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).

Coalition of Concerned Citizens Seeks Response to El Sisi’s Call for “Religious Revolution”

 

January 7, 2015

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Today letters were issued to several Islamic organizations in the United States by a Coalition of concerned citizens to get their official response to recent comments by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

The organizations contacted for their response included the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society (MAS), and the North American Islamic Trust.

The Coalition sought responses for the following questions:

  • Is it the position of your organization that the imams of Al Azhar have a responsibility to renounce the “mindset” of jihad, conquest, and, as suggested by President Sisi, genocide of the world’s non-Muslims?
  • Is it the position of your organization that the time is right for a “religious revolution,” as President Sisi stated?
  • Is it the position of your organization that jihad is a holy obligation for all Muslims?

On New Year’s Day, President Sisi addressed the famous Egyptian University, Al Azhar. Occasionally called the “Vatican” of Islam, Al Azhar is a major center of Sunni Islamic thought, one of the most important scholarly institutions in the Islamic world.

President Sisi urged the imams (religious leaders) at Al Azhar to denounce the violence and revolution that has defined the Middle East since the Arab Spring. He urged the venerable institution to condemn the idea that “1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!”

Since the Arab Spring, the moderate and stable regimes have been under sustained assault by terrorist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and other affiliated networks. President Sisi came to power in Egypt following the ouster of President Mohamed Morsi, who is himself a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

President Sisi’s speech is seen as a direct challenge to the Muslim Brotherhood and the idea that jihad, or war against non-Muslims, must define Islam. According to the Muslim Brotherhood, jihad is the duty of all Muslims, and the highest honor for Muslims is actual death fighting jihad. (The motto of the organization states, “God is our objective; the Qur’an is the Constitution; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; death for the sake of God is our wish.”)

In November, CAIR and MAS were designated as terrorist organizations by the United Arab Emirates. Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have also designated the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic umbrella organization operating around the world, including in the United States, as a terrorist organization.

The Coalition, which includes retired military leaders, journalists, and citizen activists, will publicly release any and all responses from these organizations.

Below is a copy of the letter sent to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Identical letters were sent to the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Muslim American Society, the North American Islamic Trust, and various chapters of the Muslim Students Association.

LETTER TO THE ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA

January 7, 2015

Mr. Azhar Azeez
Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)
P.O. Box 38
Plainfield, IN 46168

Dear Mr. Azeez:

This is a request for your organization’s official response to the speech given by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

On New Year’s Day, President Sisi stated (in part) before an audience at Al Azhar University in Cairo:

“I am referring here to the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing—and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!

That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world!

Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!

I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.

All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.

I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.”

In light of President Sisi’s comments, we ask for public clarification on the following points:

  • Is it the position of ISNA that the imams of Al Azhar have a responsibility to renounce the “mindset” of jihad, conquest, and, as suggested by President Sisi, genocide of the world’s non-Muslims?
  • Is it the position of ISNA that the time is right for a “religious revolution,” as President Sisi stated?
  • Is it the position of ISNA that jihad is a holy obligation for all Muslims?

Please note that this letter will be made public and published. We look forward to your prompt response.

Sincerely,

Wallace Bruschweiler
Data Security Holdings

Leslie Burt
The Counter Jihad Report

Mark Kohan
Conservative Party USA

Trevor Loudon
New Zeal Blog

Gary Kubiak & Dick Manasseri
S.E. Michigan 9.12 Tea Party

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
NoisyRoom.net

Charles Ortel
Washington Times Columnist

William Palumbo
Qatar Awareness Campaign

Brent Parrish
The Right Planet

Thomas E. Snodgrass, Colonel, USAF (Ret)
Right Side News

Hannah Szenes
Journalist

Paul E. Vallely, Major General, US Army (Ret)
Stand Up America

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: 

A Veteran Brother Emerges to Lead the USCMO Political Agenda

Sabri Samirah: screenshot is from his Facebook account on 6 July 2014

Sabri Samirah: screenshot is from his Facebook account on 6 July 2014

Center for Security Policy:

The U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) used the November 2014 midterm elections to advance a number of its operational objectives through mobilization of Muslim voters in Illinois. Sabri Samirah, a political analyst and leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan, led USCMO efforts to “get out the vote” in Illinois. As will be recalled, Samirah, former chairman of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) in North America, a direct HAMAS off-shoot and the parent organization of CAIR (Council n American Islamic Relations), returned to Chicago, Illinois earlier in 2014 after 11 years in exile abroad. Samirah, no stranger to the Illinois political arena, quickly assumed leadership of several organizations: he is President of the newly-established American and Middle Eastern Affairs Center Think Tank (AMEAC) and CEO of theDevelopment Institute for Consultation & Training, LLC, (DICT). Prior to his 2003 deportation from the United States, Samirah previously had served as President of United Muslim Americans Association (UMAA) from 1999-2003. Now, playing on the same theme of Muslim unity, as Executive Director, he also heads another new organization called “UMMA” (not an acronym but the full name), established in September 2014 with its forthcoming website at www.OurUMMA.org.

Each of these organizations, described in more detail in following segments, played a role in the 2014 USCMO voter mobilization campaign and appears to be positioning itself to expanding that role further in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential elections. USCMO members actively helped coordinate a campaign to endorse statewide and federal political candidates viewed as accommodating toward Islam and shariah, including Illinois Republican Governor-elect, Bruce Rauner (who will be inaugurated in January 2015). This segment, the first of three, will highlight the emerging leadership role being played within the USCMO by Sabri Samirah.

While he is self-described as a “moderate, modern, Muslim, Arab American thinker;” Samirah has a history of associations with Muslim Brotherhood leaders who have called for the annihilation of worldwide Jewry and the nation of Israel. In 2003, the U.S. Department of State prohibited Samirah from entering this country within the scope of security measures implemented after the attacks of 11 September 2001. Officially, the “District Director of the Chicago INS Office, acting on behalf of the Attorney General, revoked his advance parole because the INS had received information that he was a ‘security risk to the United States.’” None of this prior background, however, deterred U.S. officials in 2014 from allowing him to return to the country, once again to take a key leadership position among Brotherhood-affiliated groups with a presence in Illinois and across the United States.

Just weeks after returning to the U.S., Samirah was a speaker at a 5 April 2014 fundraising dinner held by USCMO member group, the American Muslims for Palestine (AMP). He was introduced as “a longtime global and national Palestinian activist.” Another role model singled out for praise at the event was Rasmieh Odeh, a convicted terrorist who spent ten years in an Israeli prison. At this AMP dinner, she was praised by master of ceremonies Rami Bleibel as “a great community member, a great member for the Palestinian cause.” Later, in November 2014, Odeh would be found guilty of illegally entering the U.S. in 1995 for failure to disclose her prior terrorist record in Israel. Following her October 2013 indictment, Odeh was charged with naturalization fraud and eventually found guilty in the federal court case USA v. Odeh, Rasmieh Yousef of illegally entering the U.S. in 1995, when she did not disclose either her PFLP affiliation or her conviction and prison time in Israel in paperwork filed with U.S. immigration authorities.

Read more

U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Political Party Financially Supports Congressman André Carson

2527216764Center for Security Policy, Jan. 5, 2015:

The Muslim American Society (MAS) and Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) just concluded their 13th annual convention held at the McCormick Center in President Barack Obama’s hometown of Chicago from 25-28 December 2014. Notable among the scheduled contributors at this gathering of high level international and national leadership representing the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood was keynote speaker U.S. Congressman André Carson, a Democrat from Indiana’s 7th District. The presence at this convention of an elected U.S. lawmaker who has received financial donations from Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations ever since he was first elected to the House of Representatives in a special election in early 2008 must be a matter of serious concern.

Controversy surrounds the appearance of Congressman Carson at the MAS-ICNA 2014 Convention in Chicago where he was a scheduled panelist together with Mazen Mokhtar, National Executive Director for the Muslim American Society, which was founded as the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Worse yet, according to the testimony of federal agents in federal courts, MAS National Executive Director Mokhtar facilitated operations for running an Al-Qa’eda website responsible for raising funds for the Taliban. In March 2014, MAS was just one of several Muslim Brotherhood-affiliates that joined together to establish the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), the first U.S. political party openly founded by members of the North American Brotherhood network.

At the December 2014 MAS-ICNA Convention, Carson and Mokhtar were scheduled to speak on a panel addressing “Ferguson Is Our Issue: We Can’t Breathe.” The following picture is from the actual program of the MAS-ICNA 2014 Convention issued to attendees, which clearly shows that Congressman Carson was scheduled to appear on a panel 26 December 2014 with Mazen Mokhtar, the executive director of USCMO member MAS National. (The program date is printed erroneously, as the last Saturday in December 2014 was the 27th, not the 26th). Nevertheless, Carson’s later official statement that he didn’t even find out about this panel until sometime on Sunday 28 December seems questionable.

ferguson

Prior to his scheduled appearance on this panel for Saturday evening, Congressman Carson did make an appearance as scheduled as the keynote speaker for the 13th Annual MAS-ICNA Convention Appreciation Dinner—after which he seems to have disappeared, with no comment from the Convention organizers about the empty seat at the Ferguson panel. The following picture is a screenshot from the MAS-ICNA 2014 convention website providing details for his appearance.

meet celebrity

There’s no question the Congressman was present at the Convention Center on the date in question. The following images are from Muslim Brotherhood leader Sabri Samirah’s organization UMMA and UMMA Board of Trustee member Darwish Mabruk’s Facebook pages, showing photos taken during the MAS-ICNA convention where Congressman Carson is pictured meeting with various Muslim Brotherhood leadership figures, apparently just prior to the dinner.

Pic3Carson handshake

Later, as the back-pedaling began, Congressman Carson issued a press statement on 31 December 2014 as shown in the screenshot below from his official Twitter account. In both the press statement and Tweet, however, he strangely neglected to mention the Muslim American Society, which was the co-sponsor of the MAS-ICNA Convention chaired by Hussein Ata(president, Mosque Foundation in Bridgeview, Illinois, where USCMO Secretary General Oussama Jammal is a past president and current Chairman of MAS-PACE).

Pic5

In Carson’s statement that appears on his Congressional website, the following message was delivered to his constituency on 31 December 2014:

  • INDIANAPOLIS – Today, Congressman André Carson released the following statement in response to his attendance at the ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America) Chicago convention last weekend.
  • On Saturday, December 27, I attended the ICNA Chicago convention to deliver a speech on the importance of civil engagement and developing leaders in the community.
  • On Sunday, December 28, I learned that ICNA had also scheduled me to sit on a Ferguson panel Saturday night – which I had not planned on participating in.  At no point had I ever confirmed to attend any other events other than the dinner.  Any reference to my participation or appearance on the Ferguson panel during the ICNA conference is not factual.
  • As a former law enforcement officer with the Indiana Department of Homeland Security in the anti-terrorism unit, it is critical that Americans know that I would never associate with any individual or organization trying to harm the United States of America or its citizens.

The absence of the Muslim American Society’s name in Congressman Carson’s press statement and Tweet is peculiar. It’s not as though he’d avoided associating with MAS in the past—but of course, that was before the United Arab Emirates (UAE) listed MAS as a terrorist organization, as Patrick Poole noted here. But it’s also not the first time Carson has attempted to conceal details of such problematic associations. In June 2014, Congressman Carson was featured as a keynote speaker for the USCMO’s inaugural banquet, an event shrouded in secrecy with no transcripts, audio, or video having been released, as would usually be customary. Both Congressman Carson and Congressman Keith Ellison (Democrat, MN-5th District) were invited by USCMO Secretary General Oussama Jammal to speak at the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood political party’s event on 10 June 2014 at the Hilton Crystal City Hotel near Washington, D.C. To date, their respective congressional offices have refused to make publicly available either the text or video of the remarks delivered by Carson and Ellison at this high level Muslim Brotherhood function, held at a time when the Obama administration’s foreign policy supporting Brotherhood revolutions in Egypt, Libya, and Syria was collapsing in failure.

So, perhaps the Congressmen’s reticence might have something to do with the all-star Muslim Brotherhood line-up that attended that banquet, a couple of which groups, as noted above, were named in November 2014 by the UAE to its new terrorist organizations list (on that list are both CAIR and MAS, along with the Muslim Brotherhood itself.). As reported by the Muslim Link Paper for this historic Muslim Brotherhood leadership gathering, others in the speaker line-up included Dr. Ousama Jammal, Secretary General, USCMO; Dr. Osama Abu-Irshaid, Board Member, American Muslims for Palestine; Nihad Awad, National Executive Director, Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR); Naeem Baig, President, Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA); Mazen Mokhtar, Executive Director, Muslim American Society (MAS); Khalil Meek, Executive Director, Muslim Legal Fund of America; Imam Delawar Hussein, Dr Lynne Muhammad, Founder, Making A Difference Through Discoveries, American Islamic College, Whitney Young Magnet High School; and W.D. Mohammed II, President, Mosque Cares.

Read more at CSP

Also see:

Emerson on Fox with Judge Jeanine: “We’re embracing [Muslim Brotherhood] front groups….”

 

Judge Jeanine: And with me now, Steve Emerson, founder of the Investigator Project. Good evening Steve. We have disturbing new information that ISIS is creating the next generation of terrorists by recruiting young moms, teaching them to raise jihadi babies, showing them how to use AK-47s, trying to desensitizing them to violence, teaching them the importance of allowing their children to see people being murdered. How do we fight that?

Steve Emerson: This is part of fighting ISIS; it’s part of fighting radical Islam. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, all have employed women as radical Islamic terrorists. They’ve all used women as terrorists, so it’s really nothing new. What’s new here is that they’re basically exploiting mothers to raise their children [as jihadi babies]. And it’s playing well in the Western media. The bottom line here is that this is nothing new under the sun, Judge. What’s new here is the fact that we’re reacting as if it’s new. it’s like the front page of the New York Times this past week [reported that] … the top general, General Nagata, [as] saying “we don’t really understand ISIS, we don’t understand what motivates them, we have to understand them” as if they need a psychiatrist. Bottom line here, they’re motivated by radical Islamic theology. It didn’t take much to understand what motivated the Nazis. It doesn’t take much to understand what motivates them. Is ISIS raising a new generation [of jihadis] ? Absolutely. But so are all of the other groups that belong to the spectrum [of radical Islam].

Jude Jeanine: But my question, Steve, is that they’re doing this. What are we doing to confront it? As these children are being raised to hate us, to kill us, I don’t care what their motivation is, that is the context within which their lives are occurring. And you can see there a screen of a kid with what looks like an AK-47, yeah, an AK-47. What are we doing other than spoiling our kids and, you know, giving them more Iphones?

Steve Emerson: Well you raise a good point because discussions has always been how do we – in the West, in the United States in particular – develop a “counter narrative,” that’s the term, to basically neutralize the al Qaeda or the ISIS point of view. Bottom line is there’s no counter-narrative that the West can develop. We can beat them by destroying them. Period. And the real problem is we’re embracing politically [Islamist] groups like the Muslim Brotherhood or their front groups in the West that are basically appealing to ISIS [supporters] , developing a motivation for ISIS to fight the West by spreading the [incendiary] message this there’s ” a war against Islam.” That’s the number one motivational factor in inducing Islamic terrorism against the US and the West, and [yet] we are embracing those [very same] groups that spread it into the White House and into the public policy organizations throughout the United States.

Judge Jeanine: And not to mention the release of terrorists from Gitmo, those who are being released now, no conditions, no restrictions. The worst of the worst. Reducing our military. We’ve got Hillary Clinton, she’s a front runner to run for President of the Democrat Party saying we need to understand and empathize with our enemy. We’re in for real dark days.

Steve Emerson: We have been. And the seeds are sown now for the future. We’ve embraced Turkey despite the fact that it’s basically been a safe haven for Hamas to carry out attacks against not just friends of ours [like the].. Israelis [but also].. Americans. Number two, we’ve embraced Qatar, which is the number one financial supporter of [Islamic] terrorism. Three, we’ve basically distanced ourselves from countries like Egypt and we’ve embraced the Muslim Brotherhood through front groups in the United States. Just a week before Christmas the US State Department met with front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood to basically stop the designation of those groups as terrorist organizations by the United Arab Emirates. We [the United States Government] should have designated tem as terrorists groups. You look at all fronts here, it’s really amazing what’s going on.

Judge Jeanine: What amazes me is that Egypt stood up and said, 35 million strong, we don’t want the Muslim Brotherhood. And we allow them to integrate our government, the White House, to meet at the highest levels. What does it say about where this country is headed?

Steve Emerson: It says very bad thing unfortunately. And it says that we as a country unfortunately have embraced the worst type of politically totalitarian groups under the guise of “multiculturalism,” under the guise of their deception, their deceit basically in fooling us into thinking that they’re democratic, that they’re open, that generally they’re egalitarian. Nothing could be further from the truth. These Islamist groups are misogynist, they’re totalitarian, they’re racist, they’re terrorists. And we shouldn’t be afraid to say that and designate them as so.

Judge Jeanine: And you never are. Steve Emerson, it’s always good to have you on the show. Thanks so much.

The Top Anti-Muslim Hate Crime Hoaxes of 2014

Navjoat Aulakh

Navjoat Aulakh

Frontpage, by Robert Spencer, Dec.29, 2014:

On Christmas morning, a man drove up to the Islamic Cultural Center in Fresno, threw rocks through the windows, and then entered the center and destroyed things inside. The local ABC outlet, KFSN, reported Friday that “Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer says it is clear the incident is a hate crime which is why the FBI is also investigating this case.” But on Saturday, it turned out that the incident was not an “anti-Muslim hate crime” at all: the vandal was Asif Mohammad Khan, a Muslim. The destruction at the Islamic Cultural Center in Fresno was yet another in a long series of fake hate crimes designed to prop up the fiction that Muslims in the U.S. are routinely targets of discrimination and harassment.

According to Khan’s sister Samia, the vandal is (like the recent French attackers who screamed “Allahu akbar” while trying to kill infidels) mentally ill. She also said that he was a devout Muslim who prayed five times daily. Dyer revealed that Khan had in recent days written that Osama bin Laden was the most inspirational person in his life. Dyer explained that Khan’s vandalism of the mosque “was not geared towards the Islamic community, it was not geared to the Islamic faith or any of those things and was simply to get back at a few people at the center who had belittled him and in his eyes bullied him.”

Dyer and other law enforcement authorities were extremely unlikely to consider it as they investigated Khan’s crimes, but the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslims have on many occasions in the past not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes,” including attacks on mosques. CAIR and other groups like it want and need hate crimes against Muslims, because they can use them for political points and as weapons to intimidate people into remaining silent about the jihad threat.

This has happened many times in 2014. Here are five of the most egregiously manipulative examples:

1. The Saleh and Akbar viral video.

In October, the Muslim bloggers Adam Saleh and Sheikh Akbar released a video entitled “Racial Profiling Experiment.” It showed the duo in Western clothing, coming to blows in front of an indifferent NYPD cop. In the second part of the video, they pass by the same cop in Muslim garb, arguing mildly – only to be harassed and frisked by the same policeman.

The video went viral. The Huffington Post hysterically proclaimed that it offered a “small glimpse into the ugly world of racial profiling.” Hamas-linked CAIR called for an investigation. But then it turned out that the whole thing had been staged. The Smoking Gun called the video a “cynical and duplicitous attempt to capitalize on New York City’s documented racial profiling problems.”

2. The German mosque arson.

Another “Islamophobic” hate crime took place in Germany in February, when there was an arson attack at the Central Mosque in Cologne. But in October, a Muslim who had been held in a psychiatric ward ever since he had been arrested (as the mainstream media and law enforcement officials have now apparently agreed that all Muslims who commit acts of violence are mentally ill) confessed to having set the fire.

“I wanted to make a clear sign,” the arsonist explained. “Because they treated me badly at the Koran school. It has always hurt me.” He also had tried to burn down two other mosques; it wasn’t reported whether or not he had been to Qur’an school and been treated badly in all three. But until he was apprehended, his arson attacks provided rich material for the “Islamophobia” mythmakers.

3. The burned Qur’ans in Dearborn.

Last June, after three burned Qur’ans were found in front of the Karbalaa Islamic Educational Center in Dearborn, the mosque’s imam, Sheikh Husham Al-Husainy met with lawyers to discuss his proposal for a statute criminalizing the desecration of holy books. “We want all of the religions to cooperate with us,” he declared, “to bring respect to the word of God, whether the Quran, Bible, or Torah.”

But as it turned out, the Qur’an barbecuer was none other than a Muslim named Ali Hassan Al-Assadi. Al-Husainy opined that al-Assadi was (surprise, surprise) “mentally unstable.” Crazy or not, the discovery that al-Assadi had burned the Qur’ans threw a large monkey wrench into al-Husainy’s plans to use the incident as the cornerstone of his campaign against the freedom of expression.

4. The Montclair State University attack.

Combine the relentless Muslim striving for victimhood with the cult of victimhood on college campuses these days, and even non-Muslims get into the faked hate act. Last April at Montclair State University in New Jersey, a student claimed that three white men in jeans and hoodies assaulted him. They called him an “Islamic terrorist.”

MSU police began an investigation, only to find that the whole incident was a hoax: a student named Navjoat Aulakh had filed a false report. Aulakh may not even be a Muslim. His full name is Navjoat Singh Aulakh; “Singh” is a name closely associated with Sikhs. The Aulakhs are a Jat clan from the Punjab area, and while many Jats are Muslims, the name Singh here suggests that this young man is himself a Sikh. His Facebook page gives no sign that he cares about much of anything but sports and babes, but apparently he does have some significant political concerns. If he is a Sikh, this would by no means be the first time that Sikhs have served as useful idiots for the Islamic supremacist victimhood posturing enterprise. Sikhs even stood with Hamas-linked CAIR to call for the allowance of hijabs on an amusement park go-kart ride that had already seen one Muslima killed as her hijab was caught in the axle.

In this case, a Sikh apparently tried to aid the false Muslim victimhood narrative. And failed.

5. The Shaima Alawadi murder.

Last April in El Cajon, California, an Iraqi Muslim named Kassim Alhimidi was found guilty of murdering his wife, Shaima Alawadi, after she had told him that she wanted a divorce.

Before Alhimidi was arrested, this murder was widely reported as an “Islamophobic hate crime”: a note was found by Alawadi’s body that read, “Go back to your country, you terrorist.” Leftists and Islamic supremacists made a great deal of this, claiming that the murder was the work of an “Islamophobe” who hated Shaima Alawadi for wearing a hijab. They even staged a campaign, “One Million Hijabs for Shaima Alawadi.”

Reza Aslan, the celebrated author of Zealot, bashed out a sub-literate tweet blaming Pamela Geller and me for the murder: “If a 32 year old veiled mother is a terrorist than [sic] so am I you Islamophobic fucks Gellar [sic] Spencer et. [sic] al. Come find me.” This tweet indicated how much mileage the “Islamophobia” propaganda machine thought it could get from the Alawadi murder in its efforts to intimidate people into thinking it wrong to oppose jihad terror.

Yet it was another fake hate crime. And since the mainstream media remains so uncritical about Muslim claims of having been victimized, there will be many more in 2015.

Also see:

CAIR, MAS Join with State Department to Protest UAE Terror Designation

IPT, by John Rossomando  •  Dec 23, 2014

State Department officials met with leaders of the Hamas-linked Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) to discuss the group’s inclusion on list of terror groups issued by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a CAIR news release issued Monday said.

The UAE listed CAIR and the Muslim American Society (MAS) among 80 Islamist groups worldwide it linked to terror last month. The State Department questioned the designation, saying it wanted “more information from the Emirati authorities” justifying the designation, with a spokesman adding that “the U.S. does not consider them to be terrorist organizations.”

According to CAIR’s news release, the State Department renewed its pledge to try to get the two Islamist groups removed from the UAE terror list.

It’s an example of one branch of government treating CAIR as an innocent, legitimate organization while law enforcement, backed by investigative material, takes a more skeptical view. The FBI broke off official contact with CAIR in 2008 after records seized during a terror-financing investigation placed CAIR in a network of U.S.-based organizations supporting Hamas.

Government evidence in the prosecution against the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation creates “at least a prima facie (face value) case as to CAIR’s involvement in a conspiracy to support Hamas,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis.

1106Meanwhile, at the same time it fights a Muslim nation’s terrorist designation, CAIR officials continue to go to bat for convicted terrorists and their enablers. Officials from CAIR’s Dallas office helped organize a protest last Saturday lamenting convicted Al-Qaida operative Aafia Siddiqui’s conditions . CAIR was joined by MAS and the Islamic Circle of North America to stand up for Siddiqui, also known as “lady al-Qaida.”

Shortly after her conviction for trying to kill two FBI agents, al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri vowed to exact vengeance on her captives. Last summer,Islamic State terrorists mentioned her as part of a proposed prisoner exchange to spare the life of American journalist James Foley, who later was beheaded.

MAS, meanwhile, has its own lengthy record of defending accused terrorists and terror supporters. It was formed as the Muslim Brotherhood’s overt arm in the United States. Co-founder Abdurrahman Alamoudi, who pleaded guilty in 2004 to engaging in illegal transactions with Libya and facilitating a Libyan plot to assassinate then-Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, testified in 2012 that MAS’s connection with the Brotherhood cannot be disputed.

UAE officials have been adverse to the Brotherhood at least since 2013 when they accused the Islamist group of attempting to subvert its national security.

The State Department ignores this, and grants undeserved credibility to deceptive organizations like CAIR and MAS, when it agrees to challenge the UAE designations.

Also see: