exercised within the U.S. government by Muslim Brotherhood-associated individuals and organizations.   In his remarks, the Arizona legislator assailed five of his House colleagues – Reps. Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, Trent Franks, Lynn Westmoreland and Tom Rooney – and an online video curriculum produced by the Center for Security Policy, The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within (www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com).
Unfortunately, in so doing, Sen. McCain made clear that he: had not actually reviewed the curriculum; was unfamiliar with its extensive documentation of a stealthy “civilization jihad” being mounted against this country, its civil society institutions and government; and misrepresented its findings.  By contrast, with the benefit of that resource and their own extensive research, the Representatives wrote the State Department Inspector General, Amb. Harold Geisel, making the factual observation that his agency has recently adopted a number of policies that are “enormously favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood and its interests.”  They went on to characterize those policies as ones that are “deeply problematic and may even pose security risks for this nation, its people and interests.”  (The five Members of Congress also sent similar letters to the IGs of the Departments of Justice, Defense and Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.  http://bachmann.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=303218.)
The legislators requested that the Inspector General “conduct a formal investigation or evaluation of the extent to which Muslim Brotherhood-tied individuals and entities have helped achieve the adoption of these State Department actions and policies or are involved in their execution.”
One of those actions was the Secretary of State’s February 2010 visit to Dar Al-Hekma College in Jedda, Saudi Arabia.  On that occasion, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demonstrated her support for the views and achievements of the college’s founder, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, the mother of Mrs. Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin.
In the interest of exploring Dr. Abedin’s policy recommendations, the Center for Security Policy today extended to her the attached invitation to participate in a dialogue.  A particular focus of this dialogue would be to illuminate attitudes towards shariah espoused by the organization with which Dr. Abedin has long been associated: the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child.  She has also been identified as a leader in Saudi Arabia of the Muslim Sisterhood.
Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. said, “Congresswoman Bachmann and her colleagues have rendered a tremendous public service by raising an alarm about the dangers posed by the Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘civilization jihad.’  Far from being chastised for doing so, by Sen. McCain or others, they should be applauded and aided in their efforts to have the extent of Brotherhood influence operations properly investigated by Inspectors General and/or congressional committees.  We very much hope that a conversation with Dr. Abedin will help inform such deliberations.”

The Center’s invitation letter to Dr. Abedin is available here.

– 30 –
About the Center for Security Policy
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.