Ex-CAIR Official Flies to Iran to Curse U.S.

unnamed1Frontpage, by Joe Kaufman, May 21. 2015:

Cyrus McGoldrick wasn’t at his home in Florida this past week. He spent the week in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Part of his time was devoted to sightseeing, and part of it was spent cursing his home country, the United States, while shilling for Iran on Iranian TV. He is currently back on U.S. soil, but his actions suggest that he instead renounce his citizenship and take up permanent residency in the terrorist state, where his mom was born. But before he leaves, he needs to be investigated.

Cyrus McGoldrick converted to Islam, while attending Columbia University at the age of 20. It did not take him long to become radicalized, as following his graduation in 2010, he became the Civil Rights Manager for the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Prior to that, he had served as an intern for CAIR-NY. He has also served as CAIR-NY’s Advocacy Director.

CAIR was established in June 1994 as being a part of the American Palestine Committee, an umbrella organization acting as a terrorist enterprise run by then-global Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook, who was based in the U.S. at the time. In 2007 and 2008, amidst two federal trials, the U.S. government named CAIR a co-conspirator in the raising of millions of dollars for Hamas. In November 2014, along with ISIS, al-Qaeda and Boko Haram, CAIR was listed as a terrorist group by United Arab Emirates (UAE).

During his time with CAIR [He left at the end of 2012] and after, McGoldrick spoke at a number of anti-Israel protests held annually in New York City. At the 2013 Al-Quds Day rally, while a fellow rally goer only a foot or two in front of him held a sign containing a large swastika, McGoldrick called for the destruction of Israel, stating “There will be no two states, because that is not justice… It is one state between the river and the sea. We say free free Palestine.” At the 2014 Al-Quds Day rally, he prayed, “Allah, please grant victory to the mujahideen.”

Violence against Israelis is a passion for McGoldrick. In July 2014, he tweeted: “Praying for Palestine today and everyday. Allah, either guide the oppressor ‘Israeli’ regime or give us the strength to destroy them [2].” In April 2013, he posted the following to Facebook: “So much love to Anonymous for OpIsrael: ‘wiping Israel off the Internet map’… Next, the Zionist state.” McGoldrick has, as well, retweeted messages from the Palestinian terror group Al-Qassam Brigades, and he has dehumanized supporters of Israel by referring to them as “Zionist beasts.”

McGoldrick champions other terrorists beyond Palestinians. They include: Aafia Siddiqui, who was sentenced to 86 years in prison for shooting at and attempting to kill U.S. soldiers and FBI agents in Afghanistan; Tarek Mehanna, who received a 17.5 year sentence for plotting to kill Americans and providing material support to al-Qaeda; and Lynne Stewart, who received a ten year prison sentence for smuggling messages from “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman, the spiritual leader of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, to his followers in Egypt. Of them McGoldrick stated, “Until they are free, none of us are free” and “We have to fight for them.”

In June 2013, McGoldrick also defended a highly publicized Taliban attack against American soldiers in Afghanistan. He wrote, “Breaking – details not yet clear, but seems that resistance fighters have attacked Kabul’s military airport housing American imperial troops.”

At the end of 2014, McGoldrick left New York and his wife for Florida, where he was hired as the Youth Director for the Youth Coalition of South Florida (YCSF). Under the leadership of McGoldrick, YCSF and the Islamic Center of Boca Raton (ICBR), a radical mosque with a number of terrorist associations, teamed up for youth and family events held every Wednesday and Saturday at ICBR.

A co-founder of ICBR, Bassem Alhalabi, was a research assistant for Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian at the University of South Florida (USF) and was charged with the illegal export of a $13,000 military thermal imaging device to Syria. Another co-founder, Syed Khawer Ahmad, was the creator and webmaster for the official website of Hamas’s charitable and educational apparatus in Gaza, the Islamic Association (Al-Jamiya Al-Islamia).

One former imam of ICBR, Ibrahim Dremali, was placed on the federal “no-fly” list, and another, Muneer Arafat, admitted under oath that he was an affiliate of Palestinian Islamic Jihad. A member of the mosque, Rafiq Sabir, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for conspiring to provide material support to Al-Qaeda, following his taking an oath of loyalty to the terror group and Osama bin Laden.

While in South Florida, McGoldrick has also served as a contact for Young Muslims (YM), the youth group of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA). McGoldrick has been a speaker at a number of YM and ICNA events, including different ICNA conventions. ICNA has been involved in the financing of both Hamas and al-Qaeda and has used the web to promote a number of terrorist groups, including Hamas, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and the Taliban.

In August 2006, ICNA’s main charity, ICNA Relief, was the top donor and partner to Pakistani charity Al Khidmat Foundation (AKF), at the same time AKF took a delegation to Damascus, Syria to hand deliver nearly $100,000 to Hamas global leader Khaled Mashal. Mashal thanked the group and said Hamas would continue to wage “jihad” (war) on the “Zionist yoke” (Israel). ICNA Relief continues to work directly with AKF overseas.

On May 6, 2015, Cyrus McGoldrick flew from Miami to JFK Airport in New York. The following day, he flew from New York to Abu Dhabi. A couple days later, he was in Iran.

While in Iran, McGoldrick took in many sights, in and around Tehran, and shot many beautiful photos of his experiences [3]. However, it is dubious that his sightseeing tour was the reason for his trip, because right when he arrived, he quickly made his way to Iranian Press TV (PressTV) for an interview to assist the terrorist state.

Cyrus McGoldrick is no stranger to Press TV, which is part of state-owned Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB). Since February 2012, he has been featured on 17 shows. Most, if not all of the shows, are designed to paint U.S. government and law enforcement as power hungry, evil and severely biased against Muslims. Indeed, the day after McGoldrick’s most recent show, Hassan Nasrallah, the global leader of Hezbollah was on Press TV live, cursing the U.S.

One of McGoldrick’s Press TV episodes even targets President Barack Obama, whom many consider a friend to the Muslim community. This is no problem for McGoldrick, as he revels in denouncing the President every chance he gets. On Facebook, he has referred to Obama as “Pharoah Obama,” “an eloquent tyrant,” and “a threat to global peace & security.” In November 2012, following Obama’s reelection, McGoldrick wrote, “Obama’s victory is not worthy of celebration. The fact that we celebrate him is to be mourned.”

Another episode discusses how the FBI allegedly “forces Muslims into spying.” This is of interest, because McGoldrick has personally issued threats towards those he believed to be informants. In October 2012, he wrote on Facebook, “Dear informants, infiltrators & snitches: It is impossible to express how much contempt & pity I have for you. Be good or be gone, CM.” When someone surmised who McGoldrick was talking about, McGoldrick replied, “Nobody famous, a young kid, worst informant in the world. Don’t worry we’ll blast him later.”

On May 14th, McGoldrick appeared in his most recent Press TV episode [4], entitled ‘Al Saud puppet of US, Israel.’ In it, McGoldrick took aim at America and her allies and what he believed to be their ill treatment of Iran in Yemen, while glorifying Iran as a compassionate and charitable nation. His answers seemed studied and scripted.

A recently released U.N. report showed evidence that Iran has been transporting large shipments of weapons to Houthi Shiite rebels in Yemen, since 2009. To prevent any further shipments, Saudi Arabia, assisted by the US, is conducting a naval blockade in the region.

According to Iran, the shipments it makes are for humanitarian purposes only, comprised of things like medicine and food, and Cyrus McGoldrick is more than willing to mimic this phony line on Iranian TV. He stated, “This is just one more grotesque… example where Iran is being accused of what their opponents are already doing… Iran is sending much-needed aid, is being blamed for escalating a conflict which it certainly did no part in starting.”

McGoldrick glorified Iran, while attacking the U.S. He stated, “Iran as always continues to be an opponent of… injustice, an opponent of imperialism in the region and so it only makes sense… that you see these very familiar allies, the same cast of characters, the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and now its regional allies standing against it once again.”

He said that the U.S. is making false accusations against Iran “without any shame.” He called the accusations “vicious.” He said that the conflict is “not just about Yemen… it is about the American hegemony throughout the Muslim world, throughout the world at whole.” On the other hand, he spoke glowingly of those on board the Iranian ship. He said, “It is very important and I want to put forward the immense pride that we have in the people who are on that boat…”

Question: Who are the “we” in McGoldick’s statement?

One might understand if these things were being said by an Iranian. However, while his mother, Nikoo (pen name “May”), was originally from Iran – she left on the eve of the Iranian Revolution – Cyrus McGoldrick was born and raised in the United States. But it seems he does not consider himself to be American. No doubt, he outright hates America.

In June 2013, he posted a message on his Facebook page, referring to Iran as “our nation” He wrote, “Sending prayers and love to the people of Iran on their election day. May God bless our nation with leaders that serve, remind, and struggle.”

During his trip, just prior to arriving in Iran, he compared Iran to his home country, placing “home country” in quotes. On Facebook, he wrote, “Iran isn’t as suspicious of me as my ‘home country.’”

This last message was erased from his Facebook page, along with every post he made concerning his trip to Iran. Why? Why did he feel the need to delete them? Did he think there was something incriminating contained within his posts.

This begs further questions regarding his trip. Who paid for the trip? Was he paid for the show interview? Who set up the interview? Did he have any dealings with Iranian officials? If so, did he supply them with any information outside of what has been discussed?

Iran, after all, is found on the U.S. State Department’s list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. There are only four countries named on that list. Is Cyrus McGoldrick working for one of them?

Because of this, McGoldrick needs one more interview. This time, though, with the U.S. Justice Department.

Muslim Leader Who Said Israel is ‘Enemy of God’ Invited to White House

shFrontpage, May 15, 2015, by Joe Kaufman:

Regardless of the circumstances, when a representative from CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group with close ties to Hamas, is allowed into the White House, a serious, indeed dangerous, problem exists.

One day after the brutal death of his cousin – a revenge attack following the murder of three Israeli teens – Tariq Abu Khdeir, a 15-year-old boy who had traveled to Israel from Tampa, Florida, found himself arrested and beaten by an Israeli officer. On the day of his being taken into custody, authorities alleged Khdeir was masked, armed and actively participating in rioting against officers. They said, as well, he had resisted arrest.

A video purporting to be of the beating went viral, and an Israeli investigation into the footage commenced.

While Khdeir claimed total innocence in the matter, and to be sure, months later, the charges against him were dropped, his family’s choice of an attorney for his case makes Khdeir’s claim of innocence highly suspicious, if not an outright lie. Throughout the process, the lawyer representing Khdeir was Hassan Shibly, the Executive Director of the Florida chapter of CAIR.

CAIR was established in June 1994 as being part of the American Palestine Committee, an umbrella organization acting as a terrorist enterprise run by then-global Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook. Marzook was based in the U.S. at the time and currently operates out of Egypt as a spokesman for Hamas. In 2007 and 2008, amidst two federal trials, the U.S. government named CAIR a co-conspirator in the raising of millions of dollars for Hamas.

Under a graphic of the World Trade Center in flames, CAIR posted to its national website a link to the Hamas charity, Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), asking its followers to donate money. The group also asked its followers to donate to the al-Qaeda charity, Global Relief Foundation (GRF).

In November 2014, just six months ago, along with ISIS, al-Qaeda and Boko Haram, CAIR was listed as a terrorist organization by United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Hassan Shibly has exhibited his own radical behavior.

Shibly is an admirer of controversial Islamic lecturer Khalid Yasin who, during a 2005 interview, stated the following about non-Muslims and homosexuals: “There’s no such thing as a Muslim having a non-Muslim friend. If you prefer the clothing of the kafirs over the clothing of the Muslims, most of those names that’s on most of those clothings is faggots, homosexuals and lesbians.”

Fox News host Megyn Kelly recently pointed out on her show that, for at least four years, Shibly has referred to himself as a “fan” of Yasin and/or labeled Yasin an “interest” on his personal Facebook page. This, after Shibly had been warned years before about Yasin.

In December 2004, Shibly was detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, while crossing over the Canadian border, following a conference he had attended in Toronto. The conference was ‘Reviving the Islamic Spirit,’ and according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, it featured a number of extremist speakers including notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan and neo-Nazi William Baker.

About Shibly’s and others’ detentions, a border spokesman stated, “[W]e have credible, ongoing information that these types of conferences have been used and are being used by terrorist organizations to not only transport fraudulent documents but to mask travel by terrorists.” According to Shibly, he was “led by three armed officers” into a room “for questioning and fingerprinting.” He was told to stand face-first against the wall with legs spread for a pat-down search. He said he was “treated as a suspect.”

In June 2011, the Tampa Tribune reported on previous statements Shibly had made regarding Hezbollah. Shibly had stated that Hezbollah was “basically a resistance movement” and “absolutely not a terrorist organization.”

In August 2014, only nine months ago, Shibly tweeted that “Israel and its supporters are enemies of God.

All of this is disturbing in itself, but what is much more so is the fact that this man was invited to the White House.

On April 15th, National Security Council staff met with Shibly and the Khdeir family at the West Wing of the White House. CNN published a photo of a smiling Shibly and a smiling Tariq Khdeir seated there. Shibly tweeted another with both Tariq and his mother Suha Khdeir.

A White House official is quoted on CNN, stating “The U.S. government has remained closely engaged with Tariq and his family since his return from Jerusalem.”

Question: Was the NSC aware of Shibly and his organization’s backgrounds, prior to him being allowed to enter the premises? Or did the White House CAIR?

This event evokes a similar memory when Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian and his family were given the honor of taking photos with President George W. Bush at the White House. That was an embarrassment and a significant lapse in national security. So is this.

There was a time when the White House was considered nothing less than sacred in the U.S., a time when Americans knew the difference between friend and enemy. This photo op is an example of how far we have fallen as a nation and how vulnerable we truly are.

In the wake of Garland terror attack, fear cancels Geert Wilders FL event

e9340468b4a105b6c9fbac35ad503aa0Cultural Jihad, May 8, 2015:

From:  Palm Beach Post
By: George Bennett, May 7, 2015

The Palm Beach County Republican Party will have to find another venue for a fundraiser featuring the Dutch politician and Islam critic who spoke at Sunday’s “Draw Muhammad” cartoon contest in Texas.

The local GOP booked Boca West Country Club for the $125-a-plate “Lobsterfest” dinner on Aug. 15 featuring Geert Wilders, leader of a right-wing party in the Dutch parliament. But the country club announced Thursday it has canceled the event because of safety concerns.

Full article: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/safety-concerns-lead-boca-club-to-cancel-gop-event/nmBx4/

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

COMMENT/ANALYSIS:    This was to be a private event and whether you agree with Geert Wilders or not, he and the event sponsors have a Constitutional right to present their views.    This decision works as a “win” for Islamists  in using fear and intimidation to silence those that oppose them. From the Sun Sentinal:

But representatives of the Council on American-Islamic Relations expressed outrage at the Republicans’ decision to have Wilders as a speaker.

“On the international level he is probably the most notorious, anti-Muslim bigot in the world,” said Ibrahim Hooper, the Washington-based national communications director for CAIR.

“He is the worst of the worst. This is the Islam-is-evil-and-must-be-destroyed school of thinking,” Hooper said. “And for the Republican Party to host him, I can’t imagine that any Muslim voter in the state … would not hear about it and judge accordingly.”

Michael Barnett, chairman of the Palm Beach County Republican Party,  told the Sun Sentinal that to back out in hosting an event with Wilders would “go against everything we stand for”  pertaining to our freedoms of speech and religion. The Sun Sentinal continued with:

CAIR representatives said the free speech argument sounds good but is disingenuous. “Will they be hosting neo-Nazis and anti-Semites and other race-baiters and bigots? Or is it just anti-Muslim bigots that they host?” Hooper said. “It’s absolutely ridiculous.”

Nezar Hamze, CAIR-Florida regional operations director, said he’s heard the freedom of speech argument before. “It’s not about freedom of speech, it’s about spreading hate.”

It will be interesting to see if the local GOP actuall does find another venue or simply cancel Wilders’ planned appearance.

Side thought:  Is the Boca West Country Club being “Islamaphobic” in fearing a Muslim attack?

Muslim Congressmen Exhibit Outrageous Hypocrisy in Trying To Ban Dutch Politician Geert Wilders from U.S.

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, May 1, 2015:

It was reported earlier this week that the two Muslim members of Congress, Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Andre Carson (D-IN), had sent a letter to the State Department last week requesting that they deny a visa to Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who was coming to Washington D.C. for a Capitol Hill event sponsored by Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and Steve King (R-IA).

Unsuccessful in their attempts to have Wilders banned from the U.S. Ellison, Carson and their associates from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) tried to disrupt a press conference on free speech with Wilders, Gohmert and King in front of the U.S. Capitol yesterday, with Ellison promoting their actions on Twitter:
ellisonKeith Ellison tweet

Leave aside for the moment the spurious legal reasoning they employed to try to deny Wilders a visa, aptly refuted by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, and that their attempts to tie Wilders to Norwegian mass killer Anders Breivik had been thoroughly debunked by none other than Breivik himself.

What makes the pair’s anti-free speech behavior so outrageously hypocritical is that they both have stood silent as the Obama administration has allowed a long line of extremists, and even members of terrorist organizations, to enter the U.S.

Even worse, the two Muslim congressmen have regularly promoted and associated with organizations that have been designated as terrorist organizations, and individuals and groups that have been tagged in federal court by the Justice Department.

For instance, in May 2012 a member of Egyptian Islamic Jihad (still a designated terrorist organization), Hani Nour Eldin, was allowed to enter the U.S. and even escorted into the White House for a private meeting with Obama’s national security staff, Ellison and Carson didn’t apparently utter a single word in protest.

Nor did they express even the slightest bit of concern when members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood were given VIP treatment typically reserved for visiting dignitaries at JFK airport.

When Sudanese genocide henchman Nafie Ali Nafie (aka “Nafie the Butcher) was given a visa by the State Department in 2013, the Muslim congressmen again were found mute.

And nothing was said when Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano testified before Congress in July 2012 that she would allow more members of terrorist organizations into the U.S.

Their voice has also been absent following the news last year that the Clinton State Department maintained a terrorist “hands-off” list for entry into the U.S., revealed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), or as Homeland Security continued to stonewall congressional requests for information on such terrorist “hands-off” lists.

So Ellison and Carson have deemed Geert Wilders, who has been subject to repeated threats from Islamic terror organizations and has had to live with 24/7 security for more than a decade, a greater threat than members of terrorist groups, genocidal henchmen, and Islamic extremists.

That glaring silence might be telling of where their sympathies really lie, if it weren’t for their open and unashamed support of terrorist fronts and cheerleaders.

As I reported here at PJ Media late last December, Carson was scheduled to appear at the 2014 Muslim American Society (MAS)-Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) annual conference on a Ferguson panel with Mazen Mokhtar, an individual that federal agents had testified in federal court had operated an Al-Qaeda website to raise money for the Taliban.

Carson’s appearance at the MAS-ICNA event was not only promoted on the conference website, but also in the conference program:

Carson-Moktar750

A few days later, Carson was quickly trying to walk back his appearance at the conference, claiming he didn’t speak on the panel with Mokhtar. And yet, Carson never addressed the fact that he was speaking at Mohktar’s conference (Mokhtar is currently executive directtor of the primary conference sponsor, MAS).

But both Ellison and Carson appeared just a few months before with Al-Qaeda webmaster Mokhtar at a June 2014 event announcing the formation of a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood political front, the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO). Mokhtar is second from the left:

ICNA-1024x683

In this picture published by The Muslim Link newspaper, Mokhtar can be seen immediately over the right shoulder of Ellison as he speaks at the USCMO rollout:

Ellison-Moktar

So attempts by either Ellison or Carson to walk back their association to Mazen Mokhtar are laughingly bogus.

But there’s good reason why the pair want to keep their distance from Mohktar and his MAS organization. In November 2014, one month before Carson appeared at the MAS-ICNA conference, the United Arab Emirates designated MAS as a terrorist organization. In 2008, Ellison took a 16-day Hajj trip to Saudi Arabia financed by MAS, and lied about the source of the funding.

Even more troubling for Ellison and Carson, UAE also designated CAIR a terrorist organization. Both congressmen have regularly appeared at the group’s events across the country and spoken in support of their efforts. In 2012, I documented Ellison’s extensive ties to CAIR here at PJ Media as he was publicly attacking then-Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

It’s not just the UAE terror designation of CAIR that is problematic for the pair. In 2008, FBI agent Lara Burns testified in federal court that CAIR was a front for the terrorist group HAMAS in the Holy Land Foundation case.

During that trial, the Justice Department submitted a brief to the court stating that CAIR was part of an international Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy to provide “media, money and men” to Hamas (p. 13).

DOJ-CAIR-USMB-HL2

The federal judge hearing the case agreed, stating in an opinion that there was “ample evidence” that CAIR and other US Muslim organizations worked to support Hamas.

So before Keith Ellison and Andre Carson start attacking other members of Congress about their support for Geert Wilders, perhaps they should answer some questions about their ties to Mazen Mokhtar and their continued public support to MAS and CAIR despite their designation as terrorist groups by UAE, and tagged as terrorist fronts in federal court by the FBI and the Justice Department.

***

Also see:

Alabama woman joins ISIS – CAIR responds

Hoda Muthana

Hoda Muthana

By Cultural Jihad, April 21, 2015:

Hoda said that her parents weren’t entirely in the dark about what their daughter’s newfound religious interest might lead to. “They didn’t know I was leaving, but they had an idea,” Hoda said. “They’d see news reports about girls who have made it [to Syria] and say things like, ‘Hoda would probably do that.’’’
BuzzFeed Interiview

A 20-year-old Alabama woman joined ISIS after receiving an innocent graduation gift

From:  www.businessinsider.com
By: Reuters and Pamela Engel, April 21, 2015

A 20-year-old woman from a Birmingham, Alabama, suburb has left the US to join the Islamic State militant group in Syria, the local broadcaster WIAT reported on Monday.

Hoda Muthana made contact with militants through social media and had been distancing herself from other Muslims in Hoover for more a year before leaving, said family spokesman Hassan Shibly, according to WIAT. Her family reportedly fled Yemen for the US more than 20 years ago.

Hoda’s father, Mohammed, told BuzzFeed that his daughter’s introduction to social media started with the smartphone he gave her as a high-school graduation gift in 2013.

She wasn’t technically allowed to have social-media accounts or post photos of herself (though her brothers were), but she apparently found a way around that.

Mohammed said he sometimes took her phone to check what was on it. He told BuzzFeed: “When I get the phone from her, sometimes she scared, and I thought, ‘What do you have?’”

During the year and a half before she left for Syria, Hoda became more devoutly religious. She told BuzzFeed that it was due in part to Islamic lectures she found on the internet.

Hoda said her parents noticed her becoming more religious and “liked the change until they saw me getting ‘jihadi.’”

In 2013, Hoda secretly set up a Twitter account that allowed her to find and connect with Islamic State members and supporters, including Aqsa Mahmood, who left her home in Scotland to join the group, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

COMMENT/ANALYSIS: The cited Buzzfeed article provides additional details relating to this story and leaves the impression that Hoda’s radicalization was not exactly a surprise to those around her and probably not the result of getting a cell phone.

The Birmingham, AL   Muslim community  is centered around the Birmingham Islamic Society (BIS)  and we mentioned the area when Randy Wilson was arrested on terrorism related charges in 2012.  In a Washington post article, BIS president Ashfaq Taufique stated that Wilson had attended a Muslim school in Birmingham when he was younger.

The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is well represented in Alabama, especially in the locations around Birmingham and Huntsville.   These type of Islamic radical recruiting incidents bring unwanted attention to the area and it would be safe to assume that damage/media control is considered a high priority.  With this in mind, it’s not surprising that the identified family spokesman Hassan Shibly, is the Executive Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)  Florida – someone frequently called upon to handle high profile PR matters for CAIR.

In regards to CAIR, The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch notes

In 2008, the then Deputy leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood acknowledged a relationship between the Egyptian Brotherhood and CAIR.  In 2009, a US federal judge ruled “The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas.”

***

 

Sweet home? Raqqa, Muthana's new home city, is pictured above. It is the target of regular airstrikes, one of which killed Muthana's husband

Sweet home? Raqqa, Muthana’s new home city, is pictured above. It is the target of regular airstrikes, one of which killed Muthana’s husband

Also see:

CAIR-Florida’s New Islamic Extremist Youth

CAIR-FloridaFrontpage, March 16, 2015 by Joe Kaufman:

There are two new youthful faces at the CAIR-Florida office in Tampa. And like the organization they represent, their actions are those of Islamic extremists.

On January 9, 2015, on the official website of the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a press release was posted discussing the group’s hiring of two individuals to its staff, Laila Abdelaziz and Ali Akin Kurnaz. According to the release, “Laila Abdelaziz joined the CAIR Florida team as the Legislative and Government Affairs Director, and Ali Kurnaz joined [the] CAIR team as its Communications Coordinator.”

CAIR was established in June 1994 as being part of the American Palestine Committee, an umbrella organization acting as a terrorist enterprise run by then-global Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook, who was based in the U.S. at the time and who now operates out of Egypt as a spokesman for Hamas. In 2007 and 2008, amidst two federal trials, the U.S. government named CAIR a co-conspirator in the raising of millions of dollars for Hamas. Along with ISIS, al-Qaeda and Boko Haram, CAIR is listed as a terrorist organization by United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Both Abdelaziz and Kurnaz came to CAIR by way of Emerge USA, Abdelaziz being the Tampa-area Regional Field Coordinator of Emerge and Kurnaz being the Central Florida Regional Director of Emerge.

Emerge USA, like CAIR, has a friendly – even patriotic – sounding name, yet the reality of the organization is that it presents a dangerous facade. Emerge is a politically active Islamist group whose goal is to place radical Muslims into positions of influence and power.

The head of Emerge, Khurrum Wahid, who previously served as a legal advisor for CAIR, is a South Florida attorney who has built a name for himself by representing high profile terrorists. His past clients include: Rafiq Sabir, who received a 25 year prison sentence for conspiring to provide material support to al-Qaeda; Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, who was given a life sentence for being a member of al-Qaeda and for plotting to assassinate President George W. Bush; and Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian, who was deported to Turkey last month.

Abdelaziz and Kurnaz have their own troubling past, beyond their involvement with Emerge.

In January 2010, during a town hall meeting for Barack Obama, Ramallah-born Laila Abdelaziz denounced Israel in a question she posed to the President. “[W]hy have we not condemned Israel and Egypt’s human rights violations against the occupied Palestinian people, and yet we continue supporting them financially with billions of dollars from our tax dollars?” she belligerently asked.

In November 2012, when Israel invaded Gaza, in order to stop Hamas from continuing to target her citizens with rockets – over 2000 rockets in less than one year – Abdelaziz tweeted, “Don’t worry ya Gaza, we’re working hard for you in Florida.”

This year, the extremism of Abdelaziz has continued unabated. In January, she retweeted threatening quotes made against Israel by the Secretary General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah.

As well, she described an interfaith initiative between Jews and Muslims as “flawed” and “comical,” and just one week ago, she labeled an article written by a Muslim girl about the girl’s recent trip to Israel, which was sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), as “ridiculous.” The girl, Aliya Manjee, describes herself as “pro-Palestine,” but to Abdelaziz merely visiting Israel is a crime.

Abdelaziz’s counterpart at CAIR, Ali Kurnaz, is no less extreme.

In January 2009, during Israel’s previous incursion into Gaza, Kurnaz filmed and edited a video of a CAIR sponsored anti-Israel protest that had been held in Orlando. Kurnaz produced the video for a group called Liberated Front. A representative from Kurnaz’s group, Nancy Zanaty, was featured on the video loudly denouncing former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Also on Kurnaz’s video, viewers repeatedly witness rally goers shout “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” It is the same slogan used in Gaza by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad to call for Israel’s destruction. The river is the Jordan River, and the sea is the Mediterranean – both sides of Israel.

In July 2014, Kurnaz attacked U.S. Representative Ted Deutch, when Deutch sent a tweet against Hamas and in support of Israel’s right to defend herself. Deutch wrote, “As Hamas and other terrorists fire on Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and all of #Israel, I strongly support Israel’s actions to defend her citizens.” Kurnaz tweeted the following in reply to Deutch, “[T]hink before you tweet. Your lopsided message conveys your lack of understanding of this conflict.”

This past January, Kurnaz followed the Twitter account of an individual named Alexus Morales. Much of Morales’ Twitter is devoted to support for Hezbollah. Indeed, the header of Morales’ Twitter page is a Hezbollah flag.

None of this can be seen as controversial to Hassan Shibly, the Executive Director of CAIR-Tampa. In June 2011, the Tampa Tribune reported on previous statements Shibly had made regarding Hezbollah. Shibly had stated that Hezbollah was “basically a resistance movement” and “absolutely not a terrorist organization.”

What may be controversial to everyone, though, is a tweet by Ali Kurnaz, where he seemed to be admitting to abusing illegal drugs. He stated, “Instead of war on poverty, they got a war on drugs so the police can bother me.” Question: Why do the police have reason to “bother” Kurnaz?

Regardless of the answer, with the hiring of Laila Abdelaziz and Ali Kurnaz, CAIR-Florida has continued to show why it is a danger to society. Given all the upheavals which are taking place involving Islamic extremist groups, closing down CAIR in the USA would appear to be a foregone conclusion.

Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.

Deborah Weiss Speaks on the Muslim Brotherhood’s Influence Operations in Hollywood

 

American Thinker, By James Simpson, March 1, 2015:

This past Tuesday, Cliff Kincaid held his National Press Club conference, America’s Enemies in Hollywood Then and Now. Cliff’s guests included Allan Ryskind, long-time editor of Human Events; Lawyer, author, and 9-11 survivor Deborah Weiss, who describes the breadth of CAIR’s malevolent machinations, including influence operations in Hollywood; and Trevor Loudon, the intrepid researcher from New Zealand who has exposed much of what we know today about Obama’s radicalism.

***

Deborah Weiss

Deborah Weiss is a lawyer, 9-11 survivor and founder of the website Vigilance Now (www.vigilancenow.org). She is also the main author and researcher for the book Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation. Weiss detailed eye-popping influence operations of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Hollywood and throughout media.

For those unaware, CAIR is a spawn of the Islamic Association of Palestine and HAMAS, both state designated terrorist organizations. CAIR is also an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holyland Foundation trial, the largest trial of its kind ever prosecuted against Islamic terror-supporting organization in the U.S. According to Weiss, CAIR had a hand in making fundamental changes to many prominent movie scripts, including:

  • The Sum of All Fears. A nuclear bomb is detonated in Baltimore, destroying the city. In the original storyline, Muslim terrorists are the bad guy. CAIR got the script changed to point the finger at Australian neo-Nazis. The movie starred Islam apologist Ben Affleck.
  • True Lies. Produced by 20th Century Fox about Islamic terrorist with spy who had unfaithful wife. Producer agreed to include disclaimer that the movie was a work of fiction and was not intended to malign any religion.
  • Syriana. The movie starring George Clooney (who also produced the film in an Oscar-winning role, blames us foreign policy for conduct of Islamic terrorists. In the end Clooney is killed by a predator drown, along with a progressive Arabian prince whose work is threatening American oil interests.

The UN Alliance of Civilization created a fund that ran between 2008 and 2009 that was supposed to combat Muslim stereotypes. Hollywood backed the fund.

Weiss discussed the Muslim Public Affairs Council’s (MPAC) Hollywood bureau that offers consultations for script approval and connects aspiring writers and actors with Hollywood professionals. MPAC provides media awards honoring “artists, actors, activists and executives for their ‘Voices of Courage and Conscience.’” Past honorees include Alec Baldwin, Michael Moore, George Clooney’s Three Kings, Slumdog Millionaire, and others.

Weiss says that CAIR NY is one of the most extreme branches and attempted to reshape CBS’s broadcast content, claiming that the network aired shows describing Islamic terrorism. In June 2001, CAIR NY initiated an online petition to boycott all CBS TV and radio shows and advertisers and sought to block the network’s broadcasts into the 54 Organization of Islamic Conference countries and the Palestinian Territories. The petition was scrubbed following 9-11, but remained online at other sites nonetheless.

Weiss states that the Islamist propagandists push Hollywood elites to promote messages denigrating Christianity, and rewrite history to mask Islamist influence. They use lawsuits, infiltration, and disinformation, exactly like the organized Left. Weiss calls it a war of ideas and concluded her remarks by challenging the audience to fight for classical liberal ideas. She said it was essential to discuss Islamic terrorism. The media plays major role in shaping world opinion and is not allowing an honest dialog. There needs to be a concerted pushback.

Read more

Also see:

CAIR Makes New Push to Get Media to Scrub Word ‘Islamist’

Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s national communications director

Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s national communications director

By MEIRA SVIRSKY:

Not satisfied with the Associated Press’ “redefinition” of the word Islamist close to a year ago, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is capitalizing on recent world events to make another push to silence the conversation about political Islam.

CAIR is now urging the media to stop using the term “Islamist” altogether because, in the opinion of Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s national communications director, “the term has become journalistic shorthand for ‘Muslims we don’t like.’”

Hooper is upset because he says the term “Islamist” is “used in an almost exclusively pejorative context and is often coupled with the term ‘extremist.’”

In its updated stylebook, the Associated Press (AP) still defines the word “Islamist” correctly as, “An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam.” In laymen’s terms, this means an Islamist is anyone who would like to see the implementation of sharia (Islamic) law as the law of the land.

However, in deference to objections by CAIR, the influential AP stylebook made the following change in April 2013 telling journalists, “Do not use [the word Islamist] as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists.”

Rightly so, CAIR viewed this change as a victory.

However, the media did not comply. In fact, from CNN to the New York Times to FOX, the media recognized AP’s faulty reasoning that “Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals … may not be Islamists.”

Thus, CAIR has launched a new effort to obfuscate its agenda by pushing the media to stop using the word Islamist altogether. If the word Islamist is totally scrubbed, then there will be no term to describe all those who want to implement sharia globally whether by gradualist means like CAIR and their parent organization, theMuslim Brotherhood, or through violence means like Islamic terrorist groups

CAIR bills itself as a typical American advocacy group whose agenda is to protect Muslim’s civil liberties.

However, who is CAIR really?

CAIR was labeled an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-funding trial in U.S. history. The U.S. Justice Department listed CAIR as an entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, a secret body established to support Hamas.

Last November, the United Arab Emirates joined Egypt and Saudi Arabia in listing the Muslim Brotherhood as a banned terrorist group. Included in the ban were 81 other groups, many of which are Brotherhood affiliates. CAIR was included on that list.

The result of scrubbing the term “Islamist” from the lexicon would be to shut down the conversation about political Islam, or Islamism, altogether.

“It does not come as a surprise that CAIR is trying to discredit the expression ‘Islamist,’” says Dr. Elham Manea, a Muslim professor of political science at the University of Zurich and an outspoken international human rights activist.

“When we differentiate between Islam as a world religion and Islamism as a political agenda, we are able to discuss the problematic nature of Islamism and its aim for political domination in a qualified and differentiated matter without slipping into a hate message towards the religion of Islam. We also reveal how the likes of CAIR have often deliberately blurred the lines between the two as a means to present their demands and their own political agenda as the demands of all Muslims and Islam,” Dr. Manea added.

Read more at Clarion Project

Meira Svirsky is the editor of ClarionProject.org

Watch the clip below from the award-winning film The Third Jihad about the duplicitous “cultural jihad.” 

Hijab Day at NP3 High School

NP3HighSchoolHijabDayJihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, Jan. 28, 2015

A Jihad Watch reader in the Sacramento area has sent me this flier (click to enlarge), showing that today is NP3 Hijab Day at NP3 High School. NP3 stands for Natomas Pacific Pathways Prep; the school is in the Natomas Unified School District in Sacramento. This all started with a student at NP3 High who is an intern for the Hamas-linked terror organization the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). This student gave a presentation about Islamophobia and Islam at what was a mandatory staff meeting that also included an official CAIR representative.

The school then now decided to sponsor an official “Hijab Day” in cooperation with Hamas-linked CAIR. The flier also shows that another Muslim Brotherhood-linked organization, the Muslim Students Association, is also involved. Every female member of the faculty and staff, and students as well, has been encouraged to wear a hijab today. NP3’s principal, Tom Rutten, has been strongly encouraging everyone to participate and wear one.

Please contact Tom Rutten and let him know, politely and courteously, that there are religion-and-state issues involved here, and also that public schools should not be working with groups that have demonstrable and proven links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Also ask him when is NP3 Priest Collar and Nun Habit Day, and when is NP3 Kippah Day — or is it only Islam that gets this treatment? Ask him when is NP3’s day to honor women and girls who have been brutalized and murdered for not wearing hijab. Ask him why he is celebrating a garment that is, for all too many women, a sign of oppression and misogyny. Rutten is at 916-567-5740.

Scott Dosick is President of the Board of Trustees of the Natomas Unified School District. He is at sdosick@natomas.k12.ca.us. Remember that over at Hamas-linked CAIR they will be licking their chops and ready to pounce on any indication that Rutten or Dosick have been getting “hate messages” or “threats.” Do not give them ammunition in their jihad against freedom: be polite, courteous and reasonable in all communications, limiting discussion to asking calmly why Islam is getting this preferential treatment in a public school.

CAIR SEEKS NON-VIOLENT SHARIA CENSORSHIP

Ibrahim-Hooper-CAIR-AP-640x480Breitbart, by ANDREW E. HARROD, Jan. 27, 2015

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas-derived un-indicted terrorism financing coconspirator, recently demonstrated that there is more than one way to implement Sharia. CAIR’s feigned lofty concern for free speech following Paris’ Charlie Hebdo massacre is part of a duplicitous strategy seeking to impose non-violently Muslim blasphemy norms while deflecting any criticism of Islam.

CAIR “today condemned a shooting attack on the offices of the French satirical magazineCharlie Hebdo and repeated its defense of freedom of speech,” read a baffling January 7press release from the radical faux civil rights group. “We strongly condemn this brutal and cowardly attack,” said CAIR executive director Nihad Awad of the globally infamous Paris jihad massacre of 12 at Charlie Hebdo. Awad then added that his CAIR associates “reiterate our repudiation of any such assault on freedom of speech, even speech that mocks faiths.”

Awad, however, deemed that the “proper response to such attacks . . . is not to vilify any faith.” Thus he suggested the time-worn Islamic apologetic that the Charlie Hebdojihadists had no Islamic doctrinal basis. Although CAIR’s press release itself noted they were “shouting ‘God is great’ in Arabic” or Allahu Akbar, Islam’s Muhammad in CAIR’s understanding always “chose the path of kindness and reconciliation” when faced with “personal attacks.” Such hagiography of an often brutal “warrior prophet” overlooks well-established Islamic doctrine demanding the death penalty for blasphemy, as manifested in numerous incidents over the decades.

Awad advocated “instead to marginalize extremists of all backgrounds who seek to stifle freedom and to create or widen societal divisions.” Awad therefore implicitly equated murderous jihadists with their free-speaking victims, the latter being “extremists” in their own way who “widen societal divisions” with criticism of Islam. Indeed, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper described in an email the “twin extremes of ISIS-type extremists and anti-Muslim bigots.” Hooper added in an interview that while CAIR members “are big supporters of the First Amendment and free expression . . . just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you have to.”

“Unfortunately,” Awad elaborated during a January 14 CAIR press conference, “we find ourselves, time and again, years after years, in the same position without any progress.” To “defend the right for someone to speak their mind” while being “not willing to respect the feelings of almost two billion” Muslims worldwide showed a “serious lack of balance.” Awad thereby equated an invented right not to be offended with the vital human right of free speech. “Our priorities are so messed up as a global community,” the Muslim Awad imperiously asserted for the world’s non-Muslims.

“The world is a global village,” Awad continued, whose “nature and reality” is “diversity of opinion . . . of cultures . . . of religions.” Therefore “we cannot impose our values on any culture” but must have “peaceful coexistence” and “mutual respect.” These Soviet-sounding terms precluded for Awad any expression of “diversity” offensive to Muslims.

The Charlie Hebdo attacks incited Awad not to rally around free speech under jihadist assault, but rather to seek greater non-Muslim “unity” with supposedly misunderstood Muslims. The jihadists “intended to divide” and “will win if we start to talk at each other instead of talking to each other,” an assertion buttressing Awad’s insinuation that concern for Muslim sentiments should entail non-Muslim deference in the future. “We cannot allow ourselves to become victims of extremists on both sides,” Awad continued his victim-perpetrator equivalence.

Speech by Charlie Hebdo and others allowed a “tiny minority” of a “few extremists who claimed to be Muslims” to recruit terrorists with the argument that the “West is against” and “offensive to Islam,” Awad warned. This veiled threat demanding non-Muslim self-censorship or else, however, contradicted Awad’s manifestly false assertion that the “overwhelming majority of Muslims” consider “freedom of speech” a “cornerstone of our faith.” “Muslims around the world” had “condemned universally” the Charlie Hebdoattacks and usually “don’t take to the streets . . . don’t take violence” when confronted with criticism of Islam in Awad’s alternative reality. That “Muslims are inherently violent” is merely “bigoted” and a “myth that unfortunately is predominant, especially in Western media.”

On January 14, Sahar Alsahlani from CAIR’s New York chapter claimed in an interview that “violence against a non-aggressor is completely against our religious principles” without specifying Islam’s often broad definition of aggression. Alsahlani reiterated the incomplete CAIR view of a Muhammad who always “chose to walk away” from insult. Muslims, one fifth of humanity, appeared in her optimistic view as “active, productive members of society,” violence and crises afflicting Muslim countries notwithstanding.

“Any attack on any religious figure offends me,” Alsahlani meanwhile said of Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, or others, while not explaining the mutually contradictory understanding of these individuals in various faiths. “Any act of slander is unacceptable to me,” she added absent any indication of how Charlie Hebdo or others had defamed Muhammad. With “freedom of speech comes great responsibility,” Alsahlani intoned. “The media has the responsibility to bring people together and to inform people,” she asserted as if media members had to forswear partisanship and knowledge always increased harmony. Sarwat Husain of CAIR-San Antonio likewise stated on January 15 that “even with the First Amendment, there are certain lines which you should not cross” and rejected “that you should make your life out of poking fun on others,” satire’s basic raison d’être.

CAIR therefore demonstrates that law and a societal cajoling can supply “soft power” jihad where “hard power” lethal methods are inopportune. Indeed, “moderate” CAIR’s warnings of violence can operate in tandem with “radical” terrorists in a previously noted “good cop/bad cop” routine demanding submission. Faced with such stealth jihad, freedom’s battles demand not just bullets, but the brain as well.

CAIR Mourns Charlie Hebdo, Yet Advocates Censorship

Cair posterAmerican Thinker, By Andrew E. Harrod, Jan. 25, 2015

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas-derived “civil rights” group, “repeated its defense of freedom of speech” in a baffling January 7 press release that “condemned” the Paris jihadist Charlie Hebdo massacre. A trip down a bad memory lane, though, is necessary in order to evaluate critically CAIR’s commitment to free speech rights with proverbial grains of salt equivalent to the Dead Sea’s renowned salinity.

CAIR, an unindicted terrorism coconspirator, and “defense of freedom of speech” simply do not match. CAIR, for example, has unsuccessfully tried to stop critical commentary on Islam in an American public library and school. CAIR has also harassed a Michigan individual who opposed a mosque construction with frivolous subpoenas, ultimately quashed. One 2012 article on the CAIR-Chicago affiliate website discussed how the First Amendment has “been manipulated to make America the catalyst for unjust hate.”

Nihad Awad

Nihad Awad

Accordingly, CAIR executive director Nihad Awad sounded an uncertain free speech trumpet when presenting the press release that noted Charlie Hebdo’s “derogatory references to Islam and its Prophet Muhammad.” Awad equated “extremists of all backgrounds who seek to stifle freedom and to create or widen societal divisions,” placing thereby Charlie Hebdo’s victims on a level with their murderers. Similar analysis had appeared in a 2006 CAIR press release concerning the Danish cartoons, even as CAIR, the 2015 press release recalled, “rejected the sometimes violent response to Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad.”

“We all value freedom of expression,” Awad had written to the Danish ambassador in 2006. “But we should also use good judgment and common sense to avoid actions” that are “intentionally insulting” or “promote hatred.” Awad proposed CAIR “as a bridge between the Muslim community worldwide and the government of Denmark” in “offering proactive educational measures.” CAIR could therefore exploit the affair to present Islam in a positive manner and effectively proselytize.

At the same time, Parvez Ahmed, CAIR’s then chairman and a Hamas/Hezbollah apologist who had also extended a speaking invitation to a neo-Nazi while leading CAIR’s Florida chapter, expressed support for blasphemy laws. Ahmed wrote on his website that a “connection between terrorism and a venerated religious figure such as Prophet Muhammad transgresses all bounds of decency.” “Free speech, like every other freedom, comes with responsibility,” Ahmed intoned, and the “affair was avoidable had all sides approached the issue wisely.” Ahmed demanded the “same zero tolerance for Islamophobia as… anti-Semitism” while painting dark scenarios of speech inciting violence. He feared “plunging the world into the abyss of a clash between civilizations.”

Ahmed Rehab, CAIR-Chicago’s director and a similar Hamas and Nazi apologist, also discussed “racism targeting Muslims” during a 2008 radio interview on republishing the Danish cartoons. “The majority of Muslims are both against the cartoons and, of course, against death threats,” was Rehab’s immoral equivalence. America does not have “absolute freedom of speech” allowing pornography on daytime television, for example, but a “responsible tradition of free speech.”

The Danish cartoons were a “red flag” for Rehab who, like Ahmed, falsely analogized criticizing Islam to anti-Semitic prejudice. “Long before there was any indication of gas chambers,” European Jews confronted bigoted “freedom of expression.”  The “demonization of a particular faith community or race-based community,” Rehab hyperbolically warned, can incite “further violence against that group or… discrimination.” “Just because one has a right” to speak, Rehab added online in 2010, “does not make it the right thing to do” under a “standard of decency.”

The strategies of CAIR et al. to equate criticism of Islamic ideas with prejudice against individuals and warn of non-Muslim speech inciting Muslim violence have not been without effect. President Barack Obama condemned the Charlie Hebdo assault as an “attack on our free press,” but in 2012 an Obama spokesperson had doubted the magazine’s “judgment” in publishing Muhammad cartoons. Days later Obama infamously declared before the United Nations General Assembly that “future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s fifty-seven member states, meanwhile, have advocated for years legal suppression of “Islamophobia” as a “crime against humanity” resembling anti-Semitism. Countries like Denmark have obliged with hate speech prosecutions against Islam’s critics, something not protested by CAIR. Private news organizations also often refrain from showing cartoons offensive to Muslims, while showing no such scruples towards Christians.

Under CAIR’s standards, individuals touching the third religious rail of Islam might escape with their lives, but not their liberty. If social ostracism does not suffice to silence those irreverent towards Islam, groups like CAIR will not refrain from seeking where possible legal instruments of censorship. While trying to talk a good talk on liberty, CAIR’s past shows all too clearly where it is heading.

Bill O’Reilly Gets It In Segment One, Then Shows His Ignorance In Segment Two

Walid Shoebat, Jan 9, 2015:

Bill O’Reilly hit the nail on the head in his opening monologue this evening, it was like as if he was reading our blog. Here is the opening monologue:

 

Then in his very next segment he invited on two stooges from the Council for Islamic Relations (CAIR) Hassam Ayloush and Haris Tarin of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

Towards the end of the segment the CAIR stooge Hassam Ayloush justifies his position by criticizing the USA for “supporting the military coup in Egypt” that in itself was inaccurate, as we all know Obama did the opposite, I digress, but Bill interrupts then challenges Ayloush about going “against the Muslim brotherhood?” Bill sadly shows how uninformed he is on CAIR and MPAC as we have, as have many other counter Jihad experts exposed both CAIR and MPAC as strongly connected with the Muslim Brotherhood. Click here for proof on CAIR and proof that MPAC was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood So how can Bill expect leading members of the Muslim Brotherhood attack their own people as “murderers,” this is beyond naive.

 

This is the main problem with all the main stream media, in that they really do not do their homework and they still have the element of political correctness that cannot get to the whole truth to properly inform the American public.

Bill seems to have come along way in his understanding of the problem of Islam but when he invites members of the Muslim Brotherhood on his show and then condemns the Muslim Brotherhood to their face on air not realizing that they are Muslim Brotherhood, shows a level of ignorance that is sad and dangerous to eventually solving the problem of getting educated as to the realities of the apparent “moderate” Muslims who are actually more dangerous than the terrorists doing the killing as they undermine our defenses. The whole purpose of CAIR and MPAC is to tickle our ears and dumb down our thinking and finesse the real dangers we face. Bill knew they were BS-ing him, but he did not know that the organizations these people represent are the very people he unknowingly attacked.

Learn more about the stealth Jihad and the Muslim double talk and acquire the book the Case For Islamophobia, click here

U.S. Muslim group silent on key reason for attack

Police on the scene of the terrorist attack in Paris, France, Wednesday, Jan. 7.

Police on the scene of the terrorist attack in Paris, France, Wednesday, Jan. 7.

WND, By LEO HOHMANN, Jan. 7, 2015:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned Wednesday’s deadly terrorist attack at the offices of a Paris newspaper as “barbaric” and deserving of punishment “to the fullest extent of the law.”

CAIR immediately issued a press release offering its condemnation of the execution-style killing of 10 journalists and two police officers. CAIR’s statement also “repeated its defense of freedom of speech … even speech that mocks faiths and religious figures.”

But the Muslim apologist organization’s statement made no mention of Islamic blasphemy laws, which carry the death penalty as standard punishment for mocking Islam and its prophet, Muhammad. This is the “sin” to which the newspaper cartoonists were guilty. Their office had been firebombed in 2011 and they reportedly received multiple threats from Islamists who warned them to stop blaspheming the Islamic prophet.

WND called CAIR’s director of communications, Ibrahim Hooper, to seek clarification and ask him if his organization would condemn not only the attack but the Islamic blasphemy laws that inspired it. Hooper refused to answer any questions from WND.

“You’re from WorldNetDaily? You’re a hate group. We don’t talk to hate groups,” Hooper said before hanging up the telephone.

CAIR, which is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, has a close relationship with the Obama administration and acts as the self-appointed voice of American Muslims.

Dr. Andrew Bostom, author of “Sharia Versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism,” said it is the blasphemy laws that inspire violent attacks like the one carried out against Charlie Hebdo, a newspaper known for its satirical cartoons. He said even some of the most “moderate” Islamic clerics, such as the Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri, leader of Iran’s Green movement until his death in December 2009, issued statements that the appropriate punishment for unrepentant blaspheming of Muhammad is death.

As Bostom documented in his book, Montazeri even encouraged vigilante punishment for blasphemers:

“Montazeri also adhered — quite rigorously — to the traditionalist Shiite dogma regarding the offense of ‘sabb,’ or blasphemy, even sanctioning vigilante lethal punishment. He stated, ‘In cases of sabb al-Nabi [blasphemy against a prophet, in particular Islam’s prophet, Muhammad]…if the witness does not have fear of his or her life and also there is no fear of mischief [mafsadeh] it is obligatory for him or her to kill the insulter.”

That was the inspiration behind the killers who burst into the newsroom of Charlie Hebdo Wednesday morning and killed the cartoonists, designers and the chief editor of the newspaper as they yelled “Allahu Akbar,” clearly audible on videos captured of the attack. The terrorists were also overheard saying, “We avenged the prophet Muhammad.”

“This is the Islamic blasphemy law in action,” Bostom said. “Is CAIR saying the late Ayatollah Montazeri was wrong? Was Ayatollah Khomeini wrong in issuing his fatwa against Salman Rushie (who authored ‘The Satanic Verses’)? Is the whole body of Islamic jurisprudence wrong? Are they saying Islamic law does not sanction the killing of Islamic blasphemers?”

Bostom said his research shows that death for non-Muslim blasphemers like Charlie Hebdo is condoned across the Muslim world by both Shiite and Sunni schools of jurisprudence.

“And this whole body of jurisprudence on how to deal with non-Muslims who defiantly lampoon Muhammad is now wrong in the eyes of CAIR?” Bostom asks. “They’re all wrong and CAIR is going to condemn them and the Shariah?”

So while CAIR condemned the brazen attack in Paris, the organization stops short of condemning the legal basis for the attack under Islamic law, Bostom said.

President Obama also condemned the attack and labeled it an act of terrorism in a carefully worded statement that avoided the phrase “Islamic terrorism.”

Back in 2012, White House spokesman Jay Carney criticized Charlie Hebdo for publishing cartoons depicting Muhammed in unflattering ways.

“[W]e have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this. We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory. But we’ve spoken repeatedly about the importance of upholding the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our Constitution,” Carney said.

“In other words, we don’t question the right of something like this to be published; we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it,” he continued.

The White House has developed warm relations with CAIR, an organization whose founders have documented links to the Muslim Brotherhood and the funding of international Islamic terrorism. CAIR, along with the Islamic Society of North America or ISNA remain unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorism funding trial on U.S. soil involving the Holy Land Foundation. After Obama took office the indictments against CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmed, already prepared, were dropped by Attorney General Eric Holder.

Message to Western media

Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and author of two  New York Times-best-selling books about radical Islam, said Wednesday’s attack was meant to send a strong message.

“Yes it shows they don’t have any fear of Western authority at all, they carried it out in the middle of the street in France’s largest city,” Spencer said. “Worse yet, I expect this is going to be the precept for calling for restraints on freedom of speech.”

Spencer said a Canadian official immediately appeared on Sun TV Wednesday morning saying it is important to protect freedom of speech but just as important to be mindful of the sensitivities of religious minorities.

“So he wants to end the freedom of speech where they, the Islamic extremists, want it to end, and that’s a serious attempt to rein in our freedom and bring in Shariah blasphemy laws,” Spencer said. “I expect we’re going to see more of that.”

Rallies have been taking place across Europe in support of Charlie Hebdo and free speech. Many held banners saying “I am Charlie.”

“These latest shootings may be the work of ‘lone wolves’ but their consequences will ripple across Europe and provoke much soul-searching about the failure of integration over the past decades,” wrote Carolyn Wyatt of the BBC.  “Immigrant communities are already being viewed with increasing suspicion in both France and Germany, with their significant Muslim populations, and even in the UK.”

France has Europe’s largest Muslim population at 7.5 percent while Germany and the UK have Muslim populations estimated at 4 to 5 percent. In the United States, Muslims comprise about 2 percent of the population but that demographic is growing at a rate faster than at any point in U.S. history due to the U.S. State Department’s refugee resettlement program. Nearly 2 million refugees from Muslim countries have been resettled in cities across the U.S. since 1992.

Walid Phares, a Lebanese-born professor of Middle Eastern studies at Florida Atlantic University and expert on global terrorism, told Fox News that he is concerned about “copycat” attacks in other Western cities.

“To have a military style attack penetrating a building is something new, the world has crossed a new benchmark,” Phares said. “There are no lone wolves. All have some connection to terrorism. This is not a lone wolf. This is a military cell inside France. The whole free world has seen now what is ahead of us…because we have not actually addressed the ideology and the radicalization. What we have are dozens, even hundreds, within our society that are determined to attack our free press. It’s very serious.”

Spencer said that while imams in Europe and the United States will aggressively repudiate violent jihadist attacks like the one carried out Wednesday, these repudiations rarely translate into clear teaching at the level of the local mosque.

“These imams that condemn these terror attacks are all very well and good, but nowhere can we find a mosque that has a program in place to teach its members why they should reject jihadist attacks,” Spencer said. “They’re telling us what we want to hear but it undercuts the value of their statements to us because it’s just a matter of appeasing or placating the sensibilities of Westerners but not really teaching their people to reject jihad.”

Perhaps this is why a ground-breaking scientific poll conducted in 2012 by the public-opinion research company Wenzel Strategies found some alarming attitudes among American Muslims with regard to their tolerance levels for free speech, especially when that speech is critical of their prophet.

The poll, published by WND, found 40 percent of Muslims in America believe they should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Shariah standards.

An astonishing 46 percent of those surveyed said they believe those Americans who offer criticism or parodies of Islam should face criminal charges, said pollster Fritz Wenzel in an analysis of the survey’s results.

“Even more shocking: One in eight respondents said they think those Americans who criticize or parody Islam should face the death penalty, while another 9 percent said they were unsure on the question,” he said.

“That’s 11.5 percent who said they want to kill people. And over 50 percent had already decided that freedom of speech was not for them in America,” Bostom said. “My feeling is that 50 percent should go, then, if they are not happy with those fundamentals of American society. That’s why Geert Wilders (founder of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands) is saying we can’t have any more immigration when their belief system is so antithetical to ours. The bottom line is, you cannot have people integrated into your society who think this way, and to me it’s not just the ones who brazenly admit they want to kill you, it’s also those who want to denigrate your legal system gradually until it is like Egypt’s.”

Spencer said the response of the Western media should be one of support for Charlie Hebdo, even if all media don’t agree with the newspaper’s lampoons of Islam.

“Our response should be to say this is the time above all to stand for the freedom of speech as it is the bulwark against tyranny in any free society, and to say we should adopt Islamic laws to dampen that freedom in any way would be the worst possible reaction,” Spencer said. “It would only invite more attacks.

“In fact every newspaper in the world should be reprinting those cartoons that Charlie Hebdo printed,” he said.

Bostom agrees that the worst possible response would be for Western media to appease the terrorists by beginning to self-regulate or self-police themselves.

“The response from American media is very simple: as many cartoons as possible,” he said. “Many are stupid, but it’s hardly the grounds for murder, so they should publish them all in solidarity, otherwise they’re kowtowing to Islamic law.”

Also see:

Rise of a Brotherhood Organizer: Deportation, Exile, and Return

1095743147Center for Security Policy, Jan. 7, 2015:

This piece continues the Center’s focus on the expanding role of the USCMO (United States Council of Muslim Organizations), the first political party in the U.S. to be openly affiliated with the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood. The emergence in 2014 of Sabri Samirah, a Jordanian banned from entry to the U.S. since 2003, but allowed back in eleven years later, as a key leadership figure and political organizer within the USCMO, marks an important stage in the Brotherhood’s “settlement process” as it seeks to expand its influence in American politics. The story of his rise through the ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood and into the U.S. political scene follows.

Prior to his 2003 deportation from the United States, Samirah served as President of the United Muslim Americans Association (UMAA) from 1999 to 2003. Interestingly, and illustrative of the overlapping leadership typical of the Brotherhood’s U.S. network of organizations, the UMAA just happened to share office space with the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) in Palos Hills, Illinois. In a letter dated 1 November 2000, Samirah, President of the UMAA, wrote to Rafeeq Jaber, President of the Islamic Association for Palestine and Secretary General of the UMAA Board of Trustees, to tell him that “The IAP, and all of its workers, and supporters are carrying a mission of central importance in the faith, civilization, history, and future of Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians in America and around the globe.” In addition to his UMAA presidency, Samirah simultaneously also had worked with Jaber and was Chairman of the IAP.

In Samirah’s capacity as a Muslim Brotherhood leader working for IAP and UMAA in the United States, it is essential to understand the connections between IAP and HAMAS and the Muslim Brotherhood nexuses for individuals who still hold positions of leadership today in the U.S.

In 1981, HAMAS operative Mousa Abu Marzook established the Islamic Association for Palestine, in part to create for HAMAS a U.S. organization that would be able to deny any links to HAMAS. On 8 October 1987, the United States Department of State (US DoS) designated HAMAS as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). The IAP later would be parent to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which was incorporated in 1994 by IAP leadership Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jaber.

Per the US DoS, Foreign Terrorist Organizations are “designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).  FTO designations play a critical role in the fight against terrorism and are an effective means of curtailing support for terrorist activities.”

Under Section 219 of the INA as amended, the Legal Criteria for Designation of a FTO are as follows:

  1. It must be a foreign organization.
  2. The organization must engage in terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C.  § 1182(a)(3)(B)), or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C.  § 2656f(d)(2)), or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.
  3. The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.

As shown by court documents, the IAP was a prong of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, until the U.S. government froze IAP’s assets and shut it down in December 2004 on grounds that it was funding terrorism. The IAP was named as one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s twenty-nine likeminded “organizations of our friends” in the May 1991 Muslim Brotherhooddocument “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”

Read more

Pat Condell: Islam in the workplace

Published on Jan 6, 2015 by Pat Condell

Why is the UK Muslim unemployment rate so high? Take a guess.

***

Useful Resource for employers: