FrontPage’s Interview’s guest today is Deborah Weiss, an attorney, freelance writer and public speaker.  A 9/11 survivor of WTC attacks in NYC, she formerly worked for the Committee on House Oversight in Congress and the Office of the Corporation Counsel under Giuliani.  She is currently President of Vigilance, Inc., and is an expert in OIC UN resolutions.  She has written a chapter in the  new book, Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West’s Fatal Embrace. She can be reached at Deborah.Weiss@vigilancenow.org.

FP: Welcome Deborah.  Glad you could join FPM today.

Weiss: Thank you for inviting me.

FP: Let’s begin with you telling us a about Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network.

Weiss: Thanks, Jamie.

As you know, Western petro-dollars have made Saudi Arabia a rich country. The Saudis use the money in part to export a radical Islamist ideology into the West. The ideology is antithetical to the Western values of freedom, equality and human rights.

The book was put together and edited by Sarah Stern, President of Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET).  It has chapters by various experts and well-known authors, including James Woolsey, Steve Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Rachel Ehrenfeld and others.  Your readers are probably familiar with many of the authors.

For decades now, the West and America in particular, has been pretending that Saudi Arabia is our ally. This book lifts the veil off that myth by demonstrating the various ways that Saudi ideology has infiltrated America and the West, posing a threat to our freedom and way of life. It includes chapters on Saudi penetration into American NGO’s, American so-called “mainstream Muslim” organizations, the American school curriculum, finances, and more. The point is to illustrate the negative impact our addiction to oil will ultimately have on our society. It’s really about the stealth jihad.

FP: How did you got involved in the book?

Weiss: I am a 9/11 survivor from NYC, and have been working on the issues of non-violent radical Islam for years, as you know, Jamie.  Every year, there is an event on Capitol Hill, timed to coincide around the time of 9/11, that showcases speakers and experts on the topic of Saudi infiltration.  I was one of the speakers the last two years.  So when Sarah asked me if I’d be willing to contribute a chapter on the same subject, of course I said yes.

FP: What is your chapter about?

Weiss: My chapter is titled, “The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Defamation of Religions, and Islamophobia.”  The OIC is the largest Islamic organization in the world, comprised of 56 member states plus the Palestinian authority.  Its members tend to vote together as a bloc in the UN, so they hold quite a lot of power and sway.  Yet, most people have never heard of them.

They are an Islamist organization, which seeks to make Islam a victorious political power and to deny freedom to anyone who doesn’t want to live under Sharia law, including Muslims who don’t want to live under Sharia law.  One of its main goals is to eventually internationally criminalize free speech on any Islam-related topic, including Islamic theocracies, Muslims, Islamic terrorism, Islamic human rights violations, and Sharia law.  I know it sounds crazy, but partly because the public is not paying attention to this issue, and partly because the OIC’s strategy is to achieve its goal in small increments, it is actually making significant inroads.  The OIC has successfully targeted various UN bodies with resolutions on this issue, called “Defamation of Religions” and it has targeted several EU Parliaments as well.  The language is presented in a watered down form, so instead of asking for speech to be criminalized, the OIC will ask for states “to take effective action” or “condemn” the speech or discourage the speech.  It has also presented Muslims as the victims of so-called “Islamophobia” in order to win more support for their cause.

FP: What exactly is the Defamation of Religions?

Weiss: Well, in America we have the concept of defamation of individuals or groups.  Generally, defamation in the U.S. has to be a false statement and with negligent or reckless disregard of the truth, depending on whether you’re defaming a public figure or a private citizen.  And it has to be a statement that is likely to result in either a pecuniary harm or harm to that person’s reputation.  In America, truth is a complete defense.  And I might add that in our system, defamation only applies to statements of fact.  The First Amendment gives us protection to express any opinion we desire, no matter how negative it might be.

Defamation of Religions by contrast, gives protection to an idea, in this case a religion, as opposed to protecting a person or group.  Also, it constitutes protection from criticism, even if the statement is true.  And to boot, the way it is applied in countries that implement it, and the way the OIC interprets it, it is really only applied to Islam.  In fact, the original title was called Defamation of Islam, but in order to get more support for it, the OIC changed the title.  Still, Islam is the only religion mentioned in the text, and in practice it is only Islam that is afforded protection from criticism.  Believe me, the OIC is totally fine with Defamation of Judaism and Defamation of Christianity.  Additionally, the Muslim countries that have these types of laws usually impose a harsh criminal penalty for its violation, rather than a civil penalty.  People who “defame Islam” are often jailed, flogged, sometimes even executed.

FP: Implementing Defamation of Religions laws obviously harms people.

Weiss: Yes, Jamie, it does.  What’s ironic about it is that the OIC wants to make “Defamation of Religions” a human right.  But in reality, it constitutes the very opposite of a human right.  In countries that have this law, there are gross human rights violations.  Not only are the penalties very harsh, but it also has the effect of oppressing those with minority religions.  For example, if you are Christian and you say, “I believe Jesus is the Son of G-d”, that is not only blasphemy, but could be considered Defamation of Religions.  Saying this could have dire consequences.  This law even hurts Muslims who have a minority interpretation of Islam that differs from the official interpretation of the government.  For example, in Pakistan it is illegal to be an Ahmadiyya Muslim.  Ahamadiyyas are peaceful, loving, egalitarian-minded Muslims.  But because they believe in a Prophet after Mohammad (named Ahmad), the Pakistani government considers them heretics and openly practicing their faith is a crime.

FP: Defamation of Religions is clearly harmful to religious freedom and human rights.  What are some other negative implications?

Weiss: The ramifications also include the hampering of national security and terrorism prevention efforts.  If you know anything about war, the threat doctrine dictates that the first rule of war is that you must know your enemy and be able to name it by name.  Unfortunately, to the degree that the West censors discussion of Islam and Islamic terrorism, it hamstrings the ability of intelligence professionals to come up with strategies to defeat the problem.

FP: Here in America, we are still allowed to discuss these things, right?

Weiss: So far, America is the last bastion of freedom in terms of free speech. Unlike Europe, we do not have hate speech laws – yet.  However, we have moved from self-censorship to having our government and other institutions issue restrictive guidelines on speech.  For example, DHS, the State Department and the NCTC have all issued memos to their professional employees discouraging them from using words such as Islamic terrorism.  The National Security Strategy Memo, which guides our whole US national security policy, also has had all references to Islamic terrorism deleted.  There have been various other measures taken, especially in this administration, to cleanse all official and unofficial policy from discussion, mention, or even acknowledgement of Islamic terrorism.

The treatment of women under Islamic Sharia law is inherently discriminatory against women.  Alarmed by the suffering of Muslim women at the hands of Sharia Courts in Britain, Baroness Cox recently introduced legislation into parliament which would ensure gender equality in Britain’s Sharia Courts.

Pursuant to the Arbitration Act of 1996, litigating parties are permitted to forgo the British court system and have their cases heard in an arbitral tribunal if both parties agree on the tribunal, are willing to relinquish their rights to a judge and jury, and voluntarily consent to the arbitration.  Sharia Courts have operated informally in Britain for quite some time.  However, in 2007 Sheik Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi discovered a clause in the Arbitration Act which rightly made him realize Sharia Courts could be classified as arbitration tribunals.  Subsequently, he began heading up the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal to oversee the Sharia Courts.  Once classified as arbitration tribunals, the British government began enforcing Sharia judgments with the full force of law.

According to a report by the Civitas think tank in England, as of two years ago there were approximately 85 Sharia Courts operating in Britain.  The Arbitration Act of 1996 permits tribunals to rule on financial and property issues.  However, the report asserted that many of the Sharia Courts exceeded permissible jurisdictional boundaries by advising on matters of marriage, divorce, child custody and domestic violence.  By law, family and criminal matters are not arbitrable. This illegal expansion of jurisdiction has been dubbed “jurisdiction creep.”

The arbitral rulings and advisory opinions issued by Sharia Courts mandate the disparate treatment of women. Under Sharia law, a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s, she is awarded half the inheritance of her male counterparts, custody laws grossly shortshrift women, and property laws provide unequal rights based on gender.

In terms of mediation efforts, Sharia Courts often merely hand the parties pre-determined outcomes that comport with the laws of Sharia and request both parties to sign consent forms.  Then, the forms are submitted to the Family Court on the false premise that the terms were truly negotiated by the parties involved.

To make matters worse, many Muslim marriages take place solely under religious ceremonies and are not registered with the state as required by the Marriage Act of 1949.  Thus, these “marriages” are not civilly recognized and the “wives” are not afforded any legal protections.  Interestingly, the problem of non-registration appears only in the Muslim community.  Jews and Christians always register their marriages civilly even when the wedding ceremony is religious in nature.

Unfortunately, there are Muslim women who fled their homelands to escape the oppression of Sharia law, only to find they are facing a similar situation in the UK.  Because many Muslim immigrants are illiterate, the women are unaware of their rights under British law.  It is legal to consent to arbitration if the acquiescence is voluntary.  However, often in Muslim communities women are threatened, intimidated or otherwise coerced into submitting to Sharia Courts. Thus, it is not truly voluntary.

Poor Peter.  The burdens that come with exposing the problem of radical Islam in America are falling squarely on Congressman Peter King’s shoulders.  This is because he, almost single-handedly, has taken up the mantle of leadership on this issue in the form of congressional hearings.  This is a daunting task no doubt, and he is to be commended for both his efforts and his courage.

It was therefore a grave disappointment when last week’s hearing, titled “The threat of Muslim-American radicalization in U.S. Prisons” fell flat.  Indeed, it left the observer wondering what the goal of the hearing was.  If it was to educate the public, it utterly failed.  If it was to raise awareness, it did no such thing.  To the contrary, an objective observer uneducated on this topic would likely walk away believing that the trend of Islamist radicalization in U.S prisons is minute, perhaps irrelevant, and certainly not a serious threat.  It might reasonably have been concluded that prison gang violence, discrimination against poor black men, a lack of rehabilitation and social injustice should have been the subject of the hearing.  After all, why is Poor Peter picking on radical Muslims and not radical Jews or radical Christians?  It just doesn’t seem fair.  And without further explanation, it doesn’t even seem constitutional.

Confining their answers to the questions being asked by the committee’s congressmen, the witnesses were able to eke out bits and pieces of useful information.  Yes, some people become radical Muslims in prison; yes, some Muslims in prison have formed or joined terrorist cells, and yes there are some inmates who want to supplant the U.S. government with Sharia law.

But without context and a clear purpose of what the hearing was intended to achieve, the viewer was left at the mercy of information elicited by congressmen who might not know much more about this subject than they do. It is conceivable that some congressmen might even have had a contrary political agenda.

This is the inevitable result when committee staff selects witnesses who are apologists for Islamism or who are unable to explain the relevance of the issue at hand.  The first witness, Patrick Dunleavy, former Inspector General of the New York State Department of Corrections and author of “Fertile Soil of Jihad” (a book about Islamic radicalization in prisons) did his best to explain the problem in the five minutes allotted.  The other three witnesses gave testimony counter to the conclusion that Chairman King presumably wanted the audience to conclude.  Sociology Professor Bert Useem from Purdue University (the Democrats’ witness) insisted that it is impossible for prisoners to be inculcated with extremist literature in jail because such literature is prohibited (ignoring other witness testimony that this literature abounds in jails anyway).  Kevin Smith, former Assistant U.S. Attorney from California, told the audience about some specific cases of terrorist cells forming in prison, but they sounded like isolated incidents.  And, Michael Downing from the L.A. Police Department praised Islam as “one of the most peaceful religions in the world but it has been hijacked.”  He insisted that working with the Muslim community is the best defense to countering terrorism.  Additionally, he asserted that the Islamic ummah would likely be “shocked” and not proud to learn about the extremist interpretations of Islam that inmates are learning in prison.  Yet, he emphasized that California jails examine “suspicious activity” and made no mention of monitoring the underlying ideology.

During the question and answer period, several congressmen used their allotted time to grandstand rather than extract information from the witnesses.  Some of the performances were quite impressive. Congressman Hansen Clarke (D-Michigan) was practically in tears as he shouted that discrimination against poor black men constituted the real problem with jails and that the focus on Islamic radicalization is merely a “distraction”.  Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) and Bennie Thompson (D-MS) seemed certain that criminal gangs are more of a threat to America than Islamists.  Congresswoman Laura Richardson (D-CA) and others insisted that radical Christians and radical Asians and radical every-other-group are all equal threats. Further, Richardson professed that singling out radical Muslims constitutes discrimination “based on race or religion.”

After the 7/7 bombings on the London subway in 2005, the U.K. launched a 63 million pound program to combat terrorism.  The program, named “PREVENT”, was recently reviewed.  Subsequently, Britain’s Home Secretary, Theresa May, admitted that the program had failed.  Here’s why:

The program’s strategy aimed to counter terrorist groups largely by funding so-called “moderate” Muslim organizations in an attempt to work jointly toward its goals.  PREVENT also financed overseas operations that were allegedly designed to stem terrorist activity in the U.K.

As it turned out, much of the program’s money went to support non-violent radical organizations that share the same hard-line Islamist ideology as Al-Qaeda and other terrorist entities.  Further, the program’s emphasis on international projects merely wasted precious pounds and “diverted valuable resources” away from the prevention of home-grown terrorism, a growing concern in the U.K.

Home Secretary May confessed that the PREVENT program clearly failed to recognize how terrorist groups make use of the extremist ideology promoted by non-violent radical organizations.  Therefore, the program was unsuccessful in convincing some parts of the Muslim community that terrorism is unacceptable and wrong.  Additionally, the program only targeted a small segment of the audience that is susceptible to terrorist propaganda.

As a result of the review’s findings, there will be a significant shift in the program’s direction.  PREVENT’s new strategy will tackle not only terrorism, but its underlying ideology.  In so doing, it will focus on non-violent extremist organizations.  It will also examine how schools, colleges, and mosques are addressing the problem of Islamic extremism.  It will additionally evaluate the role of law enforcement as well as that of other government entities in combating the problem.

There’s a movement afoot to ban the burqa in Europe.  And it just scored another political point in France.  On July 13, the lower house in the French Parliament voted overwhelmingly to outlaw wearing burqas and niqabs in public.  But will this move help prevent terrorism or does it constitute oppression of religious freedom?

On the eve of Bastille Day, which marks the birth of the secular republic of France, the French National Assembly passed a bill to ban full face veils with 335 votes in favor of the bill and only one vote against it.  Members of Parliament from the Socialist, Green and Communist parties held a more pro-veil sentiment, desiring to limit the ban to public buildings.  But, under pressure from feminist groups that support the ban, these politicians chose to abstain rather than vote in opposition to the bill.

The text of the bill “forbids concealing one’s face in public,” and includes exceptions such as wearing medical bandages after surgery.  Women who violate the law will be subject to a fine of 150 euros or “citizenship classes” or both.  Men who force their wives to wear burqas or niqabs through threats, violence, coercion, abuse of power or abuse of authority will be subject to a fine of 30,000 euros and one year in jail.  The penalties are doubled for men who force minors to wear face veils.

Though the language of the bill is religion-neutral making no mention of Islam, burqas or niqabs, it is widely known that the bill is targeted at Islamic burqas (full body and face covering including a net over the eyes) and niqabs (full body and face covering with a slit for eyes to peer through).  Indeed, the bill is colloquially referred to as the “anti-burqa law.” The fact that the bill includes a penalty for men who coerce female family members to wear full face veils acknowledges the gender imbalance in those who adhere to the strict ideology requiring this dress code.  And, the fact that citizenship classes may be included in the penalty acknowledges that anti-western values are at issue.  The bill will go to the Senate for a vote in September, where it is expected to pass.  If it does, the bill allows a six month adjustment period for women to relinquish their full face veils without consequences.  It should be noted that under this law, wearing the Islamic hijab (headscarf) and chador (full body covering with face showing) will remain legal.

French President Sarkozy supports the ban to further the goal of maintaining France’s secular identity.  The bill is considered part of Sarkozy’s larger integration policy for disaffected immigrant communities.  Most Members of Parliament view this bill as a means to liberate women from male subjugation and make a statement for gender equality.  Feminist organizations in Europe agree.  Critics, however, insist that Sarkozy is merely using xenophobic tactics to pander to right-wing voters.  Socialist Members of Parliament argue that the bill is nothing more than discrimination against a minority group that retains different values from the mainstream French population.

In fact, only approximately 2000 women of the 5 million Muslims in France wear full face veils.  So what’s the all the fuss?

Though worldwide there have been some incidents of men dressing as women in burqas and acting as suicide bombers, few believe that a burqa ban will serve as a direct link to terrorism prevention.  Rather, proponents of the bill believe that the burqa constitutes an anti-assimilation statement rejecting both integration and western values.  Burqas serve as a gateway for extremist activity in other areas, increasing the imbalance of power between men and women, between Muslims and non-Muslims, and some argue that in many communities it has been followed by an increase in violence.  In the year 2000, a mere 200 women wore the face veil in France.  Since then, it has increased ten-fold.  If left unchecked, the number will continue to grow.

Last week, The Heritage Foundation’s second annual “Protect America Month” came to a close.  The program was designed to express commitment to America’s national security, advocate for increased defense spending, point out the constitutional basis for government’s role in protecting America, and to examine the threats to the United States.  John Ashcroft, former Attorney General of the United States, delivered the closing speech.

Attorney General Ashcroft began by asserting his belief that “the defense of America is tantamount to the defense of freedom.  And freedom is worth defending.”  He astutely reviewed his understanding of the definition of freedom, and how American exceptionalism plays a vital role in contributing and sustaining freedom around the globe.

He rejected the common argument that freedom and national security must be balanced.  Rather, freedom is the highest value with no parallel.  However, in order to maintain it, it must be secured.  Therefore, the two are not counterweights to each other.  Rather, national security protects America’s freedom, and ensures that freedom stays intact.

Ashcroft explained that the ability to engage in the pursuit of happiness increases freedom, while the provision of happiness by the government impairs freedom, and often comes at a high cost.  In other words, when needs are converted into rights, freedom shrinks.  Most importantly, the imposition of that which is not wanted constitutes the denial of freedom regardless of the virtue of that which is being imposed.

Freedom is under attack.  Nine years after September 11, 2001, Americans have become complacent.  Many have a false sense of security.  But the former Attorney General encouraged the audience not to surrender to the terrorist threat, and always be mindful of those who sacrificed their lives for the cause of freedom.

Ashcroft believes that the number one responsibility of the federal government is to protect its citizens.  The way he believes national security is enforced is through the rule of law, so that people are on notice of what they can and cannot do.

In analyzing habeas corpus doctrine, the use of military tribunals and indefinite detention, Ashcroft reviewed numerous Supreme Court cases including Hamdi, Quirin, and Eisentrager.  He also discussed the DC Court of Appeals case, titled Maqaleh v Gates.

When asked about his positions on specific policy and legal matters, he emphasized the reasoning process that should support these decisions.  They included the following:

• Be aware that policies send a message that can deter behavior or invite behavior;
• Determine if the conduct in question constitutes a war crime or merely violates a domestic criminal statute;
• Ensure that all three branches of government are acting within their appropriate constitutional limits;
• Know that the executive branch can make faster decisions to ensure the protection of America’s national security than can the legislative branch;
• Acknowledge the fact that military tribunals, while operating under different rules than federal courts, still result in outcomes that are fair and respect the true facts;
• In deciding whether a defendant should be tried in a military tribunal versus a federal court, determine your objective.   If national security information in involved, minimize the release of this information to our enemies;
• If a person with US citizen status is fighting against the US with America’s enemies, perhaps he should be treated as an enemy;
• Laws should be clear and certain.  If the geographical location of the occurrence doesn’t provide clear rules, then look to the circumstances surrounding the case;
• America should make sure that she runs prisons only in locations where she can maintain control of what occurs within them;
• Finally, Americans should distinguish between detention for the purpose of punishment and detention for the purpose of removing enemy combatants from the stream of battle.

The former Attorney General also noted that America’s reckless financial conduct will have grave national security implications for future generations who might be unable to finance their defense.  Moreover, if America reveals a lack of self-sufficiency to the world by becoming a debtor to the world, it signals America’s weakness.  Funding national security should be one of government’s main priorities.

America’s current Attorney General, Eric Holder, appears to have no clear rules guiding his decisions in reference to which defendants go to a military tribunal versus a federal court.  His decisions appear to be arbitrary and capricious.  Though he is the head of the Department of Justice, national security does not seem to be his paramount priority.  He refuses to acknowledge the Islamist ideological threat, favors the closing of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, opposes the Patriot Act (responsible for disrupting numerous terrorist plots in the US) and is critical of enhanced interrogation techniques.  Instead, he has stated that engagement in “dialogue” with the Muslim community is a priority for his Department, as is the prosecution of so-called “hate crimes.”  Though he is not an expert in Islamic theology, he nevertheless asserts with seeming authority the claim that that those who commit terrorist acts in the name of Islam behave in a way that is “un-Islamic” and contrary to Islam’s actual teachings.

By contrast, John Ashcroft led America through its toughest times after the largest terrorist attack on US soil following September 11, 2001.  He made fighting terrorism his number one priority.  He reorganized DOJ to ensure that suspected terrorists were prosecuted when the evidence warranted it.  Under his leadership, DOJ dismantled numerous terrorist cells throughout the US and over 150 plots throughout the world.  Ashcroft’s role in the execution of the War on Terror was one of the most difficult of any cabinet member.

Ashcroft’s speech at the Heritage Foundation expressed a love of freedom, an appreciation of American exceptionalism, an understanding of the threats to liberty, respect for the law, Judeo-Christian values, and a deference to “we the people.”  The Left, of course, has consistently expressed its venom toward John Ashcroft and the entire War on Terror. But Ashcroft’s speech reminded me of the time after September 11, 2001, when, however briefly, the country came together to face our common enemies.  Our government united us in the cause for freedom and our shared American values.  My, how things have changed.

Last week at the Heritage Foundation, Former Ambassador John Bolton delivered a speech titled, “Protecting National Sovereignty in the Age of Obama.”  The focus of the speech laid emphasis on the importance of maintaining American sovereignty in order to ensure the preservation of freedom.  In this context, Bolton reviewed Obama’s policies on national security, charging the President with a worldview that demonstrates “stunning naiveté.”

On one side of the debate are the Americanists who believe, as the Founding Fathers intended, that the Constitution of the United States is “the supreme law of the land.” On the other side of the debate are the globalists who advocate that “customary and international law,” international organizations, conventions and resolutions should take precedence over national sovereignty.  In this worldview, nations which constitute the beacon of liberty and human rights would hold no sway over those which snuff out freedom and human dignity.

Bolton pointed out the near-theological weight that Obama places on treaties, international organizations, and multi-lateral collaborations.  He is indeed a “post-American President.”  As Evan Thomas from Newsweek explained, Obama is “standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God….He’s going to bring all different sides together.”  Central to Obama’s worldview is his obvious rejection of American exceptionalism, made clear in numerous prior statements.  This view maintains that the US is merely one of 192 UN members, with no special role over that of other countries.

Obama’s positions stem from the false assumption that all countries, cultures and religions share common values, interests and goals.  This gross misconception has led the President down the dangerous path of advocating treaties and policies which will drastically weaken America’s national security and reduce her ability to defend herself.  The President’s ultimate vision is that of a nuclear-free world.  His “stunning naiveté,” as Bolton phrased it, has led the President to believe that if America takes the first steps toward disarming herself, she will set a virtuous example for the rest of the world, and her enemies will then follow suit.  This misguided belief has inspired Obama to pursue the following national security goals:

• Become signatory to the International Criminal Court ceding prosecutorial jurisdiction to the international community.  Countries that may themselves be human rights violators would be able to prosecute Americans for alleged violations of human rights to which their countries have no connection.  For example, Obama has refused to promise that he would disallow former Bush officials to be criminally tried in foreign courts for implementing enhanced interrogation techniques in the War on Terror;
• Sign the new bilateral Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), thus “re-setting” American-Russian relations.  This treaty will obligate Russia and the US to reduce their number of nuclear warheads by 30%.  Obama hopes that Tehran will follow America’s lead in nuclear stockpile reductions.
• Become signatory and ratify a number of multi-lateral treaties including the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty; and the Landmines Convention.

Additionally, though not mentioned in Bolton’s speech, Obama has already cut the American national security defense budget substantially, and impeded our ability to update expired nuclear weapons.

There is no doubt that contrary to the President’s assertions, enemies of freedom who seek the demise of America will view America’s reduced ability to defend herself as weakness, not virtue.  They will likely seize the opportunity to gain military advantage.  This puts America’s safety and national security at greater, not lesser risk.

Additionally, it places America in a position where it is more difficult to achieve success in diplomatic negotiations, a tactic which Obama seems to place as high priority.  The President advocates meeting with terror states, rogue states and hostile states without pre-condition in diplomatic efforts.  However, without a healthy national security system in place, the leverage he needs to attain his goals is substantially reduced.

President Reagan had it right: the maintenance of a healthy military, an effective missile defense system, and cutting edge weaponry is not tantamount to an invitation to war.  Rather, these can be used as leverage in diplomatic negotiations in addition to serving as protection against enemy forces, should the need arise.  In the age of Obama, Americans must stand their ground and insist that the policies set forth by elected officials will produce “peace through strength.” After all, it is “we the people” to whom they must answer.

In his recently released book Banned in Britain, Michael Savage, an American conservative talk show host, reveals the sordid details that caused the British Labor Party government to ban him from the UK.  In context, the ban constitutes part of a larger effort to restrict free speech in the West.

One morning in May 2009, Michael Savage awoke and googled the news.  There in bold headlines he read that he was forbidden to enter the UK, due to his “extremist views.”  At first he thought it was a joke.  But upon linking to the British Home Office website, he discovered its truth.  A “name and shame” list had been posted of those prohibited from entering the country.  The list included terrorists, murderers and Michael Savage.

The talk show host never committed a crime.  He never applied to enter the UK, nor was his show broadcast there.  The British government never warned him that he was engaging in problematic behavior, nor did it notify him after placing him on the list.  He was not afforded due process or any process.  Rather, the decision to ban Michael Savage was made by government authorities with no oversight, behind closed doors.  They side-stepped laws and trampled on his civil liberties.

Banned in Britain explains how, through the Freedom of Information Act, Savage uncovered e-mails by British authorities who made the decision.  The e-mails demonstrated that because most of the people on the list were Muslim, the government feared that radicals would falsely allege that the “unacceptable behavior” policy was specifically targeted at the Muslim community.  Therefore, authorities sought a non-Muslim to place on the list in order to achieve “balance in exclusion cases”, or diversity in banning.

The Home Office’s prime researcher found no evidence that Michael Savage advocated violence, or that violence was ever committed as the result of his words. Nevertheless, then-Home Secretary Jacqui Smith used a collection of Savage’s sound-bites out-of-context to serve as the basis for his ban.  She insisted that the talk show host sought to “provoke others to serious criminal acts and foster hatred which might lead to intercommunity violence.”

Savage wrote to the US State Department, the UK Home Office, and the British Prime Minister in an attempt to get his name removed from the “name and shame” list.  Failing to get results, he subsequently filed a defamation law suit against the British Home Office and Jacqui Smith in her personal capacity.  (Smith had resigned amidst allegations of corruption and financial impropriety unrelated to the Savage case).

Though most Brits had not heard of Michael Savage prior to his ban, his name is now likely a household word.  The Secretary’s slurs made the American talk show host a target for Islamists.  Therefore, after hiring body guards, Savage made numerous media appearances in Britain in order to plead his case.

America’s first amendment was not written to protect polite speech or politically correct speech.  It was written, in part, to protect controversial, offensive, and cantankerous political speech.  The speech in which Michael Savage engaged was legal in America.  And though the UK has no first amendment, it purports to maintain freedom of speech and is signatory to treaties that promote it.

Free speech is not limited to the right to express one’s viewpoints.  It includes the right not to be punished for expressing ideas contrary to those of the government.  That means the right not to be libeled or slandered, not to have the government knowingly make false statements about you, or falsely attribute statements to you.  It also means the right not to have the government ban you from the country as an alternative means of censorship.

Legal restrictions of free speech do not occur overnight.  The process is gradual.  First, self-censorship is encouraged, then “guidelines” are issued.  Eventually, legal complaints lead to civil penalties, and finally criminal prosecution.  Penalizing one man for asserting his free speech rights also has the effect of chilling the speech of others, who take heed of the consequences.

Across Europe, the progression is evident.  Islamic blasphemy laws are being construed more broadly in countries that have non-Muslim majorities.  In Canada,  Human Rights Commissions regularly issue civil fines for “Islamophobic” speech or speech “likely” to cause hatred, even if no hatred results.  To defend themselves, respondents must endure a punitive bureaucratic process, costing them inordinate amounts of time and money.  In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, Member of Parliament, will be placed on criminal trial January 20, 2010 for producing a short documentary on Islamic extremism, which allegedly constitutes “hate speech”.  If convicted, he faces the possibility of jail.  Ironically, Wilders, founder of the Party for Freedom, has been pushing for an international equivalent of America’s first amendment.

In the US, the signs are more subtle.  Though America doesn’t exert police power to stifle speech, she may pass legislation, issue executive orders, or create a politically correct climate of intimidation.  For example, the State Department, the National Counterterrorism Center, and the Department of Homeland Security issued memos to their employees discouraging the use of words ranging from Islamic terrorism to jihad.  Politically correct double standards are applied to college campus speakers. Ahmadinejad is ok, but David Horowitz and Nonie Darwish are hate-mongers undeserving of a platform.  The Fairness Doctrine looms large, threatening to shut down conservative talk radio since liberal talk radio cannot survive in the market place.  Also, for the first time in history, the FCC has a diversity czar.  He mandates private broadcasters to pay license fees that support PBS, doing indirectly what he cannot do directly.

Just this past year, DHS, the Missouri Information Analysis Center, the Maryland National Guard and Nancy Pelosi have all equated “right-wing extremists”, military vets, tea-partiers, and libertarian political groups, to threats normally associated with terrorists.  Expressing fear of violence from those who espouse none, creates paranoia in law enforcement, who may respond with unfounded intimidation tactics.  And in the UN, the United States in conjunction with Egypt, recently introduced a resolution that aspires to restrict criticism of Islam around the globe.

Under the facade of “sensitive speech” or “responsible speech” radical Muslims and the leftists who join them, seek the authority to limit the words and ideas of those with whom they disagree.  Instead of winning the war of ideas in a fair fight, those in power seek to shut down the debate.  After all, those who have weak arguments or false arguments must be unsettled by those who might win on the merits.

Those who benefit from restrictions on speech are those in power.  Currently, that is the political left.  Critical thinking serves as its enemy.  Dissent is suddenly unpatriotic.  Questions are discouraged.  People assume they hold the right not to be offended.  Expression of alternative viewpoints is precluded.

Academic institutions, once America’s shining example of intellectual diversity, now serve as leftist indoctrination centers.  Worse, some national security threats can no longer be openly discussed by intelligence professionals.  DHS whitewashes the problems.  The media fails to report them.

Free speech serves as the foundation of free and democratic societies.  Without free speech there can be no political opposition. Those who oppose government or mainstream views are oppressed, penalized, imprisoned, or even executed.  All socialist, communist, fascist, and tyrannical regimes know that the first step in stemming political opposition to their power is to stifle free speech.  The Nazis burned books, Stalin outlawed non-state controlled newspapers, and Iran is currently jailing those who peacefully protest June’s election outcome.  In some American journalistic circles, terrorism seems less subject to criticism than objectively reporting its roots.

In western countries, free speech ought not be considered a privilege but a fundamental right.  Its restriction doesn’t merely violate human rights, but additionally constitutes a national security risk.  In order to secure America’s freedom, the public must be informed of freedom’s ideological threats.  Intelligence must be permitted to discuss ideological motivations for terrorism.  The media has a duty, not to be “sensitive” but to report accurately.  Academia has an obligation to foster independent thought.

Banned in Britain is an easy, interesting, and enlightening read.  Savage portrays his story in context of the increasing social, political and legal encroachments on western freedom of speech.  Those who speak out with differing, conservative, or controversial viewpoints are incrementally being silenced.  Now an American talk show host can be banned from the country that gave us the Magna Carta.  Will the thousands of listeners who share his views be next?

Is it a mainstream Muslim civil rights organization, an illegal lobbying firm, a terrorist front group or all of the above?

In the eye-opening new book titled Muslim Mafia, former federal investigator Dave Gaubatz and Paul Sperry (author of Infiltration:  How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington) provide an inside look into the controversial tax-exempt organization known as Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

In a brazen display of courage, Dave’s son, Chris, feigned conversion to Islam and loyalty to its radical tenets.  After winning over the trust of CAIR’s top leaders and inner circles, Chris Gaubatz aka David Marshall became privy to the private meetings and secret documents of this notorious organization.  Muslim Mafia tells the story of what Chris and his cohorts discover when they infiltrate the infiltrators.

During a six month sting operation, during which time he earned an award from CAIR, Chris was tasked with shredding confidential documents.  But instead, he brought them home for examination.  He taped conversations, researched court documents, and investigated the organization’s finances, goals, strategies and key players.  What he found is both fascinating and frightening.

Muslim Mafia portrays CAIR as nothing less than America’s fifth column.  It is part of a network of organizations including ISNA, NAIT, MSA, and others which front for the Muslim Brotherhood and conspire to incrementally Islamize the west.  The Muslim Brotherhood’s goal is to sabotage the United States from within, and its main weapon is deceit.

The book demonstrates that CAIR is anything but a true civil rights organization.  Rather, it constitutes a turnstile for terrorist-supporters and victimizes mainstream Muslims who seek its aid.  It has penetrated major US institutions, derailed counterterrorism training programs, placed moles in law enforcement agencies, and advised mosque-goers to remain silent in the face of FBI investigations.

Sadly, political correctness in collusion with Islamic radicalism has weakened America’s national security.  Indeed, some in the FBI notified CAIR in advance of its raids, rendering the raids useless.  And until recently, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies employed CAIR to provide “sensitivity training” to their agents, teaching them how to refrain from offending terrorist suspects held in custody.  Field agents complained that higher ups seemed more concerned about appeasing organizations with terrorist ties than actually investigating them.

Recently, in the largest terrorism trial in the US, where several defendants were convicted and sent to jail, CAIR and ISNA were named unindicted co-conspirators.  Despite this, aspects of law enforcement persist in “Muslim outreach” to these same organizations.

Political correctness is also causing America to lose control of framing the issues for the war on terror.  And generally, those who frame the debate win it.  Yet, succumbing to Islamist propaganda, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Counterterrorism Center have distributed memos to their employees dissuading them from using a host of words and phrases ranging from “jihad” to “Islamic terrorism”.  If America can’t name her enemies and discuss them, neither can she produce a strategy to defeat them.

It is progress that the FBI finally cut ties with CAIR subsequent to the Holy Land Foundation trial.  It is also encouraging that some Congressmen are calling for an investigation of CAIR.  However, much work remains.  Muslim Brotherhood fronts are still infiltrating other areas of society including corporations, banks, courts, academia and media.  Their persuasion tactics range from political donations and carefully crafted public relations messages to lies, propaganda, economic boycotts, name-calling, bogus lawsuits and veiled threats.

For example, CAIR affiliates have managed to obtain congressional staff positions.  CAIR still works closely with some congressional offices, drafting legislation and otherwise targeting key committees to influence policy.  Among its goals are to strip America of her counterterrorism tools, eliminate immigration restrictions from high risk Muslim countries, outlaw profiling, criminalize criticism of Islam, abolish aid to Israel, and withdraw US troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Some politicians share CAIR’s anti-freedom and anti-national security sentiments.  Others have been the recipients of purposeful disinformation campaigns by various Muslim Brotherhood front groups that pose as mainstream.

The Pentagon’s Muslim Chaplain program exemplifies another Muslim Brotherhood success story.  It was started by Alamoudi, then-head of the Muslim American Society, while he simultaneously raised money for Al-Qaeda.  The program provided the Pentagon’s stamp of approval to radical imams.  Though Alamoudi now sits in jail, the program he started remains in place.

The Treasury Department and Wall Street are the next targets for Islamists.  They are pushing for sharia-compliant financing, the instruments of which are precluded from dealing with alcohol, pork, and any business with Israel.  Dispute resolution must be handled by sheiks who are expert in sharia law, rather than by the SEC.  The goal is to create a parallel financial system at odds with American values and lacking government accountability.  Worse, a portion of the earnings from sharia-compliant financing goes to “Islamic charities” many of which are questionable at best.  Never-the-less, the Treasury Department offered its first course titled “Islamic Banking 101” earlier this year.

Allowing Muslims and others of all faiths to immigrate to America and enjoy her way of life is the American way.  But America cannot allow her freedom of religion to be turned on its head and used against her.  She ought not accommodate radicals who demand respect for the intolerant, attempt to reduce national security, restrict freedom of speech or ultimately seek the merging of mosque and state.

America must do more than merely defend herself from her enemies.  She must be pro-active.  America cannot wait for another 9/11 or until CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups achieve their objectives before learning their true motivations.   She must act now before it is too late.

Muslim Mafia is a fascinating read which, at a minimum, raises critical issues that demand to be asked and answered.  To support its claims, it details copious citations from court records, declassified FBI documents, interviews with government officials, counterterrorism expertise, and internal CAIR memos.  Get the book and become informed.  America’s freedom and national security depend on it.

To order Muslim Mafia, click here.

On October 1, 2009, the Obama administration in conjunction with the Egyptian government, introduced an anti-free speech measure to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council (HRC).  It was adopted the next day without a vote.

Earlier this year, when the United States sought a seat on the HRC, it was a controversial decision.  Many who found the HRC neither credible nor useful, opposed the move.  Yet, others were more optimistic that America could change the HRC from within.  Perhaps the U.S. could spur debate stemming from its opposition to China, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia on critical human rights votes.

Little evidence suggests that Americans on either side of the aisle contemplated the US entering the ring and supporting the opposition’s anti-freedom measures.  Yet now, the current administration has done worse:  it’s leading the charge.

The draft resolution, misleadingly titled “Freedom of Opinion and Expression” includes two troubling components.  First, it calls on nation states to take “effective measures” to address and combat “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”.  It expresses concern and condemnation of “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups”.  It further attempts to construe this as an international human rights law and obligation.  Second, it recognizes the media’s “moral and social responsibilities” and the “importance” that its potential voluntary code of conduct could play in combating intolerance.

This resolution appears to stem from, and constitute a step toward, the Organization of Islamic Conference’s resolution to “combat defamation of religions”.  The OIC’s resolution would ban outright the “defaming” of religions, speech critical of religion (even if accurate), and open discussion about any negative consequences resulting from the implementation of religious beliefs (such as Sharia law).

Though both resolutions mention “religions” generally, the context and references of the resolutions make them almost certain to apply only or disproportionately to Islam.  Indeed, the defamation of religions resolution singles out treatment of Islam.  Yet not surprisingly, the OIC has blatantly refused to curtail hate speech against Jews or Israel.

Further, it is the nature of religion to include a component of exclusivity, thus making it impossible to express one’s theology accurately without making “defamatory” remarks against another theology.  For example, merely preaching that Jesus is the son of God can be viewed as an inflammatory remark and an affront to Islam.  Additionally, the wording of this resolution makes its violation subjectively determined and comes dangerously close to outlawing certain emotions, such as hostility toward Islam or Muslims.

Critically important is the resolution’s attempt to internationalize norms on speech, potentially usurping fundamental constitutional rights.  Strict constructionists of the US constitution view the constitution as “the supreme law of the land” (as the constitution expressly states), whereas those who view the constitution as “a living, breathing document” might not.  But even under a strict construction, when the US signs a treaty, the treaty becomes binding on the US.  Though this UN resolution does not constitute a treaty, it is fair to presume that because it is a US-led initiative, the US should be bound by it.

Also problematic is the resolution’s attempt to make the restriction of free speech a human right.  In fact, it is free speech that constitutes a human right and not its restriction.  Ideologies, ideas and religions do not, and should not be afforded “human rights”.  They should be fair game for criticism, analysis, open debate and discussion.  Religions and ideologies cannot be “defamed”.  Once ideologies are afforded protection from criticism, it is in direct contradiction to individual human rights.  Moreover, some of the language in the resolution is vague and open to interpretation.  Given the parties on the HRC who adopted it, a broad construction of speech restrictions is likely.

It is no accident that countries which have no freedom of expression show support for this resolution.  For example, Ambassador Hisham Badr from Egypt, in discussing his satisfaction with the resolution, stated that “freedom of expression…..has sometimes been misused.”  He went on to imply that media  which fails to comply with limitations on free speech are unethical.

Pakistan Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the OIC, confirmed that the resolution allows free speech to be trumped by the suppression of that which “defames” religion or expresses a negative stereotype of religion.  He asserted that freedom of expression is important but this right carries “duties and responsibilities”, including the need to fight hate speech.  He articulated the view that defamation of religion and negative stereotyping are forms of religious hatred.  He made clear that in the OIC’s interpretation, such negativity applies not just to individuals, but to religions and belief systems, proclaiming that this constitutes a human rights violation.

Jean-Baptiste Mettei from France, speaking on behalf of the European Union, appears to be in denial about the meaning and impact of this resolution.  While prefacing his remarks with praise for the resolution, the French Ambassador then declared that human rights laws protect individuals in free speech and freedom of religion and does not protect belief systems.  The EU summarily rejected the concept of defamation of religion, and expressly denounced the notion that the media has a moral and social responsibility to curtail speech.  He argued that states should not interfere with the work of journalists, and acknowledged their right to editorial independence.  As such, the EU could not support the restrictions on journalistic speech embodied in the resolution.

In the past, when the US addressed international speech norms, it went out of its way to ensure that treaties by which it was bound would not restrict free speech or undermine America’s first amendment protections.  But now, change has come.

Arguably relinquishing one of America’s most fundamental freedoms, Obama is once again bowing down to the Muslim world.  The interim ranking US diplomat, Douglas Griffiths explained, “[T]his initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration’s commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”  However, to the OIC, “respect” means the silencing of offensive speech against Islam.

With all due respect Mr. President:  the attainment of freedom and human rights is not tantamount to winning a popularity contest.  And capitulation is not leadership.  It is a sad state of affairs when France refutes major portions of a United States initiative because the initiative undermines fundamental freedoms.