Published Articles

The Epoch Times
Migrant Caravans Part of Larger Plan to Damage US
BY BRAD JOHNSON
November 1, 2018 Updated: November 1, 2018

Commentary
The caravan of migrants that originated from Honduras is still en route to the U.S.’s southern border, with a second column now underway, and information that there’s a third one in its early stages.
Recently, Vice President Mike Pence said that Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez told him the caravan “was organized by leftist groups in Honduras financed by Venezuela and sent north to challenge our sovereignty and challenge our border.”
In the days following that revelation, additional supporting details and evidence were reported by the left-leaning Wall Street Journal, the conservative Heritage Foundation, and others that confirm Venezuela’s involvement. Venezuela has a long and well-documented history of antagonism towards the United States, and has declared itself a member of an “axis of unity,” working with Iran, Cuba, and others, against “U.S. imperialism.”
In fact, Iranian intelligence and military officers are embedded in Venezuela’s equivalent organizations, and not just in low-level support positions, but also in higher-level positions of authority. The same and more can be said about the highly professional intelligence agency of Cuba, which has long been a thorn in the side of the United States.
Death by a Thousand Cuts
Venezuela, in conjunction with its friends and supporters, has implemented a strategy of asymmetrical warfare in an attempt to attack the United States, since they lack the military capability to inflict a direct defeat.
Asymmetrical warfare is the new modern term, with a mildly convoluted definition, for an ancient concept made well-known by the Chinese. It’s remembered from history as “death by a thousand cuts;” that is, inflict damage whenever and however you can to weaken your enemy, to the point where they can ultimately be defeated.
These columns of illegal migrants are purposely designed and implemented to inflict damage to the United States and undermine U.S. sovereignty, while avoiding direct conflict. They were likely conceived and financed by Iran, then implemented by Venezuela working closely with the Cubans and Nicaraguans to sow political division and chaos in the United States and absorb resources at little expense to them.
To make this work, there is close cooperation and coordination with transnational criminal organizations, such as narco-traffickers and gangs, which are active particularly throughout Mexico and who are very strong near Mexico’s shared border with the United States.
An Alliance
Less well-known and understood is the Bolivarian Alliance, better known by its acronym from Spanish as Alianza Bolivariana or ALBA.
ALBA was founded by Venezuela and Cuba in 2004 and is an association of leftist governments in Latin America and the Caribbean who also cooperate on economic and propaganda efforts with like-minded governments in the region. They are supported by Iran, China, and Russia, who all share the United States as their common foe. ALBA operates extensively and almost entirely unopposed, and its underlying strategy remains constant, which is to damage and ultimately destroy the United States using asymmetrical warfare.
As a retired CIA career intelligence operations officer, I can assure everyone that the intelligence services of Iran, Russia, China, Cuba, and Venezuela, as well as the trained intelligence personnel from all terrorist groups and any others who have access, consider this migrant column an irresistible opportunity to infiltrate people into the United States. I certainly would, if in their position.
The Guatemalan president reported that about 100 people arrested out of the column marching towards the United States have links to terrorism, including ISIS. Former CIA Director and current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has warned publicly just how dangerous Venezuela is and that the threat needs to be taken seriously.
As a professional in the intelligence world, I understand that the United States has enemies. I understand that cooperation exists between terrorist groups, transnational criminal groups, and hostile foreign governments. It is the way of things.
However, we find ourselves in the predicament where the liberal Democratic Party leadership and the liberal mainstream media seemingly operate in agreement with the activities of these forces, who intend to damage and ultimately destroy us.
Brad Johnson is a retired CIA operations officer and a former Chief of Station. He is president of Americans for Intelligence Reform.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

The Daily Caller
OPINION: Trump Administration Calls Out Eurocracy Over Free Speech
5:34 PM 09/11/2018 | Opinion by Christopher C Hull PhD
This morning, the Trump administration officially objected to the latest attempt by a Europe-based multilateral organization to shut down free speech, joining a chorus of complaints by activists and even European members of parliament.
The United States Mission to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (USOSCE) expressed concern in its opening statement about the largest European gathering of human rights organizations of the year, which takes place in Warsaw, Poland.
Referring to a new Code of Conduct required by OSCE Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) to register for the meeting, the Trump administration statement said in part:
[T]he United States must object to certain provisions of the Code of Conduct promulgated by ODIHR.
A number of the provisions amount to content-based restrictions on the participation of civil society.
We need not — and do not — agree with all of the ideas espoused here to defend the right of civil society to participate.
When we disagree with the ideas presented, we should respond with alternative viewpoints, not censorship.
We are disappointed that the Code of Conduct appears to formalize the latter approach.
It should be revised.
The Code of Conduct is, in part, a reaction to a free speech delegation that has attended the annual meeting for a decade, according to senior U.S. officials and meeting participants.

The Daily Caller
Who Is The New York Times’ Anonymous?
5:26 PM 09/07/2018 | Opinion
Christopher C. Hull | Contributor
Personnel is policy. President Trump has just learned this lesson yet again — the hard way.
In a New York Times op-ed, an anonymous senior Trump administration figure has outed him or herself as a Trump opponent.
For those of us watching the White House’s hiring process, this is painfully unsurprising. The administration has been systematically stacked with anti-Trump, globalist, establishment, Left-leaning swamp creatures.
Which of them could it be? Here are my top candidates — and, more importantly, candidates who should be replaced to fix the problem going forward.
Brian Hook
On August 16, Secretary of State Pompeo named outspoken Trump critic Brian Hook special envoy to coordinate the United States’ economic pressure campaign against Iran.
Brian Hook, who served as a senior policy advisor, was an open Trump critic since before the 2016 election.
Before the election, Hook told Politico (which then described him as “one of a small, die-hard set of the Republicans who have been wandering outside this season, getting wet, locked out of their own house”): “Even if you say you support him as the nominee, you go down the list of [Trump’s] positions and you see you disagree on every one.”
Hook also co-founded the John Hay Initiative, a group that organized a letter of over 100 Republican foreign policy experts who would refuse to back Trump (though Hook did not sign the letter himself).
A conservative author wrote of him, “Trump should know what he’s getting himself into: if he hires Brian Hook, he will be opening his arms to a member of the very establishment he campaigned against.”
And Hook has been called “one of the worst George W. Bush administration officials who worked on U.N. issues”.
Unsurprisingly, during his tenure in Trump’s State Department, Hook has been accused of lifting the limit of refugees allowed into the U.S. in direct opposition to President Trump’s wishes.
Moreover, according to one senior Trump administration official, Hook just completed an Iran Deal tour of Europe, stressing that though Trump has canceled the Iran Deal, all of its instrumentalities should be left in place until a new one is signed.
Then, on August 10, a public report claimed that Hook is in line to be Special Envoy For Iranian Affairs.
It seemed impossible, given that Hook opposes the president’s Iran policy and has worked against it internally for more than a year, according to multiple sources inside the administration.
But then in mid-August, Secretary Pompeo confirmed it.
Not only is this a disaster for serious foreign policy hawks who have battled internally and externally to toughen the U.S. line on the world’s largest state sponsor of terror. It is a disaster for President Trump, as Secretary Pompeo has just elevated someone opposed to the president’s Iran policies – all policies, according to Hook himself – to implement them.
The likely result is a rapid return to reports of internal dissent on Iran from the time of globalist Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Obama general H.R. McMaster as National Security Advisor.
Andrea Hall
In early August, two independent sources confirmed that under consideration to replace Hook was Andrea Hall, a career CIA bureaucrat and Obama holdover under McMaster, who had been a direct report to fierce Trump critic and outed Iran Deal liar then-Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes.
Ironically, a paper from Hall’s doctoral work suggests that she has a soft spot for Russian dictator Vladimir Putin: She was pro-Putin back when Putin was cool.
“Russia has received few tangible benefits from its cooperation with the United States,” Hall claimed in the paper, saying that Washington was “ignoring Russian concerns.”
“Given that Putin has received significant criticism for his foreign policy concessions and that he has valid concerns about the Russian economy, Washington would be wise to help Russia achieve some of its goals, as well, in order to cement this partnership,” according to Hall.
The Nuclear Threat Institute, a think tank co-founded by CNN godfather Ted Turner, co-sponsored the paper.
A senior Congressional official confirms, “She was a real problem” at Trump’s NSC.
Now, the latest rumor is that Hall is unlikely to get the position. Of course, she continues to advise Secretary of State Pompeo, in spite of her toxic past and anti-Trump positions.
Carrie Cabelka
Carrie Cabelka is likely not herself the New York Times’ anonymous op-ed writer, but she shouldn’t be excluded completely. It is no surprise that anti-Trump bureaucrats like Hook and Hall continue to thrive, given that Cabelka continues to serve as State Department White House Liaison. A four-month-old piece about her recounts:
[Trump transition team official and Breitbart News contributor Robert] Wasinger considers another State Department official, however, an even bigger obstacle to implementing the Trump agenda and placing genuine Trump loyalists in the administration.
‘I think the biggest problem that we have right now is the White House liaison there, Carrie Cabelka, who has an active screen up against all these Trump loyalists – campaign officials,’ he said.
Wasinger accuses Cabelka of preventing Trump campaign supporters who secured Schedule C appointments from getting the pay they had on a temporary basis. ‘She reduced virtually all of their salaries while giving herself a huge campaign bump,’ he explained.
‘That’s offensive enough, but what’s more offensive to me and to a lot of people is the active screen she has up against Trump campaign folks, Trump loyalists, people that really want to affect the president’s agenda.’
In their place, according to Wasinger, Cabelka has championed candidates like acting Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Susan Thornton whom Wasinger described as a “leftist career foreign service officer.”
(Thornton, who in March of 2017, replaced another Obama holdover whom the Trump Administration had put in the job, Daniel R. Russel, is still serving today, though an Administration source says Thornton is retiring.)
Wasinger expanded on that, saying, “Carrie Cabelka’s the tip of the spear in keeping out our people and getting in establishment career types. You know, quite frankly, we campaigned against them. I think the president should set up a basic test … I think people that work for him should have at least voted for him. … I just can’t imagine that these people did.”
The last line of the piece is, “These people are not only … not loyal, they’re working against [President Trump] on a daily basis, and it’s gotta be fixed.”
Johnny DeStefano
But it won’t get fixed and, in fact, more anonymous opponents will continue to be installed to work against Trump behind the scenes, as long as President Trump retains Johnny DeStefano.
DeStefano is a former aide to ousted House Speaker John Boehner, initially named personnel director by establishment kingpin Reince Priebus, who got a promotion and reportedly still retains authority over the Presidential Personnel Office (PPO).
By all reports, DeStefano is a terrific guy whom Trump likes personally but has nevertheless arguably overseen a vast effort to place Bush administration veterans and establishment moderates throughout the Federal Government.
In fact, one former Trump White House official named DeStefano as the single most significant problem the president faces in enacting his agenda. That’s on a list that includes Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.
Why?
Because, as the president is learning yet again, personnel is policy.
Christopher C. Hull, Ph.D., the Executive Vice President of the Center for Security Policy, served four tours on Capitol Hill, including most recently as the Chief of Staff for U.S. Rep. Steve King, (R-Iowa). He is the author of Grassroots Rules.
________________________________________
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.

The American Spectator
Terrorism and the Press
At the Washington Post, None Dare Call It a Conspiracy by Christopher C Hull, PhD.
June 4, 2018, 12:05 am
Islamic jihadists haven’t been out to get us from the inside? A list.
As the late, great novelist Joseph Heller wrote in his hilarious, terrifying novel of World War II’s insanity Catch-22, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.”
Or, as Andrew C. McCarthy III, former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against the “Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman 11 other defendants convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, once put it, “you can’t have a conspiracy without a conspiracy theory.”
Both come to mind given the Washington Post’s Abigail Hauslohner charge, in her unprofessional smear piece against my former colleague Fred Fleitz, that the Center for Security Policy, where I serve as Executive Vice President, “propagates the conspiracy theory that Islamists have infiltrated the U.S. government.”
Conspiracy theory?
Would Ms. Hauslohner like to explain Abdurahman Alamoudi, founder of Pentagon’s Muslim chaplain program and State Department civilian ambassador, convicted of operating on behalf of foreign intelligence agencies and later identified by Treasury Department as a top Al-Qaeda fundraiser, who is still in prison for his terrorist activities — while to my knowledge not a single one of his chaplains has been removed from our military?
How about Al-Qaeda security chief Ali Mohamed, who infiltrated the Army Special Forces and double-crossed the FBI?
Or Anwar al-Awlaki, who was feted at a luncheon inside the still-smoldering Pentagon following the 9/11 attacks hosted by the Army’s Office of Government Counsel, and led prayers for congressional staffers inside the U.S. Capitol, before being outed as an Al-Qaeda cleric who ultimately was made subject to a kill-or capture order signed by President Obama in 2010 and was killed by a U.S. airstrike on September 30, 2011?
Or Hesham Islam, one-time senior advisor for international affairs for Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England and the Pentagon’s point-man for Muslim outreach, who invited representatives from terror-tied Islamic groups into the Pentagon, as well as a Lebanese ambassador who was a known proxy of the Syrian government in violation of U.S. policy — until an investigation determined that he had “embellished, if not fabricated, major elements of his official biography” and he resigned?
Or Omar Alomari, whom the Obama Administration named to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism Working Group, who it turned out was spreading “Islamist propaganda,” and was ultimately fired after lying to investigators about a previous job firing and failing to disclose his former position with the Jordanian government?
Or U.S.-based Hamas operative Kifah Mustapha, who got a guided tour of a top-secret National Counterterrorism Center and partnered with the FBI-Chicago Field Office?
Or U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan, a military psychiatrist, who shot and killed 14 people at Fort Hood’s Soldier Readiness Processing Center in Texas in 2009, and was sentenced to death in August of 2013?
Or Louay Safi, who lectured deploying troops at Fort Hood weeks after the deadly attack there, authorized “preemptive strikes” against troops attacking Muslims, and was ultimately named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror support trial?
Or Imad Hamad, an attendee of the January 2010 summit then-Department of Homeland Secretary (DHS) Janet Napolitano held with American Muslim leaders, who is linked to the Marxist-Leninist terrorist group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, has supported the Islamist terrorist group Hezbollah, and in a television interview in 2002 on Fox’s Detroit affiliate, supported a Palestine Authority TV program that urged children to become suicide bombers, calling the program “patriotic”?
Or Salam Al-Marayati, another Napolitano summit attendee, who according to press reports has long been criticized for extremist views and statements, whose nomination to the National Commission on Terrorism in 1999 former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo. withdrew because of Al-Mayarati’s extremist politics, and who once said, “When Patrick Henry said, ‘Give me liberty or give me death,’ that statement epitomized jihad?”
Or Hammam Khalil Abu Mallal al-Balawi, the Jordanian doctor and double agent for al Qaeda financed by the Pakistanis, who infiltrated Forward Operating Base Chapman in Khost province wearing a suicide vest and exploded it, killing four CIA agents including the CIA base chief, a mother of three, and three CIA contractors, the biggest loss of life suffered by the U.S. intelligence agency since an attack in Beirut in 1983?
Or the Spring 2010 Countering Violent Extremism Working Group that followed, which according to a whistleblower within DHS, included six individuals linked to Egypt-based Jamāʻat al-Ikhwān al-Muslimīn, commonly known as the Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest and largest Islamist group in the world — and which likely as a result recommended that “discussions regarding how to improve local law enforcement crime reduction efforts should be delinked from the current academic and policy discussions on ‘radicalization’ and ‘countering violent extremism’ until such time that the understanding of these phenomena matures” — that is, that DHS should cease to investigate even a sanitized version of jihad?
Or Seddique Mateen, the father of the Orlando shooter Omar Mateen, who served as an FBI informant, and persuaded the FBI that his son was not a threat, leading to the largest mass shooting in American history?
These examples are facts. Attempts by reporters like Ms. Hauslohner to dismiss them as a “conspiracy theory” only helps those who wish to harm her and her family — and yours.
Remember, Ms. Hauslohner: Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.

U.S. News & World Report
Decertifying a Bad Deal
Trump eased the stranglehold of a bad deal so that Congress can focus on the task at hand: preventing a nuclear Iran.
By Christopher Hull Contributor, Oct. 13, 2017, at 5:15 p.m.

As expected, President Donald Trump announced today that he would decertify the 2015 Iran deal. But he also went further, contradicting Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and other commentators on whether Iran has complied with that accord.
At a news conference this morning, Sec. Tillerson stated flatly, “We don’t dispute that they’re under technical compliance.”
Yet President Trump disputed exactly that. “The Iranian regime has committed multiple violations of the agreement,” he said.
“For example,” Trump continued, “On two separate occasions, they have exceeded the limit of 130 metric tons of heavy water.”
This is a matter of public record. In November 2016, the IAEA announced that Iran had for a second time that year exceeded the heavy water limits supposedly agreed to in the Iran deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA.
Likewise, in a July 2017 letter, Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., Ted Cruz, R-Tex., David Purdue, R-Ga. and Marco Rubio, R-Fla. reiterated that:
Iran has repeatedly exceeded the limits the JCPOA places on its heavy water stocks. Heavy water is key to Iran’s plutonium pathway to nuclear weapons. However, Iran has twice exceeded the JCPOA’s heavy-water cap and has claimed a right to produce unlimited amounts of heavy water and retain ownership of those stocks as long as it claims to be “seeking” an international buyer. In doing so, Iran has effectively read the heavy-water limitation out of the JCPOA.
Trump also charged, “Until recently, the Iranian regime has also failed to meet our expectations in its operation of advanced centrifuges.”
This also is a matter of public record. For instance, early on, in February 2015, the IAEA reported that Iran had disconnected controversial reactors that had experts debating whether they were a violation of existing agreements, part of the lead-up to the JCPOA during its negotiation.
Moreover, the Cotton, Cruz, Purdue and Rubio letter contended:
Iran is currently operating more advanced nuclear centrifuges than it is permitted under the JCPOA, maintains more advanced centrifuges than required for its permitted enrichment activities, and has announced the capability to initiate mass production of more advanced centrifuges.
In addition, the president opined, “The Iranian regime has also intimidated international inspectors into not using the full inspection authorities that the agreement calls for.” Moreover, said Trump, “Iranian officials and military leaders have repeatedly claimed they will not allow inspectors onto military sites, even though the international community suspects some of those sites were part of Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons program.”
Trump is correct. The Cotton, Cruz, Purdue and Rubio letter laid it out this way:
Perhaps most concerning is Iran’s refusal to grant international inspectors access to nuclear-research and military facilities. International Atomic Energy Agency (“IAEA”) inspectors are entitled to visit any location in Iran to verify compliance with the JCPOA’s ban on nuclear weapons development. However, Iran’s refusal to grant inspectors physical access and other forms of access makes it possible-if not highly probable, given Iran’s history of duplicity-that it is concealing additional violations of the JCPOA.
Most damning, however, is that just last month, the IAEA itself admitted that it did not have the power to monitor Iran’s compliance with a key section of the JCPOA.
“Our tools are limited,” IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said, with respect to the JCPOA’s Section T, a ban on “activities which could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device.” “In other sections, for example, Iran has committed to submit declarations, place their activities under safeguards or ensure access by us. But in Section T, I don’t see any (such commitment).”
Director Amano went further, hoping that parties to the JCPOA would hash the issue out. “More clarification would be helpful,” he said. In fact, he said, the parties do not even agree that the IAEA is supposed to be monitoring activities which could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device. “Russia has a different view. They believe that it is not the mandate of the IAEA. Others have different views and discussions are ongoing.”

Trump Is Handing Iran a Nuke
Decertifying the nuclear deal almost assuredly enables Tehran’s nuclear ramp-up.
Michael H. Fuchs Oct. 13, 2017
Question: If the UN’s nuclear watchdog doesn’t have the power to watch “activities which could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device,” who cares whether it says Iran is complying with other portions of the deal?
Finally, charged Trump, “There are also many people who believe that Iran is dealing with North Korea.” This is an open secret often ignored by those trying to defend the JCPOA. After all, if Iran and North Korea are working together, then in theory Iran already has access to – and in fact may be helping underwrite – the advanced nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles the North has been testing.
The untrue trope that Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA is often repeated in the media and by the deal’s supporters. For instance, the EU’s top diplomat said recently that “All sides are implementing – so far – fully the agreement, as it has been certified by the IAEA eight times.” After the most recent report, mendacious Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif claimed that “verification of Iran(ian) compliance with (the) JCPOA.” Even the right-leaning Washington Times reported this morning that “the U.N. nuclear watchdog has repeatedly said that Iran is in compliance with requirements regarding its nuclear programs.”
Unfortunately, all that’s false.
On one hand, in March of this year, the head of IAEA made clear that while it serves “as eyes and ears of the international community, we are on the ground 24/7, and we can state that the JCPOA is being implemented.”
On the other hand, the IAEA chief added, “it is the responsibility” of each JCPOA member to reach an “interpretation” and a “judgment,” of “whether or not (Iran is) in compliance.” This is exactly what Trump did today.
Tzvi Kahn, a senior Iran analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argues that “none of the IAEA’s reports states that Iran has complied with the JCPOA.” Instead, in his view, “the IAEA’s mandate primarily entails monitoring and reporting on Tehran’s nuclear-related actions (or lack thereof) pursuant to the JCPOA’s provisions.”

The Global Damage of Decertification
Trashing the Iran deal will have ripple effects well beyond Washington.
Paul B. Stares Oct. 13, 2017
Finally, Cotton, Cruz, Purdue and Rubio have pointed out that Iran is in open violation of the agreement in at least one additional way:
German intelligence agencies in 2015 and 2016 reported that Iran continued illicit attempts to procure nuclear and missile technology outside of JCPOA-approved channels.
But regardless of whether or not Iran is in technical compliance, or whether Trump and Tillerson agree that the U.S. should be exiting the Iran deal – which they do not – they were aligned today in their assessment that the deal is a bad one, and that Iran is a bad actor.
Thus the challenge before Congress and the Trump administration now is to stop worrying so much about how to maintain compliance with the Iran deal. The JCPOA frontloaded the benefits, backloaded responsibilities and evaded key issues to allow Iran to continue to develop nuclear weapons while waiting for the deal to expire, when in spite of President Obama’s explicit claim, it would have a mile-wide way to mushroom clouds, with no way to stop it.
Instead, both must assess how to actually stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon – which includes putting all nuclear-related sanctions back in place, adding new ones to strangle the regime itself, strengthening internal and external opponents to the Mullahs and seeking a way to destroy facilities the Obama deal didn’t touch.
And if Congress doesn’t do the job – again – President Trump can, and must.

The Daily Caller
Turkish NATO Delegation Walks Out of Event Over Dissident Speech
10:33 PM 09/19/2017 | US
Christopher C. Hull | Contributor
PHILADELPHIA — Turkish representatives to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)’s Parliamentary Assembly walked out of a Middle East Forum (MEF) event Tuesday when it became clear a dissident would speak there.
According to Daniel Pipes, MEF president, speakers invited to the event held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, included both Cem Utkan of the Turkish Embassy and Emre Çelik, president of the Rumi Forum.
Çelik is a supporter of Turkish Sunni cleric Fethullah Gülen, whom Turkey publicly blames for the failed coup d’etat against President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan that occurred in July 2016.
“When we invited Çelik, Turkey decided no, he’s not welcome,” said Pipes at the conclusion of his remarks in the plenary session of the event. The Turks made clear through its NATO intermediaries that unless Çelik were removed from the program, the event would be cancelled.
“We felt we had no choice but to accede and remove his name from the program. As Americans, that troubled our conscience,” he added.
Accordingly, Pipes said, “Mr. Çelik has agreed to speak and he will address us here…In the spirit of freedom of speech, I’m bringing him in to speak anyway.”
Two members of the Turkish delegation stood up and began to argue vociferously with event organizers and the head of the NATO delegation, Thomas Michael Jopling, a Conservative Member of the U.K. House of Lords. At the same time, two staff members from the Turkish Parliament stood and joined the other Turks, preparing to leave.
Jopling prevailed upon Pipes to allow him to speak before Çelik, as well as upon the Turks to remain for his remarks. “I don’t mind at all,” a Turkish representative is heard to say in a video taken of the event.
At the outset of Jopling’s remarks, he excoriated MEF for the change in plans. “All I will say on the bombshell that you have tipped into our proceedings,” he began, was that “a verbal agreement was made that the gentlemen here would not speak,” referring to Çelik. “That is unacceptable.”
As Jopling’s remarks drew to an end, Pipes joined him at the podium, contending that the agreement was made under duress.
Jopling then departed along with the Turkish delegation.
During Çelik’s remarks, which followed the walkout, he contended, “The autocratic tendencies of President Erdoğan [do] not encourage democracy in a fragile region. Example: President Erdoğan’s overreaching the rule of law.”
Çelik argued that Erdoğan’s overreaches “include the purge of some 120,000 employees that has left key vacancies in police, intelligence, and military” in the wake of the 2016 coup attempt.
After the event, MEF tweeted, “Ultimately, @NATO must decide if it will live up to its mission or if it will let one member state dictate its discussions worldwide.”
The event also featured conversations on regional realities in the Middle East, dealing with Syria, and both violent and non-violent jihadi activity in the West.
The Daily Caller
Report: Chinese Government Has Placed 100+ Facilities In US Universities
1:13 PM 04/26/2017 | Education
Christopher C. Hull | Contributor
The Chinese government has quietly set up over 100 teaching and research centers to promote China’s point of view on college campuses across the U.S., and operates over 500 analogous programs at American K-12 schools, according to a report released today by the National Association of Scholars (NAS).
The new report, Outsourced to China: Confucius Institutes and Soft Power in American Higher Education, details how the facilities “frequently attract scrutiny because of their close ties to the Chinese government.” According to the report, authored by Rachelle Peterson of NAS, Confucius Institutes are “largely funded by a Chinese government agency, which screens teachers and selects textbooks.” The report charges that in these facilities, “intellectual freedom, merit-based hiring policies, and other foundational principles of American higher education have received short shrift.”
For instance, according to a summary of the report, the Institutes’ curricula “avoid Chinese political history and human rights abuses, portray Taiwan and Tibet as undisputed territories of China, and tend to respect China’s censorious speech preferences.” Likewise, official policy of the Chinese agency sponsoring the facilities, known as the Hanban, requires Confucius Institutes to adhere to Chinese law. The Hanban also serves as “the conduit by which college presidents and administrators enjoy trips to and state dinners in China.”
The report profiles twelve specific Confucius Institutes, documenting “the hiring policies, funding arrangements, contracts signed by the university, [and] pressure on affiliated faculty members.” The NAS charges that the Institutes “educate a generation of American students to know nothing more of China than the regime’s official history.”
“Confucius Institutes represent a direct assault on the American norms of academic freedom and transparency. It is inappropriate for the Chinese government to free-ride on the authority and prestige of the American higher education system,” said Peterson. “U.S. colleges and universities should cease outsourcing their courses to the Chinese government and should close their Confucius Institutes.”
Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, charged that Confucius Institutes “have nothing to do with Confucius, and everything to do with advancing the interests of one of America’s global adversaries.”
The report was released today at an event in Washington, D.C., “Red Star Over Campus: How China’s Confucius Institutes Court Western Colleges and Universities.” The event also included a screening of “In the Name of Confucius,” which according to event sponsors is “the first documentary exposé of China’s multi-billion dollar Confucius Institute, a Chinese language and culture program set up in partnership with foreign educational institutions.” The Chinese have managed to place the facilities in over 1,500 universities and schools worldwide since 2004.
“In the Name of Confucius” tells the story of Canada’s largest school board grappling with the opening of the world’s largest Confucius Institute. In it, school trustees “find themselves embroiled in a growing global controversy.”
The documentary includes a former Confucius Institute instructor and defector whose discrimination complaint led to the first closure of one of the facilities on a North American campus. It also includes the charge that the Chinese consulate rallied supporters of the planned Canadian facility.
The controversy injects a new element into a roiling debate over American freedom of speech on campus, which has crested in the Trump era.
NAS recommends that “[c]olleges and universities with Confucius Institutes should either shut them down or take specific steps to distance themselves from the Chinese government,” and that “Federal and local governments should also exercise oversight to determine whether Confucius Institutes pose a threat to national security and human rights.”
Representatives for Confucius Institutes could not immediately be reached for comment

Middle East Forum
The White House Commission on Radical Islam: A Recommendation
Christopher C. Hull
February 22, 2017
Executive Summary
This paper for the Middle East Forum (MEF) lays out a responsible approach to implementing President Donald J. Trump’s commitment to create a domestic commission focused on halting the spread of what he termed “radical Islam.”[1]
In August 2016, Donald Trump gave a speech on how to “Make America Safe Again” in which he said, “One of my first acts as President will be to establish a commission on radical Islam.” This paper lays out a responsible approach to establishing such a commission.
I. How should the commission be structured?
A responsible commission would be housed in the White House, with members selected by the President and a chairman reporting to the National Security Advisor. The commission should include as ex-officio members the Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Security, Director of the CIA, and Secretary of Defense, with a designated liaison from each; be empowered by a joint resolution of Congress to subpoena documents, compel testimony, and grant immunity; and be prepared that its reports may be used as evidence in later criminal proceedings. The President should delegate responsibility for taking action to his National Security Advisor. Finally, the commission should be charged to hold field hearings at sites of important jihadi strikes and events revealing Islamist subversion.
II. What should the commission’s mandate be?
The commission’s mandate should be to explain the core convictions of radical Islam; chart how Islamists recruit and deploy jihadis and expose networks that support “radicalization”; develop new protocols for police officers, federal investigators, and immigration screeners; examine “political correctness” and how to deal with the problem of radical Islam in an honest way; explore where radical Islam gets its resources and how they can be cut off; seek ways to deny radical Islam use of the Internet; recommend what changes should be made to immigration practices; and summarize how America and its allies can halt the spread of radical Islam’s and ultimately defeat it.
III. Whom should the commission include?
The commission should include experts on terrorism and radical Islam; voices for reforming Islam; current or former elected officials; representatives of law enforcement, intelligence, the military and/or the diplomatic community; representatives of the technology industry; and victims of radical Islam and their families.
IV. How Should the Commission Charge the Government with Implementing Its Recommendations?
Agencies that provide a liaison should be tasked with preparing raw data and materials for each topic the commission considers. Then, for each of the reports that it prepares, the commission should produce drafts of supporting documents such as executive orders; legislation; law enforcement referrals; requests for proposal (RFPs); memos to state and/or local governments; recommended personnel changes; and recommended budget changes.
The Context: Making America Safe Again
On August 15, 2016, then-Republican presidential nominee Trump gave a speech in Youngstown, Ohio on how to “Make America Safe Again.” President Trump began the speech, “In the 20th Century, the United States defeated Fascism, Nazism, and Communism. Now, a different threat challenges our world: radical Islamic terrorism.”
Trump ticked off Islamist attacks, first in America then in Europe, and other atrocities Islamic State was committing in pursuit of what he called the “hateful ideology of radical Islam.” He charged that “Anyone who cannot condemn the hatred, oppression and violence of radical Islam lacks the moral clarity to serve as our President.” Finally, he called for a “new approach, which must be shared by both parties in America, by our allies overseas, and by our friends in the Middle East,” namely “to halt the spread of radical Islam.”[2]
In that speech, President Trump made this specific commitment:
[O]ne of my first acts as President will be to establish a commission on radical Islam – which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community who will hopefully work with us. We want to build bridges and erase divisions.
The goal of the commission will be to identify and explain to the American public the core convictions and beliefs of radical Islam, to identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that support radicalization. This commission will be used to develop new protocols for local police officers, federal investigators, and immigration screeners.[3]
Foreshadowing such a shift, on February 2, 2017 Reuters reported that the Trump administration “wants to revamp and rename” the Obama Administration’s Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program so that it focuses solely on Islamist extremism.” According to the report, CVE “would be changed to ‘Countering Islamic Extremism’ or ‘Countering Radical Islamic Extremism.'[4]
In order to help make certain this shift is fact-based, strategic, and transcends this one program, this proposal will address the following open questions pertaining to the proposed commission on radical Islam:
1. How should the commission be structured?
2. What should its mandate be?
3. Who should be on it?
4. How should it charge the government with implementing its recommendations?
This paper is a first attempt to answer those questions, and to do so through a responsible lens, recognizing that:
1. There is a broad space for reform-minded Muslims to operate in America and the world;
2. Radicalism and extremism do not permeate all of Islam; and
Radical Islam uses certain tenets of Islam to achieve what are in fact political ends.
With that perspective, the paper will sketch a commission on radical Islam, with care to respect America’s First Amendment protections of religion and speech, while confronting the thorny truth that jihadis do, in fact, crown their evil deeds with Qur’an quotes.
I. HOW SHOULD THE COMMISSION BE STRUCTURED?
To maximize the chances of success, a responsible commission would:
1. Be established by executive order, modeled on Appendix C below, which should:
a. Stipulate that the commission be housed in the White House, with members selected by the President, including one or more from each of the following categories:
i. Experts on terrorism and radical Islam
ii. Voices for reform of Islam
iii. Current or former elected officials
iv. Representatives of the law enforcement, intelligence, military, and/or diplomatic communities
v. Representatives of the technology industry
vi. Victims of radical Islam and their families
b. Provide that the chairman should report to the National Security Advisor
c. Include as ex officio members the Secretaries of the following agencies, with a designated liaison from those agencies selected by the President, or an alternative by mutual consent of the President and Secretary:
i. The Department of Justice (DOJ): Responsible for retrieving DOJ and FBI materials requested by the commission, as well as referring potential violations of federal law identified or uncovered by the commission to be utilized by the DOJ and/or FBI, as directed by the commission’s chairman
ii. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Responsible for retrieving DHS materials requested by the commission, as well as relevant information identified or uncovered by the commission back to DHS as directed by the commission’s chairman
iii. The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA): Responsible for retrieving intelligence materials requested by the commission, as well as shepherding intelligence identified or uncovered by the commission back to the relevant agency, including any findings that might be utilized by the CIA in particular, as directed by the commission’s chairman
iv. The Department of Defense (DOD): Responsible for retrieving military materials requested by the commission, as well as delivering and implementing any taskings, as directed by the commission’s chairman
d. “[D]elegate responsibility for evaluating and taking action, where appropriate, with respect to all public recommendations” from the president to the National Security Advisor for all recommendations deemed appropriate by the commission, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)[5]
e. Designate the General Services Administration (GSA) to provide fiscal and administrative support to the commission pursuant to FACA Section 12[6]
f. Provide for a two-year term, which may be renewed by the President or National Security Advisor by appropriate action prior to the expiration of such two-year period pursuant to FACA Section 14[7]
2. Described in an advisory committee charter prepared by the staff and approved by the chairman, to be filed with the Administrator of the GSA and the Library of Congress, and which pursuant to FACA Section 9(c) must include:
a. The committee’s official designation
b. The committee’s objectives and the scope of its activity
c. The period of time necessary for the committee to carry out its purposes
d. The agency or official to whom the committee reports
e. The agency responsible for providing the necessary support for the committee
f. A description of the duties for which the committee is responsible, and, if such duties are not solely advisory, a specification of the authority for such functions
g. The estimated annual operating costs in dollars and man-years for such committee
h. The estimated number and frequency of committee meetings
i. The committee’s termination date, if less than two-years from the date of the committee’s establishment; and
j. The date the charter is filed.[8]
3. Empowered by a joint resolution of Congress[9] to subpoena documents, compel testimony, and grant immunity, learning a lesson from the Tower Commission on the Iran-CONTRA scandal[10]
4. Prepared that the commission reports may be used as evidence in later criminal proceedings similarly to the Tower Commission, Rogers Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger accident, and Warren Commission on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy[11]
5. Staffed with at least:
a. A staff director, with:
i. A terminal degree in Islamic studies, security studies, international affairs, American government, or an equivalent
ii. Background in counter-terror public policy work
iii. Experience working within both state and federal governments
iv. Management background including responsibility for staffs of government employees focused on public policy matters
b. A research director, with:
i. At least a Bachelor’s Degree in security studies, international affairs, political science, or equivalent
ii. Six or more years’ experience in conducting terrorism research, including familiarity with key domestic terrorism and material support cases
iii. Strong subject matter expertise on history and doctrine of radical Islam, and on foreign and domestic Islamist movements
iv. Experience providing oral and written briefings related to Islamist doctrine, history and organizations to legislators, law enforcement, and intelligence officials
c. A staff counsel, with a terminal degree in law and a specialty in counter-terror and background in prosecution, law enforcement, and/or the military
d. A legislative director, with both strong counter-terror subject matter expertise and extensive experience in Congress
e. A communications director, with both strong counter-terror subject matter expertise and relationships with the media
f. A staff secretary, who should be responsible for meeting the administrative requirements of FACA Sections 10 and 11 in cooperation with the GSA
6. Charged to hold field hearings at sites of important Islamist terror strikes and events revealing Islamist subversion, in order to “identify and explain to the American public the core convictions and beliefs of radical Islam, to identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that support radicalization,”[12] including taking testimony on the relevant core convictions and beliefs of the perpetrators and how they relate to radical Islam, to seek potential warning signs before the attacks, and to expose the networks that initiated and supported the perpetrators’ radicalization, including potentially at:
a. Ground Zero in New York City, NY.
b. The Pentagon, Arlington, VA, which was struck by Flight 77 on September 11, 2001
c. Shanksville, PA, where Flight 93 crashed on September 11, 2001
d. Ft. Hood, TX, the site of the Islamist attack by Nidal Malik Hassan on November 5, 2009
e. San Bernardino, CA, near the site of the Islamist attack by Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik on December 2, 2015 at the Inland Regional Center
f. Orlando, FL, near the site of the Islamist attack by Omar Mateen on June 12, 2016 at the Pulse nightclub
g. Boston, MA, near the site of the Boston Marathon bombing on April 15, 2013 by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev
h. Little Rock, AR, near the site of the drive-by shooting of two U.S. soldiers by Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, born Carlos Leon Bledsoe, outside a military recruiting office on June 1, 2009
i. Philadelphia, PA, where the FBI secretly taped an October 1993 meeting of Hamas leaders and activists conspiring to conceal cash transfers to Palestinian terrorists, as well as hatching the concept for what would become the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)[13] and/or
j. Dallas, TX, where the Holy Land Foundation trial was held between July and September of 2007.[14]
________________________________________
II. What Should the Commission’s Mandate Be?
Then-candidate Trump already spelled out his first cut of the commission’s mandate, namely:
The goal of the commission will be to identify and explain to the American public the core convictions and beliefs of radical Islam, to identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that support radicalization.
This commission will be used to develop new protocols for local police officers, federal investigators, and immigration screeners.[15]
In addition, to avoid past challenges with presidential national security commissions in which “presidential expectations are sometimes unmet, as commissions issue damning reports with unforeseen and explosive consequences,”[16] the Administration should spell out in detail the commission’s charge, as recommended below.
Overall, the commission should “begin with a blank piece of paper on American policy toward the global Jihad movement,” as a former Reagan Defense Department official put it, “thereby providing an objective and independent assessment of the assumptions and the actual record of the U.S. government since 9/11.”[17] The commission, this official said, should “start with the premise…of an exercise in competitive analysis,” like the so-called “Team B” approach to accurately assessing the Soviet nuclear threat commissioned by then-CIA Director George H.W. Bush during the Ford Administration in May 1976, and subsequently acted upon reactively by the Carter Administration and proactively by the Reagan Administration, [18] arguably helping ultimately lead to America’s Cold War victory.[19]
Specifically, the commission’s mandate should be to consider and as appropriate issue separate reports and recommendations, rather than a single final report, on each of the following issues:
1. “[I]dentify[ing] and explain[ing] to the American public the core convictions and beliefs of radical Islam,” as then-candidate Trump set as one of the commission’s goals.[20] Specifically, in order for the public to fully grasp the challenge that radical Islam represents, the commission should consider including in its report common Islamist beliefs potentially out of step with American values, including the following:[21]
i. Adultery should be punished by stoning to death.[22]
ii. A woman should have four adult male witnesses to prove she’s been raped or face charges of adultery.[23]
iii. Homosexuality should be a death penalty crime.[24]
iv. Leaving Islam should be punishable by death.[25]
v. It should be permissible for a parent to kill their own child for any reason with no legal consequences.[26]
vi. All females should be circumcised to ensure their chastity.[27]
vii. The word of a man in court of law can only be countered by that of two women.[28]
viii. A female should inherit one-half what her brother inherits.[29]
ix. A man has the right to beat his wife if he thinks she’s disobedient.[30]
x. An adult man should be allowed to marry a pre-pubescent girl.[31]
xi. A father should have the right to forcibly marry off his daughters to anyone he chooses whether she agrees or not.[32]
xii. A husband ought to be allowed to forbid his wife to leave the home without his permission.[33]
xiii. A man should be allowed to sexually abuse a female baby or child so long as he doesn’t physically injure her.[34]
xiv. A man has the right to multiple wives, but a woman should only have one husband.[35]
xv. There is no such thing as marital rape, because a man should be able to use his wife when and how he likes, with or without her consent.[36]
xvi. Slavery should be legal.[37]
xvii. Raping women seized in offensive warfare and keeping or selling them as sex slaves should be permissible.[38]
xviii. Offensive warfare to force those who don’t accept your religion to submit to it is not only permissible but obligatory before God.[39]
xix. Beheading those who do not believe as you do is what God wants.[40]
xx. Chopping off hands and/or feet is an acceptable legal punishment for theft.[41]
xxi. Lashing people in public for moral offenses, like having sex outside of marriage, should be permitted by law.[42]
xxii. Making it a criminal offense to drink alcohol on penalty of public whipping is acceptable.[43]
xxiii. Verbal or written criticism of your religious beliefs should be criminalized, possibly even by the death penalty.[44]
xxiv. Only the people belonging to your own religion should have the right to own a gun.[45]
xxv. Anyone outside of your religion should be forbidden from building or repairing a house of worship.[46]
xxvi. Laws passed by an elected congress or parliament are by their very nature illegal and that only laws revealed by the deity of your religion should be allowed.[47]
xxvii. Any government established by laws and rules other than the ones allowed in your religion should be overthrown by force or subversion and replaced with one that only allows your religion.[48]
xxviii. Government should enforce public dress code rules.[49]
xxix. Women and girls should always be segregated in public from men and boys who aren’t part of their immediate family.[50]
xxx. The only food that ought to be allowed to be sold is food that is grown and processed according to the rules of your religion.[51]
xxxi. Everybody should have to follow the exact same diet and fasting rules that are obligatory in your religion on penalty of public whipping.[52]
xxxii. Jews are an inferior people who should be denigrated and demeaned and not treated equally in court.[53]
xxxiii. It’s wrong to obey laws or help law enforcement officers if that might lead to negative consequences for you or someone else belonging to your religion.[54]
xxxiv. You are allowed to lie if the objective is permitted, and required to if the objective is required.[55]
2. “[I]dentify[ing] the warning signs of radicalization.” As then-candidate Trump suggested, the commission should chart the ways in which Islamists in the West recruit, indoctrinate, train, and deploy jihadis in order “to expose the networks in our society that support radicalization,”[56] including potentially:
a. The list of “Islamist Organizations in America” compiled by The Clarion Project, perhaps the most recent and up-to-date list publicly available[57]
b. The “List of Unindicted Co-conspirators and/or Joint Venturers” in Attachment A of U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, et al., [58] as well as the rest of the materials for that case, which the commission should subpoena immediately from the U.S. Department of Justice, and ultimately release as part of this report
c. The “List of Islamist Organizations under U.S. Senate Scrutiny” published by Middle East Forum (MEF) in 2004 and updated in 2005, which provides an authoritative guide to the 25 U.S. Islamist groups which at that time the Senate Finance Committee’s chairman and ranking member stated “finance terrorism and perpetuate violence,” including the Holy Land Foundation which was in fact rolled up by federal prosecutors;[59] and
d. The list of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends” from “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America,” the May 1991 memo written by Mohamed Akram, a.k.a. Mohamed Adlouni, for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood.
e. As the author of a scholarly work on the psychology of terrorism put it: “Identify the infrastructure, across the media, academic, and political landscape, of the Islamist Supremacist movement.” [60]
f. The list of mosques and Islamic centers in the United States having the most links to illegal activities of any kind, including but not limited to terrorist attacks, to determine
i. What would be the proper constitutionally-sound and prudent way to monitor such facilities systematically when probable cause exists, and
ii. Any patterns as to how mosques and Islamic centers linked to radical Islam are being funded and built, and what existing laws, policy changes, and/or legislation might be useful in breaking that pattern.
3. The commission should explore potential counteractive steps to radicalization, according to the author of a scholarly work on the psychology of terrorism, such as:
a. “Promoting and supporting institutions of pluralistic Islam within the United States”
b. “Promoting the identity of America in institutions vulnerable to recruiting efforts by Islamists.”
c. “Establishing leadership within Islam in America for advocacy, education and outreach (to replace CAIR)”
d. “Establishing a means of tracking different political organizations who advocate Sharia, raise money for terrorist causes abroad, or support Islamism (political Islam) in the U.S. and creating a due process for the intelligence community to evaluate said organization and any need to distance it from elected officials and lawmakers”
e. “Working with Congress to establish anti-lobbying laws that do not allow political or campaign contributions from Islamist sources and Islamic theocracies”
f. “Cracking down on undisclosed lobbying contacts by representatives of state sponsors of terror, by stringently applying existing law”; and
g. “Dismantl[ing] the infrastructures of organizations that seek to impose Sharia law by force”
h. “Dismantling the infrastructure in campuses and in academia and curriculums though collaborative initiatives with the Department of Education (DOE) and the NSA”
i. “Working with Congress to pass laws that prevent endowing positions that enable embedding curricula that are hostile to American interests”
j. “Re-examining collaborative relationships with hostile countries, including the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, that allow for embedding curricula in American universities”
k. “Rethink[ing] “exchange” [programs] – we can lend them our academics as exports, but we will be careful to screen the ideology and educational practicum of those who seek to educate in the United States.”
l. “Cultivat[ing] civic requirements in higher education and college curricula that specifically educate about the United States’ contributions to other cultures, and other countries”
m. “Requir[ing] students from Muslim countries who study in the United States to enroll in civics courses that espouse American values and American virtues, including America’s contributions to the rest of the world”
n. “Requir[ing] Middle Eastern study programs to feature curricula about American contributions to the Arab World”
o. “Dismantling the infrastructure of the Islamist Supremacist movement in the publicly funded news media though collaborative initiatives with the Federal Communications Council (FCC) and NSA”
p. “Working with Congress to pass laws to withhold Federal funding from universities that use curricula that are hostile to American interests”
q. “Develop[ing] legislation to require American public broadcasters [etc.], and to provide grants for private media companies with foreign operations to air similar programming”; and
r. “Prohibit[ing] any publicly funded media from broadcasting anything that promotes Sharia as a political or judicial system”[61]
4. “Develop[ing] new protocols for local police officers, federal investigators, and immigration screeners,”[62] as then-candidate Trump envisioned, including by:
a. Designing the “new screening test” that then-candidate Trump called for during the campaign, saying:
A Trump Administration will establish a clear principle that will govern all decisions pertaining to immigration: we should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people.
In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today.
In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.
Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.
Only those who we expect to flourish in our country – and to embrace a tolerant American society – should be issued visas. [63]
b. Considering which of the specific modifications the Obama Administration made to U.S. training materials should be reversed by the Trump Administration, and what further enhancements of those materials it should make
c. Directly and explicitly rebutting both the “Countering Violent Extremism” narrative of the Obama Administration and the “War on Terror” narrative of the Bush Administration, laying out instead a new approach along the lines of President Trump’s call to “recognize this ideology of death that must be extinguished,” [64] and translating that approach into protocols for local police officers, federal investigators and immigration screeners to recognize and repel Islamists
d. Incorporating into the new protocols the results of a January 14, 2016 Middle East Forum study, “Islamism Responsible for More U.S. Murders than ‘Right-Wing’ Extremism”,[65] which debunked the New America Foundation (NAF) report “Terrorism in America After 9/11” that purported to find the opposite, claiming terrorists were “as American as Apple Pie.”[66]
e. Drawing lessons from success and failures in other countries, including potentially the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, Israel, Egypt, India, Singapore, and Bangladesh. [See for instance Appendix D: The Case of the United Kingdom]
5. Examining why, to quote then-candidate Trump, “political correctness has replaced common sense in our society,”[67] and how we overcome it to deal with the problem of radical Islam in an honest, bipartisan and rational way.
The lines of inquiry for such an examination might include gathering expert testimony and documentation on:
i. The philosophical and historical development of political correctness (PC)
ii. The stated objectives of the PC movement identified in that exploration
iii. The evidence that the PC movement is achieving those objectives in the West
iv. The strategies and tactics developed by the PC movement
v. How radical Islam fits into those strategies and tactics
vi. The degree to which Islamists are leveraging the PC narrative
vii. The likely result of continued leveraging of the PC movement by radical Islam
viii. The likely result of continued cooperation for the PC movement and radical Islam, based on their stated objectives
ix. The lines of eventual conflict between PC and radical Islam
x. How America might respond to the PC movement and radical Islam to arrive at a state in which Americans discuss, report and act on Islamist threats openly and rationally.
6. Exploring where radical Islam is getting its resources, and how can they be cut off. Specific questions the commission might examine:
a. How do federal, state and local governments subsidize radical Islam, including in grants and tax subsidies to Islamist organizations, funding to Islamist research and researchers, trainings that mislead decision-makers about the nature of radical Islam, etc.?
b. How can we persuade Congress and the State Department to stop funding the Palestinian Authority, which channels those resources into hatred at every level of its society?
c. How can we persuade Congress, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to stop funding illicit charitable efforts in the Gaza Strip, which serve to prop up the ruling Hamas regime?
d. How might America redirect resources flowing to the United Nations and related international fora, where radical Islam is among the best funded and represented forces, into an international security organization dedicated to victory over radical Islam?
e. What individuals, universities, companies and foundations are providing resources to organizations and organizers of radical Islam? How might they be best warned about the impact of their contributions?
f. How can America get Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf States to stop funding radical Islam in their countries and worldwide?
g. How should America’s struggle to achieve victory over radical Islam inform this Administration’s energy policy, especially with respect to oil?
h. What are all of the diversity, cultural sensitivity, and multicultural programs that the U.S. federal government currently conducts, funds, or mandates? What effects have these programs had, and are these effects in the national interest? Which, if any, should be modified, discontinued, or replaced entirely?
i. How might the federal intelligence community (IC) and law enforcement agencies best be reformed in order to maximize America’s return on investment in the fight against radical Islam?
7. Seeking ways to deny Islamists’ use of the Internet use of the Internet. As then-candidate Trump said in his speech, “We cannot allow the Internet to be used as a recruiting tool, and for other purposes, by our enemy – we must shut down their access to this form of communication, and we must do so immediately.” [68] For the commission, doing so should include potentially:
a. Recognizing that the Internet is not so much a tool as its own battle-space, that is, another front in the war on radical Islam, which must be treated as such in order to achieve victory there[69]
b. Taking testimony from and reviewing documents on the performance of technology companies such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Google with respect to radical Islam to understand the degree to which they are acquiescing to Islamists’ demands to stifle free speech without having them imposed on them by law
c. Creating the online equivalent of the Cold War’s Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in the Muslim world to boldly promote and defend Western values and sharply contrast failures of radical Islam[70]
d. Learning from the techniques and insights of the hacker the FBI refers to as the “Batman of the Internet,” known only as @th3j35t3r (the Jester), who hacked into the Global Islamic Media Front, as well into Islamic State itself after the Charlie Hebdo jihadi attack in Paris on January 7, 2015, including potentially:
i. Creating kinetic effects based on Stuxnet-style cyberattacks on, e.g., state assets (dams, nuclear weapons centrifuges, etc.) controlled by Islamist hostiles, including but not limited to Iran and Islamic State
ii. Building counter-jihad botnets (a.k.a. “zombie armies”), that is, networks of Islamists’ private computers infected with software allowing them to be controlled as a group without the owners’ knowledge, specifically to attack Islamist sites and computers with spam and/or viruses
iii. Redirecting denial-of-service attacks aimed at U.S. sites to hostile sites or those of the countries in which attacks originate
iv. Studying Cozy Bear, APT29 and The Dukes, the “threat group” operated since 2008 and attributed to the Russian government, which allegedly conducted the hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) beginning in the summer of 2015
v. Extracting key information from radical Islamists either for intelligence or publication and shaming purposes
vi. Tapping the wealth of knowledge in private companies in threat mitigation, intelligence-gathering, counter measures, and offensive capabilities – talent the Jester says is “chomping at the bit” to help the U.S. government
vii. Targeting and taking down radical Islamist websites, especially as many smaller sites as possible to “herd” sympathizers to the largest sites which are “easier to control;” and/or
viii. Setting up thousands, then hundreds of thousands, and ultimately millions of social media bots to mock, deride, and heap shame on radical Islam’s messages online[71]
e. Replicating on a global scale Internet Haganah, the online operation run by A. Aaron Weisburd where he:
i. “[T]rawl[ed] online in search of the press statements and videos that terrorists release to rally their supporters”
ii. “[Went] undercover, logging on to restricted forums (if he has been able to get a password) and visiting the many open sites advocating jihad”
iii. “[W]ork[ed] to figure out where [the terrorist press releases and videos were] coming from”
iv. “[E]ither shame[d] service providers into shutting down the sites that host them or gather[ed] what he terms “intel” for interested parties”
v. “[M]aintain[ed] a blog to rally his own side, providing an outlet for people eager to contribute their time and money to the fight against terrorism;” and
vi. [B]ecause Weisburd closely monitor[ed the blog’s] traffic, he [could] watch the jihadists watching him.”[72]
f. Running industrial-scale social media banning operations along the lines as those conducted on a one-off basis by counter-jihad blog The Jawa Report[73]
g. Learning lessons from deterring jihadis from the use of cell phones a generation ago[74]
h. Using kinetic and/or financial means to deter use of online fora to spread the evils of radical Islam;[75] and
i. Reviewing the proposal made by then-Congressman Mike Pompeo, R-KS, for a “comprehensive, searchable” database of domestic personal records.[76]
8. Reviewing what changes should be made to immigration practices, both within the Administration and in law through Congress, to address the threat of radical Islam, including answering the following questions:
a. Were there any violations of U.S. law in the amnesties provided by the Obama Administration, including the expenditure of money without Congressional authorization? If so, they should be referred to law enforcement authorities.
b. How should the refugee, asylum, and (immigration-specific) parole programs be reformed, redirected, or ended in order to best make America safe again?
c. How might we better track non-citizens within the United States and help repatriate those found to be participating in the spread of radical Islam?
d. How can the federal government assist states with both resources and personnel in securing their border facilities, including potentially the use of National Guard and/or military assets?
e. How might we amend relevant sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (U.S. Code Title 8)? These include both:
i. Existing entry bans that:
1. Bar entry based on activities intended to overthrow or control the U.S. government by violent or illegal means or totalitarian party membership
2. Bar entry based on terrorist activity or association
ii. Existing bases for denying naturalization:
1. Failure to “positively attach” to the principles of the Constitution
2. Advocacy for the imposition of anti-Constitutional totalitarian rule
Specifically, the commission should consider whether:
iii. 8 U.S. Code Section 1182(3)(C)(iii) should be amended by adding the following at its end (the current Exception for Officials C (ii) relating to diplomats and legal representatives of other governments would remain):
Any alien who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, rejects the supremacy of the United States Constitution, including the laws and regulations enacted and the common law judicially developed pursuant to it, as the sole governing legal authority or otherwise seeks to limit that supremacy as the sole governing legal authority within the jurisdiction of the United States is inadmissible.
Any aliens who advocate, teach, fundraise for, take oaths or pledges in support of or who are members of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches the overthrow by forceful or subversive means of the government of the United States to establish a totalitarian form of government applying laws incompatible with the United States Constitution, either through their own utterances or through any written or printed publications issued or published by or with the permission or consent of or under the authority of such organization or paid for by the funds of, or funds furnished by, such organization, are inadmissible.
iv. Changes should be made to a provision granting de facto extension of U.S. First Amendment protections to non-citizens seeking entry: 8 U.S. Code Section 1182(a)(3)(C)(iii). The statements, beliefs and associations of anyone attempting to enter the U.S. should certainly be open to scrutiny and potentially cause exclusion if they evince an attachment to an anti-constitutional ideology like radical Islam. Non-resident aliens outside the country should have no expectation of First Amendment or any other rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the section entitled “Exception for other aliens” highlighted below should be repealed.
(iii) Exception for other aliens
An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.
v. 8 U.S. Code § 1424 (4)(A) should be amended as follows:
(4) who advocates or teaches or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches (A) the overthrow by force or violence or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States or established forms of law; and/or
vi. 8 U.S. Code § 1424 (5)(E) should be amended as follows:
(E)…the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world Communism, or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian form of government which supplants the U.S. Constitution; or….
9. Summarizing, given the results of the prior investigations, how specifically America and its allies can halt the spread of radical Islam and ultimately defeat it. President Trump called for a “new approach, which must be shared by both parties in America, by our allies overseas, and by our friends in the Middle East,” namely “to halt the spread of radical Islam.”[77] What should that new approach be? For instance, the commission might consider:
i. Defeating the ideology of radical Islam just as we defeated the ideologies of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Communist Russia – recognizing that each required a different strategy – working with allies such as Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who has explicitly set the same objective;
ii. Restoring respect for the rule of law in immigration, securing America’s borders and enforcing the laws on the books, as well as improving those laws so that they better defend us from the threat of radical Islam;
iii. Using the West’s economy and culture to overpower radical Islam over time, as we did in the Cold War;
iv. Transforming our view of technology from a tool of radicalization into a battle space in which we must triumph completely;
v. Cutting off the bloodflow of money to the cancer of radical Islam – not just to designated foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs), but to the mosques, Islamic Centers and subversive groups founded and funded by radical Islamists worldwide, many funded directly by Saudi Arabia and its ilk;
vi. Respecting the self-determination of our allies in the Middle East, including the Kurds, Balochis, Yezidis, and Assyrian and Chaldean Christians, to help the people on the ground to redraw the Western-imposed maps that have created so many unstable and ultimately violent nations; and
vii. Using our kinetic power, backed up with industrial might as we have in the past – but only as a complement to the other battle fronts, not a replacement for fighting in them.[78]
________________________________________
III. Whom Should the Commission Include?
The discussion of the commission’s structure above included the general recommendation that the commission should include one or more individuals from the following categories:
1. Experts on terrorism and radical Islam
The commission should include a core group of those who have deeply studied and written about the threat America faces. As a former Reagan Defense Department official pointed out, anyone selected for the commission should be clear-eyed about Islam’s role in creating that threat, and must not be complicit in the current system’s failures.[79]
Those who might be considered include:
· Alan Dershowitz, law professor at Harvard University, author of Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge
· Steve Emerson, the Investigative Project on Terrorism
· Prof. Rohan Gunaratna, head of the International Center for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR) at Nanyang Technological University (Singapore)
· Philip B. Haney, founding member of DHS, author of See Something, Say Nothing
· Sam Harris, author of five New York Times bestsellers, including Islam and the Future of Tolerance (with Maajid Nawaz)
· Douglas Murray, the Henry Jackson Society (UK)
· Daniel Pipes, the Middle East Forum, author of Militant Islam Reaches America; In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power
· Patrick Poole, national security and terrorism consultant with works published in Middle East Review of International Affairs, the Journal of International Security Affairs and Middle East Quarterly
· Dr. Michael Welner, forensic psychiatrist, author of Psychopathy, Media, and the Psychology at the Root of Terrorism
· Sam Westrop, senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute; former head, Stand for Peace (UK)
2. Voices for Reform of Islam
In his speech, Mr. Trump expressed a desire to “include reformist voices in the Muslim community who will hopefully work with us. We want to build bridges and erase divisions.”[80]
Then-candidate Trump selected an excellent criteria for that selection: that Muslims be “reformist voices.”[81] Note the implications of both words: An information warfare expert in the counter-terror space points out that the call for those who are “reformist” implies that Islam is in need of reform, which of course it is. Agreement on that point should be the minimum qualification for service on or testimony to this commission, the expert argues.[82] And “voices” means he or she is one of the few courageous Muslims who have spoken out. Unless a Muslim or former Muslim has previously publicly stated that Islam is in need of reform, that Muslim simply does not meet the President’s criterion.
One reform-minded Muslim, a national leader, recommended including a designated number of reformist Muslims on the commission – at least two or three – so that the commission benefits from a range of views. He also urged setting a number of non-Muslims, which given the number of categories would be a minimum of five, and a maximum of perhaps eight, such that the commission’s size does not become ungainly.[83]
In addition, among these individuals, there should be one Urdu and one Farsi speaker. Moreover, according to a founding member of DHS, the commission needs to have one or two native Arabic speakers. “Without that,” he says, “you’re driving blind. Most of the real sources are in Arabic.”[84]
Finally, the information warfare expert notes that “We must not allow Muslims [alone] to define for us what the threat is. If it’s something that humans are capable of perceiving, it’s not just Muslims who can do it.” That is, those selecting commission members should keep in mind that being a Muslim neither uniquely qualifies someone to understand the threat, nor guarantees that the individual will correctly communicate the threat even were that understanding perfect.[85]
With all that in mind, those to be considered might include:
Dr. Tawfik Hamid, former member of Jamaa Islamiya
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D., President and Founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD)
Asra Nomani, author and former Co-Director of the Pearl Project
Shireen Qudosi, writer and editor of Qudosi Chronicles
3. Current or Former Elected Officials
Anyone selected from among the ranks of elected officials must have demonstrated both a grasp of the perils of radical Islam and the courage to speak plainly about them.
Some options would include:
U.S. Senator Tom Cotton, R-AR
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-GA
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, R-NY
Former House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Pete Hoekstra, R-MI
U.S. Senator Jim Lankford, R-OK
Former U.S. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, D-CT
U.S. Senator Bob Menendez, D-NJ
CIA Director Mike Pompeo, (ex officio), represented by the Deputy Director or another designee
Attorney General Jeff Sessions (ex officio), represented by the Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division, or another designee
4. Representatives of Law Enforcement, Intelligence, Military and/or Diplomatic Community
Those on the front lines facing down the threat know best what it looks like. For that reason, the commission should include representatives of law enforcement, the military and/or the diplomatic community, including potentially:
Amb. John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
David A. Clarke, Jr., Sheriff of Milwaukee County
Richard Higgins, former Defense Department official, Combatting Terrorism and Technical Support Office, Irregular Warfare Section, and Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict
DHS Sec. John F. Kelly (ex officio), represented by the Director, Homeland Security Advisory Council or another designee Defense Sec. James Mattis (ex officio), represented by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security Affairs or another designee
Andrew C. McCarthy, former Assistant U.S. Attorney who led 1995 World Trade Center terrorism prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey
Robert Reilly, former head of diplomacy at the United States Information Agency (USIA)
5. Representatives of the Technology Industry
The above-mentioned reformist Muslim leader, Zuhdi Jasser, recommended expanding the categories of the commission to include a member of the technology community – someone who understands the latest incarnations of media and social media – while acknowledging that the Internet is only “the final trigger” by which Islamists communicate. That, he said, was the lesson of a recent report that came out: We have exaggerated the problem of so-called “online radicalization.” Evaluating it on a case-by-case basis, it becomes clear that online activity is only an avenue, not the single path today’s jihadis tread.[86]
The challenge with selecting a member of the technology industry, especially in media and/or social media, is that those leaders have it so uniformly wrong. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, for instance, have all faced criticism – and now even lawsuits – for allowing Islamist traffic and/or shutting down voices critical of radical Islam.
Accordingly, those who stand out as likely candidates include:
“Rusty Shackleford,” the alias of the Editor-in-chief Emeritus of counter-jihad blog The Jawa Report
Peter Thiel, the former head of PayPal and an early investor in Facebook
J. Michael Waller, Ph.D., former Annenberg Professor of International Communication at Institute of World Politics and faculty member at the Naval Postgraduate School in information operations and strategic influence
A. Aaron Weisburd, founder of Internet Haganah, which “appl[ied] weaponized information to problems related to terrorism and hostile foreign intelligence services.”[87]
6. Victims of Radical Islam and Their Families
Arguably those with the greatest stake in the outcome of the fight are those who have already paid the heaviest price. Accordingly, the commission should represent victims of radical Islam and their families. Ideal candidates include:
Melvin Bledsoe, father of Carlos Leon Bledsoe, a.k.a. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad
Tim Brown, former New York firefighter, 9/11 victim
Daris Long, father of U.S. Army Private William Long, murdered by Carlos Leon Bledsoe, a.k.a. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad
Terry Strada, national chairwoman of 9/11 Families United For Justice
________________________________________
IV. How Should the Commission Charge the Government with Implementing Its Recommendations?
The commission is not worth establishing if its results will gather dust on a shelf. Accordingly, the recommendations above include a number of measures to see that this does not happen.
For instance, note that the structure of the commission includes that the President delegate responsibility for evaluating and taking action to the National Security Advisor for all recommendations deemed appropriate by the commission.[88] Such a delegation might allow for immediate implementation of findings that are time-sensitive.
Likewise, note that the structure contains not only ex officio membership for each Secretary but also a liaison from the DOJ, DHS, CIA, and DOD. That recommendation is intended not only to facilitate gathering necessary materials, but also to drive implementation of the commission’s directions once ordered by a U.S. official, and to facilitate referring potentially criminal, intelligence, or national security matters directly to the agencies responsible for each.
Moreover, each of the agencies that provide a liaison should also be tasked with preparing relevant raw data and materials for each topic under consideration by the commission, to make certain the commission has the information the agency considers important in making determinations relative to its areas of authority.
Finally, overall, the commission can increase its impact by, for each of the reports that it prepares, crafting drafts of:
1. Executive orders and/or tasking memos to federal agencies directing them to take action to fix a problem that may legally be addressed by the Executive Branch alone, to be submitted confidentially to the National Security Advisor for his or her consideration
2. Pieces of legislation embodying any policy changes that require Congressional approval, to be submitted confidentially to the National Security Advisor for distribution to relevant agencies and offices for review, and ultimately for submission to Congress for consideration, hearings, markup, and approval
3. Law enforcement referrals of individuals and/or entities found to be violating civil or criminal law, along with all relevant public and nonpublic documentation the commission uncovers, to be submitted confidentially to the commission liaison from the DOJ for consideration for investigation and/or prosecution
4. Supporting documents to be provided either to the public as appendices to the report or confidentially to the CIA for provision to the relevant intelligence agencies for their utilization as appropriate
5. Requests for proposal (RFPs), including suggested budgets, for goods or services required in order to implement a recommendation
6. Memos to state and/or local governments from relevant agencies communicating new requirements in order to receive federal funding for any given program that the commission deems may legally be made under existing statute and that would be salutary in defeating radical Islam, for submission to the liaison for the agency in question and/or the National Security Advisor for consideration
7. Recommended personnel changes, including potentially initiating, restructuring, increasing, decreasing, or eliminating staffing in a given department, and/or commendations, recriminations, or terminations recommended based on specific employee performance, for submission to the commission’s liaison for the agency in question and/or the National Security Advisor for consideration; and/or
8. Budget changes, including potentially initiating, reallocating, increasing, decreasing, or eliminating funding in given areas, for submission to the commission’s liaison for the agency in question and/or the National Security Advisor for consideration.
________________________________________
Appendix A: Full text of Donald J. Trump’s speech on Radical Islam
August 15, 2016, as prepared for delivery
Thank you. It is great to be with you this afternoon.
Today we begin a conversation about how to Make America Safe Again.
In the 20th Century, the United States defeated Fascism, Nazism, and Communism.
Now, a different threat challenges our world: radical Islamic terrorism.
This summer, there has been an ISIS attack launched outside the war zones of the Middle East every 84 hours.
Here, in America, we have seen one brutal attack after another.
13 were murdered, and 38 wounded, in the assault on Ft. Hood.
The Boston Marathon Bombing wounded and maimed 264 people, and ultimately left five dead – including 2 police officers.
In Chattanooga, Tennessee, five unarmed marines were shot and killed at a military recruiting center.
Last December, 14 innocent Americans were gunned down at an office party in San Bernardino, another 22 were injured.
In June, 49 Americans were executed at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, and another 53 were injured. It was the worst mass shooting in our history, and the worst attack on the LGTBQ community in our history.
In Europe, we have seen the same carnage and bloodshed inflicted upon our closest allies.
In January of 2015, a French satirical newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, was attacked for publishing cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. Twelve were killed, including two police officers, and 11 were wounded. Two days later, four were murdered in a Jewish Deli.
In November of 2015, terrorists went on a shooting rampage in Paris that slaughtered 130 people, and wounded another 368. France is suffering gravely, and the tourism industry is being massively affected in a most negative way.
In March of this year, terrorists detonated a bomb in the Brussels airport, killing 32 and injuring 340.
This July, in the South of France, an Islamic terrorist turned his truck into an instrument of mass murder, plowing down and killing 85 men, women and children – and wounding another 308. Among the dead were 2 Americans – a Texas father, and his 11-year-old son.
A few weeks ago, in Germany, a refugee armed with an axe wounded five people in a gruesome train attack.
Only days ago, an ISIS killer invaded a Christian church in Normandy France, forced an 85-year-old priest to his knees, and slit his throat before his congregation.
Overseas, ISIS has carried out one unthinkable atrocity after another. Children slaughtered, girls sold into slavery, men and women burned alive. Crucifixions, beheadings and drownings. Ethnic minorities targeted for mass execution. Holy sites desecrated. Christians driven from their homes and hunted for extermination. ISIS rounding-up what it calls the “nation of the cross” in a campaign of genocide. We cannot let this evil continue.
Nor can we let the hateful ideology of Radical Islam – its oppression of women, gays, children, and nonbelievers – be allowed to reside or spread within our own countries.
We will defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism, just as we have defeated every threat we have faced in every age before.
But we will not defeat it with closed eyes, or silenced voices.
Anyone who cannot name our enemy, is not fit to lead this country. Anyone who cannot condemn the hatred, oppression and violence of Radical Islam lacks the moral clarity to serve as our President.
The rise of ISIS is the direct result of policy decisions made by President Obama and Secretary Clinton
Let’s look back at the Middle East at the very beginning of 2009, before the Obama-Clinton Administration took over.
Libya was stable.
Syria was under control.
Egypt was ruled by a secular President and an ally of the United States.
Iraq was experiencing a reduction in violence.
The group that would become what we now call ISIS was close to being extinguished.
Iran was being choked off by economic sanctions.
Fast-forward to today. What have the decisions of Obama-Clinton produced?
Libya is in ruins, our ambassador and three other brave Americans are dead, and ISIS has gained a new base of operations.
Syria is in the midst of a disastrous civil war. ISIS controls large portions of territory. A refugee crisis now threatens Europe and the United States.
In Egypt, terrorists have gained a foothold in the Sinai desert, near the Suez Canal, one of the most essential waterways in the world.
Iraq is in chaos, and ISIS is on the loose.
ISIS has spread across the Middle East, and into the West. In 2014, ISIS was operating in some 7 nations. Today they are fully operational in 18 countries with aspiring branches in 6 more, for a total of 24 – and many believe it is even more than that. The situation is likely worse than the public knows: a new Congressional report reveals that the Administration has downplayed the growth of ISIS, with 40% of analysts saying they had experienced efforts to manipulate their findings.
At the same time, ISIS is trying to infiltrate refugee flows into Europe and the United States.
Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, is now flush with $150 billion in cash released by the United States – plus another $400 million in ransom. Worst of all, the Nuclear deal puts Iran, the number one state sponsor of Radical Islamic Terrorism, on a path to nuclear weapons.
In short, the Obama-Clinton foreign policy has unleashed ISIS, destabilized the Middle East, and put the nation of Iran – which chants ‘Death to America’ – in a dominant position of regional power and, in fact, aspiring to be a dominant world power.
It all began in 2009 with what has become known as President Obama’s global ‘Apology Tour.’
In a series of speeches, President Obama described America as “arrogant,” “dismissive” “derisive” and a “colonial power.” He informed other countries that he would be speaking up about America’s “past errors.” He pledged that we would no longer be a “senior partner,” that “sought to dictate our terms.” He lectured CIA officers of the need to acknowledge their mistakes, and described Guantanamo Bay as a “rallying cry for our enemies.”
Perhaps no speech was more misguided than President Obama’s speech to the Muslim World delivered in Cairo, Egypt, in 2009.
In winning the Cold War, President Ronald Reagan repeatedly touted the superiority of freedom over communism, and called the USSR the Evil Empire.
Yet, when President Obama delivered his address in Cairo, no such moral courage could be found. Instead of condemning the oppression of women and gays in many Muslim nations, and the systematic violations of human rights, or the financing of global terrorism, President Obama tried to draw an equivalency between our human rights record and theirs.
His naïve words were followed by even more naïve actions.
The failure to establish a new Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq, and the election-driven timetable for withdrawal, surrendered our gains in that country and led directly to the rise of ISIS.
The failures in Iraq were compounded by Hillary Clinton’s disaster in Libya. President Obama has since said he regards Libya as his worst mistake. According to then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the invasion of Libya was nearly a split decision, but Hillary Clinton’s forceful advocacy for the intervention was the deciding factor.
With one episode of bad judgment after another, Hillary Clinton’s policies launched ISIS onto the world.
Yet, as she threw the Middle East into violent turmoil, things turned out well for her. The Clintons made almost $60 million in gross income while she was Secretary of State.
Incident after incident proves again and again: Hillary Clinton lacks the judgment, the temperament and the moral character to lead this nation. Importantly, she also lacks the mental and physical stamina to take on ISIS, and all the many adversaries we face – not only in terrorism, but in trade and every other challenge we must confront to turn this country around.
It is time for a new approach
Our current strategy of nation-building and regime change is a proven failure. We have created the vacuums that allow terrorists to grow and thrive.
I was an opponent of the Iraq war from the beginning – a major difference between me and my opponent.
Though I was a private citizen, whose personal opinions on such matters [were] not sought, I nonetheless publicly expressed my private doubts about the invasion. Three months before the invasion I said, in an interview with Neil Cavuto, to whom I offer my best wishes for a speedy recovery, that “perhaps [we] shouldn’t be doing it yet,” and that “the economy is a much bigger problem.”
In August of 2004, very early in the conflict, I made a detailed statement to Esquire magazine. Here is the quote in full:
Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the country? C’mon. Two minutes after we leave, there’s going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he’ll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn’t have.
“What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing.
So I have been clear for a long time that we should not have gone in. But I have been just as clear in saying what a catastrophic mistake Hillary Clinton and President Obama made with the reckless way in which they pulled out.
After we had made those hard-fought sacrifices and gains, we should never have made such a sudden withdrawal – on a timetable advertised to our enemies. Al Qaeda in Iraq had been decimated, and Obama and Clinton gave it new life and allowed it to spread across the world.
By that same token, President Obama and Hillary Clinton should never have attempted to build a Democracy in Libya, to push for immediate regime change in Syria or to support the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt.
One more point on this: I have long said that we should have kept the oil in Iraq – another area where my judgment has been proven correct. According to CNN, ISIS made as much $500 million in oil sales in 2014 alone, fueling and funding its reign of terror. If we had controlled the oil, we could have prevented the rise of ISIS in Iraq – both by cutting off a major source of funding, and through the presence of U.S. forces necessary to safeguard the oil and other vital infrastructure. I was saying this constantly and to whoever would listen: keep the oil, keep the oil, keep the oil, I said – don’t let someone else get it.
If they had listened to me then, we would have had the economic benefits of the oil, which I wanted to use to help take care of the wounded soldiers and families of those who died – and thousands of lives would have been saved.
This proposal, by its very nature, would have left soldiers in place to guard our assets. In the old days, when we won a war, to the victor belonged the spoils. Instead, all we got from Iraq – and our adventures in the Middle East – was death, destruction and tremendous financial loss.
But it is time to put the mistakes of the past behind us, and chart a new course.
If I become President, the era of nation-building will be ended. Our new approach, which must be shared by both parties in America, by our allies overseas, and by our friends in the Middle East, must be to halt the spread of Radical Islam.
All actions should be oriented around this goal, and any country which shares this goal will be our ally. We cannot always choose our friends, but we can never fail to recognize our enemies.
As President, I will call for an international conference focused on this goal. We will work side-by-side with our friends in the Middle East, including our greatest ally, Israel. We will partner with King Abdullah of Jordan, and President Sisi of Egypt, and all others who recognize this ideology of death that must be extinguished.
We will also work closely with NATO on this new mission. I had previously said that NATO was obsolete because it failed to deal adequately with terrorism; since my comments they have changed their policy and now have a new division focused on terror threats.
I also believe that we could find common ground with Russia in the fight against ISIS. They too have much at stake in the outcome in Syria, and have had their own battles with Islamic terrorism.
My Administration will aggressively pursue joint and coalition military operations to crush and destroy ISIS, international cooperation to cutoff their funding, expanded intelligence sharing, and cyberwarfare to disrupt and disable their propaganda and recruiting. We cannot allow the internet to be used as a recruiting tool, and for other purposes, by our enemy – we must shut down their access to this form of communication, and we must do so immediately.
Unlike Hillary Clinton, who has risked so many lives with her careless handling of sensitive information, my Administration will not telegraph exact military plans to the enemy. I have often said that General MacArthur and General Patton would be in a state of shock if they were alive today to see the way President Obama and Hillary Clinton try to recklessly announce their every move before it happens – like they did in Iraq – so that the enemy can prepare and adapt.
The fight will not be limited to ISIS. We will decimate Al Qaeda, and we will seek to starve funding for Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah. We can use existing UN Security Council resolutions to apply new sanctions.
Military, cyber and financial warfare will all be essential in dismantling Islamic terrorism.
But we must use ideological warfare as well
Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of radical Islam.
While my opponent accepted millions of dollars in Foundation donations from countries where being gay is an offense punishable by prison or death, my Administration will speak out against the oppression of women, gays and people of different faith.
Our Administration will be a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, and will amplify their voices.
This includes speaking out against the horrible practice of honor killings, where women are murdered by their relatives for dressing, marrying or acting in a way that violates fundamentalist teachings.
Over 1,000 Pakistani girls are estimated to be the victims of honor killings by their relatives each year. Recently, a prominent Pakistani social media star was strangled to death by her brother on the charge of dishonoring the family. In his confession, the brother took pride in the murder and said: “Girls are born to stay home and follow traditions.”
Shockingly, this is a practice that has reached our own shores.
One such case involves an Iraqi immigrant who was sentenced to 34 years in jail for running over his own daughter claiming she had become “too Westernized.”
To defeat Islamic terrorism, we must also speak out forcefully against a hateful ideology that provides the breeding ground for violence and terrorism to grow.
A new immigration policy is needed as well
The common thread linking the major Islamic terrorist attacks that have recently occurred on our soil – 9/11, the Ft. Hood shooting, the Boston bombing, the San Bernardino attack, the Orlando attack – is that they have involved immigrants or the children of immigrants.
Clearly, new screening procedures are needed[.]
A review by the U.S. Senate Immigration Subcommittee has identified 380 foreign-born individuals charged with terrorism or terrorism related offenses between 9/11 and 2014, and many more since then.
We also know that ISIS recruits refugees after their entrance into the country – as we have seen with the Somali refugee population in Minnesota.
Beyond terrorism, as we have seen in France, foreign populations have brought their anti-Semitic attitudes with them.
Pew polling shows that in many of the countries from which we draw large numbers of immigrants, extreme views about religion – such as the death penalty for those who leave the faith – are commonplace.
A Trump Administration will establish a clear principle that will govern all decisions pertaining to immigration: we should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people.
In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today.
In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.
Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.
Only those who we expect to flourish in our country – and to embrace a tolerant American society – should be issued visas.
To put these new procedures in place, we will have to temporarily suspend immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism.
As soon as I take office, I will ask the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security to identify a list of regions where adequate screening cannot take place. We will stop processing visas from those areas until such time as it is deemed safe to resume based on new circumstances or new procedures.
The size of current immigration flows are simply too large to perform adequate screening.
We admit about 100,000 permanent immigrants from the Middle East every year. Beyond that, we admit hundreds of thousands of temporary workers and visitors from the same regions. If we don’t control the numbers, we can’t perform adequate screening.
By contrast, my opponent wants to increase the flow of Syrian refugees by 550% percent.
The United States Senate Subcommittee on Immigration estimates that Hillary Clinton’s plan would mean roughly 620,000 refugees from all current refugee-sending nations in her first term, assuming no cuts to other refugee programs. This would be additional to all other nonrefugee immigration.
The Subcommittee estimates her plan would impose a lifetime cost of roughly $400 billion when you include the costs of healthcare, welfare, housing, schooling, and all other entitlement benefits that are excluded from the State Department’s placement figures.
In short, Hillary Clinton wants to be America’s Angela Merkel, and you know what a disaster this massive immigration has been to Germany and the people of Germany – crime has risen to levels that no one thought would they would ever see. We have enough problems in our country, we don’t need another one.
Finally, we will need to restore common sense to our security procedures.
Another common feature of the past attacks that have occurred on our soil is that warning signs were ignored.
The 9/11 hijackers had fraud all over their visa applications.
The Russians warned us about the Boston Bombers, here on political asylum, and the attackers were even twice interviewed by the FBI.
The female San Bernardino shooter, here on a fiancé visa from Saudi Arabia, wrote of her support for Jihad online. A neighbor saw suspicious behavior but didn’t warn authorities, because said they didn’t want to be accused of racially profiling – now many are dead and gravely wounded.
The shooter in Orlando reportedly celebrated in his classroom after 9/11. . He too was interviewed by the FBI. His father, a native of Afghanistan, supported the oppressive Taliban regime, and expressed anti-American views – and by the way, was just seen sitting behind Hillary Clinton with a big smile on his face all the way through her speech. He obviously liked what she had to say.
The Ft. Hood Shooter delivered a presentation to a room full of mental health experts before the attacks in which he threw out one red flag after another. He even proclaimed that “we love death more than you love life!”
These warnings signs were ignored because political correctness has replaced common sense in our society.
That is why one of my first acts as President will be to establish a Commission on Radical Islam – which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community who will hopefully work with us. We want to build bridges and erase divisions.
The goal of the commission will be to identify and explain to the American public the core convictions and beliefs of Radical Islam, to identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that support radicalization.
This commission will be used to develop new protocols for local police officers, federal investigators, and immigration screeners.
We will also keep open Guantanamo Bay, and place a renewed emphasis on human intelligence. Drone strikes will remain part of our strategy, but we will also seek to capture high-value targets to gain needed information to dismantle their organizations. Foreign combatants will be tried in military commissions.
Finally, we will pursue aggressive criminal or immigration charges against anyone who lends material support to terrorism. Similar to the effort to take down the mafia, this will be the understood mission of every federal investigator and prosecutor in the country.
To accomplish a goal, you must state a mission: the support networks for Radical Islam in this country will be stripped out and removed one by one.
Immigration officers will also have their powers restored: those who are guests in our country that are preaching hate will be asked to return home.
To Make America Safe Again, We Must Work Together Again
Our victory in the Cold War relied on a bipartisan and international consensus. That is what we must have to defeat Radical Islamic terrorism.
But just like we couldn’t defeat communism without acknowledging that communism exists – or explaining its evils – we can’t defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism unless we do the same.
This also means we have to promote the exceptional virtues of our own way of life – and expecting that newcomers to our society do the same.
Pride in our institutions, our history and our values should be taught by parents and teachers, and impressed upon all who join our society.
Assimilation is not an act of hostility, but an expression of compassion. Our system of government, and our American culture, is the best in the world and will produce the best outcomes for all who adopt it.
This approach will not only make us safer, but bring us closer together as a country.
Renewing this spirit of Americanism will help heal the divisions in our country. It will do so by emphasizing what we have in common – not what pulls us apart.
This is my pledge to the American people: as your President I will be your greatest champion. I will fight to ensure that every American is treated equally, protected equally, and honored equally. We will reject bigotry and oppression in all its forms, and seek a new future built on our common culture and values as one American people.
Only this way, will we make America Great Again and Safe Again – For Everyone.
Thank you.
Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-terrorism-speech-227025
Appendix B: Selected Presidential Commissions, 1900-2016
Philippine Commission – “Taft Commission” (1900)
Commission on the Organization of Government Scientific Work (1903)
Committee on Department Methods – “Keep Commission” (1905–1909)
President’s Commission on Economy and Efficiency (1910–1912)
President’s Committee on Economic Security (CES) founded 1934
President’s Commission on Administrative Management – “Brownlow Committee” (1937)
Commission to Investigate the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor – a.k.a. “Roberts Commission” (1941)
President’s Committee on Civil Rights (1946)
President’s Scientific Research Board (1946)
Presidential Commission on Higher Education (1947)
Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government – Hoover Commission (1947)
President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services (1948)
President’s Committee on Religious & Moral Welfare & Character Guidance in the Armed Forces (1948)
President’s Water Resources Policy Commission (1950)
President’s Communications Policy Board (1950)
President’s Commission on Migratory Labor (1950)
President’s Commission on Internal Security and Individual Rights (1951)
President’s Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation (1951)
President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (1952)
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations – a.k.a. “Kestenbaum Commission” (1953)
Presidential Commission on the Status of Women (1961)
The President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy – a.k.a. “Warren Commission” (1963)
President’s Review Committee for Development Planning in Alaska (1964)
President’s Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia (1965–1969)
President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1965–1969)
President’s Commission on Budget Concepts (1967–1969)
National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence (1969)
President’s Blue Ribbon Defense Panel (1969-1970) (urged 60% cuts in Pentagon staffs)
President’s Commission on Campus Unrest (1970)
President’s Commission on Financial Structure and Regulation – a.k.a. the “Hunt Commission” (1970-1971)
National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control (1971)
President’s Commission on Olympic Sports (1975)
U.S. President’s Commission on CIA activities within the United States – a.k.a. Rockefeller Commission (1975)
President’s Advisory Board on International Investment (1977)
Presidential Advisory Board on Ambassadorial Appointments (1977)
President’s Commission on Mental Health (1977)
President’s Commission on Military Compensation (1977)
President’s Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies (1978)
President’s Commission on the Coal Industry (1978)
President’s Commission on Pension Policy (1978)
Presidential Commission on World Hunger (1978)
President’s Commission on the Holocaust (1978)
President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island (1979)
President’s Advisory Committee for Women (1979)
President’s Commission for a National Agenda for the Eighties (1979)
President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine & Biomedical & Behavioral Research (1979)
Advisory Committee on Small and Minority Business Ownership (1980)
President’s Commission on United States-Liberian Relations (1980)
President’s Committee on the International Labor Organization (1980)
President’s Committee on Small Business Policy (1981)
President’s Council on Spinal Cord Injury (1981)
President’s Commission on Hostage Compensation (1981)
President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control – a.k.a. “Grace Commission” (1982)
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983)
Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident – a.k.a. “Rogers Commission” (1986)
President’s Special Review Board (Iran-Contra) – a.k.a. “Tower Commission” (1986)
President’s Commission on Organized Crime (1986)
President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management -a.ka. “Packard Commission” (1986)
President’s Commission on the HIV Epidemic (1987)
President’s commission on aviation security and terrorism (1990)
President’s Commission on Veterans Education (1996)
Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States (1998)
President’s Commission To Strengthen Social Security (2001)
President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2001)
Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry (2001)
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States – a.k.a. 9/11 Commission (2002)
President’s Commission on the United States Postal Service (2002)
President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy (2004)
Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (2005)
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (2010)
Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (2010)
National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling (2010)
Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity (2016) – 12 members
________________________________________
Appendix C: Sample Executive Order Creating a White House Commission on Radical Islam
White House Commission on Radical Islam
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Establishment.
There is established the White House Commission on Radical Islam (the “Commission”).
Sec. 2. Membership.
(a) The Commission shall be composed of not more than [7-11] members who shall be appointed by the President those with experience in or representing Experts on Terrorism and Radical Islam, Voices for Reform of Islam, Current or Former Elected Officials, Representatives of Law Enforcement, Intelligence, Military and Diplomatic Communities, Representatives of the Technology Industry, Victims of Radical Islam and/or their Families, or any other area determined by the President to be of value to the Commission in carrying out its duties.
(b) The President shall designate from among the Commission members two members to serve as Co-Chairs.
Sec. 3. Mission.
The Commission shall hold field hearings at sites of important Islamist terror strikes and events revealing Islamist subversion, and in a series of separate reports:
(a) Explain to the public the core convictions of radical Islam
(b) Chart how Islamists recruit and deploy jihadis, as well as how they penetrate society with their doctrines, to expose the networks that support radicalization
(c) Develop new protocols for local police officers, federal investigators, and immigration screeners
(d) Examine “political correctness” and how we overcome it to deal with the problem of radical Islam in an honest, bipartisan and rational way
(e) Explore where radical Islam gets its resources and how they can be cut off
(f) Seek ways to counter Islamists’ use of the Internet; and
(g) Summarize how America and its allies can halt the spread of radical Islam and ultimately defeat it.
Sec. 4. Administration.
(a) The Commission shall be housed and officed in the Executive Office of the President.
(b) The Commission’s Chairman shall report in to the National Security Advisor
(c) The President shall name a designated liaison from the Commission to the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and Department of Defense (DOD)
(d) The Commission shall be empowered by a joint resolution of Congress to subpoena documents, compel testimony, and grant immunity, and be prepared that its reports may be used as evidence in later criminal proceedings.
(e) The President does hereby:
a. Delegate responsibility for evaluating and taking action, where appropriate, with respect to all public recommendations of the Commission to the National Security Advisor for all recommendations deemed appropriate by the Commission, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
b. Designate the GSA to provide fiscal and administrative support to the Commission pursuant to FACA Section 12
c. Provide for a two-year term, which may be renewed by the President or National Security Advisor by appropriate action prior to the expiration of such two-year period pursuant to FACA Section 14.
Sec. 5. General Provisions.
(a) To the extent permitted by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations, the relevant Agencies shall provide the Commission with such administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, and other support services as may be necessary to carry out its mission.
(b) Insofar as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.) (the “Act”), may apply to the Commission, any functions of the President under that Act, except for those in section 6 of the Act, shall be performed by the Administrator of General Services.
(c) The Members of the Commission, if otherwise uncompensated for their service, shall serve with compensation for their work on the Commission at Executive Schedule Level 2, and shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, to the extent permitted by law for persons serving intermittently in the Government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707).
(d) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(1) authority granted by law to a department, agency, or the head thereof; or
(2) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(e) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
[signed]
Donald J. Trump
The White House,
[date].
________________________________________
Appendix D: The Case of the United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, according to Sam Westrop, currently Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute and the former head of UK-based non-governmental organization (NGO) Stand For Peace:
1. Policy was until early 2009 soft on Islamist organizations, including those close to or backed by Jamaat-e-Islami,[89] originally founded in British India in 1941 by Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi with the original objective of establishing “God’s governance,” out of concern that the result of the existing Muslim League program would “not be an Islamic state based on the Sharia but a mirror image of Godless, Western, secular democracy.”[90]
2. The group followed Indian Muslim, and then Pakistani, immigration to the UK, and is now regarded as one of the two primary sources of Islamist thought and organizations worldwide, along with the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood.[91]
3. The UK decided not just to engage with Islamists like these but actually give them money as well, which also included local and police grants that likely ran into the tens of millions of pounds, [92] and which continued even after the 7/7 attacks in London.
4. That changed in 2009, when it emerged that Daud Abdullah, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, had signed what was known as the Istanbul Declaration, [93] which denounced “this malicious Jewish Zionist war over Gaza.”[94]
5. In response, there were immediate calls to cease funding MCB and other Islamist causes, including from at least one reformist Muslim, Irfan Al Alawi, international director of the Centre for Islamic Pluralism.[95]
6. The UK government began to say to itself, “Maybe we’ve been funding the wrong people,” according to the former head of the UK-based NGO. After the incident, left-leaning journalists investigated and found that the UK government had been giving money to all sorts of hateful and violent Islamists, which was particularly damaging as the Labor Party entered new elections. What the UK learned at that time was that Islam in the country was incredibly diverse, with hundreds of political sects – and that “Islamists did not represent ordinary Muslims, who didn’t like or care about the groups purporting to speak for them.” [96]
7. In a 2007 poll, for instance, a towering 94% of British Muslims said that they did not believe that the MCB, for instance, represented their views.[97]
8. The lessons culminated when UK Conservative leader David Cameron gave a speech saying flatly that the multicultural strategy the UK had employed relative to Islamism had failed. The UK realized that their approach had been “a bit like turning an anti-Skinhead program over to right-wing groups,” said the former UK NGO head. In response, the UK “government started rolling back every form of perceived understanding about how to approach the issue” – in particular, defunding the groups associated with Salafi, Deobandi, and Muslim Brotherhood Islamism. Some Islamist charities have had millions in tax-exempt pounds pulled back from them. The government “changed almost completely the CVE” program that it had put together. Today, the UK government refuses to meet with or speak to MCB. By now, both the British and French governments have realized that there’s no point in talking to them, because “When you work with them, you’re abandoning Muslim voices to the Islamists.”[98]
About the Author
Christopher C. Hull, Ph.D., is the President and Campaign Manager of IMI, in which capacity he has just completed an 18-month contract running the Counter Jihad Campaign for the Center for Security Policy.
Dr. Hull is a former chief of staff for Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, in which capacity he was the internal point person for the Iowa Freedom Summit, which brought a dozen-odd potential presidential candidates to the Hawkeye State in early 2015 and helped launch the 2016 nomination contest.
Before joining Rep. King, he spent 15 years in public affairs, including founding his own online lobbying technology company and serving as Senior Vice President and Campaign Manager, U.S. Public Affairs, at Hill & Knowlton.
Before moving to public affairs, Chris held politics and policy positions, serving as a press secretary in the U.S. House of Representatives, a legislative assistant in the U.S. Senate, a communications aide in a national party committee, a researcher in a major think tank, and the majority staff director of a state Senate.
Dr. Hull holds a doctorate in government with distinction from Georgetown University and an undergraduate degree magna cum laude, also in government, from Harvard University. He is the author of Grassroots Rules: How the Iowa Caucuses Help Elect American Presidents, published by Stanford University Press in November, 2007.
He has been published or quoted in television, print, radio and online outlets including the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, USA Today, NPR, MSNBC, Bloomberg, Reuters, National Journal, CNBC, The Hill, Hotline, New York Newsday and U.S. News & World Report.
________________________________________
[1] Politico staff, “Full text: Donald Trump’s speech on fighting terrorism,” August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016. Note that the term “radical Islam” is itself a recommended topic for the Commission to consider.
[2] Politico staff, “Full text: Donald Trump’s speech on fighting terrorism,” August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[3] Politico staff, “Full text: Donald Trump’s speech on fighting terrorism,” August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[4] Julia Edwards Ainsley et al., “Exclusive: Trump to focus counter-extremism program solely on Islam – sources,” Reuters, February 2, 2017, accessed February 2, 2017.
[5] See Pub.L. 92−463, 86 Stat. 770, as amended, Section 6(a).
[6] See Pub.L. 92−463, 86 Stat. 770, as amended, Section 12.
[7] See Pub.L. 92−463, 86 Stat. 770, as amended, Section 14.
[8] See Pub.L. 92−463, 86 Stat. 770, as amended, Section 9(c).
[9] See S.J.Res. 80 — 96th Congress: A joint resolution to confer certain powers on the Presidential Commission appointed to investigate the …”
[10] Alan A. Block, “The Origins of Iran-CONTRA,” The Organized Crime Community: Essays in Honor of Alan A. Block (Springer Science & Business Media, 2007), ed. Frank Bovenkerk and Michael Levi, p. 2.
[11] See Appendix B: Selected Presidential Commissions, 1900-2016.
[12] Politico staff, “Full text: Donald Trump’s speech on fighting terrorism,” August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[13] P. David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry, Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America (Los Angeles: WND Books, 2009).
[14] “A Short Course, Part 13: The Holy Land Trial: On the Trail of the Muslim Brotherhood” Shariah: The Threat to America, Report of Team B II (Washington, D.C.: The Center for Security Policy, 2010), accessed January 16, 2017.
[15] Politico staff, “Full text: Donald Trump’s speech on fighting terrorism,” August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[16] See Kenneth Kitts, Presidential Commissions and National Security: The Politics of Damage Control (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2005).
[17] Interview by author with former Reagan Defense Department official, January 17, 2017.
[18] Interview by author with former Reagan Defense Department official, January 17, 2017; see also Richard Pipes, “Team B: The Reality Behind the Myth,” Commentary Magazine, 82 (4), October 1, 1986.
[19] “America’s Cold War victory” is used to refer to the consensus that the Soviet bloc’s collapse marked an important turn of the tide in international affairs, not to imply a belief that America did, or has, won the ideological battle with Marxism or its multiple mutant offspring.
[20] Politico staff, “Full text: Donald Trump’s speech on fighting terrorism,” August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[21] The original list of beliefs on which the following list is based was compiled by staff at the Center for Security Policy, July 28, 2016. Note that all sources are to original Islamic texts and readers are encouraged to verify them for themselves.
[22] Sahih al-Bukhari, “Bab al Janaiz, Vol. 2, p. 90; Vol. 3, “Bab al Wakalah fi al Hudud”, p. 65; Vol. 7, “Kitab al Ayman”, p. 218; Vol. 8, “Bab al Rajm,” pp. 24. 29. 34, 135; Sunan Al Tirmidhi, “Kitab al Hudud”, Vol. 4, pp. 27, 33, 34.
[23] Qur’an 24:4-5.
[24] Reliance of the Traveler/’Umdat al-Salik, Book O, Justice, Section o12.0, The Penalty for Fornication or Sodomy, p. 610-11.
[25] Qur’an 16:106.
[26] Reliance of the Traveler/’Umdat al-Salik, Book O, Justice, Section o1.2, pp. 583-84.
[27] Reliance of the Traveler/’Umdat al-Salik, Book E, Purification, Section e4.3, pg. 59.
[28] Qur’an 2:282.
[29] Qur’an 4:11.
[30] Qur’an 4:34.
[31] Qur’an 65:4.
[32] Reliance of the Traveler/’Umdat al-Salik, Book M, Marriage, Section m3.4, p. 518-9.
[33] Reliance of the Traveler/’Umdat al-Salik, Book M, Marriage, Section m10.4, p. 538; Section m3.7, p. 520.
[34] “Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom” by Ayatollah Khomeini.
[35] Qur’an 4:3.
[36] Qur’an 2:223.
[37] Qur’an 23:5, Qur’an 70:30, Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 7, p. 137.
[38] Qur’an 33:50, Qur’an 23:5.
[39] Reliance of the Traveler/’Umdat al-Salik, Book O, Justice, Section 01.2, p. 584; Book O, Justice, Section o9.0, Jihad, p. 599, Qur’an 8:39.
[40] Qur’an 47:4.
[41] Qur’an 5:38-39.
[42] Qur’an 24:2
[43] Sahih Al Bukhari, “Kitab al Hudud”, Vol. 8, pp. 13, 14, 15.
[44] Reliance of the Traveler/Umdat al-Salik, Book R, Holding One’s Tongue, Section r2.0, Slander, p. 730; Qur’an 49:12; Qur’an 104.1; Qur’an 68:11.
[45] Reliance of the Traveler/’Umdat al-Salik, Book O, Justice, Section o11.0, Non-Muslim Subjects of the Islamic State (Ahl al-Dhimma), p. 607-9 (Pact of Umar).
[46] Reliance of the Traveler/’Umdat al-Salik, Book O, Justice, Section o11.0, Non-Muslim Subjects of the Islamic State (Ahl al-Dhimma), p. 607-9 (Pact of Umar).
[47] Qur’an 8:39.
[48] Qur’an 8:39; Qur’an 9:5; Qur’an 9:29.
[49] Reliance of the Traveler/’Umdat al-Salik, Book M, Marriage, Section m2.3, p 512; Section m2.7, pg. 513.
[50] Reliance of the Traveler/’Umdat al-Salik, Book M, Marriage, Section m2.3, p. 512.
[51] Qur’an 5:3; Qur’an 6:118-9.
[52] Qur’an 2:183-5.
[53] Qur’an 2:65, Qur’an 5:60, Qur’an 7:166.
[54] Reliance of the Traveler/’Umdat al-Salik, Book R, Holding One’s Tongue, Section r7.0, Giving Directions to Someone Who Wants To Do Wrong, p. 743-44.
[55] Reliance of the Traveler/’Umdat al-Salik, Book R, Holding One’s Tongue, Section r8.0, Lying, p. 744-46.
[56] Politico staff, “Full text: Donald Trump’s speech on fighting terrorism,” August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[57] The Clarion Project, “Islamist Organizations in America,” accessed January 25, 2017.
[58] “List of Unindicted Co-conspirators and/or Joint Venturers,” Attachment A, U.S. vs. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, et al.
[59] Daniel Pipes, “That List of Islamist Organizations under U.S. Senate Scrutiny,” Middle East Forum, originally posted January 14, 2004, updated December 14, 2005, accessed January 25, 2017.
[60] Interview with author of scholarly work on the psychology of terrorism, January 18, 2017.
[61] Interview with author of scholarly work on the psychology of terrorism, January 18, 2017.
[62] Politico staff, “Full text: Donald Trump’s speech on fighting terrorism,” August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[63] Politico staff, “Full text: Donald Trump’s speech on fighting terrorism,” August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[64] Politico staff, “Full text: Donald Trump’s speech on fighting terrorism,” August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[65] Johanna Markind ,”Islamism Responsible for More U.S. Murders than ‘Right-Wing’ Extremism,” Independent Journal Review, January 24, 2016, accessed January 25, 2017.
[66] Peter Bergen et al., “International Security In Depth: Terrorism in America After 9/11,” New America Foundation, accessed January 25, 2017.
[67] Politico staff, “Full text: Donald Trump’s speech on fighting terrorism,” August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[68] Politico staff, “Full text: Donald Trump’s speech on fighting terrorism,” August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016. Note that the term “radical Islam” is itself a recommended topic for the Commission to consider.
[69] Interview by the author with former Defense Department official with experience in Irregular Warfare Section and Combatting Terrorism and Technical Support Office, January 28, 2017.
[70] A. Ross Johnson, “RFE/RL History,” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, December 2008, ed. Martins Zvaners, accessed January 30, 2017.
[71] See Team Herman, “The world’s most patriotic American hacker, the Jester, gives first ever radio interview,” MYNorthwest.com, November 15, 2016; Kim Zetter, “An Unprecedented Look at Stuxnet, the World’s First Digital Weapon,” November 3, 2014; “Group: APT29, The Dukes, Cozy Bear,” ATT&CK (Adversarial Tactics, Techniques, and Common Knowledge), all accessed January 27, 2017.
[72] Nadya Labi, “Jihad 2.0,” The Atlantic, July/August 2006 Issue, accessed January 27, 2017.
[73] See e.g. Howie, “Meanwhile in Austria,” The Jawa Report, posted January 26, 2017, accessed January 27, 2017; Howie, “Banned From Jihadtube :Boobies; Not banned from Jihadtube, Death to America,” The Jawa Report, posted January 23, 2017, accessed January 27, 2017.
[74] Interview by author with Member of Congress and chairman of relevant subcommittee, January 5, 2017.
[75] Interview by author with Member of Congress and chairman of relevant subcommittee, January 5, 2017.
[76] Mike Pompeo and David B. Rivkin, Jr., “Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance,” Wall Street Journal, January 3, 2016, accessed January 30, 2017.
[77] Politico staff, “Full text: Donald Trump’s speech on fighting terrorism,” August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[78] These seven points were drawn from an interview by the author with a Member of Congress and chairman of relevant subcommittee, January 5, 2017.
[79] Interview by author with former Reagan Defense Department official, January 17, 2017.
[80] Politico staff, “Full text: Donald Trump’s speech on fighting terrorism,” August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[81] Politico staff, “Full text: Donald Trump’s speech on fighting terrorism,” August 15, 2016, accessed December 9, 2016.
[82] Interview by author with information warfare expert in the counter-terror space, January 18, 2017.
[83] Interview by author with reform-minded Muslim national leader, January 16, 2017.
[84] Interview by author with Founding Member of the Department of Homeland Security, January 16, 2017.
[85] Interview by author with information warfare expert in the counter-terror space, January 18, 2017.
[86] Interview by author with reform-minded Muslim national leader, January 16, 2017.
[87] A. Aaron Weisburd, LinkedIn profile, accessed January 27, 2017.
[88] See Pub.L. 92−463, 86 Stat. 770, as amended, Section 6(a).
[89] Interview by author with Sam Westrop, former head, Stand For Peace, a UK-based non-governmental organization (NGO), January 16, 2017; see also Kurt Barling, “What’s the risk to London?” BBC, May 15, 2008, accessed January 19, 2017.
[90] Irfan Ahmad, “The Jewish hand and the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind,” in Peter van der Veer and Shoma Munshi (eds.), Media, War, and Terrorism: Responses from the Middle East and Asia (London: Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004), p. 138.
[91] Olivier Roy, The Failure of Political Islam. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 35. “The origins of today’s Islamist thought and organisations can be traced to the Society of the Muslim Brotherhood, created by the school teacher Hasan al-Banna in Egypt in 1928, and the Jamaat-i-Islami of Pakistan, established by [Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi].”
[92] Interview by author with Sam Westrop, former head, Stand For Peace, a UK-based non-governmental organization (NGO), January 16, 2017.
[93] Jamie Doward, “British Muslim leader urged to quit over Gaza,” The Guardian (London), March 8, 2009, accessed January 19, 2017.
[94] Vikram Dodd, ‘Muslim Council accuses government of undermining independence,’ The Guardian (London), March 26, 2009, accessed January 19, 2017.
[95] Jamie Doward, “British Muslim leader urged to quit over Gaza,” The Guardian (London), March 8, 2009, accessed January 19, 2017.
[96] Interview by author with Sam Westrop, former head, Stand For Peace, a UK-based non-governmental organization (NGO), January 16, 2017.
[97] Sam Westrop, “UK: Multiculturalism vs. Islamism,” Gatestone Institute, April 18, 2014, accessed January 19, 2017.
[98] Interview by author with Sam Westrop, former head, Stand For Peace, a UK-based non-governmental organization (NGO), January 16, 2017.

The Wall Street Journal – Opinion
A Beautiful Oath, Sullied by Politics
The Obama administration opens a loophole for new citizens unwilling to ‘bear arms’ to defend America

By Christopher C. Hull
Aug. 4, 2015 7:28 p.m. ET
My wife Val became an American citizen on June 9. I would tell you the naturalization ceremony was moving and that I was rapt throughout, but most of the time I was chasing our 2-year-old son in the hallway outside.
Please see the link for the full story.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-beautiful-oath-sullied-by-politics-1438730914

U.S. News and World report.
Nuke the Deal
The president ran a U.N. end-run around Congress, now the legislature must reassert itself.
By Christopher Hull, Contributor July 22, 2015, at 2:45 p.m.
Congress should seize the opportunity provided by the Obama administration’s missteps on the Iran nuclear deal to defeat the deal using its constitutional authority, rather than relying on an agreed-upon process that President Barack Obama effectively mooted by seeking United Nations approval first and which his administration seems to have already violated.
Back on May 7, the Senate voted 98-1 to pass a framework under which to consider the then-forthcoming Iran deal. It had been negotiated with Sens. Bob Corker of Tennessee and Ben Cardin of Maryland, the chairman and top Democrat, respectively, on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Corker-Cardin agreement – which is of dubious constitutionality – set up an arbitrary process that leaned heavily toward the president, giving Congress 60 days to review the Iran deal, and requiring an affirmative vote to defeat it, which Obama could veto.
As a result, assuming Obama would indeed veto such a measure as he insists he would, the threshold Iran deal opponents must reach to defeat it under Corker-Cardin is a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate, the proportion necessary to override a veto.
Until this week, Democrats and even many Republicans might have been loath to set aside the Corker-Cardin process, considering the overwhelming margin by which it was passed. Those who voted for the bill ultimately even included Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, a leading voice against the deal, who said at the time that the legislation “may delay, slightly, President Obama’s ability to lift the Iran sanctions and it ensures we will have a Congressional debate on the merits of the Iran deal.”
Except that now it won’t.
That’s because Monday morning, the U.N. Security Council approved the Iran deal, without waiting for the U.S. Congress to consider it. This in spite of Corker and Cardin imploring the president to wait for their process to take place. In a letter to the president last week, they quoted Obama’s own words back to him, arguing that the U.N. reviewing the agreement before the Congress “would be contrary to your statement that ‘it’s important for the American people and Congress to get a full opportunity to review this deal … our national security policies are stronger and more effective when they are subject to the scrutiny and transparency that democracy demands.’”
But he didn’t wait.
Regardless, the death knell of the Corker-Cardin process may have been sounded Tuesday night, when Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo and Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, both Republicans, revealed that the Iran deal includes secret side-agreements the Obama administration appears to have deliberately withheld from Congress. That move is a prima facie violation of Corker-Cardin, which mandates that the administration provide everything to Congress, namely the “annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.”
Apparently the administration didn’t.
So now is the time to act for the Iran deal’s growing number of opponents. Here’s how Congress can reassert itself and kill this deal, in five easy steps:
First House and Senate Members should immediately introduce a concurrent resolution deeming that for Congress’ internal purposes, the Iran deal is a treaty. A concurrent resolution lacks the force of law, but who cares? So does the president deeming his deal as not a treaty. Such resolutions, as the Senate’s website notes, are “used to express the sentiments of both of the houses.” The Budget Resolution is an example of how they are used – they determine the parameters of how an issue will be considered within the context of Congress.
Granted, to do so, the Senate must reach 60 votes, to overcome an expected filibuster by the president’s supporters. But such a move would have to be bipartisan anyway. So the resolution should be put on the table in the House first and, second, House Democrats who have expressed serious concerns about the Iran deal should be brought into a room to discuss it. There’s at least a baker’s dozen of Democratic lawmakers who have raised these concerns and insisted that Congress have a voice in this process: Steny Hoyer of Maryland, Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, Eliot Engel, Nita Lowey, Grace Meng and Steve Israel of New York, Brad Sherman and Adam Schiff of California, Dan Lipinski of Illinois, Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona, Albio Sires of New Jersey, and Ted Deutch and Alan Grayson of Florida.
This group is most likely to be willing to stand up to the president’s end run. And they would help eliminate cover for the rest of the caucus: Were they to support the concurrent resolution, no pro-Israel member, no moderate Democrat and no Hoyer loyalist would be safe opposing it.
As the House is in talks, the Senate should, third, bring a group together, too. Republicans could convene it, and invite such middle-ground GOPers as Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio, Susan Collins of Maine, Jeff Flake of Arizona and of course Corker himself. But the invitation list should also include Democrats like Ben Cardin of Maryland, Charles Schumer of New York, Bob Menendez and Cory Booker of New Jersey, Gary Peters of Michigan, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Jon Tester of Montana, Tom Udall of New Mexico, Chris Coons of Delaware and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.
Again, these are Democrats who have expressed the most concern about the Iran deal. A meeting with them could tease out the subgroup of six that could agree on language and seal the deal. In the context of a bipartisan House vote, getting to six in this list should be achievable.
Fourth, once they have reached agreement with the support of all 54 Republicans and at least six Democrats, the Senate could bring up the concurrent resolution, end debate and pass it.
[
READ:
What Now for Israel ]
This would mean that, fifth, in Congress’ eyes at least, the Iran deal is a treaty meaning that it requires a two-thirds majority to ratify it. That means the final step is to bring up the deal in the Senate and defeat it, requiring only 34 votes to do so.
It is likely that the president would refuse to accept the result of Congress’ action, since the concurrent resolution would not have the force of law. The Security Council has already acted, after all. He may simply go about his business, doing everything under the law he can to ease sanctions on Iran – and potentially more than that.
Likewise, China and Russia are likely to move forward with sanctions relief, since they are likely to begin arms shipments and other trade to the rogue Iranian state as quickly as possible.
[
READ:
If North Korea Got the Bomb, Iran Will Too ]
But the Obama administration has already made clear that even if Congress defeats the deal, it expects the sanctions regime to collapse anyway, since the deal does not provide for approval by appropriate legislative bodies within the signatories – except, of course, in Iran and the United Nations, which astonishingly enough the deal explicitly provides for without mentioning the U.S. Congress.
What’s more, the resolution requires 90 days before going into effect. By the time it does, it could be a dead letter – at least with respect to the United States. That is, the Congress will already have denied U.S. sanctions relief required under the deal. Will Iran’s legislature-like body, controlled by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, approve the deal under those circumstances? Will the European Union?
If not, sanctions relief would be only partial, and limited to aggressive players on the world stage.
So the best choice Congress has is to make clear what its position is, and conform to the Constitution rather than to a mooted and violated process that may not meet legal muster anyway. And regardless of the legal merits, every other nation on earth would know that this deal will only last as long as Barack Obama is president.
After all, even Hillary Clinton is now hedging her bets…

Christopher Hull, Contributor

Curbing politicization, returning now to espionage
Why CIA must stay out of politics and get back to the espionage business

By Brad Johnson – – Thursday, September 13, 2018
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Former CIA Director John Brennan recently lost his top secret security clearance, a move that will negatively impact his ability to make money in the lucrative world of U.S. government contracting.
Mr. Brennan complained bitterly that his First Amendment free speech rights were violated by the action — a ridiculous argument since Mr. Brennan remains a paid commentator and speaks his mind freely on NBC and MSNBCnational news networks seemingly at will. In fact, the lack of a clearance will enhance Mr. Brennan’s ability to speak out on issues he thinks are important.
Not being read in to current intelligence means Mr. Brennan needs to worry less about mixing classified information with his on-air remarks or tweets and thus lowers the risk of breaking the law.
A more likely hidden agenda behind Mr. Brennan’s anger toward President Trump for pulling his clearance is that no longer belonging the club of those with access to secrets will complicate any plans by the former CIA director to hold in-depth discussions with close associates who now fill the senior ranks at the CIA.
Few outside the agency know of Mr. Brennan’s stunning success in consolidating both a disastrous vision of CIAmodernization and in placing close associates into current senior intelligence positions.
Mr. Brennan made no secret of his plan to stay on at CIA had Hillary Clinton won the election 2016. And his reforms and supporters at the agency kept him in a position to be politically relevant had he maintained his clearance.
The courageous move by Mr. Trump to buck the intelligence bureaucracy and strip Mr. Brennan of the security clearance so far is the only initiative taken by the president to curb politicization at CIA. That politicization, including in intelligence reporting, reached its zenith under Mr. Brennan.
Mr. Trump seems unaware that the CIA deck is now solidly stacked against him. The agency is now in a position to become potentially a strong force in the current highly charged political environment.
The Brennan modernization plan implemented during his four years at CIA helped to better organize the CIA’s cyber warfare capabilities, as was widely announced.
But the reforms did so at the cost of nearly eliminating entirely CIA’s ability to conduct unilateral foreign espionage operations. Espionage — the stealing of secrets in support of national security — before Mr. Brennan was a central focus of CIA and the reason for its founding after World War II. It remains a key element of American national security.
The people who came up through the ranks of Mr. Brennan’s politicized CIA, however, continue to hold high-level positions. Current Director Gina Haspel selected Vaughn F. Bishop as CIA deputy director. Mr. Bishop was handpicked by Mrs. Haspel in an extraordinarily unusual and possibly unique decision that brought Mr. Bishop out of retirement for the second time to fill a senior position at CIA. Mr. Bishop previously was also handpicked by Mr. Brennan and brought out of retirement to serve in a key position as ombudsman for the Brennan modernization program announced in 2015.
The No. 3 position at the CIA, the chief operating officer (COO), also was recently announced by Mrs. Haspel. He is Andrew Makridis, who was also called back from retirement. Mr. Makridis, like Mr. Bishop, also was selected by Mr. Brennan to fill another key CIA position as head of the task force that implemented the entire modernization program. The selected but not yet publicly named head of intelligence for the National Security Council (NSC) also is a favorite of Mrs. Haspel and, again, is said to be a close Brennan associate.
Earlier in her career, Mrs. Haspel was selected for a second tour in London as chief of station, a highly unusual move. Mrs. Haspel has never been asked or offered any comment on whether she had any role in the now-infamous Christopher Steele anti-Trump political dossier even though she served two stints as station chief in London, the point of origin of the Steele dossier. Knowing the capabilities of British domestic and foreign intelligence, it is unlikely Mr. Steele produced the dossier without the knowledge and perhaps the connivance of M-6 and M-5.
During her Senate confirmation hearings, Mrs. Haspel made clear she intends to double down in supporting the short-sighted, anti-espionage reform that is the Brennan modernization program.
Mrs. Haspel rounded out her leadership team in filling the ranks of the CIA with Mr. Brennan’s acolytes by choosing a career CIA officer to be the new chief diversity and inclusion officer, a senior and influential position.
It is deeply revealing of intelligence priorities that CIA has created a senior leadership position for diversity issues but lacked an equivalent senior leadership post for unilateral espionage activities.
Nearly every country in the world of any significance runs espionage operations against the United States, including some of our closest allies. And a strong espionage program is absolutely fundamental to our national security.
CIA urgently needs to reform its espionage operations to produce real intelligence about an increasingly dangerous world. America’s national security depends on it.
• Brad Johnson is a retired CIA station chief and operations officer, and president of Americans for Intelligence Reform.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/13/curbing-politicization-returning-now-to-espionage/

Published by The Millennial Review
By Brad Johnson - June 13, 2017
God, Country, Honor.
Several years after retiring from a 25-year career with the CIA, I started a company which often works with the US Military. As many of you may be aware, the military has a custom of challenge coins, a self-designed coin which represents the unit and its traditions. It soon became very common to exchange coins between units and the custom has grown to include almost every government and law enforcement agency and even many associations or private companies. It has even spread to other countries.
Doing business with the military, it made sense to design a coin of my own. Having a company logo, it became the front of the coin. The back however required thought. I chose the American Eagle for the center and ultimately, I selected the words God, Country, Honor to surround it because they were the words that I carried with me overseas often during periods of armed conflict. I immediately received pushback for the selection of these words.
Honor. Taking personal responsibility for what you do and say, knowing the difference between right and wrong. If given too much change in a store, do you return the extra money? Do you balance other responsibilities to dedicate the time and energy to your family and loved ones they deserve from you? Do you treat your friends fairly and with respect? Do you defend yourself and others when they are wronged? Perhaps small things but this is where honor is nurtured and grows. Bravery is often born from honor, the ability to act even though you are afraid or disadvantaged. Chick-fil-A fast food restaurants are closed on Sundays to allow employees to attend church services and spend Sundays with their family and friends. To do this they give up the revenue they would earn on what is one of the largest sales days and suffer wide spread criticism from the left. Brave and honorable behavior.
Country. US exceptionalism springs from The US Constitution, a document which represents something much more than just ourselves and is the greatest document ever written by man for man. I would be happy to accept the argument that there was a healthy dose of divine inspiration included. I swore an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution which is under constant assault by many on the left here in the US who would undermine it. Although retired from the CIA, I am still dedicated to this purpose. It provides the framework of freedom which has given rise to more individual wealth and social justice than at any other time in the history of mankind. Those laws and freedoms that let us live our lives as we wish, to keep the fruits of our labor, to be the best we can be, all flow from our Constitution. Even though we as individuals will be forgotten, our efforts even now are a beacon of light all around the world and this light will shine for some 1,000 years out into the future and inspire greater peace and prosperity for our distant descendants.
God. Oddly the word that should require the least comment, instead engenders the most pushback. In the simplest of terms, religion is a belief system which among other things, provides a moral compass. Very active leftist Atheist and Agnostic groups in the United States wish to eradicate Christianity from any visible place in our culture. Even if one should choose a life without religion and to ignore the first four of the ten commandments, why throw out the moral teachings as well? Honor your parents? Don’t lie, steal, commit murder or adultery or covet that which is not yours? I personally refer to these building block concepts of faith as "core values" and having a place in our culture should be supported by all.
The central mission of the CIA is to recruit people to spy for us and provide information that we have no other way to obtain. The activity is Human Intelligence (HUMINT) or espionage and is a key capability which impacts almost every aspect of National Security and is an important part of keeping our country safe. When HUMINT sources or spies are recruited both the CIA officer and the individual often put their lives at risk. Both the ability to successfully ask someone to take these sorts of risks and working through the moral and ethical questions to accomplish this are directly linked to core values. This can be summed up in a simple question, why would someone trust you with his/her life if they cannot see in you a core faith that makes you reliable and trustworthy whether they share your values or not. Take the word of a dedicated patriot when I say we are a better and safer place for these three little words.