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

Center Releases Dossier Documenting a House Intelligence Committee Member’s Extensive Ties To The Muslim Brotherhood

1321506977Center for Security Policy, Feb. 24, 2015:

(Washington, D.C.): House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently appointed Rep. André Carson (D-IN) to a coveted position on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.  This panel is charged with oversight of the United States’ most sensitive national intelligence capabilities and operations.  These include any directed at Islamic supremacists seeking to impose worldwide – through violent and, where necessary, through stealthy forms of jihad – the totalitarian program they call shariah.

Preeminent among the practitioners of this jihadist agenda is the Muslim Brotherhood.  In fact, according to evidence introduced by the U.S. government into the Holy Land Foundation trial in 2008, the Brotherhood’s self-declared mission in America is: “a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands [i.e., those of non-Muslims] and those of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” (From the 1991 Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, Government Exhibit 003-0085, 3:04-CR-240-G.)

It is, therefore, problematic and potentially detrimental to the national security that Rep. Carson has extensive and longstanding ties to organizations and individuals associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.  As established in a dossier and video released today by the Center for Security Policy, the Indiana congressman has an extensive record of involvement with, support of and support from a virtual Who’s Who of Brotherhood front organizations in America and leading figures in the jihad movement in this country.  The dossier makes it clear that, as a group, they have “a documented history of serving as unregistered foreign agents, engaging in material support for terrorism and possessing direct ties to the Brotherhood’s Palestinian franchise, Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.”

Among those with whom Rep. Carson has been involved as a guest speaker, panelist, fundraiser, recipient of funds, etc., are: the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and a number of its chapters across the country; the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA); the Muslim American Society (MAS); and the Brotherhood’s new proto-political party, the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO).

The Carson Dossier warns:

The fact that Rep. Carson’s association with these organizations has persisted even after he has had every opportunity – as well as a responsibility – to know the threat they pose to U.S. national security displays, at the very best, a grave lack of judgment that is incompatible with service on the HPSCI.

In addition, the prospect that the nation’s most highly-classified information could fall into Muslim Brotherhood hands – whether purposefully or by accident – by way of a HPSCI member who associates on a regular, friendly and ongoing basis with its operatives is a grave one.  It merits a rigorous counter-intelligence assessment of the potential risks associated with Rep. Carson’s vulnerabilities to recruitment, blackmail or other suborning.

Center President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. unveiled the Carson Dossier in the course of a presentation about the Muslim Brotherhood, its civilization jihad and its success in advancing its stated mission of “destroying Western civilization from within” before the National Religious Broadcasters today. Mr. Gaffney observed:

Given the Muslim Brotherhood’s unalterable commitment to Islamic supremacism, the imposition of shariah worldwide and the establishment of a caliphate to rule globally in accordance with that totalitarian program – in place of our constitutional republic and all other forms of government, what the Obama administration is doing is bad enough.  Its serial efforts to engage, legitimate, fund, arm and otherwise empower the Brotherhood overseas and to rely upon the Brothers’ domestic front organizations as representatives of and outreach vehicles to the Muslim community in this country are intensifying the dangers we face from the Global Jihad Movement.

It is wholly unacceptable to have as a member of a key congressional committee charged with overseeing U.S. intelligence and counterintelligence an individual with extensive personal and political associations with the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihadist infrastructure in America.  At a minimum, Rep. Andre Carson’s presence on the House Intelligence Committee will necessitate restrictions on his access to classified information about the presence and operations in this country of what amounts to a subversive Islamist Fifth Column and his participation in the panel’s deliberations concerning how it can best be countered.

Since there are, at the moment, few topics more in need of assiduous oversight by the Congress – even if there were no actual risk of compromise of national security secrets or Muslim Brotherhood influence operations associated with Rep. Carson’s presence on the , the potential impediment he may constitute to such work demands his removal from this panel.

The Center for Security Policy recently released a Secure Freedom Strategy a comprehensive strategy to defeat the Global Jihad Movement.  The Secure Freedom Strategy is adapted from the one employed by President Reagan to defeat the last totalitarian ideology that sought our destruction (Soviet communism).  As formalized in the President’s National Security Decision Directive 75, this plan successfully brought to bear all instruments of national power, a template for victory that stands in stark contrast to President Obama’s hapless draft Authorization for the Use of Military Force against the Islamic State.

Threat Watch: ‘Countering Extremism” with extremists

 

CSP, by Kyle Shideler, Feb. 19, 2015:

On February 18th, President Obama convened an international “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Summit” at the White House. While being touted as a “new program,” in fact the Summit is a doubling down on a failed program based on a flawed concept.

Unfortunately, the local partners that have been chosen in each of three “model cities,” have time and time again shown to be groups who themselves are responsible for indoctrinating young Muslims to join terror groups.

President Obama: “We are not at war with Islam” – but is Radical Islam at War with Us?

ISIS Foreign Fighters Source: ADL

ISIS Foreign Fighters Source: ADL

NER, by Jerry Gordon, Feb. 19, 2015:

On Wednesday, February 18, 2014 at a White House Summit, President Obama presented his views on countering “violent extremism”.  He suggested that Islamic terrorists misappropriate Islamic doctrine, exploit disaffected youths in communities across the US and globally throughout the Ummah- the community of Muslim believers. He suggested that youths prone to radicalization outside the US may be victimized by poverty, without job opportunities and oppressed by corrupt regimes. Countering violent extremism he suggests is a multi-pronged approach involving economic programs, political reform and community involvement to halt radicalization. His focus in the US was on creating community partnerships and pilot projects in several American cities, endeavoring to integrate Muslims in America, preserving and protecting their civil rights under our constitution against untoward surveillance. The President gathered Muslim and other religious clerics from the US and abroad, community leaders, law enforcement, homeland security officials, and high tech entrepreneurs seeking means of stopping radicalization of youths. Youths  attracted by the ‘successes’ of  the Islamic State blasted around the world via the internet,  tens of thousands of tweets, high production videos and on-line webzines in a number of languages including English.

Watch this C-Span video excerpt of the President’s remarks at the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism:

Nowhere in his remarks , did  the President explain what the Islamic doctrine is that has attracted tens of thousands of foreign fighters, Americans  among them,  to be recruited to the cause of this self-styled Caliphate, the Islamic State (IS).  What he has called ISIL, the Islam State in the Levant (ISIL) is a reference to the broad geographic area that stretches from the Mediterranean coast of Israel to the shore of the Persian Gulf encompassing the Arabian Peninsula.   Those ‘successes’ include videos of the savagery perpetrated against the hated Kuffars, Infidels, including Christians, Jews, ancient religious minorities and apostate Muslims.  Those videos show barbaric beheadings, burnings, crucifixions, mass shootings and enslavement.   The President mentioned recent incidents in Paris, Copenhagen, Ottawa and Sydney of attacks on victims without naming the victims; leftists, free thinkers, Christians and Jews. Neither did he identify the perpetrators.  He used the unfortunate murder of three Muslims in North Carolina by an alleged atheist insinuating that it may have been a hate crime equivalent to Antisemitism.  Interestingly, 60 percent of FBI hate crimes reported involve Antisemitic acts, such as vandalism spray painted on garage doors in Madison, Wisconsin last weekend.  Less than 12 percent of such FBI reports involve hate crimes against Muslims.   Coincidentally, the ADL, which the White House invited to the Summit, released a report,   Homegrown Islamic Extremism in 2014, identifying American Muslims involved in perpetrating violent hate crimes and others arrested in the process of leaving to join IS.

February 18th coincided with Ash Wednesday in the Christian calendar signifying the onset of the 40 days of Lent.  The ashes of burned palm fronds dobbed on the foreheads of professing Christians as an emblem of penitence reflects the biblical injunction about the fragility of life   as stated in   Genesis: 3:19: “For dust you are and to dust you shall return.”   Notice of recent atrocities committed against Christians by IS was reflected in remarks of Pope Francis in Rome and Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington.  Pope Francis remarked   about the by masked IS followers on the shores  of Libya beheading of 21 Coptic Christians communicating a message to all Nations of the Cross that conquest of Rome could follow, “ they are Christians, the  blood of our brothers and sisters cries out.” Following the slaughter of Christians in Libya IS perpetrated in Iraq, a barbaric burning alive of 45 Kurdish captives held in cages.

Just prior to the mid-February White House Summit, The Atlantic Magazine published an article by Graeme Wood, What ISIS Really Wants.  The subtext capsules the arguments propounded   by Wood:

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam in an email exchange with this writer after reading the Wood Atlantic article commented, “This is a jump in level. First, [Bill] Mahr and now this. The lib/progressive clue phone is ringing.”  Russian historian at Connecticut Central State University, Professor Jay Bergman, wrote, “I read it.  Superb.  The [President] should read it.  But of course…he won’t.”

According to Wood, IS bases all of its power and authority on a strict adherence to a Salafi literal interpretation of Islam and Sharia law, with almost a total focus on the doctrine of Tawhid.  Tawhid calls for strict adherence to the laws of Allah as revealed by the Prophet Mohammed. Further that  all man-made laws and systems must be rejected.  IS considers, any Muslim who  doesn’t adhere  to the doctrine of  Tawhid , an infidel, including “core Al Qaeda” and other Salafists who object to IS public displays  of savagery.

Wood reveals the Tawhid doctrine of IS citing spokesman Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Adnani and   Western experts like Professor Bernard Heykal at Princeton.  Wood interviewed proponents of these same Salafist Jihadist views exemplified by “prophetic methodology” of the exemplar Mohammed, Allah’s messenger.  Among  leading Salafists in the west  interviewed  by  Wood  is Sheik Anjem Choudary in the UK, a subject of monitoring by Mi-5 for his radical views.  Wood’s interview with Australian radical Muslim preacher and IS recruiter Musa Cerantonio, reveals the apocalyptic end time vision espoused by Salafists.   Wood explains how doctrine IS is faithful  to foundational  Islam anchored in Sharia and Islamic legal rulings, frequently citing them in conduct of its feats of savage barbarity. He also notes how  the leaders of the Islamic State, considers the leaders of  the Muslim Brotherhood , Al Qaeda and even other Salafists  as takfir, apostates, subject to death  fatwas.

Read more

Just Who Has to Adjust in the Name of Tolerance?

by Phyllis Chesler
Special to IPT News
February 19, 2015

971Brookings Institution Center for Middle East Policy Fellow Shadi Hamid recently criticized the West as “illiberal” for refusing to accept the fact that Muslims, both in the West and globally, aredifferent from Westerners.

It was an unusual argument, one for which The Atlantic devoted 3,400 words.

Although President Obama insists that the “fight against terrorism is not a religious war,” Hamid seems to disagree with him.

According to a variety of polls, Hamid is right. For example, while a 2009 Gallup poll shows European Muslims overwhelmingly reject violence, they are far more religious than those who live in secular Europe (France, England, and Germany), and are more strongly opposed to homosexuality than are secular Europeans. In addition, young, second or third generation European Muslim men favor veiling for women, polygamy, the execution of apostates, and favor prohibiting Muslim women from marrying non-Muslim men.

Muslims are more likely to view “blasphemy as unacceptable,” Hamid wrote. He described Muslims as “deeply conservative” and, to varying extents, wanting “the application of Islamic law.”

The liberal West believes in criticizing everything, especially religion, beginning with Judaism and Christianity. Extending this right-to-criticize, satirize, or examine Islam has led to major Muslim meltdowns.

Creative and scholarly exposures of Islam’s history and practices amount to shaming and therefore are impermissible, especially when infidels are doing the exposing.Lawsuits, assassination attempts, lynch mobs, and political murders have been the radical Muslim response to books, films, lectures, and cartoons that detail Islamic gender and religious apartheid.

Documentation of normalized daughter-and wife-beating, child marriage, forced veiling, forced marriage of adults, polygamy, pedophilia, FGM, and honor killing has led to cries of “Islamophobia” and “blasphemy.”

In a recent conversation, Israeli Arabist and counter-terrorism expert, Mordechai Kedar said: “Why would anyone get so outraged by a cartoon unless they believe that the cartoon is telling the truth? They are angry because it is the truth.”

According to a 2006 Pew poll, 79 percent of French Muslims blamed the 2005 cartoon controversy on Western nations’ “disrespect for the Islamic religion.” The general population blamed “Muslims’ intolerance.”

This is completely foreign to the West’s post-Enlightenment culture. Many Muslims are very clear on this point.

Hamid writes that French Muslims are “more likely to believe that attacks on the Prophet Mohammed and the Quran should be criminalized as hate speech and incitement, much like denial of the Holocaust is.”

This is a shocking but familiar false equation. Jew-haters and Islamists minimize, disbelieve, but deeply envy the Jews as victims of the Holocaust. But they covet the reverence for sacred victim status that they believe Jews have—ostensibly via trickery. Islamists invented the false allegation of “Islamophobia,” positioned the Palestinians as the “new Jews,” and appointed the Jewish Israelis as the “new Nazis.”

Unfortunately, many Europeans signed onto this lethal narrative in the hope that doing so would appease their hostile, unassimilated Muslim citizens. Also, latent European anti-Semitism happily found a new outlet in anti-Zionism, which is the new anti-Semitism.

Are Muslims being falsely accused and even persecuted? Can one even ask this question in an era when Muslim-on-Muslim, Muslim-on-infidel, and Muslim male-on-female barbarism is borderless, boundary-less, and beyond surreal?

Nevertheless, the false concept of Islamophobia – often defensively raised when the discussion focuses on radical Islamic ideology – has become equal to real concepts such as homophobia, sexism, and anti-Semitism. Despite FBI verification that hate crimes against Jews are far greater than those against Muslims, Muslims continue to insist that they are being racially and religiously targeted.

Islamophobia is worse than anti-Semitism, according to Hatem Bazien, the founder of Students for Justice in Palestine and the director of Berkeley’s Center for Race and Gender, in a 2011 report co-sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Bazian concluded that, on a scale from 1 (best situation for Muslims) to 10 (worst possible situation for Muslims), “Islamophobia” in America stands at 6.4. One does not know how to greet such brazen foolishness.

Globally, Islamists demand that the West, which has separated religion and state brilliantly, accept and accommodate an aggressive and entitled theocratic state—not only abroad but in its midst.

In Hamid’s view, real “moral courage” in France would consist of a “major political party” calling for “a rethinking of laïcité [secularism], and for the broadening, rather than the narrowing, [of] French national identity.”

Challenging the “tolerant” West to accommodate an intolerant Islam is the tried-and-true Islamist method of hoisting the West by its own petard. Sophisticated Islamists are trying to use post-Enlightenment laws to achieve the right to practice pre-medieval and barbaric customs. Western political leaders and the intelligentsia are flirting with cultural suicide and siding with barbarism over civilization.

Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and the author of 15 books, including The New Anti-Semitism and An American Bride in Kabul. She is a Fellow at the Middle East Forum, writes regularly for Israel National News and Breitbart, and is the author of three pioneering studies about honor killings.

Hamas On Campus

Published on Sep 30, 2014 by Hamas On Campus

The Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) is Hamas on Campus. An organization dedicated to wiping Israel off the map.

Al-Arian Saves One Last Lie for the Road

IPT News
February 5, 2015

906Sami Al-Arian boarded a commercial flight late Wednesday night from Washington Dulles International Airport to Turkey, ending a 20-year con in which he posed as a mere academic and advocate for Palestinian nationalism. In reality, he was a board member in a terrorist organization who lied to his supporters about his true identity over and over again.

As early as 1994, he denied any connection with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) during an interview with Steven Emerson, now the Investigative Project on Terrorism’s executive director. It was a story he clung to until 2006, when he pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide goods and services to the terrorist group. But even then, he never acknowledged his leadership role or his commitment to violent jihad that was captured on video and documents seized by federal investigators.

True to form, he issued one last statement before his deportation – a condition of that 2006 guilty plea – in which he cast himself as a victim of political persecution who did nothing more than espouse unpopular views.

“Today,” he wrote, “freedom of expression has become a defining feature in the struggle to realize our humanity and liberty. The forces of intolerance, hegemony, and exclusionary politics tend to favor the stifling of free speech and the suppression of dissent. But nothing is more dangerous than when such suppression is perpetrated and sanctioned by government.”

That heartfelt farewell message failed to mention the PIJ, or his role as the secretary of its Majlis Shura, or board of directors. FBI intercepts show that he spent most of 1994 fighting with officials in Iran to keep the PIJ intact, in order for it to kill more people.

It’s no wonder U.S. District Judge James Moody, who presided over Al-Arian’s 2005 criminal trial, called him a “master manipulator” during a 2006 sentencing hearing.

“The evidence was clear in this case that you were a leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. You were on the board of directors and an officer, the secretary. Directors control the action of an organization, even the PIJ; and you were an active leader.”

Still, social media lit up with expressions of outrage over his case and sadness over his departure from the United States.

Al-Arian’s supporters embrace and adhere to a narrative of victimization. It’s a festival of ignorance, driven by a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the words that came out of his own mouth or were written by his own hand.

He was a well-regarded computer science professor at the University of South Florida. But he also took over a mosque in Tampa and named it for Ezzedin al-Qassam, the founding martyr of violent Palestinian nationalism. He created a charity and think tank that included three other PIJ Shura members.

During a 1991 fundraiser in Cleveland, Al-Arian sits passively as the local imam, Fawaz Damra, introduces him as the head of “the active arm of the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine,” which is called the Islamic Committee for Palestine in the United States “for security reasons.”

Al-Arian later claimed, and supporters easily accepted, that he later took Damra aside to correct that representation. But in his remarks that day, Al-Arian hailed the Islamic Jihad as the spark which triggered the Palestinian uprising in the 1980s. It started, he said, when PIJ operatives escaped from an Israeli jail.

“God, praise and glory be to Him, commands us to fight and commands us to jihad, because there is honor in it and because there is victory for Islam and victory for right over tyranny.”

In that same appearance, he urged protests against the United States over the Persian Gulf crisis and urged “Let us damn America. Let us damn Israel. Let us damn their allies until death.”

Damra, later convicted of naturalization fraud and deported for concealing his own links to PIJ and other terror associations, took the microphone back, urging donations “[f]or Islamic Jihad, I say it frankly: for Islamic Jihad … And whoever wants to write a check, he can write it in the name of the Islamic Committee for Palestine, “ICP” for short.

At a rally in Chicago five months later, Al-Arian again praised the PIJ role in sparking the Palestinian Intifada, and made clear where he thought it should lead.

These statements cannot be reconciled against Al-Arian’s long and well-crafted image as a peaceful advocate for Palestinians. The only recourse for supporters, then, is to pretend they do not exist.

That’s how The Intercept‘s Glenn Greenwald and Maz Hussain could describe Al-Arianas the victim of a “decade-long campaign of government persecution in which Al-Arian was systematically denied his freedom and saw his personal and professional life effectively destroyed.” It’s how the Muslim Legal Fund for America could say he was the victim of government persecution solely for “First Amendment activities advocating for Palestinian human rights.”

It’s how the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) could justify honoring Al-Arian and his family with a “Promoting Justice” award in November.

One of the foundations for the “persecution” claim was the mix of acquittals and hung-jury counts in Al-Arian’s 2005 trial. His plea agreement is cast as a way to spare his family further anguish. But in it, Al-Arian admits that he “performed services for the PIJ in 1995 [when an executive order made such support illegal] and thereafter.”

In addition, a similar case involving Hamas-support by a Texas-based charity with a similar original outcome ended with sweeping convictions following a retrial.

The verdict does not make the documents and statements showing overt PIJ support disappear. A key document Al-Arian and his supporters would like to wish away is thePalestinian Islamic Jihad’s bylaws. While Hamas openly published its charter shortly after its foundation, Israeli officials did not know PIJ had a similar document until federal agents seized it from Al-Arian in 1995.

Among the “political constants” defined in the document: “The rejection of any peaceful solution for the Palestinian Cause, and the affirmation of the jihad solution and the martyrdom style as the only option for liberation.” Its goals are quite clear.

Fax communication intercepted by the FBI showed Al-Arian was a PIJ board member. He stood for this. Until he acknowledges this reality, there is no reason to believe his views have moderated.

He hadn’t changed in 1995, when he hand-wrote a letter to a Kuwaiti official invoking a double suicide bombing to “try to extend true support for the jihad effort in Palestine so that operations such as these can continue.”

“Preserving the spirit and flame of jihad against the enemy is a general Islamic responsibility and cannot be left to rest upon the shoulders of the few among our nation,” he wrote.

He claimed he never sent the letter, but investigators found a copy in his home seven months later.

Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, one of the Shura members whose stay in America wassponsored by Al-Arian, emerged as the PIJ secretary general in Damascus nine months after those words were written. Shallah holds the same position today.

When reporters called to ask Al-Arian about his associate’s new job, he lied and claimed to be as surprised as anyone and suggested it was someone else with a similar name.

The lies didn’t end with the guilty plea or Judge Moody’s scorn. While serving out the remainder of his sentence, Al-Arian refused to testify before a federal grand jury in Virginia that was investigating terror financing. His plea agreement, he insisted, was predicated upon a promise that he would never have to “cooperate” with the government.

It didn’t matter that he and his attorneys could not point to a single reference to such a pledge in the plea agreement, during the 2006 hearing in which the guilty plea was accepted, or during his sentencing. In both hearings, judges specifically asked whether he acted due to any additional promises. He said no.

Despite the absence of any proof and two appellate court rulings against Al-Arian on the matter, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema refused to either grant a defense motion to dismiss the case or let it proceed to trial. After five years of judicial inactivity, prosecutors dropped the contempt charge last summer, clearing the way for this week’s deportation.

1127He returned to political activity, however, showing up at pro-Muslim Brotherhood events in December 2013 and again last week when he attended a forum for a visiting delegation including Brotherhood officials at the National Press Club.

Al-Arian reportedly is in Istanbul, Turkey. While he had no previous connection to the state, Turkey has become a key operating base for Hamas, a rival Palestinian terrorist group. Hamas operative Saleh Al-Arouri is suspected of plotting several terrorist attacks from his base there, and Hamas political chief Khaled Meshaal reportedly moved therein recent weeks from Qatar.

The Muslim Brotherhood Comes to the White House

Obama-and-Valerie-Jarrett-AP-Photo-Jacquelyn-Martin-640x480Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Feb. 7, 2015:

The Obama White House has finally released the names of the fourteen Muslim “leaders” who met with the President this past week. Among the group — which included a comedian, along with a hijab-wearing basketball player and a handful of left wing activists — were a select few individuals with disturbingly close ties to the global Muslim Brotherhood.

As previously uncovered by Breitbart News, the White House confirmed that Azhar Azeez, President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), was one of the Muslim leaders that met with President Obama. ISNA was founded in 1981 by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial. Federal prosecutors have previously described how ISNA funneled its money to Palestinian terrorist group Hamas (via Investigative Project):

ISNA checks deposited into the ISNA/NAIT account for the HLF were often made payable to “the Palestinian Mujahadeen,” the original name for the HAMAS military wing. Govt. Exh. 1-174. From that ISNA/NAIT account, the HLF sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to HAMAS leader…

Azeez’s bio also reveals him as a founding member the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Dallas/Fort Worth Chapter. CAIR has also allegedly funneled money to Palestinian terror groups and was also started by members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In October, 2014, Azeez signed a letter endorsing Sharia Islamic governance. Under the Sharia, non-Muslims are treated as second-class citizens. The Sharia also endorses the hudud punishments in the Koran and Hadiths, which state that apostasy from Islam is punishable by death.

Hoda Elshishtawy of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) was also in attendance at the Muslim leaders’ meeting with President Obama.

MPAC, just like CAIR and ISNA, was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group has written and often endorsed a paper rejecting the United States’s designation of Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations, and has insisted that the Jewish state of Israel be added as a state sponsor of terrorism. The group’s former president, Salam al-Marayati, has publicly encouraged officials to look at Israel as a suspect in the 9/11/01 attacks.

He has said that Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel should be seen as “legitimate resistance.” In a 1998 speech at the National Press Club, an MPAC senior official described the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah as one that fights for “American values.” In an MPAC-sponsored March 2009 protest to “Defend al-Aqsa Mosque and al-Quds,” participants could be heard chanting slogans encouraging Palestinians to wipe out Israel. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” demonstrators chanted.

Mohamed Majid, who serves as Imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), was also in attendance at the White House meeting with the President, and senior advisors Ben Rhodes and Valerie Jarrett.

In 2002, ADAMS was raided as part of a U.S. government initiative called “Operation Green Quest,” where federal agents suspected the group of supporting terrorist organizations. Government documents said that the ADAMS Center was “suspected of providing support to terrorists, money laundering, and tax evasion.”

Majid is also an official with the brotherhood-affiliated Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

He also signed the October 2014 letter, along with White House meeting attendee Azhar Azeez, insisting that Sharia law should be an acceptable political system worldwide.

It remains unclear why President Obama remains a stalwart believer that the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates should be treated as legitimate political entities, when history reveals the organization as one with radical goals. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Islamic cleric (and Hitler admirer) Hassan al-Banna after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

The group seeks as its end-game to install a Sunni Islamic caliphate throughout the world. al-Banna said of his organization’s goals, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” Both Former Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and ISIS “caliph” Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi were members of the Brotherhood. Its current spiritual leader, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, has a knack for bashing Jews and praising Nazis. The Muslim Brotherhood’s motto remains: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Also see:

Scandal Rocks Fox News Over Saudi Terror Link

timthumb (10)AIM, Cliff Kincaid  —   February 6, 2015

Fox News Correspondent James Rosen reported on Wednesday night that a “major investor in the parent company” of Fox News has been implicated in financing the terrorist group al-Qaeda. Rosen made the embarrassing disclosure in a story on the channel’s “Special Report” show hosted by Bret Baier.

The alleged al-Qaeda financier, Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, is a very close friend of Rupert Murdoch and his family, who control major media companies like News Corp and 21st Century Fox. The latter is now the parent company of the Fox News Channel.

The second largest shareholder in the Fox News parent company after the Murdoch family, Alwaleed has been addressed as “Your Highness” during his appearances on the network. His recent appearances have made him sound moderate, while denouncing Islamic extremism and the ISIS terrorist group.

Fox News is to be congratulated for reporting on a developing scandal that puts its chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Rupert Murdoch, in a very bad light.

A video posted by Alwaleed’s company, Kingdom Holdings, shows Alwaleed and Murdoch warmly embracing at one of several intimate meetings they have held over the years. Alwaleed has also met regularly with Murdoch’s liberal son, James Murdoch, the co-chief operating officer of 21st Century Fox.

Shortly after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, Alwaleed offered a $10 million contribution to a 9/11 fund for families and victims. Then-New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani rejected the money because Alwaleed had blamed the terror attacks on U.S. Middle East policy.

Rosen, a hard-charging investigative reporter, really had no alternative but to cover the damaging disclosures. The allegations were made by Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker of 9/11, and provided in the form of a sworn statement to attorneys for families of 9/11 victims for their lawsuit against Saudi Arabia. He is serving a life sentence at a supermax prison in Florence, Colorado.

Fifteen of the 19 terrorist hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks came from Saudi Arabia, and the role of the Saudi government and its top officials and citizens in the massacre of nearly 3.000 Americans on that day has been a matter of controversy ever since.

Rosen said Moussaoui’s sworn statement named Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal,“a leading Saudi businessman and major investor in the parent company of this network,” as one of the financiers of al-Qaeda.

But Alwaleed is much more than just an investor in Murdoch’s companies. He is also a personal friend of Murdoch’s who boasted in 2005 that a phone call to Murdoch resulted in the Fox News Channel altering its coverage of Muslim riots in France, in order to eliminate references to the religious affiliation of the Muslim extremists.

“I picked up the phone and called Murdoch and said that I was speaking not as a shareholder, but as a viewer of Fox. I said that these are not Muslim riots, they are riots,” Alwaleed reportedly said. “He [Murdoch] investigated the matter and called Fox and within half an hour it was changed from ‘Muslim riots’ to ‘civil riots.’”

I asked Murdoch about this at the 2006 annual meeting of News Corporation. Heconfirmed that a call from Alwaleed had resulted in the change. Murdoch said the change was made after it was determined that there was also a Catholic role in the riots. I had never heard or seen it reported anywhere that there was a Catholic role in the riots.

In 2002, it was revealed that Alwaleed had contributed $500,000 to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood front that has boasted of influence over Fox entertainment programs. The bio for Nihad Awad, CAIR’s Executive Director and co-founder, describes how he “has successfully led negotiations with Fortune 500 companies and Hollywood film corporations on issues of concern to American Muslims. These issues include religious discrimination in the workplace, racial and religious profiling, negative stereotypes about Muslims in major Hollywood films, and products that are offensive to Muslims.”

In recent years, however, Alwaleed has postured as an opponent of the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorist groups. In 2013, for example, he announced the sacking of Tarek Al-Suwaidan as director of one of his TV channels because of his Muslim Brotherhood ties. Alwaleed said at the time that he was opposed to “the Brotherhood terrorist movement.”

The channel is a part of Alwaleed’s Rotana Group, an Arab media conglomerate based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that is partly owned by News Corp.

On the October 26, 2014, “Sunday Morning Futures” Fox News Channel program hosted by Maria Bartiromo, Alwaleed declared that Saudi Arabia was opposed to the terrorist group ISIS, regarded by many experts as a spin-off from al-Qaeda.

The following exchange took place:

Bartiromo: Prince Alwaleed, what do you say to those out there who say that Saudi Arabia has had a history of supporting and funding some extremists, particularly in Syria, for example? Do you believe Saudi Arabia should take some responsibility for ISIS even being formed?

Alwaleed: Well, the whole world has to take responsibility, not only—I mean, there is no doubt there are some Saudis, like there are some people in the United States, like in Europe, in some other Arab countries, who really are (INAUDIBLE) and support these terrorist groups.

Alwaleed didn’t explain who these Saudis or other people were. He went on to tell “Maria” that she should “rest assured” because Saudi Arabia “right now has enacted laws” against supporting terrorist groups.

During another appearance with Bartiromo, Alwaleed called ISIS a “disease” that has to be eradicated.

While Alwaleed is now putting the best face on what the Saudis and other “moderate” Muslims are supposedly doing around the world to counter terrorism, his behind-the-scenes influence on the Murdoch empire continues to generate controversy. Speculation emerged recently that Alwaleed’s influence was a factor in the Fox News Channel’s apology for covering Muslim-dominated “no-go zones” in Europe where non-Muslims and police fear to enter.

The unwarranted apology dismayed conservatives who were counting on Fox News to cover the growing problem of the Islamization of Europe.

It is curious that as the Moussaoui allegations against Alwaleed and other Saudi officials and citizens were making news, it was suddenly disclosed that Alwaleed was reducing his stake in News Corp while maintaining his investment in 21st Century Fox.

Alwaleed’s organization, Kingdom Holding, discussed the change in stock ownership in an announcement featuring a photo of Alwaleed and Murdoch walking through what appears to be a newsroom. It said Alwaleed remains “fully supportive of Rupert Murdoch and his family.”

The disclosures of a Saudi role in financing al-Qaeda is a subject that deserves more follow-up from Fox News and other media organizations.

To its credit, the Fox News website is now running a follow-up story noting that the new charges are prompting calls for the declassification and release of 28 classified pages of the full report on 9/11. The role of Saudi Arabia in the attacks is said to be a major topic covered in the 28 pages.

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.

Egypt Warns of Muslim Brotherhood Organizations in U.S.

Egypt warns of Brotherhood groups like CAIR. Nihad Awad (C), Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Ibrahim Hooper (L), National Committee Director of CAIR during a press conference in Washington. Photo © Reuters

Egypt warns of Brotherhood groups like CAIR. Nihad Awad (C), Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Ibrahim Hooper (L), National Committee Director of CAIR during a press conference in Washington. Photo © Reuters

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Jan. 15, 2015:

An Egyptian government website features a warning that the Muslim Brotherhood has a lobby in the U.S. disguised as civil society organizations. The United Arab Emirates has made similar statements and the U.S. Justice Department has confirmed the existence of a Muslim Brotherhood branch in America.

The Egyptian government’s State Information Service has an entire section devoted to documenting the violence and terrorism of the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt is furious with the U.S. for its stance on the Brotherhood. President El-Sisi told the Washington Post in December 2013, then as Defense Minister, that the U.S. has turned its back on Egypt and is misunderstanding the Islamist group.

The documentation includes a timeline  of violence perpetrated by Brotherhood members since July 2014, a statement from the National Council for Childhood and Motherhood condemning the Brotherhood’s exploitation of children, and  many videos documenting the Brotherhood’s extremism and the justifications for overthrowing it and banning it.

Most importantly, the section prominently features an article about the Muslim Brotherhood operating in America and influencing U.S. policy through various fronts. It cites a study done by the Ibn Khaldoun Center for Development Studies, a highly-respected organization in Cairo.

“She [Center executive director Dalia Zeyadah] warned that the MB has a network based in the US and operating through civil society organizations engaged in community service domains there. These organizations, she also warned, aim to spread the MB’s extremist ideologies in the US,” the Egyptian government website says.

The article from June 2014 states that the Brotherhood is moving to Turkey to set up the “nucleus of its European headquarters which would be operating under the cover of charity work to carry out terrorist acts across the region.”

The Cairo Post reported in February 2014 that the Ibn Khaldoun Center director Dalia Zeyadah “[asserted] that the Brotherhood are still trying to impact decisions of the White House, noting that campaigns against Brotherhood ‘terrorism’ must continue.”

The Egyptian government often talks about the International Muslim Brotherhood to emphasize that it is not just an Egyptian organization. In his interview with the Washington Post, El-Sisi said it operates in 60 countries and that Hamas is one of its branches. He warned that the group is “based on restoring the Islamic religious empire.”

The Clairon Project’s research into the Brotherhood sympathies of a senior adviser to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was covered in the Egyptian media in 2013, specifically by the Al-Nahartelevision network.

The U.S. government confirmed the existence of a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood with a network a fronts under different names during the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation, one such trial.

The Justice Department’s list of unindicted co-conspirators in that trial includes a list a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entities and members. The list includes the Islamic Society of North America, the North American Islamic Trust and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The lattermost organization was listed as an entity of the U.S. Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, a sub-section set up to support Hamas.

The United Arab Emirates caused a stir recently when it banned the Brotherhood and some of its most powerful affiliates in the U.S. and Europe, including CAIR, the Muslim American Society and Islamic Relief.

The UAE justified its designation of the U.S-based groups as terrorist organizations despite the immense backlash. The Foreign Minister of the country said it was based on the group’s incitement and funding of terrorism.

Another UAE official said the objective is “putting a cordon around all subversive entities.” And UAE State Foreign Affairs Minister Anwar Gargash said the backlash was being orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood lobby in the West.

“The noise (by) some Western organizations over the UAE’s terrorism list originates in groups that are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and many of them work on incitement and creating an environment of extremism,” Gargash tweeted.

The U.S. Justice Department, countless terrorism experts and the governments of Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have confirmed the existence of a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. The U.S. Brotherhood’s own documents are even publicly available.

Yet, those who point this out are ridiculed by these Islamist groups and their allies as bigoted “Islamophobes.” The accusation is even nonsensically made about Muslims who point this out.

The refusal of the U.S. government to recognize the toxic ideology of the Brotherhood is undermining America’s ability to have a frank discussion about the issue of Islamism.

Muslim governments are providing verifiable evidence about the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, but their warnings are ignored or rejected. Americans (Muslim and non-Muslim) who voice these same concerns are personally attacked.

Terms like Islamism and Political Islam are used regularly in the Muslm world and even on the Brotherhood’s own website, but the U.S. Brotherhood and its apologists say we can’t.  CAIR has waged a campaign to make the media stop using the “Islamist” term.

America is in the middle of a heated debate about the defining the threat. We should listen to our Muslim allies and let the facts speak for themselves, instead of letting Islamists and their apologists edit our vocabularies.

Ryan Mauro on O’Reilly Factor: 5 Islamist Groups in America

Published on Jan 15, 2015 by Ryan Mauro

Clarion Project National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro talks to Bill O’Reilly about five Islamist radical groups in America: Muslims of the Americas; Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center; the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA); Masjid at-Taqwa led by Siraj Wahhaj and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).