Archive for the ‘CAIR’ Category

AAH Chairman Joe Kaufman has issued a press release condemning the Civil Rights Coordinator of CAIR-Los Angeles (CAIR-California), Affad Shaikh, for calling “Senator Joe Lieberman, Vice President Dick Cheney, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, former head of the CIA James Woolsey, Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation, Lt. General Thomas McInerney, and Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity and Sheppard Smith as ‘Extremist Right Wing Nut cases.'”

I’d never heard of Affad Shaikh before this morning but I don’t think he’ll be used as a spokesman for CAIR again anytime soon, especially if this is the quality of his work product. First of all, using the term “extremist right wing nut cases” isn’t the way to win friends and influence people. Secondly, calling Joe Lieberman, Sheppard Smith, Bill O’Reilly and Jim Woolsey extremist right wing nut cases is wildly inaccurate. I couldn’t tell you how O’Reilly or Sheppard Smith vote. I know that Joe Lieberman isn’t an extremist right wing nut case because he’s still part of the Democratic Party.

I strongly recommend that you read the entire press release.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

That’s the unmistakable message of this Washington Times article by Audrey Hudson.

Republican presidential hopeful Rudolph W. Giuliani yesterday endorsed a provision to protect citizens from being sued for reporting potential terrorism-related activity and criticized congressional Democrats for blocking the legislation.

“Congressional Democrats are once again showing they just don’t get the terrorists’ war on us, by attempting to strip important protections for those who report suspected terrorists on airlines,” said Mr. Giuliani, who was mayor of New York City during the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Rep. Stephen Pearce, (R-NM), initially wrote the bill protecting the John Doe passengers immediately after CAIR filed a lawsuit against US Airways, MAC and John Doe passengers on behalf of the imams.

“Peter King is doing the right thing by putting our national security first and political correctness run amok second,” said Mr. Giuliani, who also criticized Democratic presidential candidates for failing to acknowledge “Islamic terrorism” in public debates, including Monday night’s YouTube gathering. “The terrorists are at war with us, whether or not Democrats in Washington and on the campaign trail choose to acknowledge it. And we must stay on offense to prevail,” Mr. Giuliani said.

Predictably, CAIR’s Parvez Ahmed is denying Islam’s ties with terrorism:

This perception is greatly assisted by a veritable cottage industry of neo-experts pontificating with great certainty about the cause-effect relationship between Islam and terrorism. Such mischaracterization is at odds with the reality that Islam unequivocally condemns terrorism and advocates the preservation of life, honor and dignity of all human life as a supreme endeavor. Thus, terrorism even when carried out in the name or defense of Islam cannot be called jihad but is rather an unholy war. Robert Pape in his seminal work Dying to Win contends that military occupation, not religious ideology, is the primary enabler of terrorism.

That is pure nonsense. It isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. Consider the fact that it’s written by a man with extensive connections with Hamas. That alone disqualifies the editorial. The truth is that CAIR is expert at spinning things. They don’t know the meaning of the word truth.

Thanks Rudy for standing up for good legislation.

Technorati: , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

By now, everyone knows that Keith Ellison apologized for his comparing the Bush administration’s response to 9/11 with the Reichstag Fire. In today’s press, that likely means that all is forgiven amongst the Agenda Media. I, however, remain skeptical of Keith Ellison’s apology. Here’s why:

Anyone that co-sponsors a bill that calls for the impeachment of an administration’s vice president tells me that he doesn’t just disagree with that administration; he’s loathe to it.

If you read H. RES 333, you’ll immediately recognize that the first two articles of impeachment accuse Vice President Cheney of lying outright. The third article of impeachment accuses Vice President Cheney of “openly threaten[ing] aggression against Iran” despite “no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States…”

This isn’t just an exercise in venting one’s frustrations; it’s an article-by-article declaration that the vice president is evil. I don’t arrive at those conclusions simply out of disgust with Keith Ellison’s comparing President Bush to Hitler.

I’m also factoring in Keith Ellison’s statements comparing violent gangs like the Bloods with ‘civil rights advocates’:

“The people who govern this society,” he suggested, are “incarcerating all these young black men” in some kind of retribution for the victories of ’60s civil rights activists, and those who campaigned to “free Nelson Mandela.” For the powerful, he said, the “very idea of…black people having civil rights has got to be obliterated with [obviously] the criminal justice system and incarceration.”

Anyone that thinks that violent gangsters are victims that need special civil rights protections, it isn’t a stretch to think that he’s got an authority complex.

In other words, it isn’t unreasonable to think that Keith Ellison (a) said exactly what he meant and (b) that he’s now apologizing without meaning it. Frankly, I think it’s quite likely that Keith Ellison was ordered to apologize to get a PR disaster off the front page.

My opinions of Keith Ellison aren’t made in a vacuum. This is someone who doesn’t show the least bit of remorse after speaking at an anti-semitic organization’s annual convention, something for which he still hasn’t apologized.

He also hasn’t apologized for his comments about cop-killer Kathleen Soliah. Instead, he’s praised her:

Ellison praised Soliah for “fighting for freedom.”

Here’s another Ellison quote about Soliah:

“We need to come together and free…all the Saras,” he proclaimed.

Here’s one of the “Saras” that Ellison was thinking of:

Like Assata Shakur, Ellison told his audience. Shakur is a former member of the Black Liberation Army, a “revolutionary activist organization,” who killed a New Jersey state trooper “execution-style at point-blank range,” according to the FBI’s Wanted Fugitives website.

Shakur escaped from prison in 1979, and eventually fled to Cuba. She “should be considered armed and extremely dangerous,” says the FBI, which is offering a reward of up to $1 million for information leading to her apprehension.

Ellison, however, lauded Shakur. “I am praying that Castro does not get to the point where he has to really barter with these guys over here because they’re going to get Assata Shakur, they’re going to get a whole lot of other people,” he told the crowd. “I hope the Cuba[n] people can stick to it, because the freedom of some good decent people depends on it.”

Frankly, I don’t think that I’m stepping out on a limb when I say that Keith Ellison has an anti-authority attitude. I think I’m stepping on solid ground. I think Keith Ellison was instructed by Nancy Pelosi to apologize so they could get this incident in their rearview ASAP. I’ll just leave you with this question:

Can a person with a history of supporting the vilest criminals in society really feel remorse for comparing President Bush with Adolph Hitler? You know my answer.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Just when you thought things couldn’t get more absurd, Keith Ellison proves that absurdity knows no limits. That’s the conclusion I reached after reading this article in the Twin Cities Daily Planet. Here’s where the absurdity starts:

Some people say the attempt to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney isn’t anything more than a charade by far-left Democrats.

That’s not the case for U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, who gets animated about the subject. The freshman Democrat from Minneapolis has joined a dozen or so lawmakers as co-sponsors of a bill to impeach Cheney for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

I couldn’t stop laughing after reading the line about Cheney’s impeachment being a charade by far-left Democrats, then seeing the Daily Planet ‘reporter’ not classify Keith Ellison as a far-left Democrat. If you read the list of co-sponsors, it reads like a who’s who of the anti-war far left. Collectively, the group is so far left that it isn’t unreasonable to think that they occasionally worry about Howard Dean’s conservative streak.

The alleged crimes are yet to be spelled out by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who sponsored the bill late last month. But Ellison accuses Cheney of “abusing his power…and abstracting information.”

Ellison expects us to take impeachment seriously when they don’t spell out any alleged high crimes or misdemeanors? This isn’t anything but another political witch hunt sponsored by the far left base of the Democratic Party.

When the House impeached Bill Clinton, everyone and their mother knew that Clinton had lied under oath. It was indisputable.

The current impeachment bill contains lots of disputed items but nothing that’s indisputable. It’s mostly a ‘Bush lied, people died’ thing. In fact, there’s several things that are utterly laughable because they’re based on the Downing Street Memo, a fiction that only holds sway with the fringest of the fringe lefties.

President Bush’s recent decision to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby, Cheney’s former chief of staff, “broke the camel’s back for me,” said Ellison. “Cheney had everything to do with that decision.”

Rep. Ellison has proof that Dick Cheney “had everything to do with” President Bush commuting Scooter Libby? Playing devil’s advocate for a minute, let’s stipulate that he does. So what? Presidential pardons and commutations can’t be disputed as a matter of law because the Constitution gives the President the final say in those matters.

What Keith Ellison’s statement does is it spotlights the principle Keith Ellison is basing this on: political differences. Keith Ellison had better return to law school for a refresher course in Constitutional Law because having political differences with the president isn’t grounds for impeaching the vice president.

Finally, hearing Keith Ellison say that impeachment is a matter of principle is laughable. He doesn’t have a principled bone in his body. He’s ignored traffic tickets with regularity. He’s avoided filing the campaign finance reports on time, even getting reprimanded for that. He’s delivered the keynote speech to the Minnesota chapter of Muslim American Society’s 4th annual convention. What he hasn’t done is renounce the anti-semitic remarks on MAS-MN’s website. (What principle does Rep. Ellison justify that with?)

Based on a long history of ignoring the laws of the land and speaking at events sponsored by hateful anti-semitic organizations, it’s difficult imagining Keith Ellison being a principled man. At the end of the day, it’s impossible to take him seriously when he says that principles drove him to co-sponsoring an impeachment resolution.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

After Keith Ellison’s outlandish statement at the Atheists for Human Rights event, Ellison felt the need to spin his side of the story. This editorial in this morning’s Strib didn’t help him. Here’s the section that exposes Ellison’s naivete on the War for Western Civilization:

If the president had embraced the good will of the post 9/11 world to marshal an international effort to eliminate the terrorist cells responsible for this heinous act, we wouldn’t be mired in a five-year war. We could have effectively eliminated Al-Qaida instead of creating a virtual recruiting station for them in Iraq. As it is, we may need years to shake off the taint of Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, FISA violations, Patriot Act encroachments and other Bush administration failures.

Let’s start with his statement that “We could have effectively eliminated Al-Qaida…” There isn’t an American alive who isn’t for eliminating al-Qa’ida. There are people, like Keith Ellison, who haven’t grasped the reality that al-Qa’ida isn’t the only terrorist group out there and Afghanistan wasn’t the only swamp that needed draining.

The reality is that we need a comprehensive strategy to win the War for Western Civilization. The Democrats’ stated strategy for winning that war is finishing the job in Afghanistan, kill al-Qa’ida and use endless diplomacy to bring Iran and Syria over to our side. I don’t think that that’s the type of comprehensive strategy that will yield victory in the greatest challenge of our lifetime.

Here’s another Keith Ellison statement that jumped out at me:

“…we may need years to shake off the taint of Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, FISA violations, Patriot Act encroachments…”

There’s no arguing that Abu Ghraib is a national disgrace. I can make quite the arguments that the NSA intercept program and the Patriot Act aren’t national disgraces. In fact, I could make a strong case that the NSA intercept program, Gitmo and the Patriot Act are rousing American success stories.

In fact, Ellison’s complaining about the Patriot Act is utterly predictable considering the fact that CAIR lobbied Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers to gut it as far back as July, 2004:

Working with [John] Conyers, the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Democrats have introduced legislation to end racial profiling, limit the reach of the Patriot Act, and make immigration safe and accessible. Leader Pelosi is a proud cosponsor of the End Racial Profiling Act, the Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE), and the Safe, Orderly, and Legal Visas Enforcement Act (SOLVE).

This is part of their incoherent policy that we “should’ve connected the dots” prior to 9/11 but we shouldn’t tear down the Gorelick Wall (one of the key provisions in the Patriot Act) because it violates our civil rights. They can’t have it both ways. Either they want us to connect the dots or they want us to keep in place the very thing that prevented us from connecting the dots.

It’s also been the Democrats’ mantra that the NSA intercept program violated FISA laws. The reality is that the courts, including the FISA Appeals court, ruled that there is a constitutional basis for intercepting incoming or outgoing communications if these intercepts are foreign communications. The court ruled that this doesn’t violate anyone’s Fourth Amendment rights because those intercepts are reasonable searches. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches, not reasonable searches.

This past Sunday I spoke to constituents about religious tolerance and the erosion of civil liberties in a post-9/11 America. It is precisely in the aftermath of a tragedy like 9/11 that we must be most vigilant about our precious civil liberties. Unfortunately, some have tried to misconstrue my remarks.

While I generally agree that we must be “vigilant about our…civil liberties”, I’d also argue that we must be most vigilant in protecting America’s civilians from future terrorist attacks. If our government can make the case for limiting our civil liberties while providing vigorous oversight of programs that limit our liberties, then I think it’s imperative that we protect people first.

What Ellison won’t talk about are his comparing President Bush’s supposed trampling of our civil rights with Nazi Germany. First of all, President Bush implemented the Patriot Act and the NSA intercept program to protect people. Secondly, the Patriot Act is subject to congressional oversight. Hitler’s violence was implemented to stifle all dissent and to give him total power over who lived and who died.

It’s time that Rep. Ellison offered President Bush a formal apology for making such outlandish comparisons. Anything less is unacceptable.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Sunday evening, I read this Strib article about Keith Ellison speaking “to a gathering of atheists.” Here’s a quote worth noting:

On comparing Sept. 11 to the burning of the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany: “It’s almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I’m not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that’s how they put you in the nut-ball box, dismiss you.”

Later Sunday night, I watched a replay of Sean Hannity’s interview Imam Abdul Alim Musa. Imam Musa made some outrageous statements during the interview, which was taped on Feb. 18, 2007. Follow this link if you want to read the entire transcript. (I highly recommend it because you’ll see Imam Musa’s radicalism.) Here’s what Imam Musa said that caught my attention:

HANNITY: I already know what you say. You believe George Bush. You think George Bush knew about 9/11 ahead of time.

MUSA: Well, I said he was like Hitler and Hitler burned the Reichstag in Germany in 1933 to give him the fuhership, to also take the rights of the German people, right? To go do away with due process of law.

The similarity of Ellison’s quote to Imam Musa’s quote is stunning. Here’s another exchange between Hannity and Imam Musa that I want you to remember:

HANNITY: Is bin Laden misconstrued in the American public? Is he misunderstood? Do you like bin Laden? Do you like him?

MUSA: If he is a Muslim he is definitely misconstrued. Definitely misconstrued.

HANNITY: So bin Laden is not responsible for 9/11?

MUSA: Of course not.

HANNITY: Who is responsible for 9/11?

MUSA: Who do you think?

Look at how Musa denies bin Laden’s role in 9/11. Now check this Daniel Pipes article out:

In reality, CAIR is something quite different. For starters, it’s on the wrong side in the war on terrorism. One indication came in October 1998, when the group demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as “the sworn enemy,” finding this depiction “offensive to Muslims.”

The same year, CAIR denied bin Laden’s responsibility for the twin East African embassy bombings. As Hooper saw it, those explosions resulted from some vague “misunderstandings of both sides.” (A New York court, however, blamed bin Laden’s side alone for the embassy blasts.)

In 2001, CAIR denied his culpability for the Sept. 11 massacre, saying only that “if [note the “if”] Osama bin Laden was behind it, we condemn him by name.” (Only in December was CAIR finally embarrassed into acknowledging his role.)

Notice the similarity between Imam Musa’s denial that bin Laden was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks and CAIR’s months-long denial that bin Laden was the mastermind behind 9/11. If you compare CAIR’s denials of bin Laden’s complicity in 9/11 with Imam Musa’s denials of bin Laden’s complicity in 9/11, it’s impossible to tell the difference. Ellison’s statement that President Bush essentially was as powerful as a dictator is eerily similar to Imam Musa’s saying that President Bush was essentially a dictator.

At the end of the day, the similarities between Musa’s statements equating Bush with Hitler and Ellison’s statement equating Bush with Hitler, coupled with Musa’s denial of bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11 with CAIR’s denials of bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11 are striking. So let’s see what else Musa said during his interview with Sean Hannity:

HANNITY: Hamas is a terror organization and they take credit for terror. Would you like to take a look at their history? Read it. Maybe learn something.

MUSA: Ninety-five percent. I know Hamas. They are nice people. Very nice people.

HANNITY: Hamas. The terror organization.

MUSA: Hamas is not a terror organization. It’s what you say. You think you can impose…You are going to kill everybody and if anybody crawl out and get away and stand-up for himself, you call him a terrorist.

HANNITY: Hezbollah’s manifesto. Let me read…Hang on a second. Let me read from their manifesto.

MUSA: Hezbollah are a good group of people practicing Islam.

HANNITY: Hezbollah in their manifesto says the group struggle will continue until Israel is destroyed. That’s the great group of people you are praising.

Now let’s compare that with what CAIR has said about Hamas:

When President Bush closed the Holy Land Foundation in December for collecting money he said was “used to support the Hamas terror organization,” CAIR decried his action as “unjust” and “disturbing.”

CAIR sounds like they were defending a known terrorist organization. In fact, CAIR opened their first office after getting a $5,000 donation from the Holy Land Foundation:

CAIR opened its first office in Washington, DC, with the help of a $5,000 donation from the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a self-described charity founded by Mousa Abu Marzook.

Summing it all up, (a) Musa and Ellison think that President Bush is a power-mad dictator; (b) CAIR and Musa denied bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11 and (c) Musa thinks that Hamas and Hezbollah are good people practicing Islam while CAIR takes the Bush administration to task for shutting down a terrorist-funding ‘charity’ that happens to fund Hamas.

When you add it all up, I don’t think many people would see much of a distinction between Ellison’s, CAIR’s and Imam Musa’s beliefs. I’d further suggest that I don’t think that many people would characterize CAIR, Ellison or Musa as mainstream.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

This week, we learned that Keith Ellison and Jim McDermott became co-sponsors of the impeachment bill written by Dennis Kucinich, H.R. 333.

Let’s take a look at the co-sponsors of the impeachment bill:

US Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) made a speech on the House Floor, “The Vice President Should Resign or Face Impeachment,” announcing his plans to support the bill. US Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) also joined yesterday.

The other total supporters include original sponsor, US Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), plus US Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Janice Schakowsky (D-IL), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Albert Wynn (D-MD), so far.

Here’s Keith Ellison’s take on the impeachment bill:

“They certainly deserve to be impeached [but]…the fact is that if we filed for impeachment now given everything that’s already happened, based on what we know so far, it would consume the news cycle to the point where that’s all we’d be dealing with and talking about. I’m a little concerned that it might overshadow other things we have to do. I’m a little concerned about that, given the situation. But do they deserve it? Hell yeah,” Ellison told in an interview published two weeks ago.

Mr. Ellison is a fine person to talk about impeachment. Michael Brodkorb of Minnesota Democrats Exposed reported last fall that Kathleen Anderson, then the district director of former DFL Rep. Martin Sabo, endorsed Tammy Lee, the Independence Party candidate for MN-5, saying that Ellison was a scofflaw:

The primary responsibility of any elected official is to make the laws. At the very least, our lawmakers should set a good example by obeying those laws. Is that asking too much? Apparently so, when it comes to Mr. Ellison. Time and again, he has demonstrated a scofflaw attitude.

What is a scofflaw? The dictionary says “a contemptuous law violator.” In fairness, contemptuous may be too strong a word to describe Mr. Ellison’s behavior. I can not know with certainty Ellison’s motivations. To be kind, perhaps he is simply disorganized when it comes to these matters. Nonetheless, he has repeatedly, and very recently, violated the laws the rest of us routinely obey.

Jim Moran, who’s made some rather anti-semitic comments in the past, will be officially listed as a co-sponsor eventually, too. Here’s a sampling of Moran’s anti-semitic statements:

Moran responded to a woman who rose to identify herself as Jewish and wonder aloud why more Jews were not participating in the forum. Referring to the seeming inevitability of war, the Congressman commented: “If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should.”

It should be pointed out that Keith Ellison was the keynote speaker at the MAS-MN 4th annual convention. AAH Chairman Joe Kaufman wrote this press release asking Keith Ellison to denounce the anti-semitic remarks on MAS-Minnesota’s website or to resign:

On the weekend of May 25th, Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison gave the keynote address in front of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota (MAS-Minnesota), at the group’s 4th annual convention. While Ellison spoke, the group was actively spreading vitriolic hatred and violence aimed at Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims via its website.

The following statements are found on the MAS-Minnesota site,

  • “The Holy Prophet (and through him the Muslims) has been reassured that he should not mind the enmity, the evil designs and the machinations of the Jews…”
  • “In view of the degenerate moral condition of the Jews and the Christians, the Believers have been warned not to make them their friends and confidants.”
  • “If you gain victory over the men of Jews, kill them.”
  • “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’”
  • “May Allah destroy the Jews, because they used the graves of their prophets as places of worship.”
  • “A Muslim must always worship Allah and wage jihad until death in order to reach his ultimate goal… Regularly make the intention to go on jihad with the ambition to die as a martyr.”

On Monday, June 4th, the Chairman of Americans Against Hate (AAH), Joe Kaufman, phoned the local and Washington, D.C. offices of Congressman Ellison to demand that he denounce MAS. Kaufman has received no response from the Congressman or anyone in his offices.

Kaufman stated, “When Keith Ellison ran for office, he denounced the anti-Semitism of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam (NOI), a group that he was previously affiliated with. We demand that he do the same to the Muslim American Society. It is not only improper for a United States Representative to participate with such groups, but it is a danger to national security.”

This is at least the second time Keith Ellison has spoken in front of the Muslim American Society. The other time was right after he was elected to office, in December of 2006. As well, the Executive Director of the MAS Freedom Foundation, Mahdi Bray, campaigned for Ellison.

For further information, read Kaufman’s FrontPage Magazine article, “Keith Ellison’s Dangerous Liaisons.”

Joe Kaufman is available for interview. E-mail:

Then there’s Cynthia McKinney’s ties to radical Islam:

A list of campaign donors was found to include some with links to terrorism, Abdurahman Alamoudi, the former executive director of the American Muslim Council, and former college professor Sami Al-Arian.

Abdurahman Alamoudi was a major fundraiser for the legal defense fund for Omar Abdel-Rahman, the man who organized the first World Trade Center bombings. Sami Al-Arian is about to be deported after pleading guilty to a single count of conspiracy to provide services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

What causes Democrats to associate with radical Islamic organizations? What causes them to make anti-semitic remarks?

Better yet, why hasn’t Keith Ellison denounced the anti-semitic statements on MAS-Minnesota’s website yet? It isn’t like 32 days isn’t enough time to denounce the anti-semitic quotes.

Technorati: , , , , ,, , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

This video is proof of that:

I personally agree with everything that Cal Thomas said in that video. It’s time that more average citizens learned what Cal Thomas and others already know: that Islamic radicals have told us plainly what they want to do, that they’ll use any tool at their avail and that they’ll jump on anything said about any Muslim terrorist as ‘proof’ of America’s Islamophobic ways.

Today, when we celebrate the birth of this great nation, let us ever be aware of the threats to our liberty.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

The best thing I can say about Frank Gaffney’s Washington Times op-ed is that it’s spot on. Here’s what I’m talking about:

Still more worrying are persistent reports the Bush administration will not content itself with merely dignifying and legitimating Islamist individuals, organizations and institutions associated with and in the service of Saudi Wahhabis and their counterparts in a classic totalitarian good-cop/bad-cop routine, the Muslim Brotherhood. The administration is evidently intent on embracing the Brotherhood itself.

The ostensible reason for doing so is that the Brotherhood has eschewed violence and is content to obtain power through elections. Evidently, the imposition of a fascistic legal code called Shariah via balloting and/or the steady accretion of concessions made in the name of religious tolerance is supposed to be different from, and preferable to, that achieved via terror and mayhem. In the end, though, it amounts to the same thing: a world without freedom, a world without America.

If we are to prevent further terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans and their government must stop blurring the distinction between Muslims who are determined to bring about, one way or another, our demise as freedom-enjoying people, and Muslims who are fully committed to preserving the liberties secured for us 231 years ago tomorrow and subsequently preserved at great cost in lives and treasure. Otherwise, we will find our own footprints on the path to the next act of Islamofascist terror.

Patrick Poole’s FrontPageMag article about the Project is must reading if we are to grasp the different tactics and methods used in Islamists’ attempts to build a caliphate. Here’s the key section of Mr. Poole’s article:

What makes The Project so different from the standard “Death of America! Death to Israel!” and “Establish the global caliphate!” Islamist rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the “cultural invasion” of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism, The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood “master plan”. As can be seen in a number of examples throughout Europe – including the political recognition of parallel Islamist government organizations in Sweden, the recent “cartoon” jihad in Denmark, the Parisian car-burning intifada last November, and the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London – the plan outlined in The Project has been overwhelmingly successful.

Rather than focusing on terrorism as the sole method of group action, as is the case with Al-Qaeda, in perfect postmodern fashion the use of terror falls into a multiplicity of options available to progressively infiltrate, confront, and eventually establish Islamic domination over the West. The following tactics and techniques are among the many recommendations made in The Project:

  • Networking and coordinating actions between likeminded Islamist organizations;
  • Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation”;
  • Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s collective goals;
  • Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn’t conflict with shari’a law;
  • Avoiding social conflicts with Westerners locally, nationally or globally, that might damage the long-term ability to expand the Islamist powerbase in the West or provoke a lash back against Muslims;
  • Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers;
  • Conducting surveillance, obtaining data, and establishing collection and data storage capabilities;
  • Putting into place a watchdog system for monitoring Western media to warn Muslims of “international plots fomented against them”;
  • Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements;
  • Developing a comprehensive 100-year plan to advance Islamist ideology throughout the world;
  • Balancing international objectives with local flexibility;
  • Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations dedicated to Islamist ideals so that contact with the movement for Muslims in the West is constant;
  • Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions;
  • Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into service of Islam;
  • Drafting Islamic constitutions, laws and policies for eventual implementation;
  • Avoiding conflict within the Islamist movements on all levels, including the development of processes for conflict resolution;
  • Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals;
  • Creating autonomous “security forces” to protect Muslims in the West;
  • Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”;
  • Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support;
  • Making the Palestinian cause a global wedge issue for Muslims;
  • Adopting the total liberation of Palestine from Israel and the creation of an Islamic state as a keystone in the plan for global Islamic domination;
  • Instigating a constant campaign to incite hatred by Muslims against Jews and rejecting any discussions of conciliation or coexistence with them;
  • Actively creating jihad terror cells within Palestine;
  • Linking the terrorist activities in Palestine with the global terror movement;
  • Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world;

In reading The Project, it should be kept in mind that it was drafted in 1982 when current tensions and terrorist activities in the Middle East were still very nascent. In many respects, The Project is extremely prescient for outlining the bulk of Islamist action, whether by “moderate” Islamist organizations or outright terror groups, over the past two decades.

Applying the principles of the Project to Mr. Gaffney’s op-ed, it’s easy to see the validity of Gaffney’s argument. When Gaffney says “Evidently, the imposition of a fascistic legal code called Shariah via balloting and/or the steady accretion of concessions made in the name of religious tolerance is supposed to be different from, and preferable to, that achieved via terror and mayhem”, he’s saying that fascistic governments that are governed by Shariah law are hell on earth whether the takeover was done without AK-47’s or with AK-47’s.

The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood had thought things out to the point of creating a 100 year plan using all tools at their avail should wake America up. When Fred Thompson said that the jihadists “have a 100 year plan. We’ve got a plan that lasts until the next election” was a reference to that. That’s why AAH has named Thompson their latest Honoree.

The truth is that the jihadists will use any tool at their avail. They’ll kill people to threaten and intimidate the rest of the population. They’ll use goodwill propaganda if it can be used later to deflect criticism when they employ more hardline tactics. They’ll lie outright if they’ve been caught implementing their plan.

The most important lesson people must learn is that we’re fighting an enemy that is adept at adapting to whatever environment they’re put in. We must learn that this isn’t just a military or judicial war. It’s a war that’s being fought on a multitude of levels with various tactics. It’s important that we recognize the tactics but it’s imperative that we remember what their goal is.

If we don’t make defeating the jihadists our top priority before they slowly, methodically establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate, then we’ll continue making the mistake of rationalizing extremist behaviors. There’s too high a price to pay for employing what might best be described as an ‘ostrich strategy’.

Just because Muslim Brotherhood extremists aren’t setting off car bombs, detonating dirty bombs or engaging in other acts of violence doesn’t mean that they’ve abandoned their plan. That’s what Mssrs. Poole and Gaffney are saying.

The president’s participation in the rededication of this facility is a perfect metaphor for his administration’s central failure in this War for the Free World. The Washington mosque has repeatedly been found to be disseminating hateful, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-American literature. Such material, and the indoctrination of which it is a piece, are at the core of the intolerant Islamofascist ideology promoted by the Saudi cult and practiced by its adherents, like Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda and myriad other terrorist groups.

Among the 200 invited Muslim and other guests were a number of Islamists like Ibrahim Hooper, communications director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). As ever, the White House vetters were seemingly untroubled by the presence of an organization recently declared by the Justice Department to be a front for the Islamofascist Muslim Brotherhood and an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorist-financing plot involving the notorious Holy Land Foundation.

It’s time that the White House learned that it isn’t doing the American people any favors by participating in events that CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood are involved in. In fact, I’d strongly recommend that President Bush use one of those moments to deliver a ‘Sister Souljah’ speech. In other words, I would’ve preferred that he’d taken the opportunity to chastise the imams for their hateful and anti-semitic rhetoric right in front of the people gathered at the event.

I’m certain that President Bush just wants to reach out to Muslims. That said, he shouldn’t be reaching out to terrorist-sympathizing organizations like CAIR and MB. If that outreach isn’t a principled outreach, it’s counterproductive. It’s something that should be avoided at all costs because it legitimizes corrupt organizations.

Another consequence of unprincipled outreach programs is that those events can then be used as propaganda back in the Middle East as a sign of America’s weakness.

That’s the last image that we should be projecting.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Earlier this morning, I posted about David Keene’s ‘transformation’ into a CAIR mouthpiece on Islamophobia. There’s more to the story. Much more. According to this post by Christine at Vigilant Freedom, David Keene of the ACU “appointed Suhail Khan to the ACU board.” That’s why I started digging. What I found out about Suhail Khan is troubling to say the least. First I found a bio of his father, a man named Mahboob Khan. Here’s what that bio on Mahboob Khan says:

Dr. Mahboob Khan passed away on April 16, 1999, in Sunnyvale, California. Dr. Khan was born on March 31, 1939, in Madras, India. He was the second child of seven born to Zainab Khatoon and Khader Khan. He was the first of his family to complete his high school diploma, and likewise the first to complete his BS degree from Madras University. He immigrated to Boulder, Colorado, in 1966 to complete his masters and doctorate in solid state physics. He married Malika Begum, also of Madras, India in 1968 and in 1969 they had their first son, Suhail Khan. As a student, Dr. Khan helped establish the Muslim Students Association (MSA) which subsequently became the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). He was the Vice President of MSA, the West Zone Representative, and served on the Majlis Ash-Shura for ISNA.

Here’s what Frank Gaffney wrote about Mahboob Khan in his FrontPageMag article on Suhail Khan and the ACU:

Suhail Khan’s father was the late Mahboob Khan, a PhD in solid-state physics. His biography claims that he helped establish the Muslim Student Association (MSA) while a student in Boulder (presumably, this refers to the MSA chapter at the university as the parent organization was established in 1963). The MSA is present on scores of American campuses and serves to recruit, proselytize and indoctrinate on behalf of Saudi-backed Islamists.[1] It is pro-Hamas; the MSA at UC Irvine even demanded that its members be allowed to wear Hamas armbands at graduation; and openly sympathizes with terrorists. Dr. Khan held the post of MSA vice president and Western Zone representative.

The elder Khan also served as member of Majlis ash-Shura (the governing council) of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which was created by the Muslim Student Association (MSA) in 1977 to promote the Islamist agenda among Muslims and the general population. Another MSA arm is the North American Islamic Trust, the Saudis’ vehicle for providing the financing of, by some estimates, as many as 80% of the mosques in America. That financing, and the control arising from holding title for the mosques’ real estate, affords the Saudis and their proxies the ability to determine: who will serve as imams in their American mosques; what materials are distributed to the congregations[2] and taught in the madrassas (mosque schools)[3]; to what purpose are the members’ obligatory tithes applied; which congregants will be eligible to make the haj pilgrimage to Mecca; etc.

It’s fair to say that there’s a few discrepancies between the two bios, though I don’t consider the discrepancies to be major discrepancies. That said, Mr. Gaffney’s article contains verifiable references to his claims, I’ll trust his bio on the elder Khan. Either way, though, both bios reference Dr. Khan’s serving “as member of Majlis ash-Shura (the governing council) of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and of Dr. Khan’s helping “establish the Muslim Student Association (MSA) while a student in Boulder (presumably, this refers to the MSA chapter at the university as the parent organization was established in 1963).”

Here’s another troubling bit of information in the Gaffney article:

Mahboob Khan founded one such mosque after he moved the family from Colorado to southern California in 1975. The mosque, together with an Islamic center and an elementary school, comprises the Islamic Society of Orange County (ISOC), of which Dr. Khan served as president before moving on to San Jose in 1980.

The Islamist character of the ISOC was evident in a visit there in December 1992, by Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, better known as the Blind Sheikh, who was later convicted in connection with the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. On the occasion of his fundraising visit to Orange County, Rahman “dismissed nonviolent definitions of jihad as weak. He stressed that a number of unspecified enemies had ‘united themselves against Muslims’ and that fighting them was obligatory. ‘If you are not going to the jihad, then you are neglecting the rules of Allah.’”

Here’s another troubling bit of information from Mr. Gaffney’s article:

He has repeatedly been a featured speaker at MSA, ISNA and CAIR events, as well as those of other problematic groups, including the California-based Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Islamic Institute (II, also known as the Islamic Free Market Institute or IFMI). For example, Khan spoke most recently at an II meeting in December 2006.

The Islamic Institute was established by Grover Norquist in 1998 with $20,000 in seed money from Abdurahman Alamoudi (who is currently serving a 23-year federal sentence for terrorism-related activities). II is the principal vehicle for the Islamists’ influence operation aimed at the Bush Administration and Republican and conservative circles. Norquist was its founding president; Alamoudi’s long-time deputy, Khalid Saffuri, was its first executive director; and II’s offices continue to be housed in the downtown Washington office suite rented by Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform.

The name Abdurahman Alamoudi rang a bell so I checked him out. Here’s what I found:

A self-described Muslim moderate, Abdurahman Alamoudi has had many public titles over the years: founder and executive director of the American Muslim Council; Islamic affairs advisor for the Clinton administration; official appointee of the Pentagon in charge of choosing Muslim chaplains; and State Department-selected Goodwill Ambassador to Muslim nations. In stark contrast, Alamoudi’s private life has been devoted to supporting and fundraising for a host of anti-American/anti-Israeli terrorist groups and nations, from Hamas and Hezbollah, to Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda, to the Libyan regime of Muammar Qadhafi.

This brings numerous questions to mind:

  • Did Hillary know what Mr. Alamoudi was all about?
  • Did Hillary know that Mr. Alamoudi supported Hamas and Hezbollah?
  • If she knew that Mr. Alamoudi supported Hamas and Hezbollah, why didn’t they run him out of their administration immediately?
  • How extensive of a background check was run on Mr. Alamoudi?
  • What was found out about him through this background check?
  • Considering that Mr. Alamoudi was “openly raising funds for Omar Abdel Rahman, the Blind Sheikh’s defense fund after he helped orchestrate the original WTC bombing, shouldn’t that have raised a ton of red flags for Mrs. Clinton? Or was it just not that important to her?

Here’s what Steve Emerson wrote about Mr. Alamoudi:

Hillary Clinton has worked particularly closely with the head of the AMC, Abdulrahman Alamoudi, who has openly collected funds for the legal defense of Mr. Marzuk, the Hamas chieftain arrested at JFK Airport, and for Mr. Abdurahman, who organized the World Trade Center bombing.

Here’s what Discover the Networks says about Mr. Abdurahman:

  • In 1994 he said: “Hamas is not a terrorist group…I have followed the good work of Hamas…They have a wing that is a violent wing. They had to resort to some kind of violence.”
  • During a March 26, 1996 appearance on Middle East TV, Alamoudi said the following about Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) founder Musa Abu Marzook, who in 1997 would be deported from the United States because of his Hamas-related activities: “I am honored to be a member of the committee that is defending Musa Abu Marzook in America. I really consider him to be from among the best people in the Islamic movement, Hamas and I work together with him.”
  • On December 29, 1996, Alamoudi told a meeting of the IAP: “I think if we were outside this country, we can say, ‘Oh, Allah, destroy America,’ but once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it. There is no way for Muslims to be violent in America, no way. We have other means to do it. You can be violent anywhere else but in America.”
  • In October 2000, Alamoudi attended an anti-Israel protest outside the White House. Speaking to a group of Palestinian-terrorist-supporters, he declared: “I have been labeled…as being a supporter of Hamas. Anybody supporters of Hamas here?…We are all supporters of Hamas…I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah.”
  • Alamoudi defended Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh imprisoned for his role in plotting New York-area terrorist attacks, most notably the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

I just did a search on Grover Norquist’s name. What I found isn’t flattering to Mr. Norquist. The article that most caught my attention was a golden oldie from Powerline. Here’s the section that most caught my attention:

Norquist’s themes are those of the Islamist apologist organizations like CAIR and the American Muslim Council: informed critics of Islamofascism and advocates of American interests like Daniel Pipes and Frank Gaffney are portrayed as bigots, and key law enforcement tools against domestic terrorism are alleged to be nefarious infringements of civil rights. When Norquist attempted to enlist James Woolsey to his cause on the latter score, Gaffney powerfully established that Norquist was all but lying.

People will point to the work Mr. Norquist did at Americans for Tax Reform as reason to cut him slack. I’d simply respond by saying Mr. Norquist isn’t irreplaceable. If he leaves ATR or if ATR shuts down, competent people will come along to start a similar organization up. What’s inexcusable is how Norquist ignored the war against the jihadists while lambasting good men like Frank Gaffney and Daniel Pipes as Islamophobes. That’s simply inexcusable. What’s worse is Mssrs. Norquist and Keene being shills for the most radical terrorist-sympathizing groups in America.

Keene’s willingness to be a panelist with Parvez Ahmed at the National Press Club is foolish, especially considering CAIR’s being an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal trial against the Holy Land Foundation. If his goal was to reach out to the Muslim community, his better bet would be to reach out to Dr. Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. As far as I can tell, Dr. Jasser doesn’t have a history of ties with known terrorist groups.

How does Keene justify appearing with Parvez Ahmed? Doesn’t he care about CAIR’s terrorist ties? Or is it that he just isn’t that particular about who he associates himself with? It seems to me that Keene should draw the line short of legitimizing a terrorist-sympathizing organization like CAIR.

I’d also question Mr. Norquist’s decision to promote Suhail Khan’s candidacy for the ACU board. What was he basing this decision on? Did he do a background check on Suhail Khan? If he did, why didn’t he have concerns when organizations like the MSA, ISNA and CAIR popped up on Khan’s resume? I think I can answer that with this tidbit of information:

The Islamic Institute was established by Grover Norquist in 1998 with $20,000 in seed money from Abdurahman Alamoudi (who is currently serving a 23-year federal sentence for terrorism-related activities). II is the principal vehicle for the Islamists’ influence operation aimed at the Bush Administration and Republican and conservative circles. Norquist was its founding president; Alamoudi’s long-time deputy, Khalid Saffuri, was its first executive director; and II’s offices continue to be housed in the downtown Washington office suite rented by Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform.

In other words, Norquist placed a higher priority on lobbying the White House than on his client’s terrorist ties.

It seems totally appropriate to say that national security and the fight against the jihadists must take precedence over commerce. Norquist and Keene forgot that lesson. Their dash for lobbying cash vetoed their national security concerns.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative