Frank Gaffney's Warning -- and Video Lessons -- for America
On the morning of April 24, Frank Gaffney, Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy, held a live public gathering and online briefing in Washington to discuss his latest project. Gaffney's organization has produced a ten-part video course, which Gaffney narrates, on the Muslim Brotherhood in America. This free course, lasting around ten hours, can be accessed at www.muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com. It explains why we are not winning the war against jihad in America today and names the names of those responsible for the current situation.
Preceding Mr. Gaffney's main talk was Harry E. Soyster, a retired U.S. Army general and member of Gaffney's research team. He pointed out that the CIA's published Book of World Facts (and trends) didn't even mention religion as a significant factor in politics and thus is quite myopic in its worldview. It was also mentioned during this gathering that a senior State Department official had said that "the war on terror is over" since we have "killed most of Al Qaida." The general also mentioned was that in Italy today, crucifixes are being removed from all public places so as not to offend Muslims. Gen. Soyster recalled, in years past, having to register a car in Italy and going to a police station where there was a crucifix on the wall, as it was considered a normal part of Italian culture. Speaking about both Italy and the U.S., he concluded that with the attacks on our culture, the government refuses to look at the true situation and is thus limiting (hindering) itself and stopping any chance of victory (in this profound culture war).
Frank Gaffney then took the podium to give a basic refutation of a prevalent myth today, stating that although we can eliminate a number of semi-literate jihadists overseas, the major thrust of the jihadists now in America is to engage in a civilizational jihad. This stealth jihad currently overshadows the violent acts of such people as Nidal Malik Hasan at Ft. Hood or Faisal Shahzad, who attempted to set off a bomb in Times Square in New York. Gaffney is talking about a civilizational jihad consisting of lawfare, multiple court cases used to financially drain defendants and inhibit free speech, and "insidious informational dominance" that results in Americans imposing a doctrine on ourselves of not offending organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood as they attempt to impose demands of silence at the expense of our Constitution. Also widespread is a civilizational jihad technique of takiya -- deception -- claiming that attempts to influence and change our laws and culture aren't what they clearly are. Mr. Gaffney stated plainly that the Muslim Brotherhood's objectives are indistinguishable from those of al-Qaeda. In fact, he called civilizational jihad "pre-violent" and not merely "non-violent."
The briefing crowd was then shown a fifteen-minute video executive summary of the ten-part online video course on The Muslim Brotherhood in America. The summary touched upon a number of subjects and was narrated by the Center for Security Policy's president.
The first part was a criticism of the constant apologies one sees offered to jihadists, particularly by our higher-level military officers. Also, there was mention that U.S. soldiers themselves are "taught to talk in submissive terms" about Islam. Nidal Malik Hasan's attack at Ft. Hood was classified by the government as "workplace violence," to give an example.
Gaffney then identified Grover Norquist, the tax protester and associate of Abdul Rahman Al-Amoudi, as one of the enablers of the Muslim Brotherhood in the latter's efforts to influence American government leadership at the time of time of the George W. Bush administration. This type of influence has continued under the Obama administration with the placing of Muslims who advocate civilizational jihad in high places. These people advocate policies that do not speak the truth of the Muslim Brotherhood's self-professed programs of wanting to change America to a sharia-compliant state along with continued attempts to normalize the suppression of free speech as it relates to jihadists.
In the final part of the fifteen-minute overview film, Gaffney discusses the last of the ten-part video course, which goes into some detail about what can be done by individuals and groups to stop this assault on our values by civilizational jihad. There are listings of (re)sources at other websites given in that lesson. At the conclusion of the video preview, Mr. Gaffney mentioned that today, the New York City Police Department is being attacked politically, that the Muslim Public Affairs Council is now "educating" the government and calling on Attorney General Holder to investigate the NY Police Department. One would assume that the offense of the NYPD is daring to investigate, find, report, and act on jihadist activities.
"We have to start to understand. It is our purpose to start this debate," Mr. Gaffney said in concluding his prepared remarks. And this was followed by questions by those in attendance and by some online participants.
Someone asked about Huma Abedin, the member of a Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated group, wife of former Congressman Anthony Weiner, and current political confidante of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Frank Gaffney replied that because he has no subpoena power, he is not sure what she is doing, but he knows from public records that Hillary Clinton just gave $1.5 billion to the current post-Mubarak government of Egypt.
The next question, though provocative, was treated seriously by Mr. Gaffney. It was asked whether the film and the briefing was a slander against Muslims. Gaffney replied that such wasn't the case and that he knows that there are millions of Muslims who don't want to live under sharia -- Muslims who came to the U.S. to get away from sharia-based governments. He further stated that during the Cold War, a person's loose association with communists was considered enough to make him suspect but that current definitions of what constitutes a jihadist are not as strict. Gaffney said that he hoped his ten-part video course will be seen as a legitimate inquiry into the nature of the situation today.
Something not mentioned in Mr. Gaffney's reply was that his Center for Security Policy was a participant and sponsor of the early March public show of support by moderate Muslims in favor of the New York City Police Department and their Commissioner Ray Kelly, an event led by Dr. Zuhdi Jasser. In fact, Mr. Gaffney's executive vice president, former Congressman Fred Grandy, was a participant at that event, as I reported in American Thinker.
"To the extent that we ignore the connections of these groups we are insuring our government's defeat in civilizational jihad," Gaffney added. He further stated that the Justice Department has ordered the FBI to purge documents that "offended" Muslim groups because of complaints from the Muslim Brotherhood, thus making the training that FBI agents receive less detailed as to various past facts uncovered and conclusions made, despite whose feelings might be allegedly hurt.
A question was posed by someone listening on the internet in Kansas, asking whether the State Department should classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a hostile foreign power -- essentially a terrorist organization. Gaffney replied that that is his own recommendation.
Another question led to a detailed discussion of a stealth jihad tactic known as having an "Interfaith Dialog." This often extends the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood into churches and leads to changes in how churches act and perceive the Brotherhood. There was also a discussion of schools that require young Americans to pretend they are Muslims for a period of time -- an indulgence given to no other religion in our secular schools.
The question of how sharia is being addressed in American law schools got a response from Mr. Gaffney in which he stated that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has been a major promoter of sharia financial education in law schools. This led to another discussion of a war on women in America caused by courts in the U.S. supporting a sharia-compliant decision in 23 of 27 cases brought so far. New Jersey had a famous -- one could say infamous -- case where a woman was being raped and beaten by her husband, and the family court upheld the practice because it was part of sharia cultural practices, refusing to grant a restraining order against her Moroccan husband.
One of the final questions asked of Mr. Gaffney was all but a stealth jihad act in itself. Someone inquired whether sharia law was similar to Orthodox Jewish Halacha Law, since both have many strictures. Rather than dismissing this out of hand, Gaffney addressed the question with an answer formulated by David Yerushalmi, an Orthodox Jewish attorney he works with. Halacha, Gaffney stated, does not advocate the overthrow of the government and requires submission to the secular law of the land. What went unsaid was that this is very different from sharia law, which seeks to establish a caliphate and make sharia the law of the land, negating the U.S. Constitution. I believe that Mr. Gaffney answered this question more for the audience listening in on the internet and for the other people in the room than for the questioner, who appeared to attempt to advance a false equivalence between the two religions' laws.
Another of the final topics mentioned was the original prosecutorial intention of the successful 2007-2008 Holy Land Foundation case convictions -- namely, for that case to be a first step in further investigations and trials. But Attorney General Holder has been unwilling to investigate or bring to trial anyone else in a Phase Two follow-up.
Among these final remarks, Mr. Gaffney made a plea for his cause in relation to the upcoming U.S. elections. He asked if we, as Americans, want more submissions to sharia -- or do we want something different? What he didn't say is what I will now add.
It would be too easy to assume that one political party is automatically better in regard to fighting a civilizational jihad than the other party. In fact, the extent of the attack on our society's institutions in the name of tolerance (that is, of our tolerance alone) has not been fully understood by either political party's leadership. It is up to all of us to be, as Thomas Jefferson said, eternally vigilant as to the price of our liberty. And this issue will not go away if your favorite political party wins in November. There will still be much to do to keep our Republic.