Council On American-Islamic Relations: Its Use Of Lawfare And Intimidation

download (94)This book is a comprehensive view into the origin, purpose, and operational activities of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as it is constituted in both the United States and Canada. It includes almost 150 documented cases of frivolous lawsuits, extortion, intimidation and subversion undertaken by CAIR, all aimed at silencing its critics and advancing its agenda.

Citizens For National Security, the book’s author, with the help of research done by Deborah Weiss, exposes CAIR’s intent by its conduct, and concludes that its mission is to stifle criticism of Islam; blind the American and Canadian people, their politicians, law enforcement and intelligence organizations to the threats to their societies posed by radical Islam; to dismantle their national security procedures; and, to Islamize corporate America. In effect, waging “lawfare” against the U.S. and Canada, and their institutions and constitutional freedoms.

****************

Dozens of lawsuits used to hide ‘Islamic realities’ 

WND, 11/23/2013,  by MICHAEL CARL:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which according to FBI evidence was founded by the Egyptian-based, Saudi-funded Muslim Brotherhood, has filed more than 150 lawsuits over a two-year period that have been aimed at stifling speech – all with the goal of hiding “Islamic realities,” according to a think tank’s report.

CAIR has been described by authorities as a front group for Hamas to promote Islam in the U.S.

It was the Florida-based national security think tank Citizens for National Security that released the report, “Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation” to every member of Congress.

CFNS co-founder William Saxton said the study focuses on CAIR’s practice of “lawfare” to silence critics and force corporations, private citizens and charitable organizations to pay large sums of money to settle lawsuits out of court.

Saxton said the two-year task force project found CAIR has filed more than 150 lawsuits with the intention of silencing critics.

“CAIR has a pattern of behavior and a specific campaign of intimidation to stifle free speech. By stifling free speech, they’re hoping to prevent the public from seeing Islamic realities,” Saxton said.

Peter Leitner, also a co-founder for CFNS, confirmed other Islam analysts’ findings that the Muslim Brotherhood established CAIR to engage in “misinformation.”

“CAIR is the operational part of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. As such, and as part of Hamas, they’re the domestic side of an international terrorist group. What they’re doing is psychological operations,” Leitner said.

“Their mission to do misinformation and psy-ops is for the purpose of supporting jihadist movements in the United States and Canada,” Leitner said.

Contacted by WND, CAIR declined to respond to a request for comment.

Some of CAIR’s activities came to light during the Holy Land Foundation terrorism funding trial.

Leitner says CAIR hopes to stay one step ahead of the public.

“More people in the U. S. know about CAIR and their connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. But they’re hoping that not enough people will recognize who they are until the Muslim population in the U. S. can grow big enough to be politically powerful enough,” Leitner said.

Leitner said CAIR’s “masquerade is to divert attention from the Islamic threat in the U. S. by oversensitizing law enforcement and intelligence officials.”

“To make that happen, they’ve infiltrated their agents into the various national security agencies,” Leitner said.

CAIR intimidates the government agencies into providing “trainers” for law enforcement, he pointed out.

“They want to provide sensitivity training to misdirect people’s attention away from the real threat,” he said, and “stifle free speech among critics of Islam via lawsuits and further threats of legal action.”

Leitner explained that the Muslim Brotherhood begin infiltrating universities and colleges in the U.S. in 1962 through the Muslim Students Association, beginning with Palestinians and later through Pakistanis.

A significant portion of Muslim Brotherhood funding comes from outside the U.S., Leitner noted.

The money, Leitner says, is used to fund an entire network of Islamic groups tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. Along with stifling free speech, Leitner points to a second major purpose.

Groups such as the Muslim American Society, Muslims of the Americas and Jam’at al-Fuqua, which began in 1980, have infiltrated the culture enough that American converts to Islam have formed their own groups.

“John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban, is an example of one of their converts. We all know he ended up in Afghanistan fighting against U. S. troops,” Leitner said.

Leitner added that the method employed once influence has been gained is disinformation.

“Their greatest work is to create a grand illusion of a peaceful religion to distract attention from what their real plan is,” Leitner said.

He also says the lawfare tactics ares fundraising mechanism.

He cited a fight with Nike.

“They threatened to boycott if Nike didn’t change their logo because ‘it looked like’ the Arabic name for Allah at a great distance,” Leitner said.

CAIR forced Nike to apologize to the Islamic community, globally recalled the shoes in question, cooperated with CAIR in a redesign of logos and images and donated $50,000 to the Dar al-Hijra mosque in Washington, D.C., for playground equipment.

The report has details on CAIR’s 150 lawsuits or cases against government agencies, corporations and private foundations.

“CAIR even went after the producers of ‘South Park’ for how they portrayed Muhammad. They’ve gone after cartoonists, TV producers and tea party groups,” Leitner said.

Leitner said the sheer volume of CAIR’s legal actions prompted U. S. law enforcement agencies to dig into CAIR’s extended relationships and connections. Once the FBI and city police departments began to investigate, they found CAIR had connections to the network of the “blind sheik,” Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Leitner said CAIR takes advantage of constitutional freedoms “to deny us our freedoms.”

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., a frequent advocate for persecuted Christians, affirmed that his committee  research shows that CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated terrorist organizations pose a real security threat.

“The threat is real and I serve on the committee that has jurisdiction of the FBI. We’ve put language in a bill that will completely prevent the FBI from involving themselves with CAIR,” Wolf said.

“An example of the depth of the threat comes from the Somali al-Qaida-affiliate al-Shabaab. Imams recruit for al-Shabaab from Somali groups in Minneapolis. Not only that, they’re telling Somalis not to cooperate with federal authorities who are investigating the Somali mosques,” Wolf said.

The FBI has become more cautious in its dealings with CAIR, he said, as has his committee.

“I know we’ve been very careful interacting with any group that is involved with CAIR,” Wolf said. “I refused to go to any group that has connections to CAIR.”

Also see:

An Affront to America

timthumb-phpby Justin O Smith:

On March 30, 2014 the Daily News Journal felt the need to chastise many members of the Murfreesboro community, and they seemed to suggest that Christians and Jews, “the faithful”, should support the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, join hands and sing ‘Kumbaya’, as if in so doing, Islam will reform itself, become America’s friend and stop attacking us. The DNJ editorial board called the challenge to the ICM’s expansion and burial ground “affronts to this community”, and yet, they affront the community themselves by not understanding it is our First Amendment right and our duty to question anything that may harm the U.S. and impede the Constitution; the question is not one of any Muslim’s freedom to worship, but instead, it is a question of the harmful effects of the ideology of Islam and the advocacy of Sharia law for the U.S., that occurs daily within the walls of these mosques.

Under the First Amendment, we certainly have the right to question the lack of common sense in our leaders, as they turn their backs on Christians truly in need of refuge and protection from islamofascists in Islamic nations and they continue to allow Muslim “refugees” into our sovereign territory__our nation__a people and an ideology that does, in fact and from their own words, seek supremacy over all, here in the U.S. and across the globe.

Imam Zaid Shakir is a Council on American Islamic Relations advisor and a regular speaker at CAIR events and the Islamic Center of Nashville. In 2013, Shakir told an audience that under Islamic law “the kafir (infidel) won’t be equal with the Muslim”, and the New York Times quotes him saying that he “still hoped that one day the United States would be a Muslim country ruled by Islamic law.

I pose this question to the editorial board of the Daily News Journal: Do we__the American people, U.S. citizens__ or do we not have the right to be vigilant and expose real threats Islam, Sharia law and mosques represent to any community in which they are found? Your editorial suggests not, and that is the real affront to the community.

Currently there are 227 mosques in California alone; 86 in New Jersey; 67 in Pennsylvania and Texas; 66 in Ohio; 57 in Florida and Illinois; 41 in Georgia; 15 in Tennessee and approximately 2000 nationwide. Most of these mosques are funded by Saudi Arabians of the extreme Wahhabist sect of Islam and led by, for lack of a better term, “radical” Egyptian imams/Muslim Brotherhood who are simply following Islam and the words of Mohammed in the strictest sense.

And yes, Muslims do have the right to worship in any manner they choose. They can worship their Three Cranes, the moon, Mohammed, Isa – their false depiction of a Jesus, or Allah. But, they do not have the right to circumvent our laws, create parallel Sharia law courts within our communities and override or supplant every premise and concept of liberty and equality under the supreme law of the land__Our U.S. Constitution__in the name of Islam, as they have already attempted in Michigan, Florida and numerous other states.

Scream as loudly as you wish DNJ editors, as you depict a “peaceful” Murfreesboro mosque and just simply ignore the quiet anger and hatred for the U.S. that simmers just under that quiet calm. Or have you forgotten Nihad Awad and CAIR agents of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood group align themselves with this mosque__a mosque that supports Hamas terrorists in Gaza and had the “holy warrior”/ jihadist Mosaad Rawash on the board of the ICM?

When it pertains to Islamic terrorism, we only see opposition from the Middle Tennessee Islamic community. Remziya Suleyman, islamofascist apologist and “human rights” (read “Muslim”) activist, often boasts that she organized all the Muslims in Tennessee, in order to beat alleged anti-Sharia legislation; this bill was actually an anti-terrorism/material support bill, so essentially, Suleyman equates bills aimed at terror and terror finance as anti-Sharia.

In 2010 Awadh Binhazim, a Muslim “chaplain” at Vanderbilt University and a director of the Islamic Center of Tennessee said that as a Muslim, he had no choice but to “go with what Islam teaches”, which is homosexuality “is punishable by death”. Whether one accepts the homosexual lifestyle or not, what other faith in the 21st century holds such a backward and inhuman belief? Binhazim also taught alongside Abdulhakim Mohamed,a terrorist sympathizer and supporter of bin-Laden, at the Al Farouq mosque in New York (9/11 Commission Report).

Yasir Qadhi, imam of Al-Maghrib Institute in Memphis – TN, studied under Ali al-Timimi, who was sentenced to life in prison after being convicted of encouraging violent jihad against Americans, after 9/11, and Qadhi was on a terror watch list in 2006; in 2003, Timimi stated, “Muslims were overjoyed because of the adversity that befell their greatest enemy” (the U.S.).

Where are the reports from the mainstream media and the Daily News Journal on the hate-filled words of imam Yasir Qadhi and his fellow Muslim Brothers? Their refusal to report such threats is the affront to the community.

In 2013 Qadhi said that he had been “commanded to fight the people” until they testify “there is no god but Allah” (la illaha illa Allah). And he continued, “The life and property of mushrik (one who worships others besides Allah) holds no value in the state of jihad…which means if they don’t testify…(above quote)…”their lives and property are halal__that is, permitted to be taken by Muslims, if you are “a filthy Christian or Jew.”

See VIDEO of imam Qadhi: Tennessee Imam Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi: “Jews and Christians are Filthy, Their Lives and Property can be Taken in Jihad by the Muslims” – Freedom Outpost

The affront is to America and Our American Heritage, because Islam is not just a religion, and the Daily News Journal would have us silenced on the violence, the terror and multiple human rights violations Islam brings with it, such as the institutionalized mysogyny depicted in ‘Honor Diaries’. They would silence the fact that most of Islam as it exists today, without reform or apology, is incompatible with a free society. These ignorant (see Webster’s 1:a, DNJ) enablers on the DNJ’s editorial board tear at our vigilance in the name of liberty, as they highlight what Americans are doing to supposedly “repress” the Muslim residents and they accept that Islam has political sovereignty. And yet, these are the same fools who go crazy, when Christians stand in defense of the U.S. Constitution, which was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles; these same Progressive multiculturalist fools refuse to admit that there is a global jihad within Islam__ that it is a political project, an imperial project – in a way that modern Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism are not, and a historically bloodthirsty faith.

Hamas Imposes Radical New Law: Lashings, Amputations, and Massive Executions

Fox Haters Carrying Water for CAIR

The Council on American-Islamic Relations Announces Educational Initiativeby :

For some progressive writers, it’s more important to bash Fox News than to expose American Islamist groups’ rejection of liberal values. In recent weeks, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has aggressively promoted articles by Fox haters who are more concerned with smearing CAIR opponents as anti-Muslim bigots than addressing facts and evidence.

The U.S. Justice Department says CAIR is a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and labeled it an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-financing trial. Federal prosecutors said in a 2007 court filing that CAIR uses deception to “conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists.” CAIR’s documented record should alienate every progressive.

Part of those efforts is taking advantage of writers with influence in the media. Don’t take my word for it. Look at what CAIR Vice Chair Sarwat Husain said at another terror-tied conference:

“Media in the United States is very gullible, ok? And they will see that if you have something, especially as a Muslim, if you have something to say, they will come running to you—and take advantage of that.”

In a presentation by CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, he told supporters how to manipulate reporters. One of the slides was titled “Characteristics of a Journalist” and said, “They will expect you to do their work. Let them.”

CAIR also said to exploit the fact that journalists do “little primary research,” are “under extreme deadline pressure” and “fea[r] charges of inaccuracy.” This is especially true of CAIR’s media allies that choose political ideology over all else.

On February 20, CAIR distributed a Media Matters hit piece by Michelle Leung describing me as “Fox’s Newest Anti-Muslim ‘National Security Analyst,’” even though I am neither anti-Muslim nor “new” on Fox. If she had checked her own website’s archives, she would have seen a hit piece from 2011 about an appearance. The premise of that article is that I am not a credible speaker on Libya because I opposed the Ground Zero Mosque.

My appearance was about the Clarion Project’s disclosure of a jihadist enclave in Texas run by Jamaat ul-Fuqra/Muslims of the Americas. Her article didn’t even mention the topic I was discussing because that might wake readers up as to why this was a story worth covering.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Vice Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, said the discovery is “appalling.” Despite Leung’s description of Clarion and me as “anti-Muslim,” around a dozen Muslim organizations in the U.S. and Canada endorsed a statement calling on the U.S. government to label Jamaat ul-Fuqra as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Read more at Front Page

CAIR again turns to Saudi TV to promote new initiative: “Islam for Journalists”

110680358By Adam Savit:

Terror-tied Muslim Brotherhood front group the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is hawking a new “resource” to keep journalists from running afoul of politically sanctioned speech codes when reporting on Islam and Muslims.

As with CAIR’s much-heralded “Islamophobia Report” release last October, the only TV news outlet to cover the story–at least the only one CAIR saw fit to post on their YouTube channel–was KSA-2 TV, the official English-language network of the regime of Saudi Arabia, owned and operated by the Saudi Ministry of Culture and Information.

 

 

Islam for Journalists“Islam for Journalists” is co-edited by Lawrence Pintak, whose works include Seeds of Hate: How America’s Flawed Middle East Policy Ignited the Jihad.  The journalist primer recommends “Experts” including Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Daisy Khan, the married duo behind the push to erect a mega-mosque adjacent to Ground Zero (p.274, ASMA).

While a second party produced this guide, CAIR has released many similar publications meant to sanitize speech and render criticism of Islamist activities and goals impossible.  They include guides for health care workersemployers and educators.

The guide for employers, meant to create a “culturally-sensitive work-place environment,” is perhaps most disturbing.  One need look no further than Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Hassan to see the results of employers and supervisors cowed by political correctness and unable to make the most simple judgments about who or what they deem to be threats to their employees.

The shackles put on journalists, though seemingly less acute, serve to deny policymakers and the public the opportunity to examine the most critical threats to our society and devise policies to counter them.  This inability to describe the threat neuters a free citizen’s ability to confront the threat.  It seems this is what CAIR is banking on.

*******************

CAIR’s Guide to Media Manipulation,  by Ryan Mauro at Clarion Project on October 17, 2013

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, is a master media manipulator. And it is passing on its skills to aspiring activists in ways that should offend and wake up every journalist.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism obtained a CAIR presentation about influencing the media and presented it in an online video (see below). The presentation bears the name of Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s communications director.

In 1993, Hooper was working for CAIR’s predecessor when he said, “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future. In 2003, he allegedly said on a radio program that sharia law would replace the Constitution if Muslims became the majority.

One of the slides titled, “Characteristics of a Journalist,” displays the condescending attitude that CAIR has towards the media. The characteristics are as follows:

  • “They will expect you to do their work. Let them.”
  • “Does little primary research.”
  • “Under extreme deadline pressure.”
  • “Fears charges of inaccuracy.”

CAIR recognizes that journalists have to turn their stories in on time. They are often juggling multiple stories and are not encouraged to indefinitely pursue stories to their ultimate end, digging up every fact and following every lead. After all, most articles are short and are designed to only give a basic overview.

CAIR has offices around the country and staff members whose job is to develop personal relationships with media sources. Once CAIR convinces the media source that it is the authoritative spokesperson of the Muslim-American community, it becomes the spokesperson.

Through this relationship, CAIR can pitch stories complete with accompanying “facts” and quotes, offering the journalist or radio/TV producer a much-needed shortcut. The result is that CAIR, to a large degree, gets to write the narrative.

This relationship is best articulated by the words of Sarwat Husain,Vice Chair of CAIR. In 2008, she spoke at the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) South Central Conference in San Antonio, Texas. ISNA is CAIR’s fellow U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and, along with CAIR, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-funding case in U.S. history which involved the Holyland Foundation.

According to the Investigative Project online video, she said:

“Media in the United States is very gullible, ok? And they will see that if you have something, especially as a Muslim, if you have something to say, they will come running to you—and take advantage of that.”

According to her bio on the CAIR website, Husain serves on the Texas Media Empowerment Project, publishes the largest Muslim newspaper in the state and frequently writes for San Antonio Express News. She even used to sit on the FBI Regional Advisory Council.

In 1993, the FBI wiretapped a secret U.S. Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas meeting in Philadelphia that was attended by two of CAIR’s future founders. One of the topics was the need to build a new front with clean hands that could influence the media, with deception as a primary tactic.

“Forming the public opinion or coming up with a policy to influence … the way the Americans deal with the Islamists, for instance. I believe that should be the goals of this stage,” said Hamas operative Abdel Haleem al-Ashqar.

CAIR was born the following year.

A Muslim Brotherhood document written as far back as 1982 (but seized in a 2001 raid by authorities in Switzerland) emphasized the need for a media offensive. Titled “The Project,” a stated goal was to “diffuse Islamic policy so that it is largely and efficiently covered by the media.”

1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo, seized in 2004 in Virginia, defines its “work in America as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”

The memo states that the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood has a “Media and Art Organization” that is tasked with making newspapers, magazine, radio and television programs, audio/visual centers and building a recording studio. It even says that it has producers, journalists and program anchors ready.

An undated Muslim Brotherhood document also captured in the 2004 Virginia raid and called the “Phases of World Underground Movement Plan” lists the phases of Brotherhood operations in general (not referring to America exclusively). All are done with the utmost secrecy and deception. The media plays a central part.

Phase 2, described as the “phase of gradual appearance on the public scene,” is focused on “gaining public support and sympathy.”

Phase 3, described as the “Escalation Phase, prior to conflict and confrontation with the rulers,” focuses on “utilizing mass media.” Another objective is “containment of the remaining influential elements in the society in preparation for the whole shake-up stage.”

The final fifth phase is, “Seizing power to establish their Islamic Nation under which all parties and Islamic groups become united…”

The internal Brotherhood documents agree: The media is a top-tier target. And based on the statements made by CAIR officials, they are happy with the results.

Doughtie Declares “Deport”

image016By Justin O Smith:

America has often and fruitlessly held forth the hand of friendship and equal freedom to Muslims abroad and here in the United States, but the greatest majority of Muslims (70%) reject equal liberty, equal justice and equal rights in favor of Islamic “fiqh” or Sharia law, and since before 1993 and the first attack on the World Trade Center, Muslims have significantly increased their Islam-inspired terror plots and attacks on U.S. soil. First and second generation U.S. Muslims have turned against our nation, a fact many of us have known for years but one that the ‘Tennessean’ and the ‘New York Times’ seemingly just discovered last week. And, the Muslim Brothers continue to infiltrate the upper echelons of the U.S. government, while only a handful of our state and local leaders, Congressmen and Senators seem to have any real concern over the emerging islamoNazi threat to the United States.

Last week, Mr Pete Doughtie, editor of ‘The Rutherford Reader’, called for Muslims to be deported from the U.S., especially members of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). Mr Doughtie fully understands the subversive tactics used by CAIR and the MB; his solution is both necessary and supported by the facts.

CAIR has a long history of associating with felons in terrorism probes, suspected terrorists and convicted terrorists. The list is long and includes Nihad Awad, CAIR’s director; Ghassan Eli, who was convicted in April of 2005 on charges of conspiracy to deal in the property of a specially designated terrorist; and Randall “Ismail” Royer of Virginia Jihad infamy, who was convicted of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and weapons violations.

Closer scrutiny of a few Muslim Brotherhood members, who follow the credo “Jihad is our way and death in the cause of Allah is our dream”, reveals a picture indicative of thousands of others operating within all levels of the U.S. government throughout America. Their views on Sharia law and terrorism should have precluded any entry level position in the U.S. government.

Azizah al-Hibri was appointed by Obama to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. She has stated that Islamic law, the harshest on earth, is more moral than the U.S. code of law, because it accepts “blood money” from murderers. She has also made appearances with a top Al Qaeda fundraiser, Abdurhaman Alamoudi, now serving 23 years in prison.

Rashad Hussain is the Special Envoy to the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC). He is held in high esteem by Sharia law advocates, because he has memorized the Koran. And bear in mind, the OIC, headquartered in Jeddah-Saudi Arabia, is dedicated to spreading Sharia law globally.

Obama’s “Sharia Czar” is Imam Mohammed Magid, and he is also the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim Brotherhood front organization. His father, Al-Haj Majd Haj Mosa, is a Cairo-trained MB scholar, and he was once the top cleric in the Republic of Sudan, one of the most Sharia compliant nations in the world.

After a wide-sweeping terror finance investigation in March 2002, Customs Agent David Kane testified that the All Dulles Muslim Society Center (ADAMS), led by Mohammed Magid, was being used to launder hundreds of thousands of dollars for the targeted finance network that shared offices with the ADAMS Center. Eleven ADAMS Center officials were also targets of this investigation.

Former Islamic Center of Murfreesboro (ICM) board member, Mossad Rawash, was a staunch supporter of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), much like Sami al-Arian. Arian was a tenured professor at the University of South Florida, until he was indicted on terror support charges after 9-11-01 and his leadership role in the PIJ was discovered. On November 3, 2013, the ICM featured a roving board member of the ISNA, Jamal Badawi, who is also a terrorist supporter and an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Conspiracy. Saleh Sbenaty, MTSU professor and ICM spokesperson, is a member of the MB. So…Yes!…the Federal Bureau of Investigation should be looking deep into the finances of the ICM.

On December 1, the ‘Tennessean’ put forth a ridiculously low figure of “20 American citizens”, who have joined Islamic terrorist organizations in order to participate in the numerous wars across the Middle East and North Africa, which would only account for the young Somali-American men who went to Somalia last year to join al-Shabaab. There are hundreds of well documented cases of American and European Muslims joining jihadist causes and “holy wars”, from the 1980s and Afghanistan up to this year in Mali. And just as battle-hardened jihadists returned from their “holy war” against the Soviets to fight in Serbia for a separate Islamic state, America can one day expect American Muslims returning from service in Al Qaeda, al-Shabaab, Islamic Jihad, the Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria to foment rebellion, increase their practice of terrorism on U.S. soil and attempt to establish a separate Islamic state within the United States.

And let us not forget the ordinary Muslims living in America, like Basit Sheikh, a legal resident of North Carolina, who was arrested last month by the FBI, as he attempted to leave for Lebanon in order to join Jabhat al-Nusrah, a terrorist organization. Do not forget the two Iraqi men living in public housing in Bowling Green, KY since 2009, who were discovered to be Iraqi Al Qaeda terrorists with the blood of U.S. soldiers on their hands.

Pete Doughtie is in good company, since journalist Andy McCarthy and Frank Gaffney, ex-deputy assistant Defense Secretary, have both called for precluding Muslims from Muslim majority nations and “sharia-adherent Muslims” from the U.S., just as we banned advocates for communism after WWII. After the Boston Marathon Bombing, Laura Ingraham, FoxNews contributor, called for a ban on Muslim immigration, and several U.S. Senators, such as Rand Paul, suggested much the same.

“Who will stand up”, asked Mr Doughtie.

We all should be standing shoulder to shoulder in a movement to deport all Muslims not holding U.S. citizenship, much as I have advocated since 1993. Some of us should even be considering running for local, state and federal offices, in order to enforce Article I – Section 8 power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, in agreement with past Supreme Court affirmations that Congress and the American people have the “power to make rules for the admission of aliens and to exclude those who possess those characteristics which Congress has forbidden”. Moreover, Muslims can be stripped of their U.S. citizenship and deported, if they have actively fought and taken up arms against the U.S., according to many legal/Constitution experts: All those now standing and advocating for the deportation of Muslims, especially CAIR and MB members, understand that protecting U.S. interests and American citizens and maintaining American sovereignty, independence and freedom of action must be the primary, overriding concern of our nation and its leaders.

An Islamist Thanksgiving

american-muslims-for-palestine-ad-metro-northby Ryan Mauro

Islamists even see Thanksgiving as a time to advance their cause. In the morning, Islamists exploited the parade and in the evening, Islamists assembled in Illinois for the “Conference for Palestine in the U.S.” And one of their favorite evangelicals was there to join them.

The organizer of the event was American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) and it took place at Crowne Plaza O’Hare in Rosemont, Illinois from November 28 to December 1. The Islamist group often works with interfaith coalitions and one of its very partners is Presbyterian Reverend Donald Wagner, former director and current board member of Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding.

Last year’s AMP conference had at least 13 Islamist speakers with pro-Hamas and pro-Muslim Brotherhood agendas and had education for children about their cause. Reverend Wagner was also on the speaker’s roster and is back again this year.

The AMP explicitly says that he “works internationally to educate Christians about the problems of Christian Zionism.” He falsely states that evangelicals support Israel only to trigger an Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ. To put it another way, Wagner and his group see them as the Christian equivalent of Ahmadinejad.

And his group isn’t just talking among themselves and to Islamists that don’t need convincing. In November 2012, Wagner’s group held a Middle East briefing at the Billy Graham Center of Wheaton College. The speakers were hostile to Israel and support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign.

Wagner’s fellow speakers at the Thanksgiving Weekend conference are prominent Islamists whose backgrounds are simple to find. He and the other non-Muslim speakers like Max Blumenthal and Josh Ruebner, National Advocacy Director of the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, have no excuse. They are either don’t care about the conference’s extremism or don’t care to know.

AMP Chairman Hatem Bazian is one of the Islamist co-founders of Zaytuna College in California. In 2004, he was videotaped calling for an “intifada” in America to “change fundamentally the political dynamics here.” He told Muslims to follow in the footsteps of Palestinians fighting Israel and Iraqis fighting U.S. forces.

Osama Abu Irshaid is a board member of the AMP. He used to be the editor for a Muslim Brotherhood front in the U.S. and legitimized Hamas’s attacks on Israel in 2010 as legally justifiable. He also has called Hamas “the resistance.”

Rashid Khalidi of Columbia University is well-known for his incendiary comments. He says he is a “severe critic” of Hamas but described the killing of Israeli soldiers as “resistance” in 2002. His wife also worked for the PLO when it was officially designated as a terrorist group by the U.S.

Abdelfattah Mourou is a co-founder of the Ennahda Party that currently leads Tunisia. The population that once elected it to power has since turned against it. It is essentially the Brotherhood’s branch there and he co-founded it with Rachid Ghannouchi, a prominent Islamist with a long record of extremism.

Sheikh Kifah Mustapha is an imam and Associate Director at the Mosque Foundation in Bridgeview, Illinois. He is an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation.

The U.S. government specifically listed him as an elite operative of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood as a member of its secret Palestine Committee. These operatives covertly advance the interests of Hamas through a web of fronts. He was even in a pro-Hamas band.

According to AMP, Mustapha is the chairman of the Quran Institute of the Chicago chapter of the Muslim American Society. He is also the President of the Shura of Islamic Family Counselors of America and chairman of the Illinois Council of Imams and Scholars. Several other positions are listed in his bio, reflecting the success the Brotherhood has had in building and infiltrating Islamic institutions in America.

Read more at Front Page

CAIR’s Ayloush Gives Dishonest, Bullying Answer to Hamas Question

ACLU Honors CAIR With Civil Libertarian Award

aclu

The FBI stopped outreach to CAIR “ensure that the FBI is not supporting individuals who support terrorist ideologies.”

BY RYAN MAURO:

Every year, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) chapter of Washington state bestows a defender of freedom with a Civil Libertarian Award. Of the seven million people in the state, the ACLU has chosen the state’s branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity linked to Hamas, to be this year’s award recipient.

CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in the terror-funding trial of the Holy Land Foundation, another U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity that was shut down for financing Hamas. The FBI officially ended its connection to CAIR as an outreach partner in order to “ensure that the FBI is not supporting individuals who support extremist or terrorist ideologies.”

A recent Facebook announcement by CAIR-National boasts that the Washington chapters of CAIR and the ACLU succeeded in having advertisements on buses removed that “stigmatized Muslims as terrorists.”

The ads were funded by the State Department to promote rewards for finding wanted terrorists. CAIR-WA was offended that the majority of the most wanted terrorists are Muslims.

The executive director of CAIR’s Washington chapter is Arsalan Bukhari. He and other CAIR officials have inhibited FBI investigations into terrorist recruitment, enraging other Muslim leaders.

“There’s nothing to gain from talking to law enforcement,” Bukhari said to a Muslim audience in December 2009.

He continued, “I can’t emphasize enough, you have the right to remain silent, so use it.”

Bukhari’s message is part of the overall “Islamophobia” narrative used by CAIR and its allies to influence public perception and politics. Islamists consistently label their critics as anti-Muslim bigots and tell Muslim audiences that they face a severe threat from the U.S. government, society and an immensely-powerful “Islamophobia Network.”

Read more at Clarion Project

Ford Interfaith Network Embraces CAIR-Michigan

Dawud Walid

CAIR-MI’s Dawud Walid, says the FBI is ‘manufacturing their own terrorism.’ He has spoken at Ford three times.

BY RYAN MAURO:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity linked to the Hamas terrorist group, is boasting that the Executive Director of its Michigan chapter, Dawud Walid, spoke at Ford World Headquarters in Dearborn on October 24.

According to CAIR’s press release, it was the third time that Walid spoke for the Ford Interfaith Network’s yearly gathering. He was put on a pedestal as the event’s keynote speaker.

The federal government designated CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history. It listed CAIR as an “entity” of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, a secret body that was set up to advance the agenda of Hamas in America.

The designation was upheld by a federal judge in 2009 because of “ample” evidence linking CAIR to Hamas. The FBI ended its use of CAIR as an outreach partner in July 2008 because of this evidence.

Federal prosecutors stated in a court filing, “From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists…the conspirators agreed to use deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists.”

CAIR’s founders previously belonged to the pro-Hamas Islamic Association for Palestine, a group that is now defunct. A 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo unequivocally identifies the group as part of its apparatus. The memo says its “work in America as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”

CAIR is also extremely hostile to rival Muslims that oppose its Islamist doctrine that is friendly to the Muslim Brotherhood. In May, CAIR lashed out at a moderate Muslim group without provocation, essentially accusing it of being a Trojan Horse and traitor to the Muslim community.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has a 16-page report chronicling Walid’s extremist record. He has a history of incendiary rhetoric against the U.S. government and Jews and his CAIR chapter fundraises with the assistance of some of the most extreme Islamists around.

******

If Dawud Walid and CAIR-MI are moderates, why would they use Wahhaj to fundraise—and why would Wahhaj agree to help the group fundraise?

We have sent an email to Ford asking the company to reconsider its embrace of CAIR and whether it has donated to the organization or its events. We will update you on any response we receive.

We encourage concerned readers to write a polite email and to include a link to this article and the Clarion Project’s full profile of CAIR. You can email Ford by clicking here. Be sure to select “Public Affairs” as your topic of inquiry.

You can also write Ford at:

Ford Motor Company

Customer Relationship Center

P.O. Box 6248

Dearborn, MI 48126

Read more at Clarion Project

What’s Behind CAIR’s Attempt to Stop Training Course about Hezbollah?

H rallyBY CLARE LOPEZ:

A very odd situation has developed in which the Council on American-Islamic Relations(CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood front group that was named by the Department of Justice as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial, issued a last-minute call to replace three highly-qualified instructors for a course on the Iranian proxy terror group, Hezbollah.

The Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy (CSP) think tank was certified by the Oklahoma Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training (CLEET) to deliver a one-day seminar entitled “Iran, Hezbollah and the Drug Cartels: Counterterrorism Considerations.” CAIR wanted CLEET to drop the course instructors whom it terms “anti-Muslim extremists.”

On October 28, 2013, CAIR issued a call to CLEET Executive Director Steve Emmons to replace course presenters Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William G. “Jerry” Boykin, Frank Gaffney and Clare Lopez with what it calls “’credible and objective subject matter experts.”

Yet, here are the credentials of the presenters:

Gen. Jerry Boykin, currently Executive Vice President of the Family Research Council, is one of the original members of the U.S. Army Delta Force. Boykin led Green Beret Special Forces and commanded their Special Warfare Center and School, and served as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. There are few who could match his credentials as a subject matter expert on topics related to terrorism.

Frank Gaffney is the Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy and served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy in the Reagan administration. He brings decades of national security expertise to this course and addressed its final hour with a presentation on the Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) threat to the U.S. critical infrastructure.

Clare Lopez (author of this piece) is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy and the co-author of two books about Iran who has briefed Congressional members, and lectured and published widely on national security and terrorism topics. She also was an expert witness and co-author of a key affidavit in the 2011 Havlish case, in which Judge George Daniels of the Southern District of New York found Iran and Hezbollah jointly responsible together with al-Qaeda for the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Adam Soltani, executive director of CAIR’s Oklahoma chapter, led the ill-informed and ultimately unsuccessful campaign for the removal of these well-qualified course instructors. To their credit, the Oklahoma Counterterrorism Caucus, which sponsored the seminar, and Rep. John Bennett, R-Sallisaw, Caucus Chairman, held firm against CAIR’s pressure tactics, and the course went on as scheduled.

Soltani himself, apparently very keen to attend the training, nevertheless apparently applied too late for a seat in the full-capacity hall. Bennett advised Soltani by email prior to the course running that registration had closed, but Soltani showed up anyway. He reportedly found a place from which to follow the course in the Visitors Gallery.

Read more at Clarion Project

See also: CAIR Tries to Stop Counter-Terror Training Sessions by Ryan Mauro

IPT Rebuttal to Electronic Intifida’s Revisionism

IPT News
November 1, 2013

Spies in the Classroom: CAIR vs. Campus Watch

Nihad Awad, Director and founder of CAIR

Nihad Awad, Director and founder of CAIR

By :

When on October 1, 2013, Samantha Bowden crept unannounced into the classroom of University of Central Florida communications professor Jonathan Matusitz, she wasn’t hoping to advance her education on the sly. Rather, Bowden, the communication and outreach director for the Florida branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-FL), was doing something of which Campus Watch has been frequently accused, but has never done: spying on a professor in an effort to embarrass him and, with luck, even harm his career.

Since its inception in 2002, Campus Watch (CW)—a project of the Middle East Forum that reviews and critiques Middle East studies in North America with an aim to improving them—has been charged with an array of outrageous calumnies. They include paying students to infiltrate classrooms as “spies” or “informers”; targeting “pro-Palestinian” professors; and tracking “anti-Israel” comments.” (Click here for a full collection of examples.)

Writing at his blog in 2005, University of Pennsylvania teaching assistant David Faris claimed to have been dogged by a Campus Watch “spy” for months: “At Penn, one of my semesters as a teaching assistant was deeply marred by an undergraduate Campus Watch spy . . . .” Faris flatters himself, as Campus Watch has never heard of him, then or since.

Hatem Bazian, a Near Eastern studies lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley, declared in a 2006 interview that “he knew of students in his classroom who attended just so they could write down what he says, essentially spying on him.”

Ben-Gurion University political geography professor David Newman, in 2010, fantasized that Campus Watch “turns students into spies in the name of a specific political ideology.”

In 2010, Dorit Naaman, a film and media professor at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, wrote that Campus Watch “asked students to spy on their professors and track their ‘anti Israel’ record on a public website.”

Meanwhile, in a 2012 interview, University of Pennsylvania political science professor Ian Lustick maintained that “he has had students in his classes act as ‘spies’ for Campus Watch.”

While such colorful tales of intrigue make for a gripping story, Campus Watch defies anyone to provide proof that it ever sent paid “spies” into university classrooms. Can one of the accusers make available a paycheck stub or other written evidence to indicate that Campus Watch staff sought to infiltrate a professor’s classroom? Have any Campus Watch employees actually been apprehended sneaking into classrooms in the manner of CAIR’s Bowden?

Indeed, CAIR has been caught red-handed doing exactly that with which academia and its allies have fallaciously charged Campus Watch and instead of outrage, the incident has been met with silence.

The fact that CAIR—an Islamist outfit posing as a defender of civil rights, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial (among other terrorist ties), and a recipient of illegal foreign funding—has been embraced by the Middle East studies establishment (click herehereherehere, and here for just a few examples) likely has something to do with it. It turns out the only “spies” Middle East studies specialists are truly concerned about are those that threaten the politically-correct view of the Middle East; when it’s one of their own, they turn a blind eye. This the height of hypocrisy, not to mention a textbook example of projection.

Campus Watch challenges these professors to denounce CAIR’s harassment with the same fervor they’ve demonstrated over the years leveling spurious accusations of spying against CW. To do otherwise would be to demonstrate the hollowness of their concerns.

Cinnamon Stillwell is the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. She can be reached at stillwell@meforum.org.

Don’t miss Jamie Glazov’s video interview with Steven Emerson on “The Sordid World of CAIR”: 

DEBATING THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN AMERICA Part IV: “Islamophobia”

600x668xme-600x668.jpg.pagespeed.ic_.OLmPVV4k0T

Juicy Ecumenism:

The Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper Series

DEBATING THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN AMERICA

An Interview with DHS Advisor Mohamed Elibiary

Ryan Mauro,  The Clarion Project

Made possible through the Institute for Religion & Democracy

Part IV: “Islamophobia”

Here, Elibiary admits that the US Muslim Brotherhood existed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but references its internal communications that complain about the group’s inability to control the Muslim-American community. After pointing out that these communications were decades ago, Elibiary says “the concept of a US Muslim Brotherhood becomes even more of an absurd overreach.”

Mauro: Why do you think concern about the US Muslim Brotherhood, whose existence was proven during the Holy Land Foundation trial, is “Islamophobia” and what do you think should happen as a result?

Elibiary: American Muslim Brotherhood leaders themselves, as far back as the late 1980s and early 1990s in publicly-available documents from the HLF trial, lament the fact that the American Muslim community had grown way too large for them to influence it. Add to that another nearly three decades of further growth and the concept of a US Muslim Brotherhood becomes even more of an absurd overreach.

In other words, Elibiary argues that the US Muslim Brotherhood essentially evaporated. The fact that the US Muslim Brotherhood network does not enjoy as much Muslim support as it would like is presented as proof that it doesn’t exist anymore at all. However, most of the organizations identified as US Muslim Brotherhood entities still exist, as do many of the officials that served during the time that Elibiary concedes they were Brotherhood groups.

2009 Hudson Institute study looked at the Islamic Society of North America, one such Brotherhood entity. It concluded, “All but one of the individuals listed on the ISNA founding documents remain active either in ISNA or one of its affiliated organizations” and that ISNA and other Brotherhood affiliates “continue to exist in their original form.” Furthermore, a 2004 Chicago Tribune investigation gave readers “a rare look at [the] secretive [Muslim] Brotherhood in America.”

Elibiary (cont’d): Plus, as part of my engagement with Muslim communities across the country, I have met privately with all the major national Muslim organizations regularly demonized as “front groups” for the Muslim Brotherhood and gained from them all a very clear understanding of their perspectives on Islamism/Political Islam in our country. In my opinion, these community organizations are in 2013 operating as American organizations fully within the bounds of US law for the benefit of the American Muslim community and broader American society.

If it’s a matter of recognizing and addressing legitimate security concerns about the “US Muslim Brotherhood,” you’d be hard pressed to find someone who’s done more substantively on the topic than I have over the past decade.

As the FBI’s own press release about some of my work stated, I’ve been building up community-based partnerships with law enforcement since 2003. One can’t do that in the Dallas-based environment where I grew up without first addressing the mess left behind by HLF. Therefore, it’s illogical to ever accuse me of being dismissive of legitimate “concerns about the US Muslim Brotherhood” as simply “Islamophobia.”

The most important part of this section is Mr. Elibiary’s comments suggesting that he has helped protect US Muslim Brotherhood entities. The language strongly infers that the US government was preparing to indict components of the US Muslim Brotherhood network besides the Holy Land Foundation—and, perhaps, he played a role in stopping it from happening. There are three quotes that stand out:

  • “I helped my community pick up the pieces and safeguard its nonprofit organizations, in order to protect its liberties, after the HLF’s closure and eventual conviction.”
  • “But the corollary to my position was that if the Muslim community leadership and the government can mutually reconcile and turn a new page, then the targeted national Muslim community organizations should be allowed to proceed anew.”
  • “As has been reported in multiple conservative media outlets over the past few years, the long-desired HLF 2.0 trial for the unindicted co-conspirators isno longer going to happen.”

Elibiary’s efforts to “safeguard” American Islamists from prosecution substantiates the April 2011 reports by Patrick Poole that the Justice Department stopped planned indictments of HLF co-conspirators including a founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and several officials with the International Institute of Islamic Thought and the now-defunct SAAR Group.

Elibiary (cont’d): The bottom line is that my decade-plus track record is clear to anyone with an objective eye. In my career, I have both advocated in defense of the Muslim community as well as directly pioneered the at-times dangerous counter-ideological work associated with several of our nation’s biggest homegrown terrorism investigations.

Post-9/11, I decided to respond by assisting our government counter threats to the homeland from al-Qaeda and its associated allies. Simultaneously, I helped my community pick up the pieces and safeguard its nonprofit organizations, in order to protect its liberties, after the HLF’s closure and eventual conviction.

A segment of our fellow Americans see those two goals as mutually exclusive. I naturally disagree with that assessment and my track record indicates that. I staked out a flag early after HLF was closed that, due to some mistakes made before 9/11 by community members, the criminal trial should be allowed to proceed and the criminal justice system’s verdict respected. But the corollary to my position was that if the Muslim community leadership and the government can mutually reconcile and turn a new page, then the targeted national Muslim community organizations should be allowed to proceed anew.

The following passage is important, as Elibiary acknowledges America’s “legitimate security concerns about Muslim Brotherhood-associated networks.” While being candid, Elibiary recognition of these networks at all puts him at odds with most of his ideological allies in Muslim activism—and, indeed, the mainstream media and far-left activists as well—who disregard the mountains of court-admitted evidence of Brotherhood’s web of influence in America as little more than a conspiracy theory. Later in the interview, though, Elibiary seems to contradict himself and approve of this narrative, if only to use as a cudgel against his critics.

Elibiary (cont’d): Staking out that middle-of-the-road position that would satisfy all of the government’s legitimate security concerns about Muslim Brotherhood-associated networks providing material support to terrorism and the organized Muslim community maintaining certain nonprofits and their civic engagement capabilities, naturally was not acceptable to absolutists at both ends of the spectrum.

There were those voices in the Muslim community who wondered if I might be a sellout because I wouldn’t join the HLF’s Hungry for Justice Coalition and instead staked out an independent public messaging line in the media. Similarly, there were voices in the anti-Islamist advocacy community, including their law enforcement and media allies, who frankly continue to see that, because I won’t accept the marginalization and eventual indictment of the HLF unindicted co-conspirator community organizations, that I can’t be fully trusted in a post-9/11 Global War on Terror.

Naturally, I have been happy to see, by and large, the United States government arrive at a similar endpoint as I staked out a decade ago in Dallas. As has been reported in multiple conservative media outlets over the past few years, the long-desired HLF 2.0 trial for the unindicted co-conspirators is no longer going to happen.

So with the HLF 1.0 trial’s appeal process now complete and no more HLF-associated “US Muslim Brotherhood” trials coming, an honest and frank discussion should publicly happen between all the parties so our country can move forward.

As to the topic of “Islamophobia,” this term is too often used as a political weapon and fundraising plea. There have been incidents of discrimination and hatred towards Muslims, but the rapid-fire use of the “Islamophobia” term was being used by Islamists long before September 11, 2001.

A former member of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (a US Muslim Brotherhood entity), Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, recalls being at a group meeting in the early 1990s where they discussed using the term against their opponents. He later said, “This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliché conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.”

Elibiary (cont’d): Islamophobia or anti-Muslim bigotry as I prefer to call it, today in “God’s greatest nation” as Michael Medved says, to me comes in three varieties. The first form of Islamophobia is simply an irrational bigotry towards anything Islam- or Muslim-related, and that’s a very small percentage of our population that I don’t really worry about because it’s driven by a diminishing emotional radicalization dynamic.

The second form of Islamophobia is a Western civilization phenomenon, aptly coined “anti-Semitism on training wheels” by Suhail Khan, a former Bush White House official, during his debate with Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy at the Harbor League years ago.

This form is strongly rejected by Jewish community leaders because it smacks of a “Protocols of Elders of Zion”-type narrative about Muslims trying to take over the world. It tells Americans that Islamic theology is uniquely a threat to our way of life and therefore needs special preventative legal measures, just as in centuries past, Western anti-Semites used to make the same arguments of Jews and their faith as being incompatible with enlightened European Christian values.

The third form of Islamophobia treats the 2013’s organized American Muslim community as a counter-intelligence subversive front group for the international Islamist movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood. This approach treats the American Muslim community with undeserved and unfair suspicion, and marginalizes a sizable portion of our fellow citizens out of the political mainstream, like a pariah.

I, more than most, have gone out of my way to sit down with fellow Americans who find themselves concerned about Muslim Brotherhood associations within the American Muslim community to help them find peace of mind after separating fact from fiction.

Unlike some other Muslim community leaders who’ve wholesale labeled all Americans in this category as similar to the “anti-Semitism on training wheels” second category of “Islamophobia,” I have privately gone out of my way to speak graciously with those who’ve most viciously attacked me publicly as a subversive threat myself to our national security and offered to clarify their misunderstandings in this area.

Patrick Poole broke the story that Elibiary was suspected of trying to leak confidential information for political purposes. Elibiary claims that Poole never contacted him before publishing the story, while Poole told me that Elibiary never responded to him.

As Poole previously pointed out, the Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety confirmed that Elibiary downloaded the documents in question. When Secretary Napolitano apparently denied Poole’s story, she was responding to a question about whether Elibiary tried to leak “classified” information. Poole never asserted that the documents were classified; he said they were marked “Law Enforcement Sensitive.”

In addition, Poole told the Clarion Project that the Department of Homeland Security: “At no time was I or my source ever contacted by anyone at DHS. How could they have done an investigation with only one side being heard?”

Elibiary (cont’d): For example, in early 2011, after completing my speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), I approached Patrick Poole, a terrorism investigative reporter, and handed him my business card offering to talk and explain things after his public broadside of me in Andrew Breitbart’sBig Peace news site for helping the Department of Homeland Security with its Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) policies.

I never heard from Patrick until 8 months later when he emailed me requesting my response to his charge against me of mishandling classified intelligence, a charge I would later be publicly cleared of a few months later in a congressional hearing after an investigation by our government.

Similarly with Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert, as he personally recalled our interaction on a conservative talk radio program, I privately walked up to him in June 2012 at the Texas GOP Convention and offered to answer any of his concerns about my work. Unfortunately, the Congressman declined my offer and proceeded to, within about a month in partnership with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Congressman Trent Franks and others, to fire off a letter to the Inspector General of DHS requesting I get investigated for Muslim Brotherhood influence.

Part I: The Holy Land Foundation

Part II: Elibiary & the Muslim Brotherhood

Part III: Elibiary’s Relationship with American Islamists

Part IV: “Islamophobia”

Part V: US Policy (To be published tomorrow)

Steven Emerson interviewed on Fox News about latest film “Jihad in America: the Grand Deception”

se

Bill Hemmer: A stunning new documentary now revealing the rising influence it believes of the Muslim Brotherhood not in Cairo, Egypt but here in the United States. It’s called Jihad in America: The Grand Deception. It describes the Islamic group’s real mission they believe here in the U.S. Here is a clip discussing a secret document found by the FBI. Watch it and you’ll hear from the producer of this film.

Film Narrator: It was titled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.” It’s dated May 22, 1991.

Jeff Breinholt [Dept. of Justice Deputy Chief, Counterterrorism 2002-2007]: “The process of settlement is a civilization-jihadist process with all the word means. The Ikhwan, which is what the Brotherhood uses to describe themselves, must understand that their work 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 and the hands of the believers so it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” That’s pretty clear as to how they viewed their own objective. And this is, they’re talking about the United States here.

Hemmer: Wow. Steve Emerson is the film maker. Jihad in America: The Grand Deception. He is my guest now out of Washington. Steve, good morning to you. You’re gonna get a lot of attention for this film. I think you know that and I think you know it’s coming. Why did you make the film, first off?

Steve Emerson: Well my organization, the Investigative Project on Terrorism, has been investigating the whole network and infrastructure of radical Islamic groups in the United States, but not necessarily those that preach jihad openly or on television. Those that do it behind closed doors but pretend to be civil rights groups. So what we have and we’ve discovered is a massive deception perpetrated by these groups. It would be like David Duke parading himself as a civil rights organization and getting accepted and legitimized by the White House, by Hollywood, by the elite media, by Congress. And so I think this is a real corrosive effect on our democracy, on –

Hemmer: I want you to back up some of these claims, ok? Take them one at a time, you said a lot in your first answer there. Inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood they enjoy considerable influence in the United States. How and where?

Emerson: They operate under fake names or false names. They don’t call themselves the Muslim Brotherhood. And this was all laid out in various documents or even secret tape recordings that we actually portray in the film, or we reveal in the film. The document that viewers just saw talked about their ulterior agenda of infiltrating and destroying the U.S. from within. So all these groups, and I’m not exaggerating to say that there are scores of radical Islamic groups hiding under the pretension of being civil rights organization or simply a religious organization, but in fact have an ulterior agenda. And the film itself actually portrays what goes on behind closed doors with these organizations, whether it’s Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, whether it’s Hizballah. All of these groups have organizations in the U.S. and they portray themselves as simple, innocent civil rights organizations –

Hemmer: You take it a step further. They’re deceiving American leaders, deceiving law enforcement, media, universities across the country. That again is a big claim.

Emerson: Well unfortunately it’s true and don’t take my word for it, look at the film. The film can be purchased on Amazon or its being shown in New York this next week. Or go to the web site www.granddeception.com. Look and listen to a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood who appears in the film for the first time and renounces his membership and talks about the deception. Look at the clip of a major imam who was an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, appears before Congress giving the invocation. Look at the way Hollywood –

Hemmer: Let me pause you right there because you brought it up. I think it hits at the 13 or 14 minute mark in the 70 minute film. I’ll ask you to explain this next. Watch.

Siraj Wahhaj before Congress: “In the name of God, most gracious, most merciful, guide the leaders of this nation who have been given a great responsibility in worldly affairs. Guide them, and grant them righteousness and wisdom.”

Narrator: Siraj Wahhaj, a sometime leader and prominent speaker at events hosted by American groups connected with the Muslim Brotherhood, was chosen to give the first Muslim invocation before Congress in 1991. Here he is after his Congressional appearance.

Wahhaj: They want to defend this country. You know what this country is? It’s a garbage can, filthy, filthy and sick.

Hemmer: Who is he and why was he invited to speak on the floor of the House?

Emerson: Well I can’t tell you why he was invited because I wasn’t around in 1991 when he was invited, but I assume it was in the spirit of ecumenical outreach. What the congressman who invited him didn’t do was the due diligence, was to show exactly what he says behind closed doors in contrast to what he says openly. What he says behind closed doors is what we captured in the film, along with many other groups who say preach peace and preach non-violence openly in front of TV cameras and say they condemn terrorism, but when you ask them will they condemn Hamas or Hizballah they don’t consider them terrorist groups. And behind closed doors they actually promote these organizations or tell their constituents like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which the FBI itself called a Hamas front, is routinely interviewed in major newspapers, the Associated Press, appears on television – just appeared the other day on network television as if they were a legitimate civil rights group.

Hemmer: But Muslim Brotherhood would say hey we’re here to help promote our religion, we’re here to help promote communities, we’re here to help promote education. In the thirty seconds I have left, can you prove that they’ve had success doing the things that you just described to us over the past several minutes, Steve?

Emerson: I think I can and I think I would let the viewers watch the film. But I think to the extent that they’ve been able to infiltrate law enforcement, to stop the FBI from actually circulating materials on the Muslim Brotherhood because “it was offensive to Islam.” It wasn’t offensive to Islam, it was offensive to the Muslim Brotherhood. And the same thing goes on in terms at the Department of Justice, where prosecutions have been quashed into terrorist financing because it might be considered offensive. And I think we need to get beyond this because we want to empower genuine moderates in the Islamic community, Bill.

Hemmer: It’s called The Grand Deception: Jihad in America. Steve Emerson is its producer. Steve, thank you.