Moderator: Mark Thiessen.
Mark Thiessen: Thank you. Thank you very much.
To understand the danger we face from the jihad in the heartland, I think you have to look back to the period right after September 11th. So I want to take you back there for a moment.
I want to start by asking a question — how many remember where you were on September 11, 2001? Everyone. I want you to think back to that time. I want you to think back to the shock we all felt that the terrorists had penetrated our defenses and wreaked such destruction in our midst. And all of us were wondering back then, who were these people? What were they planning next?
If I had told you then that we would go almost a decade without getting hit again, on September 12th, 2001, how many of you would’ve believed me? Yeah. The truth is we all thought that 9/11 was the first of many.
I was in the Pentagon on 9/11. And one of the things I remember was that the alarms in the building never went off. We all just felt the shock of the attack. And the walls shuddered, and the smoke filled the hallways, and we all walked out on our own and looked back at the broken and burning building. But the alarms did go off, repeatedly, after 9/11, when we had false reports coming in of planes that were headed our way. And each time, we would go outside onto the River Terrace and look back up at the sky, waiting for the next attack. And it never came. Why is that?
There are only two possibilities — either the terrorists lost interest in hitting us, or we uncovered their plans and stopped them from doing it again. And I think you know the answer.
In those early days after 9/11, unbeknownst to us, there were two terrorist networks that were planning to attack — follow-on attacks — the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed network that had planned the 9/11 attacks, and the Hambali network, which was a network of Southeast Asian terrorists that KSM had recruited to fly an airplane into the Library Tower in Los Angeles, because he thought we’d be profiling for Arab men. He was wrong.
And they in fact had a series of plots planned. They were going to repeat the destruction of 9/11 in Europe, flying airplanes into downtown London. They had sent an operative to the United States who was captured on our soil, who was going to blow up high-rise apartments in a major American city — the city’s location is still classified.
They were going to replicate the East Africa Embassy bombings, blowing up our consulate and western residences in Karachi. They were going to blow our marine camp in Djibouti in an attack that could’ve been reminiscent of the 1983 marine barracks bombings in Beirut.
There was an al-Qaeda cell that was out there developing anthrax — three individuals that we didn’t know about that were developing anthrax for attacks in the United States. And there was the plot that I mentioned to carry out the second wave by blowing up the tallest building on the West Coast.
We did not know any of this. Any of it.
It was only after, in 2002, when we started capturing and interrogating senior al-Qaeda terrorists that we started uncovering their plans. We captured Abu Zubaydah. Then he led us to Ramzi Binalshibh, then he led us to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. And eventually, using the information that we got from these people, we dismantled both of those networks, wrapped up almost every one of the individuals who was involved, and then stopped those attacks from happening.
Now, why is this important now, when we’re talking about jihad from the heartland? Fast-forward now to 2009. Barack Obama comes into office and eliminates the CIA interrogation program. He goes to the CIA a few days afterwards and says to them, I know that we’re going to have to fight this war on terror with one hand tied behind our back, but that’s okay. That is a stunning admission from the President of the United States.
So we’re fighting this war with one hand tied behind our back, and we are not getting the information we need to uncover the plots that these — it’s been a generation since — it’s been a decade since Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his cohorts were captured and brought into custody. What are we missing?
Just as we were blind after 9/11, we are increasingly blind to the threats that are posed to our country. We — the fact is that since the generation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a new generation of al-Qaeda leaders has risen up and is planning attacks on this country. And they are led substantially by American citizens. There are three terror networks right now that are threatening us — the al-Qaeda Central, the al-Qaeda in Yemen, and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and al-Qaeda in East Africa — all of them led largely by American citizens.
Consider what happened in the last couple of years. 2009, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula emerges. We don’t know about it. We don’t know, by the Obama Administration’s own admission, that this terror network had developed the intent or capability of striking us in the homeland. Yet they almost blew up a plane over Detroit less than 11 months ago.
The spiritual leader of this network, a man who inspired this attack and also the Fort Hood attacks, is an American citizen — Anwar al-Awlaki. In fact, they’ve penetrated our defenses twice now. Just a few weeks ago in Yemen, they got package bombs onto a plane.
What are we doing about it? Well, President Obama has at least ordered Predators to Yemen, we just learned recently in the press, to take out these leaders, including the American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, which — the ACLU is filing a lawsuit saying that’s illegal.
But those drones have not been used. Why not? Well, according to the Washington Post, “The United States has deployed Predator drones to hunt for al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen for the first time in years but has not fired missiles from the unmanned aircraft because it lacks solid intelligence on the insurgents’ whereabouts, US officials said.”
So almost a year after al-Qaeda almost blew up a plane in our midst, [and] weeks after they said they put package bombs onto a plane in Yemen that, according to the British intelligence, was supposed to be exploded over the Eastern Seaboard of the United States, we don’t know where al-Awlaki is, where his training camps are, where the terrorists are hiding and what they’re planning. That’s just one al-Qaeda network that threatens us.
We also face an emerging threat from East Africa. The Somali-based terror network Al-Shabaab, a couple of years ago, merged with al-Qaeda. Their leaders pledge loyalty to Osama bin Laden and pledge to carry out suicide bombings in martyrdom attacks across the world.
Al-Shabaab’s military commander is an American citizen, Omar Hammami, who grew up in Alabama. And you look him up YouTube, you can see his videos, pledging fealty to Osama bin Laden and pledging to carry out attacks on the American homeland.
Where do they have their sites? Here. Al-Shabaab is recruiting Americans. Earlier this year, a 20-year-old Northern Virginia man, Zachary Adam Chesser, was convicted of attempting to travel to Somalia to become a foreign fighter for Al-Shabaab. They have in fact recruited more than 20 American citizens of Somali descent — and he’s not Somali; he’s a Jewish kid from Oakton, Virginia — to be suicide bombers. You don’t need an American passport to conduct terrorist attacks in Africa. They’re looking at us here at home. You’d think the Obama Administration would want to learn more about these guys.
Earlier this year, Washington Post reported on the front page that we had located the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa, a fellow named Saleh Ali Nabhan, who was a senior leader of al-Qaeda and also Al-Shabaab and had organized the merger. Great opportunity to capture a terrorist and find out why they’ve recruited 20 Americans to come here and kill us, right?
So the military goes to Barack Obama and says, You have three options. You can kill him with a Predator drone. We know where he is. We can kill him with a Predator drone, we can send a helicopter team of Special Operations forces to capture him alive and bring him in, or we can send those same people to kill him and repel down and get the DNA. And Obama said kill him. And they got the DNA. He did it with the helicopters. We could’ve captured him but chose not to.
Think of the intelligence that was lost with that decision. If Al-Shabaab hits the United States of America, you can trace it back to that decision not to get the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa and interrogate him for the information he could’ve had.
Al-Qaeda Central — the people who brought down the towers and almost knocked down the building where I worked. They have one of the most capable external operations commanders since Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a fellow named Adnan el-Shukrijumah.
He was — in 2002, when they were interrogating CIA officials — I mean, when they were interrogating al-Qaeda leaders, they asked them who would be the next KSM. And all of them said Adnan Shukrijumah. They had a global manhunt for him; he wasn’t captured. He’s smart, he’s capable, and he has now emerged as the new KSM. He’s an American citizen who lived in this country for 15 years and is intimately familiar with how to get in and out of this country, and how we live and how we work.
I mean, think about that. The man who occupies the position that KSM held when he launched the 9/11 attacks is an American citizen. And we know nothing about what they’re doing.
So in closing, let me just say this. The 10th anniversary of September 11th, 2001 is approaching. We don’t know what they have planned, and we have no insight. Because we’re not capturing and interrogating senior terrorist leaders anymore.
But we can guess — think back to what they planned for the fifth anniversary of September 11th, 2001 — a plot to blow up seven planes leaving from London’s Heathrow Airport for New York, Washington, Chicago, Montreal, Toronto and San Francisco. Fifteen hundred people aboard. If they had blown up then over the Atlantic, 1,500 dead. If they had blown up over the Eastern Seaboard or over the cities, could’ve been tens of thousands killed if they had hit American cities.
And they almost carried that out. According to our intelligence community, they were weeks away from carrying out that attack. That was only four years ago. Four years. We have an American-led al-Qaeda threat to this country. And we don’t have the insight to know what they’re planning.
These should be wakeup calls. Christmas Day — wakeup call. Times Square — wakeup call. Yemen package bomb threat — wakeup call. Have we woken up? We’re in grave danger.
Moderator: And now Karen Lugo.
Karen Lugo: First, I would love to say that it is a thrill to be participating with this very distinguished panel. We do miss Andrew McCarthy, who is otherwise engaged — something to do with NRO and a boat. But I do highly commend to you his column of yesterday about the Galani verdict. It’s up on New York Times Legal Blog.
Also, Mark Thiessen’s book, “Courting Disaster” — now that the UN is digging around, messing around with the idea of prosecution and torture, again, dredging up all of that — the only way to understand this and really engage in the public debate is to read Mark Thiessen’s book.
Also, as far as the Federalist Society, there was mention made that I’m Orange County chapter president. I would normally be in Washington, D.C. right now because it is the time of our annual convention. But I wanted you to know that last night, the keynote address was given by Justice Scalia. And the tickets sold out over a week ago. And that means that there are thousands and thousands of very great attorneys and judges involved in studying the same kinds of issues that we are all weekend, at the same time we’re here.
I am here to say that there should, at the very least, be a Molly Norris day. But the fact that we have all — thank you. Some do remember her. The fact that we have all but forgotten her shows she is now indeed a ghost.
An American cartoonist who inspired many thousands around the world to participate in an “Everybody Draw Mohammed” day has lost her identity, her job and her friends. The FBI would not stand up for her and told her to run and go ghost. Her colleagues in the media did not give a second thought to standing up for her, and the American people seemed not to even notice. Yet, in the final analysis, we lost more than she did. Life as she knew it is over. But the freedoms as we have known them were dealt a body blow that day.
Although we have clear warnings of Europe to heed, we are blowing by every single one of the same signposts that Europe failed to recognize And each seemingly insignificant and incremental concession represents a hard-won milestone to the Muslims. Now that most Western European countries have Muslim populations nearing 10 percent — and the people show very little moral courage to resist, while politicians are captive to the financial aid and organizational clout that this demographic represents — it will take many more Geert Wilders to turn the tide.
Americans vow that we will not go down the same path of Islamic accommodation and appeasement because we claim that foundational speech rights that run in our DNA and in the parts of our hearts that beat for personal liberty, we will find the way to make a critical difference. With Muslims representing less than one percent of our population, it would seem that we still have a chance. Then why are we failing every opportunity to push back against Sharia creeping into our schools, our courts, our government and our communities?
In fact, I have a little note here, and it says, “Just ask Margaret.” I won’t embarrass her. In fact, she might even be in the other room. But as I was walking in today, I heard somebody say, “I lived in Dearborn.” And I immediately turned and said, “Why did you leave Dearborn?” But understanding that’s what happened in Dearborn, and how it happened — and as she said, “We woke up one morning, and they were there.”
Well, now Dearborn, as she was telling me and confirming what I’ve read, there are calls, multiple calls to prayer broadcast from the mosques. But one telling little thing that would really rile a lot of us women — you walk into the JCPenney store, and the “push” and “pull” signs are printed now in Arabic. So, welcome to Dearborn.
So there are three reasons why I think we are not even scoring yet in this war against Islamism. One, we don’t have a clear objective. What is our goal? I have a 5,000-person Facebook fan group, and we launch a lot of these interesting discussions. To open this thread on Facebook, basically, I get a bottom-line response of “we need to ban Islam.”
In patiently explaining that we cannot and should not ban Islam, I have been called names, many names. And I have been de-friended and un-friended and whatever it is in that parlance you get done when you’ve really angered people. These people steamroll right past Supreme Court prohibitions against assessing the validity of one’s beliefs and our own religious exercise provisions that protect even misguided and antisocial belief.
What we must do is stake out a space for Muslim worship that is shaped by the rights enjoyed by all religions in the United States. But, that said, we must then draw a very, very hard line against Sharia in our communities. And we must monitor, which we are not doing, the advance and the spread of this agenda.
This is always seen in little demands and concessions that are not afforded to any other group. And they don’t seem like a big deal when giving them to Muslims. This is the first flashing sign that a Sharia agenda is rolling out. And yet, we are ineffectively railing at Islam in general and doing nothing concrete to stop the incremental advance of Sharia. We will know that we have reached the ability to fight a winning war against Islam when the importance of resisting Sharia is commonly understood as vital to our communities and is a popular cause.
I just brought [Guy Miliere], who’s a professor of the philosophy of law in Paris, France, over for a speaking tour. One thing he said as he opened every presentation was, “Words matter.” And they’re changing what words mean and changing the way the discussion is had.
I don’t know if you watched Fox News this morning — they had Salvatore Giunta — the recent recipient of the Medal of Honor. In being interviewed, he said, “And there we were, against the coalition enemies.” Wasn’t it Taliban? I mean, this is where we’re not even paying attention to the way that the debate has been reshaped.
So — I’m going to move very quickly — we are suited up against a general war against Islam, but we are not armed to fight the tactical battles in our own back yards. We don’t know how to fight, considering the enemy’s willingness to use our decency and liberal civil liberties against us.
I’m going to go real quickly through a list here of just basically California issues that are being presented in our own communities. And people are trying to fight them but not looking at the effective ways to do this. There should be no preferential treatment for Muslims. In most city — or, sorry, state constitutions, there is a provision for religious freedom and free worship. But it says “no preferential treatment” in most states. It is usually a harder — it’s a more strict enforcement, gives us better language to enforce this, than the federal court interpretations or Constitution.
So for example, we have a mosque that’s preventing asking for higher minarets than the Baptist church in the town. Everybody’s getting up to a microphone, they’re flooding the hearings with hundreds of people that are all angry, they all want time at the mic. They don’t understand, yes, city council can say only three minutes. City council can ask for a certain number of speakers, those speakers need to be organized, focused; and they need to be talking about the things that can be done. The symbolic idea of having minarets that are higher than the church steeple in a town — look at Europe — this is a very significant thing to the Muslim community.
So these are the battles we can win. But instead, the newspaper reports come out and make it sound like a bunch of fringe, angry, crazy people showed up, and nothing was accomplished.
Another — there are permits that limit density and impact. We need to be monitoring for compliance. I just won a legal battle with a legal team. And thank goodness, [we’re] pro bono. And a small public interest group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, came in and helped. We won against City of San Diego. Millions of dollars of litigation effort went into it.
But in the middle of our investigation of this area, in getting a permit for a Christian church, we realized there’s a mosque that is meeting there and not permitted. And we bring it up to the city, and the city — one, does not want to know; and two, did not care to know. Didn’t do anything about the fact a mosque was meeting once a week, putting up temporary signs, meeting. And so this is the kind of thing going on right under our noses. And nobody was saying anything within that community.
Using public park — there’s a mosque that has an agreement in Southern California with the city to use a public park for overflow parking. Can you imagine a Christian church getting the same accommodation, or a synagogue? Not going to happen. This is something we should be calling the city on, and so far it’s not being done. Working on that now.
Praying on city sidewalks or city streets — if that’s not allowed for Christians and not allowed for anyone else, it is not allowed for Muslims. And ask the French — my friends are the ones going in there undercover, filming the streets. There are three new English videos up on YouTube this week where the Muslims in the Barbès district of France — or Paris are now taking additional streets. So once it starts — and that is what is so important about what Robert said — once it starts, it is so difficult to push back. We have to stop it before it starts.
Textbooks, school instruction — I’ve been very involved. Thank goodness for Dan Pipes’ organization, [Ere Ibrahim], who’s helping us with the historical data to begin to correct the textbooks. They’ve been at it 30 years; we’re just starting. It is a tough battle. But Texas, at least — and by only one vote, as I understand — Texas did win. So, much to do there.
I also — when it comes to public instruction — I was speaking a couple of weeks ago in Orange County, California. A mom said, “My daughter just came home tonight, was asked to memorize the seven pillars of Islam and do this role practice thing.” She went to the other parents in that classroom, and not one other parent would come with her to object. Of the group that was there that night, 12 people then — you know, in the larger community — went back to the school with her next day. But this is the kind of thing we must enforce — beginning to — one, pay attention; and two, show up and speak out.
Employment — Disneyland — you probably read the two lawsuits. But Disneyland caved. I mean, they said, Okay, not so important about our corporate culture if she’s in the back room and she’s dealing with vacation planning. But it is very important to Disney’s corporate culture. Because if we can’t defend Disney’s corporate culture, who can we defend? So again, there was a lot that could’ve been done there with public expression of outrage over Disneyland giving in on that one.
Defending speech — and I don’t even know where to start with this one. It is something that — all around us, we are seeing restrictions on speech. And we know, with what happened to Pastor Jones, that he wound up losing. He had insurance canceled, his mortgage accelerated. He was presented a bill for public protection from the police.
So major issues with people who have spoken out, and we have let them stand alone. And yes, in his case, it was about sensitivity. And maybe it’s something that shouldn’t have been said. But again, those of us who work in law and First Amendment issues — it is the speech that it most offensive that needs to be protected. Because when that starts to go, it is a matter of everything else. There is no way to draw the line.
With anti-Sharia resolutions and statutes, we can do much to begin to define what is Islam, what is religion, and what is political, sociological and, as Robert Spencer described, totalitarian. So we need to begin. And while we can’t put the full force of law behind a resolution — but city councils can begin to say, We will monitor this for foreign funding, for Saudi funding. You know, if this mosque is built, we want it built with local funds. And we also are going to monitor this for Sharia as far as any encroachments on or asking for any other benefits or special privileges.
And trust me — when you do appear before these city councils, you will be educating them on the Constitution. As people are beginning to be more aware of what is in the Constitution — even at the point of losing the case in San Diego, one of the planning board members turned to the press and said, Well, we were right all along. The court just didn’t get it.
So when it comes to even constitutional issues, these city council members are so used to having the power and not being challenged, and certainly not being challenged in a credible way. So it is very important for us to have our facts to know the law.
Finally, and number three — and I think this is important — and this may be challenging for some of you — I do think that we need to link arms with the reform. And I’m not saying moderate, and I’m not saying any other kind of Muslim other than the reform Zuhdi Jasser type Muslims.
I don’t know if you’re aware, but Zuhdi Jasser’s organization has now developed a Capitol Hill group that is fighting CAIR. There are only five of them. And Sue Myrick is helping to support this. He’s also on the university campuses, and he is trying to alert students to the fact that the MSA is not the only Muslim organization that can speak for them. He wants to support our Constitution and our founding principles.
And so if Muslims are ready to stand up — and I don’t think it’s deception when they are taking the fatwas and the threats. And so for people like that to get threats from those of us that are really trying to protect America from Sharia and from the Islamists in their own camp, it is so difficult for them.
So I think we should be watching for these people. And when we can form an alliance, I think we should be doing that.
Moderator: Well, I’ve been brutal about the time in the hopes of leaving a little bit for question-and-answer. I think you’ve heard a remarkable set of presentations about — starting with the stealth jihad, finishing with the stealth jihad, what we can do about it; as well as elements of the implications of the violent kind, and what we should be doing about that as well.
So with that, let’s open the floor. If you have questions, there are mics here. Please — gentleman right here on the end is easy to get to.
Q: As you said, that free speech is in America’s DNA. Is there a chance that we can reform Islam in America and make it still Islam, but freer, and just allow them to worship their way and not mess with anyone else? Is that possible?
Robert Spencer: Well, I think only Muslims can reform Islam. But we can require that Muslims obey American law in the United States. And there are precedents for actually outlawing tenets of religions when they were considered to be against the national interest. The most obvious example is the outlawing of polygamy, which was part of the Mormon Church, part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
And so, I don’t think that it is in the least out of the question or in contradiction with the First Amendment to say there are certain elements of Islam that Muslims in the United States are going to have to discard and are going to be outlawed in order to protect our freedoms and constitutional principles.
And particularly, the elements of Sharia that deny the freedom of speech — and, you know, the Imam Rauf is against the freedom of speech, and he’s a moderate, you know — deny the freedom of conscience, deny equality of rights to women — those things Muslims ought to be — we ought to be on record saying you can’t bring that here.
Moderator [Frank Gaffney]: Yeah. Can I just add that this is — I think one of the things that didn’t get mentioned in any of the remarks is that we have had a resolution, imperfect though it may have been, nonetheless endorsed by about 700,000 Oklahomans, saying they wanted their constitution amended to preclude the use of Sharia in their court systems.
Two other states did not get as much attention, but both in their state legislatures — and Adam Hasner, who addressed us last night, was instrumental in helping get this done — similar language that makes exactly the point that Robert has made. And that is that laws introduced from elsewhere that fundamentally contravene the Constitution of the United States and the laws promulgated under it is sedition. It’s not simply the practice of one’s faith in a way that is protected by the Constitution; it actually has to be prosecuted under the Constitution.
So this is an issue, and I would just add that to the list of items that Karen very helpfully mentioned we can be doing. There are some 15 other states that we know of now that are interested in enacting similar kind of legislation. There’s also been some interest expressed on Capitol Hill at doing it [at] the federal level. So watch the space, and put your shoulder to the wheel.
Karen, did you want to say something, quickly?
Karen Lugo: Real quickly — on the anti-Sharia law, the statute that became an amendment in Oklahoma — unfortunately will not likely withstand a legal challenge, although there are problems with the legal challenge as it is. But I think, Frank, you were involved with drafting a much better — and what would likely be, and hopefully in the future — these other attempts to establish the fact that Sharia counsels’ courts cannot be turned to.
Also, as far as the moderate Muslim — a test for these reform-minded Muslims — in fact, Zuhdi Jasser has also come out against the Ground Zero mosque — it may be that at some point we part ways with them. But at the point that they are sincere and ready to take the public stands, I do not know how they reconcile the issues with Islam. And Zuhdi Jasser claims that he’s contextualized a lot of this to, you know, another time. And whether that’s true or not, you know, I figure it’s none of my business. If they’re really willing to get out there and fight, I’m saying let’s make America a safe place for those Muslims that truly understand the difference between worship and a political totalitarian imposition of their laws on us.
Moderator: We have time, I’m told, for one more question. I apologize. I wish we had more time.
Q: This is for Mark Thiessen. In your opinion, why did our President give the order to kill, rather than capture, a jihadist? In your opinion?
Mark Thiessen: The question was why, in my opinion, did President Obama give the order to kill rather than capture the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa?
I can give you the generous version and the less generous version. Let me start with generous. Generous version is that he believes in Predator strikes and thinks that we should be killing these people, and he doesn’t believe in the interrogation program. I’m trying.
The reality is — and I encourage everybody to go to the Washington Post story from earlier this year about this. It was the front page of the Washington Post. And it quoted military officials. The military actually advised to capture him rather than take him, and Obama overruled the military.
The reason is, according to the officials in that story, we don’t have anywhere to take them. Because Guantanamo is not taking any new inmates and because the CIA black sites have all been shut down. So we literally have nowhere to take somebody who’s been captured outside of Iraq and Afghanistan for interrogation. And two, we don’t have any techniques that we could use because he put them all out in the public domain. He has eliminated the CIA interrogation program, he’s revealed all the secrets of how we got KSM and these other people to speak.
And the truth is, right now, we have to follow the Army Field Manual for interrogating a terrorist. The Army Field Manual is the highest level of custodial interrogation policy there is in the world. That’s what we give for privileged POWs who follow the laws of war.
The Palm Beach Police Department has more aggressive techniques they can use against somebody who’s captured in a murder case in this city than we can against a captured terrorist. You cannot, for example — a district attorney here in Palm Beach could take a murder suspect and say, If you don’t give me the information I need to get your collaborators, I’m going to put a needle in your arm. I’m going to seek the death penalty. You can’t say that to a terrorist because it’s threatening. It’s against the Army Field Manual.
That’s what we’ve come to, and that’s why we’re in danger.
Frank Gaffney: Let me just conclude with one quick thought. What you have just heard — most especially in this anecdote from Mark, but really in much of the conduct that’s been described by the other panelists as well — I’m sorry to say, is perceived by the enemy as submission, the literal meaning of the word “Islam.” And under their doctrine of Sharia, when a foe that is about to be vanquished indicates submissive behavior, they must make them feel subdued. That means, they must go violent. They must use the terror.
So let me leave you with this thought — the so-called moderates, in “moderate” — moderates of the Muslim Brotherhood have now been enjoined by their supreme guide, just in the past month or so — the senior figure in their movement worldwide, out of Egypt — that it is time to go to war with the United States.
Now, if they act on it, the problem that Mark talked about, about Americans working for al-Qaeda, will pale into insignificance. Because the numbers of Muslim Brotherhood operatives who are not only American citizens but are here is in the thousands.
So we’re here today to ask you to take this message seriously, to take it to heart and to act upon it. We must, in all the ways that have been described here, keep America Sharia-free. We all have a role to play in doing it.
Thank you very much.
Pages: 1 2