Brian T. Kennedy is president of the Claremont Institute and publisher of the Claremont Review of Books. He has written on national security affairs issues in several national publications. He is also a co-author of the recent book: Shariah: The Threat to America. The following is adapted from a speech delivered on January 7, 2011, in the “First Principles on First Fridays” lecture series sponsored by Hillsdale Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C. . Due to its length, we will reprint this speech in three parts with the following proviso: “This reprint is with the permission from Imprimis, the national speech digest of Hillsdale College, www.hillsdale.edu.”

The following is the first part of Brian Kennedy’s speech:

WE ARE OFTEN TOLD that we possess the most powerful military in the world and that we will face no serious threat for some time to come. We are comforted with three reassurances aimed at deflecting any serious discussion of national security: (1) that Islam is a religion of peace; (2) that we will never go to war with China because our economic interests are intertwined; and (3) that America won the Cold War and Russia is no longer our enemy. But these reassurances are myths, propagated on the right and left alike. We believe them at our peril, because serious threats are already upon us.

Let me begin with Islam. We were assured that it was a religion of peace immediately following September 11. President Bush, a good man, believed or was persuaded that true Islam was not that different from Judaism or Christianity. He said in a speech in October 2001, just a month after the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon: “Islam is a vibrant faith. . . . We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn’t follow the great traditions of Islam. They’ve hijacked a great religion.” But unfortunately, Mr. Bush was trying to understand Islam as we would like it to be rather than how countless devout Muslims understand it.

Organizationally, Islam is built around a belief in God or Allah, but it is equally a political ideology organized around the Koran and the teachings of its founder Muhammad. Whereas Christianity teaches that we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s—allowing for a non-theocratic political tradition to develop in the West, culminating in the principles of civil and religious liberty in the American founding—Islam teaches that to disagree with or even reinterpret the Koran’s 6000 odd verses, organized into 114 chapters or Suras and dealing as fully with law and politics as with matters of faith, is punishable by death.

Islamic authorities of all the major branches of Islam hold that the Koran must be read so that the parts written last override the others. This so-called theory of abrogation means that the ruling parts of the Koran are those written after Muhammad went to Medina in 622 A.D. Specifically, they are Suras 9 and 5, which are not the Suras containing the verses often cited as proof of Islam’s peacefulness.

Sura 9, verse 5, reads: “Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them . . . .”

Sura 9, verse 29, reads: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they are of the 40 people of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Sura 5, verse 51, reads: “Oh ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them for friendship is of them. Verily Allah guideth not the unjust.”

And Sura 3, verse 28, introduces the doctrine of taqiyya, which holds that Muslims should not be friends with the infidel except as deception, always with the end goal of converting, subduing, or destroying him.

It is often said that to point out these verses is to cherry pick unfairly the most violent parts of the Koran. In response, I assert that we must try to understand Muslims as they understand themselves. And I hasten to add that the average American Muslim does not understand the Koran with any level of detail. So I am not painting a picture here of the average Muslim. I am trying to understand those Muslims, both here in the U.S. and abroad, who actively seek the destruction of America.

Here at home, the threat is posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its organizational arms, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, and the various Muslim student associations. These groups seek to persuade Americans that Islam is a religion of peace. But let me quote to you from a document obtained during the 2007 Holy Land Trial investigating terrorist funding. It is a Muslim Brotherhood Strategic Memorandum on North American Affairs that was approved by the Shura Council and the Organizational Conference in 1987. It speaks of “Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims’ causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims’ efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is.”

Elsewhere this document says: . . . . part two next week

Our past three articles proposed something new, innovative and smart to the Republicans. But the verdict is in: They did not get the message, in fact, they completely ignored it. The 2011 CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) gathering in Washington D.C. from February 10 through 12 saw multiple potential Presidential candidates for 2012, there were reportedly 11 to 12 thousand Republicans in attendance, most of them conservatives, old and young and what did they do? They let all those speakers fill their ears with slogans, Obama-bashing sound bites and suggestions for a better future for America, and in the end, what did they do? They conducted a straw poll among those present and they gave the highest number of votes to the one person who could not be elected President in a thousand years: Some grumpy old Libertarian, Representative Ron Paul from Texas!

Yes, he received thirty percent of the votes cast ahead of Mitt Romney who received 23 percent, all the other potential candidates received less than seven percent each, some as little as one percent. O.K., Ron Paul for President according to CPAC! If this is not the dumbest thing ever to come from such a gathering, we here at Common Sense University do not know what would be dumber. This man is living most of the time in another part of the universe, his ideas are so far out of whack and removed from reality, it is truly pathetic to think that there was even one person in that bunch who could seriously support Ron Paul’s ideas in today’s world.

And now, while no candidate has officially thrown his or her hat into the ring, the guessing game continues and we hear about some of the “Potentials” traveling to Iowa and New Hampshire to establish some support among the locals and build a campaign team for the early 2012 contests. We assume as soon as one of them formally announces his/her candidacy in the coming weeks or months the other dozen or more individuals will follow suit. This will then be followed with major fundraising efforts by all and the first, second and third multi-candidate forums in late spring and early summer. As before, these televised events will do nothing for the average voter since every candidate will be given thirty to sixty seconds to answer complex questions raised by a moderator. It will clarify absolutely nothing, they will be criticizing each other, they will all be dumping on President Obama, they will all speak in generalities as to how to deal with America’s current problems and how to make things better in the future. Everyone of them will talk about not indebting our children and grandchildren, blah, blah, blah, blah. It will be like watching a movie for the umpteenth time, a movie nobody even really wants to see.

We  are deeply disappointed in our realization that we expected to see changes from Republicans but will get nothing more than reruns from the past. The outcome of the 2012 Presidential Election will at best be a game of chance and if we had to bet on the outcome, the smart money would be on a re-election of Barack Obama. He has set a fundraising goal of over one billion dollars to remain President and the Republicans will probably spend a third of that money in their primary fights among themselves and then will have not enough time to raise funds to launch an effective campaign against Obama.

All we know for sure is that we here at Common Sense University will not under any circumstances contribute as much as a penny to the Republican primary fights, we simply do not like to waste money. It seems that the powers to be in the Republican Party have not learned anything from the last election in November 2010 and the establishment of the Tea Party. This could easily lead to the re-election of President Obama for a second term.

…….do something smart and unconventional. And as is the case for all situations, there is of course a middle of the road approach to what we have proposed so far. While our suggestion in the previous article might be too radical or revolutionary for the Republican Party hierarchy and leadership, they should at least consider bringing the Presidential election process into the 21^st century. Communications have changed so drastically in the past twenty or so years that surveys, polls and other information gathering can be relatively inexpensive and quick. With e-mails, face book, twitter and whatever else, you can reach millions of people with a click of a button.

In light of this, we have to question the rationale for the 19^th century style electioneering whereby the potential candidates spend endless hours and days over a period of several months walking through Iowa to meet the locals and talk about their plans and visions for the future of America. This is so ridiculous, it borders on idiocy and we find no reason whatsoever why this ‘tradition’ should be maintained. The emphasis on the Iowa caucuses and the first primary in New Hampshire are so outdated and outright stupid, one has to wonder if these candidates who put up with this are really serious about America and becoming President. There is absolutely nothing special about the folks who live in Iowa and New Hampshire and as we know, these kinds of elections have been fraudulently abused, the money spent there is truly a waste and there is absolutely no logic in hanging on to this ‘tradition’. It’s almost as ridiculous as saying “I am voting Democrat (Republican) because my Grandpa always voted Democrat (Republican).”

We have to seriously ask why the powers to be in the two major political party’s think that a deviation from this ‘tradition’ (Iowa and New Hampshire) is not good. Why do they believe that it is perfectly alright to eliminate untold millions of Americans to participate in the primary election process. As we know, right after the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary several candidates declare their exit from the election process based on the outcome of these two ‘early birds’ totaling just a few millions votes. The other 110 million voters between the two parties will see a reduced slate of candidates and then will vote for the ones they dislike the least or simply not vote at all since their initial favorite guy was not getting enough votes in these two small States.

There is plenty of room for change in the American process and it is our hope that the Republicans are open minded enough to consider changes. They only have to look at the recent creation of the TEA Party movement across our country to see what a grass roots group can accomplish with relatively small budgets by using the new communications tools available to all of us. The question remains, is it already too late to develop such changes for the upcoming Presidential election cycle or will the Republicans have the guts to simply put America first and do what’s right for the country.

If not, we will just have to suffer through another boring primary process of multiple dozen or more candidate forums which achieve absolutely nothing followed by seeing potential candidates sitting on haystacks in Iowa, eating the local food specialties and talking to the folks about their plans and ideas for America. Common Sense University hopes it is not to be the case but then common sense and logic have been kicked aside for good old American traditions when it comes to picking the next President of the USA.

…….do something smart and unconventional. And here we have in our opinion several sound suggestions. First and foremost, the traditional Republican primary process should be totally abandoned. The thought of planning a dozen or more candidate forums where anywhere from ten to twenty candidates are lined up on a big stage to answer moderator questions in 30 second time slots makes us shudder. We have all seen them now for many years and they have become a farce as the pundits will afterwards try to figure out who had the best sound bites, looked presidential and so on. This is uninspiring and self-defeating in itself.

Instead, the Republicans should be able to devise a plan to remove the primary selection process from the public eye and instead develop a consensus by several means (Polls, money-raising etc) as to which candidates have a serious chance of beating the Democrat candidate, President Barack Obama. In our opinion, the following ‘rumored to be’ candidates Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, Governors Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty and Haley Barbour as well as Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, John Thune and a few others all have a certain appeal to  some voters but they also carry heavy negatives or are at this point totally unknowns to a majority of Americans. That would leave the likes of former governors Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee who ran in 2008 and lost to John McCain. Both have a certain appeal and could be able to win the primary races in early 2012, they are known nationwide and could raise ample money for the primary season, yet they also carry negatives and without a doubt, the liberal media will remind Americans daily about these ‘negatives’.

So, what is the plan to be for the Republicans? We think that a method could be developed in which the Republicans come together and meet among themselves several times and evaluate each candidate as to voter appeal, electability, fund-raising potential, possible drawbacks and so on and then go beyond picking the Presidential candidate of their party. Since this in and of itself could be in the end a gamble, we propose that they also agree on more than just the frontrunner but also – based on their individual strengths – pick the Vice-Presidential candidate as well as some major cabinet positions. In short, let the Republicans present a Team to lead America out of its current dire financial situation, its overall economic misery including a solid domestic energy policy and other such areas of importance. They could in November 2012 present the voters not only a ticket (President and VP) but the major players of an administration.

This would be to our knowledge a first and it would make the choice between the current administration and the proposed Republican team much clearer for the American voters. It would have several other advantages. The Team would campaign hard all over the country all the way to Election Day. They could spread out and be in different parts of the USA simultaneously or campaign together, their joint fund raising potential would significantly increase. The novelty of this approach could give the people a much better understanding of what they can expect from the Republicans.

One example, in our opinion could be a team looking like this: President Mitt Romney, VP Mike Huckabee, Secretary of State Jeb Bush, Secretary of the Treasury Mitch Daniels, Secretary of Defense Newt Gingrich, Department of Justice Rudy Giuliani, Secretary of the Interior/Energy Sarah Palin and so on.

But, and this is a big but, we here at Common Sense University doubt it very much since it will most likely fail for egotistical reasons. Everybody wants to be the ‘top dog’ and to overcome this would require a superior love, care and concern for the country by the potential candidates and we can not see it happen at this time. We would like to believe that for the good of America’s future, the Republicans could all give in for the greater good, swallow their individual egos and become a Team for America. Only time will tell if it is even considered or if the pundits and ‘experts’ kill this novel concept and continue the failed election elimination process called the primaries. To be continued…