webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Pepperdine

INCUBATOR

-=-=

katie zacharia

pepperdine fail bar, genl cnsl world bank china?!

-=-=

-=-=

MRC VASQUEZ

Pepperdine UniversityPepperdine University Public PolicyPublic PolicyJun 2018 - Jul 2018Jun 2018 - Jul 2018

economists for trump

Andy Puzder, J.D., Senior Fellow, Pepperdine University School of Public Policy and former CEO, CKE Restaurants

USAID PJT 2025 HOOVER AM SPECT

Kiron Skinner - Wikipedia

Kiron Kanina Skinner (born 1961) is an American political scientist. She was Director of Policy Planning at the United States Department of State in the first Trump administration.[1] Skinner is presently the Taube Professor of International Relations and Politics at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, where she teaches graduate courses in national security and public leadership. Prior to that, she was the Taube Professor of International Relations and Politics at Carnegie Mellon University, and the founding director of the Institute for Politics and Strategy and associated centers at the university. She is also the W. Glenn Campbell Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. After leaving the Department of State, she returned to her position at Carnegie Mellon University until stepping down in 2021.

She co-authored two books on Ronald Reagan: In His Own Hand (2001) and Reagan, a Life in Letters (2003), which were New York Times bestsellers.[2] In 2005, Skinner was appointed by President George W. Bush to a term on the National Security Education Board.[3]

Early life and education

Skinner was born in Chicago in 1961 and grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area.[4] She earned an associate degree in communications from Sacramento City College in 1979. She won the Harry S. Truman Scholarship for the State of California, which enabled her to move on to Spelman College, where she earned a bachelor's degree in political science. She then earned an MA and PhD in political science and international relations from Harvard University. While at Harvard, she was a student of future United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who advised her, "People may oppose you, but when they realize you can hurt them, they'll join your side."[5]

GINGRICH

Trump administration

In 2016, Skinner served on President-elect Donald Trump's transition team for national security.[13] She had a position as a senior advisor for the State Department but left the role after a few days.[14] In August 2018, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced her as the new Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. State Department,[15] and she was sworn in on September 4, 2018. She was given a coordinating role on the newly formed Commission on Unalienable Rights, whose creation was announced July 8, 2019.

Skinner drew international attention in April 2019 for stating at a foreign policy forum that the U.S. competition with China would be especially bitter, because unlike the Cold War with the Soviet Union which is "a fight within the Western family", “it’s the first time that we will have a great-power competitor that is not Caucasian".[16][17] Some critics viewed these remarks as a new version of Samuel P. Huntington's clash of civilizations thesis or as bordering on racism.[18]

Skinner's term at the State Department ended in August 2019.[19]

Policy advising

In 2023, Skinner contributed to the State Department chapter in the ninth edition of Heritage Foundation's book Mandate for Leadership, which provides the policy agenda for Project 2025.[20][9]

Kiron K. Skinner - Pepperdine University School of Public Policy | LinkedIn

Experience

[Taube Family Chair Professor of International Relations and Politics Pepperdine University School of Public Policy · Full-time

Aug 2022 - Present · 3 yrs 11 mos

Malibu, California, United States](https://www.linkedin.com/school/10172986/)

Mandate for Leadership - Chapter 6 - Department of State

1. CHAPTER OVERVIEW

Title: Department of State ^(TL;DR ^Version)

Author: Kiron K. Skinner, Former Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. Department of State

Chapter 6 of “Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership” focuses on the Department of State, the agency responsible for conducting American diplomacy and representing the U.S. abroad. Authored by Kiron K. Skinner, a former Director of Policy Planning at the State Department under President Trump, the chapter argues that the department is plagued by a “left-wing” workforce resistant to conservative policies and operates with a sense of “independence” from the President. Skinner outlines a plan to “reforge” the department into a “lean and functional diplomatic machine” that serves the President’s agenda.

The chapter’s significance lies in its call for a radical transformation of the State Department, shifting it from a career-driven institution focused on diplomacy and multilateralism to a more ideologically driven and less diplomatic agency that prioritizes the President’s agenda. These proposals could have a destabilizing effect on international relations and undermine America’s global leadership, raising serious concerns among Democrats about the potential for a more confrontational and less cooperative approach to foreign policy.

2. KEY THEMES & FRAMEWORKS

3. DETAILED BREAKDOWN

3.1 Introduction: A Department in Need of Reform ^(198)

3.2 The Problem: A “Left-Wing” Workforce ^(199)

3.3 The Solution: Restoring Political Control ^(206)

3.4 Foreign Policy Priorities ^(212)

3.5 Conclusion: A “Lean and Functional Diplomatic Machine” ^(227)

4. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

5. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

6. CROSS-REFERENCES

7. POTENTIAL IMPACTS

8. CRITICISMS & COUNTERARGUMENTS

9. KEY QUOTES

10. SUMMARY & SIGNIFICANCE

Chapter 6 of “Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership” outlines a plan to transform the State Department into a more ideologically driven and less diplomatic agency that prioritizes the President’s agenda over the expertise and experience of career diplomats. These proposals could have a destabilizing effect on international relations and undermine America’s global leadership, raising serious concerns among Democrats about the potential for a more confrontational and less cooperative approach to foreign policy.

This chapter, like Chapter 4, highlights the stark differences in worldview between conservatives and liberals on issues of foreign policy. The proposals outlined in this chapter could have a profound impact on the future of America’s role in the world, raising serious concerns among Democrats about the potential for a more unilateral and less cooperative approach to international relations.

Research Fellow

Hoover Institution, Stanford University

1996 - Present · 30 yrs 6 mos

Stanford, California

Conduct research on US national security policy.

[Lifetime Director Atlantic Council

Jul 2014 - Present · 12 yrs

Washington, DC](https://www.linkedin.com/company/339105/)

I support the Atlantic Council's scholars and leadership in their research and policy work on behalf of Atlantic alliance.

Member

Pacific Council

Jan 1998 - Present · 28 yrs 6 mos

Faculty Director

Carnegie Mellon University Washington Semester Program

Jan 2014 - Mar 2021 · 7 yrs 3 mos

Washington, DC

Teach Carnegie Mellon University undergraduates in the university's offices on Capitol Hill and manage the academic program.

Director

Center for International Relations and Politics

Jan 2010 - Mar 2021 · 11 yrs 3 mos

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Convene forums at Carnegie Mellon University on major policy issues facing the United States and the world. Direct a research lab in international relations and politics.

[University Adviser on National Security Policy Carnegie Mellon University

Jan 2012 - Jun 2014 · 2 yrs 6 mos

Pittsburgh, Pensylvania](https://www.linkedin.com/school/3147/)

Advise university officials on research engagements with the defense and intelligence communities.

Adjunct Fellow; Life Member

Council on Foreign Relations

1999 - 2002 · 3 yrs

New York City

Directed a roundtable on US foreign policy.

[Assistant Professor Hamilton College

1998 - 1999 · 1 yr](https://www.linkedin.com/school/16548/)

Taught international relations.

[Post-Doctoral Fellow UCLA

1994 - 1998 · 4 yrs](https://www.linkedin.com/school/2477/)

Studied theoretical international relations and conducted archival research at the Reagan Library.

the conv

May 22, 2026

Cuba needs a long‑term solution to its energy crisis

Luisa Blanco, Pepperdine University; Institute for Humane Studies and Isabella Elias, Pepperdine University nber

Luisa Blanco is an economist specializing in economic development and international economics, with a focus on the Latin American region. Dr. Blanco research interests pertain to the wellbeing of Latin Americans at home and abroad. At Pepperdine's School of Public Policy, Blanco teaches the core course on Macroeconomic Policy and other courses related to the economics specialization, such as Global Economics and Latin American Economic Development

Short-term humanitarian aid won’t go far in alleviating Cuba’s long-term energy crisis.

hayward called out by grijalva

PETE PETERSON

April 9, 2015

Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, recently caused a stir by sending letters to seven university presidents seeking background information on scientists and professors who had given congressional testimony that failed to endorse what is the conventional wisdom in some quarters regarding climate change. One of the targets was Steven Hayward, a colleague of mine at Pepperdine’s School of Public Policy.

Though the congressman lacked legal authority to demand information, his aggressive plan, which came to light in late February, should not be a surprise at a time when power holders from the White House on down are employing similar means against perceived enemies.

Mr. Grijalva left a clue about how he operates in 2013 when the magazine In These Times asked about his legislative strategy. “I’m a Saul Alinsky guy,” he said, referring to the community organizer and activist who died in 1972, “that’s where I learned this stuff.”

What sort of stuff? Mr. Grijalva sent his letters not to the professors but to university presidents, without (at least in the case of Mr. Hayward) the professors’ knowledge. Mr. Hayward was not even employed by Pepperdine at the time of his congressional testimony in 2011.

But targeting institutions and their leaders is pure Alinsky; so are the scare tactics. Mr. Grijalva’s staff sent letters asking for information about the professors, with a March 16 due date—asking, for instance, if they had accepted funding from oil companies—using official congressional letterhead, and followed up with calls from Mr. Grijalva’s congressional office. This is a page from Alinsky’s book, in both senses of the word: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have,” reads one tip in his 1971 “Rules for Radicals.”

Yet adopting Alinsky’s tactics may not in this case fit with Alinsky’s philosophy. This is Alinsky with a twist. Despite myriad philosophical inconsistencies, “Rules for Radicals” is meant to empower the weaker against the stronger. Alinsky writes: “The Princewas written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

In a similar vein, the political philosopher Jean Bethke Elshtain supported Alinsky’s work in getting disengaged communities—typically in lower socio-economic strata—to assume the difficult responsibilities of citizenship. As a way of challenging “big government,” even conservatives such as former House Majority Leader Dick Armeyhave recommended Alinsky’s tactics (minus his professed hatred of capitalism, etc.).

But what happens when Machiavelli’s Prince reads and employs “Rules for Radicals”? In 2009 President Obama’s friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett was asked on CNN about media bias, particularly at Fox News, and she responded: “What the administration has said very clearly is that we’re going to speak truth to power.” I remember thinking: “Wait a minute, you’re the White House. You are the power.”

In that sense President Obama’s election was both the climax of Alinsky’s vision and an existential crisis for that vision. Alinsky promoted the few tactics available to the downtrodden: irreverence, ridicule and deception. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it,” he wrote. So the rise to power of the world’s most famous community organizer raises a question: Should Alinskyite tactics be employed by those in power, or should they be reserved for those without?

Mr. Grijalva’s campaign against seven academics serves as a cautionary tale of what can happen when power adopts these strategies to suppress opposition. The congressman’s office arranged additional pressure by notifying national and local media that these professors were under “investigation.” On the day the letters went out, the Washington Post blared: “House Dems: Did Big Oil seek to sway scientists in climate debate?”

After receiving a call from a Grijalva staffer, our local Malibu Times obliged with the front-page headline, “Pepperdine Professor Investigated by Congressman.” The online Delaware News Journal, the hometown newspaper for David Legates at the University of Delaware, wrote: “UD’s David Legates caught in climate change controversy.” Alabama’s Huntsville Times had a piece under the headline: “Arizona congressman asking questions about outside funding for UAH climate expert John Christy.”

To their credit, several editorial boards came to the defense of the professors. The Arizona Republic, the home-state newspaper of Mr. Grijalva and targeted Arizona State University professor Robert Balling, wrote that Mr. Grijalva’s campaign “fits the classic definition of a witch hunt.” Rep. Grijalva on March 2 acknowledged to National Journal that some of the information he demanded from the universities was “overreach” but defended his demand for information about funding sources.

How did it come to this? The inability of politicians to confront another’s argument, much less to attempt to persuade the other side, has become standard operating procedure. Now this toxic approach is extending to the broader world of policy—including scientific research. Instead of evaluating the quality of the research, opponents make heavy-handed insinuations about who funds it—as though that matters if the science is sound. And now just about every climate scientist employed by an American university knows that Washington is watching.

More broadly, what has happened is that a generation of American politicians who came of age during Saul Alinsky’s lifetime has moved into positions of institutional power that he so often derided as “the enemy.” They are showing an inability to leave behind Alinsky’s tactics that were intended for the weak against the strong. Civil discourse and academic freedom suffer while the “Prince” becomes more powerful.

Mr. Peterson is the executive director of the Davenport Institute for Public Engagement at Pepperdine’s School of Public Policy.

==

tyco gen'l counsel teaches

http://www.booktv.org/Program/15440/quotTaking+Down+the+Lion+The+Triumphant+Rise+and+Tragic+Fall+of+Tycos+Dennis+Kozlowskiquot.aspx

==

Pepperdine University is a private university affiliated with the Churches of Christ. It is located in Malibu, California.

Contents [hide]

Locations

Courses are taught in Malibu, at six graduate campuses in southern California, and at six international branch campuses located in Heidelberg, Germany; London, England; Florence, Italy; Lausanne, Switzerland; Shanghai, China; and Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Personnel

Conservatives on the Pepperdine faculty have included:

Funding

Richard Mellon Scaife is a longtime Pepperdine supporter, giving almost $13 million from the early 1960s to 1998.[1]

Articles and resources

References

  1. ↑ Brooks Jackson (1998-04-27). Who Is Richard Mellon Scaife. CNN. Retrieved on 2011-08-13.

Related SourceWatch articles

External resources

External articles

Wikipedia also has an article on Pepperdine University. This article may use content from the Wikipedia article under the terms of the GFDL.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pepperdine_University

===

Starr

is dean of the law school

A life regent of Pepperdine University in

Southern California, Scaife donated more than $1 million for a new public policy schoolthere. The man offered the job as the new school's dean: Kenneth Starr. ...SALON | April 7,1998

used as a stage set for ben stein bs (eg distortion of darwin) with hired extras

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know

Scaife also endowed a new school of public policy at Pepperdine University. Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr was named the first dean of this school, although Pepperdine denies any connection between Scaife and the selection of Starr. Starr accepted the post in 1996, but in the ensuing controversy, he gave up the appointment in 1998 before ever having started at Pepperdine. However, once the investigation was behind him, Starr was appointed to head Pepperdine's law school in 2004 and became president of Baylor University in 2010.[25]

Larouche hmn:

Another, similar Scaife-financed organization is the Washington Legal Foundation, previously known as the Capital Legal Foundation. On its Legal Policy Advisory Board are Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr, John Norton Moore of the University of Virginia Law School, and Massachusetts governor and former LaRouche prosecutor William Weld. On its National Board of Advisers are Senators Fred Thompson (Tenn.) and Orrin Hatch (Utah)--both involved in Senate investigations of the Clintons--and Jesse Helms, who played a role in the dumping of the first Whitewater independent counsel and his replacement with Kenneth Starr.

The work of Scaife's network of conservative legal foundations is overseen by the Washington-based National Legal Center for the Public Interest (NLCPI), which he, of course, also funds. One of the directors of NLCPI is David Davenport, president of Pepperdine University; Scaife is on Pepperdine's board of trustees. Davenport and Scaife also sit together on the advisory board of the Hoover Institution for War, Revolution and Peace in Palo Alto, California.

It is David Davenport who has offered Bush-leaguer Kenneth Starr a cushy position at Pepperdine University, financed in large part by Scaife, when Starr wraps up his investigation and legal assault on President Clinton as the Whitewater independent counsel. Starr may be ``independent'' of the administration, but he is certainly not independent of Dickie Scaife.

David Davenport "has been a director of Salem Communications Corporation since November 2001. Mr. Davenport is a distinguished professor of public policy and law at Pepperdine University and has served in that position since August 2003. He is also a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and has served in that position since August 2001. Mr. Davenport was the Chief Executive Officer of Starwire Corporation, a software service company formerly known as Christianity.com, from June 2000 to June 2001. Mr. Davenport served as President of Pepperdine University from 1985 to 2000. From 1980 through 1985, he served as a Professor of Law, General Counsel, and Executive Vice President of the University. Mr. Davenport currently serves on the governing and advisory boards of Hope Network Ministries, Forest Lawn Memorial Parks Association and National Legal Center for the Public Interest. He also serves on advisory boards of Clark/Bardes, Inc. and Inside Track. Mr. Davenport also serves on the board of directors of Ameron International Corporation." --*Forbes*; accessed March 1, 2005.

Joel Fox, of jarvis, anti prop 23

Joel Fox

Joel Fox operates Joel Fox Consulting, a public affairs/political consulting firm. Fox also currently serves as president of the Small Business Action Committee, founded in 2003 to battle for small business on important political issues. Prior to starting his own firm in January 1999, Fox worked for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association for 19 years, serving as the association's president from 1986 to 1998.

Fox has authored hundreds of opinion articles which have been published in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Diego Union, Sacramento Bee, Indianapolis Star, National Review Online, and Manchester (NH) Union-Leader, as well as other newspapers. He also wrote a piece for National Public Radio and had an essay published in a Time Warner-Baseball Hall of Fame sponsored book, What Baseball Means to Me. Fox's book, The Legend of Proposition 13, was published in May 2003.

Fox served as a commissioner on the California Performance Review Commission (2004) appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger; and the Assembly Speaker's Commission on the California Initiative Process (2000-2001) appointed by Speaker Bob Hertzberg. Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa appointed Fox a commissioner on the California Assembly Speaker's Commission on State and Local Finance (1999-2000). Governor Pete Wilson appointed Fox to both the California Citizens' Commission on Ballot Initiatives (1993), and the California Constitution Revision Commission (1996). Fox also served on the California Commission on Transportation Investment (1995); was Vice Chairman of the Los Angeles County Blue Ribbon Budget Task Force (1996) appointed by Supervisor Mike Antonovich; and in the early 1990s was a trustee of LEARN, the Los Angeles school reform project.

Fox served as a Senior Research Associate at the Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College; was on the Advisory Council of the Public Policy Institute of California; and is a member of the Board of Advisors at the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California. He is an adjunct professor at the Graduate School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University.

http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/page/about-fox-hounds-daily

claussen ad

1996 - current: Vice President of communications for the California Manufacturers & Technology Assn [prop 23?]

1995: staffer for Pete Wilson for President campaign(Arizona office)

1995: staffer for Steve Forbes for President campaign (Arizona office)

1993 - '94: Intern for U.S. Sen. John McCain (Washington DC and Arizona)

(Co-owns TotalCapitol.com)

 =

Daniel Pipes, founder and head of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum (MEF), is an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign policies in the Middle East who is frequently criticized for espousing anti-Islamic views. A recognized Arabic-language expert and son of the well-known anti-communist crusader Richard Pipes, the younger Pipes frequently lambasts Arab politics, urges militarist policies aimed at overthrowing Mideast regimes, and pushes a hawkish "pro-Israel" agenda.

In April 2013, however, Pipes broke with many of his fellow neoconservatives in declaring that, rather than arming or aiding Syria's opposition forces, the United States should work to ensure a stalemate between the regime of Bashar al-Assad and insurgent forces. Citing both the U.S.-Soviet alliance in World War II and Washington's double-sided intrigue during the destructive Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, Pipes wrote: "Evil forces pose less danger to us when they make war on each other. This (1) keeps them focused locally and (2) prevents either one from emerging victorious (and thereby posing a yet-greater danger). Western powers should guide enemies to stalemate by helping whichever side is losing, so as to prolong the conflict."[[1]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn1)

Perhaps anticipating criticism that he was essentially advocating a course of ensuring maximum suffering for the people of Syria, Pipes added that "Westerners must be true to their morals and help bring an end to the warfare against civilians, the millions of innocents gratuitously suffering the horrors of civil war," including by threatening the "use of force against violators on either side" if necessary.

Describing Pipes' proposal as "repugnant," Think Progress blogger Zack Beauchamp poked holes in Pipes' comparison to World War II, in which Pipes wrote that the U.S. alliance with Stalin was justifiable in the fight against Nazi Germany. "As a cursory survey of knowledge of World War II history would admit," Beauchamp wrote, "the Allies ultimately supported the Soviets in an attempt to totally defeat the Nazis. Pipes' favored policy would be more like supporting Stalin until it looked like he was going to win, and then extending Lend-Lease to Hitler so the war would keep going." Beauchamp posited that Pipes' proposal "can perhaps be explained by his background" as an anti-Islamic agitator.[[2]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn2)

After the takeover of swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria by the so-called Islamic State group (IS or ISIS) in 2014, Pipes chastised President Obama for deeming the terrorist group as "not Islamic." In an article titled, "Sorry Mr. President, ISIS is 100 Percent Islamic," Pipes purported: "neither U.S. Presidents nor Islamist apologists fool people. Anyone with eyes and ears realizes that the Islamic State, like the Taliban and al-Qaeda before it, is 100 percent Islamic."[[3]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn3)

Pipes has attempted to argue that there is a "positive side" to the rise of ISIS, writing in August 2014 for theNational Post: "The caliphate's barbaric zealotry will have the salutary effect of awakening many of those yet asleep to the horrors of the Islamist agenda."[[4]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn4)

During the 2014 Gaza War, Pipes maintained staunchly "pro-Israel" positions, framing the conflict as "the civilized and moral forces of Israel" in a "face-off with barbarism." Writing for the conservative Town Hallwebsite, he further opined: "It's a curious war in which Hamas celebrates Palestinian misery and Israel does its best to keep life normal for its enemy."[[5]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn5)

Amnesty International and other international human rights organizations have accused Israel of committing war crimes during the conflict, in which 2,100 Palestinians died, the majority of which were civilians (including hundreds of children).[[6]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn6)

Pipes has also supported efforts to identify and damage the reputation of pro-Palestinian student activists. He has said of the Canary Mission, a website launched in February 2015: "Factually documenting who one's adversaries are and making this information available is a perfectly legitimate undertaking. Collecting information on students has particular value because it signals them that attacking Israel is serious business, not some inconsequential game, and that their actions can damage both Israel and their future careers."[[7]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn7)

Canary Mission's focus has been described by Forward as a focusing on "publicizing the identities of pro-Palestinian student activists to prevent them from getting jobs after they graduate from college."[[8]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn8) Canary describes its mission on its website as to "expose individuals and groups that are anti-Freedom, anti-American and anti-Semitic in order to protect the public and our democratic values."[[9]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn9)

Although Canary is similar to MEF projects like Campus Watch, MEF along with other hawkish project "pro-Israel" like the David Horowitz Freedom Center have denied any affiliation with Canary.[[10]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn10)

Islamophobia

A widely noted 2011 report published by Center for American Progress listed Pipes and MEF as core participants in an informal grouping of organizations in the United States that have championed divisive anti-Islamic—or "Islamophobic"—rhetoric and policies. According to the report, MEF is one of "five key think tanks led by scholars who are primarily responsible for orchestrating the majority of anti-Islam messages polluting our national discourse today."

The report contends that Pipes, who has a doctorate in medieval Islamic history, "has parlayed his prestigious academic credentials to great effect," but has "become increasingly out of touch with the realities of the Muslim world at home and abroad, making more extreme and unfounded observations about Islam in the United States."

In July 2011, Pipes decried efforts by "Leftists" to—in his words—"pin responsibility for the atrocity" committed by Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik on conservative writers like himself.[[11]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn11) As evidence for his claim, Pipes cited an article published by Eli Clifton of ThinkProgress, a liberal blog of the Center for American Progress (CAP), which provided statistics on the number of times various Islamophobic writers were cited in Breivik's manifesto (Pipes and his MEF came in third, with 18 mentions, just ahead of Middle East Media Research Institute and its 16 mentions). In contrast to Pipes' claims, however, Clifton—who was also a coauthor of CAP's Islamophobia report—did nor argue in the article that Pipes was to blame for Breivik's actions. Rather, Clifton wrote, "While a citation in the manifesto is far from an endorsement of violence by those Breivik referenced, it is increasingly clear that the Islamophobic right-wing in the U.S. influenced his views."[[12]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn12)

In an "update" to this article published in November 2011, Pipes implied that if leftists could play the blame game with Brievik, it was fair to point to cases were liberals such as Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authors of the book The Israel Lobby, have been cited by alleged Islamic terrorists like Jose Pimentel. After discussing an article by the neoconservative mouthpiece Commentary on Pimentel-Walt/Mearsheimer connection, Pipes concluded disingenuously, "I should be one of those touting Walt's role in the Pimentel case but this prospect leaves me dull and uninspired. I simply lack that Leftist politics-of-personal-destruction spirit."[[13]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn13) For reasons left unexplained, Pipes did not think that a discussion of the case in his blog amounted to "touting."

In his many publications on Islamic issues and the war on terror, Pipes often espouses extremist views, some of which border on racism. He once said that Muslim immigrants were "brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene."[[14]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn14) Regarding the reason for invading Iraq, Pipes opined: "WMD was never the basic reason for war. Nor was it the horrid repression in Iraq. Or the danger Saddam posed to his neighbors. ... The campaign in Iraq is about keeping promises to the United States or paying the consequences. ... Keep your promises or you are gone. It's a powerful precedent that U.S. leaders should make the most of."[[15]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn15)

After a plot to attack Fort Dix, New Jersey was uncovered, the right-wing National Review Online asked Pipes and others what lessons they drew from the events. Pipes responded: "Immigrants seeking refuge in the West must be grilled for their attitudes toward our civilization, our religion, and politics. Whether it be Somali refugees in the United Kingdom, Algerian ones in France, or Balkan ones in the United States (remember the Salt Lake City shooter in February, as well as four of the current six accused terrorists [involved in the Fort Dix plot]), individuals given the privilege and benefits of a new life then with some regularity turn around and attack their adapted fellow citizens. This unacceptable pattern has to be scrutinized to prevent future such atrocities."[[16]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn16)

In January 2010, Pipes penned an article in the National Review in which he lauded the controversial right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who is best known for calling Mohammed a "devil" and demanding that Muslims "tear out half of the Koran if they wish to stay in the Netherlands." Calling Wilders "a charismatic, savvy, principled, and outspoken leader who has rapidly become the most dynamic political force in the Netherlands," Pipes used his article to decry a lawsuit charging Wilders with hate speech and incitement to hatred, saying that he stands "shoulder-to-shoulder [with Wilders] against the lawsuit" and that he "reject[s] the criminalization of political differences."[[17]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn17)

Observers noted the irony of the fact that Pipes, a hardline Israel-centric ideologue, would unabashedly support a politician who openly considers alliances with anti-Semitic elements in Europe and has been harshly criticized by the Anti-Defamation League for pushing a "message of hate against Islam [that is] inflammatory, divisive and antithetical to American democratic ideals."[[18]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn18)

"Pipes' endorsement of Wilders brings a new low to his credibility as a serious commentator on Middle East affairs," reported the Inter Press Service, noting that Pipes is not alone among neoconservatives in supporting Wilders. "During his frequent trips to the U.S., Wilders has enjoyed the hospitality of Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, David Horowitz's Freedom Center, Pipes'Middle East Forum, and the Republican Jewish Coalition."[[19]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn19)

Despite his show of support for Wilders and others of his ilk, Pipes has tried to distinguish himself from the more vitriolic crop of anti-Islamic bloggers in the United States. "This anti-Islamic agitation has been growing over time, and it's much stronger than in 2001," he told Michelle Boorstein of the Washington Post's "On Faith" blog in 2010. "Pipes," Boorstein wrote, "says while he shares a concern about radical Islam with today's crop of bloggers, he considers them 'anti-Islam' because in his view they see the faith and it[s] scripture as fundamentally problematic for a pluralistic, democratic society like the United States and unchangeable."[[20]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn20)

Still, Pipes told Boorstein that he shares "the same enemies" with the latest generation of agitators. "We're in the same trench but we have different views of what the problem is. We both see an attempt to impose Islamic law, sharia, in the West. We are both against it, and want to maintain Western civilization. But [we] understand the nature of the problem differently," he said. This led Boorstein to wonder whether or not this was an "important distinction."[[21]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn21)

Indeed, in a 2008 MEF press release announcing the launch of a website for the group's "Islamist Watch" project, Pipes warned: "Quietly, lawfully, peacefully, Islamists do their work throughout the West to impose aspects of Islamic law, win special privileges for themselves, shut down criticism of Islam, create Muslim-only zones, and deprive women and non-Muslims of their full civil rights."

Pipes has backed numerous high-profile neoconservative and Likud-aligned initiatives. He supported efforts by the now-defunct Project for the New American Century (PNAC) to pressure the George W. Bush administration to join Israel in waging a broad war on terrorism in the Middle East in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.[[22]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn22) He has also been a member of the presidium of the Likud-aligned Jerusalem Summit, a member of the U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon, and a scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank that was spun off from the powerful lobbying group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

On U.S. Intervention in the Middle East

Pipes' success at promoting both himself and his views was underscored in 2003, when President Bush nominated Pipes to serve on the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP). A conservative Boston Globe columnist, commenting on the nomination, opined that if Pipe's "admonitions [on Islamic terrorism] had been heeded, there might never have been a 9/11."[[23]](http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#_edn23)

- See more at: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel#sthash.Y6DoZIep.dpuf==

==

Gino DiCaro Vice President, Communications, California Manufacturers & Technology Assn

Attachments