Great Idea, Ibrahim Hooper!

Chicago ABC Station, Financial Institutions Co-Sponsor CAIR Banquet

Tennessee: School enforces sharia, bans town hall on…sharia law

By Creeping Sharia:

via FBI-banned, DOJ classified unindicted terror funding co-conspirator, fed judge confirmed Hamas front group CAIR Welcomes Cancellation of Anti-Muslim Event in Tenn. School

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today said it has joined with concerned Muslims in Tennessee in welcoming cancellation of an anti-Muslim event scheduled for April 24 at a Knoxville high school.

Another American inflicted with Adult Onset Islam via Approval rescinded for Shari’a Law event at Farragut High School.

"It's kind of an aggressive tone on the flyer," said AbdelRahman Murphy.

“It’s kind of an aggressive tone on the flyer,” said AbdelRahman Murphy.

“Feel free hosting it anywhere else by renting out a banquet hall, but to host it at a public place is one that is not comfortable for the rest of us to know about,” said [AbdelRahman] Murphy.

6 News reached out to the Knoxville chapter of ACT! for America. They say it is about education.

“He is going to be coming to share with us his expertise on what Shari’a law can be doing to Tennessee and to America as a whole,” said John Peach with ACT! For America.

They also say the venue simply should not matter.

“We feel like it’s very important that we have our public institutions take part in this because it’s not meant to be a religious thing. It’s not a political thing. It’s particularly for education purposes,” said Peach.

There is no word yet if ACT! for America plans to hold the event in a new venue.

John Peach issued this statement late Friday afternoon:

“Why is it that Muslims engage in teaching about how good Islam is for Tennessee at the Cedar Bluff Library – a public building, but they feel “uncomfortable” when ACT! for America plans an event to show the opposite viewpoint at a public building? (This is documented as follows):

Muslims like the support the University of Tennessee gives them to host activities and venues on their campus. Furthermore, it likes its Muslim Student Association (MSA) to hold events at their tax supported public UT campus.

“Why is it that all Tennessee social study textbooks to be authorized for use in our public schools must be approved by Muslim affiliates? (Hundreds of reviews have exposed the fact that our textbooks are overwhelmingly biased toward Muslims over Christianity and Judaism, with Islam always portrayed as being more significant than all other religions).

“Political Correctness has gone amuck and is destroying our country. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? If it’s right for Muslims to host events in tax-funded public facilities, then what is wrong with a group of citizens wanting the same privilege?

“Last December, ACT! for America – Knoxville Chapter was granted permission by Knox County Schools to use the facilities of Farragut High School to hold an educational forum including two speakers, followed by an opportunity for the public to answer any questions of the two. This we called the Town Hall – Farragut.

“We in good faith and urgent vitality have been promoting this event for the past four months, believing we were following all the guidelines given to us. We have spent over $1500.00 to advance this cause, including taking out a special insurance policy just to cover this occasion.

“The purpose of the meeting was to educate our local citizens about the dangers of Sharia Law, especially as it negatively affects our children, our churches, our law enforcement personnel, and our community leaders. Now, due to the fear of Muslims in the Knoxville area, the venue for the event that was open to everyone was cancelled. This is a great example of what Sharia Law is doing to America.”

 

 

The Roots of CAIR’s Intimidation Campaign

pic_giant_041214_SM_The-Roots-of-CAIRs-Intimidation-Campaignby ANDREW C. MCCARTHY:

Author’s Note: This week, capitulating to Islamic-supremacist agitation led by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Brandeis University reneged on its announced plan to present an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the heroic human-rights activist. In my 2010 book, The Grand Jihad, I devoted a chapter to the origins and purposes of CAIR, its roots in the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hamas-support network, and its aim to silence critics of Islamic supremacism. In light of the continuing success of this campaign – despite a federal terrorism-financing prosecution that exposed CAIR’s unsavory background – it is worth revisiting that history. What follows is an adapted excerpt from that chapter.

In January 1993, a new, left-leaning U.S. administration, inclined to be more sympathetic to the Islamist clause, came to power. But before he could bat an eye, President Bill Clinton was confronted by the murder and depraved mutilation of American soldiers in Somalia. A few weeks later, on February 26, jihadists bombed the World Trade Center. The public was angry and appeasing Islamists would have to wait.

Yasser Arafat, however, sensed opportunity. The terrorist intifada launched at the end of 1987 had been a successful gambit for the Palestine Liberation Organization chief. Within a year, even as the body count mounted, the weak-kneed “international community” was granting the PLO the right to participate (though not to vote) in U.N. General Assembly sessions. And when Arafat made the usual show of “renouncing” terrorism – even as he was orchestrating terrorist attacks in conjunction with Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other Islamist factions – the United States recognized him as the Palestinians’ legitimate leader, just as the Europeans had done. Arafat blundered in 1991, throwing in his lot with Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War, and that seemed to bury him with the Bush 41 administration. But Clinton’s election was a new lease on life.

Anxious to chase the holy grail of Middle East peace and suddenly in need of demonstrating toughness against jihadist terror, the new “progressive” president was made to order for the wily Marxist terror master. If Arafat could resell his “I renounce terrorism” carpet yet again, chances were he could cash in. And so he did, purporting to commit the Palestinians to the 1993 Oslo Accords – an empty promise of peaceful coexistence exchanged for hundreds of millions in aid (much of which he pocketed), an open invitation to the Clinton White House (where he became a regular visitor), international recognition (as a statesman, no less!), and a ludicrous Nobel Peace Prize (forever degrading a once prestigious honor into a punch line).

The Muslim Brotherhood, for one, was not amused. Islamists had murdered Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1981 for striking a peace pact with Israel. Sure, they knew Arafat and understood what chicanery he was up to. But acceptance of the Zionist entity’s right to exist was utterly unacceptable, even if done as a ploy.

Israel, the Brotherhood also realized, would not be the only thing squeezed by Clinton at Arafat’s urging. After a shaky start, the new president was winning global plaudits for his Orwellian “peace process.” Clinton must have known that Arafat was stringing him along, but with the theater of negotiation and ostensible progress drawing rave reviews, that was a problem for another day. The immediate concern was that Hamas jihadists could spoil the show with their implacable jihad, their blunt insistence that nothing less than Israel’s obliteration would satisfy them. That gave the fledgling administration a powerful incentive to crack down on them. Arafat would be the beneficiary as the Americans squeezed his rivals for power.

A ‘Media Twinkle’ in Philadelphia
Though the United States had been a cash cow for Hamas, it was thus a perilous time for the organization when 25 of its members and supporters gathered at a Marriott Hotel in Philadelphia on October 27, 1993. They were unaware that the FBI was monitoring their deliberations. The confab was a brainstorming exercise: How best to back Hamas and derail Oslo while concealing these activities from the American government?

A little more background to the Philadelphia meeting: For nearly two decades until his extradition in 1997, Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook was the most consequential Muslim Brotherhood operative in the United States. Now living in Egypt, he remains to this day deputy chairman of Hamas’s political bureau. In the early Nineties, he actually ran the terrorist organization from his home in Virginia.

During his time in the U.S., Marzook formed several organizations to promote the Palestinian jihad against Israel. In 1981, for public-relations purposes, he established the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) in conjunction with two other jihadists: future Hamas chief Khalid al-Mishal and Sami al-Arian (the latter was eventually convicted of conspiring to support Palestinian Islamic Jihad).

In December 1987, the intifada was launched and Hamas was born. Marzook immediately formed the “Palestine Committee” to serve as an umbrella organization, directing the various pro-Hamas initiatives that were developing. He brought under its wing both the IAP (which concentrated on “the political and media fronts”) and a fundraising entity he had established. That entity would eventually be called the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) – though it was then known as the “Occupied Land Committee.” The reorganization would better enable the Palestine Committee to comply with the Muslim Brotherhood’s instructions to “increase the financial and the moral support for Hamas,” to “fight surrendering solutions” (like Oslo), and to publicize “the savagery of the Jews.”

It was under the auspices of the Palestine Committee that the 1993 Philadelphia meeting was convened. It was clear even then that Marzook’s Hamas network was anticipating the birth of yet another organization. The Palestine Committee’s amended by-laws declared that an as-yet-unnamed entity was already in the larval stage, “operat[ing] through” the IAP, and soon to “become an official organization for political work, and its headquarters will be in Washington, insha Allah.”

In the United States, the “political work” was crucial. The overarching mission, of course, was quite clear. As the IAP had explained in a December 1988 edition of its Arabic magazine, Ila Filastin, “The call for jihad in the name of Allah is the only path for liberation of Palestine and all the Muslim lands. We promise Allah, continuing the jihad way and the martyrdom’s way.” But while blatant summonses to jihad might stir the faithful in Islamic countries openly hostile to Jews, they were not going to fly in America – and even less so in an America whose financial heart had just been shaken by the jihadist bombing of the World Trade Center. The Brotherhood’s approach in the U.S. would have to be more subtle.

That was where the new organization would come in, as those gathered in Philadelphia – including Marzook’s brother-in-law and HLF co-founder Ghassan Elashi – explained. Although the Brotherhood had ideological depth and impressive fundraising mechanisms, Marzook had long been concerned that his network lacked the media and political savvy needed to advance an agenda in modern America. Now more than ever, they needed what HLF’s Shukri Abu Baker called “a media twinkle.”

In the U.S., Hamas was now perceived as the principal enemy of the popular “peace process.” After all, its charter explicitly called (and continues to call) for Israel’s annihilation by violent jihad. Therefore, its known supporters – the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestine Committee, the IAP, and the others – were tainted in the American mind as terror-abettors, hostile to U.S. interests. As one attendee urged in Philadelphia, “We must form a new organization for activism which will be neutral, because we are placed in a corner. . . . It is known who we are. We are marked.” The new entity, by contrast, would have a clean slate. Maybe it could steal a page out of Arafat’s “hear what I say, don’t watch what I do” playbook. The new entity’s Islamism and Hamas promotion would have to be less “conspicuous.” It would need to couch its rhetoric in sweet nothings like “social justice,” “due process,” and “resistance.” If it did those things, though, it might be more attractive . . . and effective. A Muslim organization posing as a civil-rights activist while soft-pedaling its jihadist sympathies might be able to snow the American political class, the courts, the media, and the academy. It might make real inroads with the transnational progressives who dominated the Clinton administration.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Megyn Kelly Embarrasses CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper

download (90)Answering Muslims:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) exists for one primary purpose: to silence critics of Islam. The best way to silence critics of Islam, however, is to masquerade as a civil rights organization. Thus, CAIR pretends to be concerned about Constitutional rights, while demonizing anyone who dares object to jihad, sharia, and the abuse of women. 

Sadly, the American media have been falling for CAIR’s tactics for years. Megyn Kelly is one of the few exceptions. Here’s her recent two-part obliteration of CAIR’s spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper. 

PART ONE

 

PART TWO

 

Check out Discover the Networks profile on Ibrahim Hooper

 

CAIR Reacts to Brandeis University’s Plan to Honor Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Brandeis University recently announced that it would be honoring women’s rights advocateAyaanHirsi Ali. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), however, despises Ali for her criticisms of Sharia and Jihad. Afternumerous complaints, Brandeis University bowed to Sharia, and cancelled its plans to honor Ali.This video is an attempt to introduce CAIR to the concept of consistency.
In case you missed the original parody, here it is: 

 

CAIR Blasts President Obama for His State of the Union Address

state-of-the-union-APClarion Project, BY RYAN MAURO:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity, is blasting President Obama for the comments he made about the Middle East in his State of the Union speech. By criticizing Obama’s pledge to support Israel as a Jewish state, CAIR indirectly expressed its support for the elimination of the democratic U.S. ally.

“American diplomacy is supporting Israelis and Palestinians as they engage in difficult but necessary talks to end the conflict there; to achieve dignity and an independent state for Palestinians, and lasting peace and security for the State of Israel – a Jewish state that knows America will always be at their side,” said President Obama.

Ibrahim Hooper, the communications director of CAIR, responded by calling the statement a “very negative precedent.” He compared the identification of Israel as a Jewish to apartheid South Africa.

The opposition to Israel’s status as a Jewish state is a carefully-worded way of opposing Israel’s existence. This manipulative use of semantics was one of CAIR’s foundational purposes.

In 1993, the FBI wiretapped a secret meeting of Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas operatives in Philadelphia. The get-together led to the founding of CAIR the next year by two of the present leaders. The discussion focused on creating a new organization with a clean track record that could present a message more palatable to an American audience.

Omar Ahmad, one of CAIR’s later founders and former board chairman and Nihad Awad, CAIR’s current executive director, discussed how to handle the posing of a question about whether they want to destroy Israel.

“There is a difference between you saying ’I want to restore the ’48 land’ and when you say ‘I want to destroy Israel,’” Ahmad said.

In another exchange on the topic, someone said to Ahmad, “We don’t say that publicly. You cannot say that publicly, in front of Americans.” He concurred, replying, “We didn’t say that to the Americans.”

CAIR also expressed its disappointment with President Obama on the topic of National Security Agency intelligence-gathering. CAIR accuses the NSA of “cultivating Islamophobia” and says Congress should “restore the privacy rights of all citizens.”

The organization has helped spread exaggerated impressions of NSA operations and even sued the NSA alongside a Unitarian church. In October, it helped put together an interfaith coalition to protest the NSA. The Clarion Project’s Ryan Mauro debated one of the organizers of the protest on Chinese television.

Another issue CAIR criticized President Obama for was the use of drones to eliminate terrorists. President Obama said he would scale back the usage of the weapon overseas to minimize anti-American sentiment.

CAIR is asking President Obama to address “the drone program’s lack of public accountability and transparency, claims of executive overreach, possible lack of due process in lethally targeting American citizens, and the high number of civilian casualties that have resulted from these attacks.”

Drone strikes are precise and the projected civilian casualty toll is always taken into account when launching them. There is no proof to the contrary. CAIR uses the relative term of “high number” to reinforce the impression that the U.S. government is essentially massacring civilians.

CAIR is also referring to the controversial drone strike that killed American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who joined Al-Qaeda and became a senior leader involved in planning operations against the U.S.. CAIR feels that the U.S. should have captured him and put him on trial and that his death is a violation of due process.

If the U.S. could have captured al-Awlaki, it would have—but he was hiding in Yemen and on the move. The killing of al-Awlaki, an American citizen, is no different than the killing of a bank robber or school shooter that is an American citizen. CAIR doesn’t tell that side because it would rather that its audience see the U.S. government as an out-of-control tyrant with an anti-Muslim agenda.

CAIR’s response to President Obama’s State of the Union raises a separate but related point. The organization references thecongressional testimony of its government affairs manager about drones in May 2013.

CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history. The federal government labeled it a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. The FBI’s official policy bans personnel from using CAIR as an outreach partner because of its links to Hamas and other Islamist radicals.

So why is CAIR being used for congressional testimony on counter-terrorism operations? How can CAIR, which was labeled an unindicted co-conspirator in terror funding, be invited to educate the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights?

CAIR’s deception-laced political influence operation was never aimed at the Left, Center or Right. This is not a partisan issue. The Islamists have friends and adversaries in each party.

Those concerned about Islamism must fight efforts to frame it as a Left/Right issue. If that is how it is viewed, then CAIR and its allies will know it can always count on one side to reflexively support it like a good teammate.

Liberals, conservatives and libertarians all have plenty of reasons to oppose Islamism and its apologists in the U.S. With the proper information, this can be a uniting issue.

 

The Hypocrisy of Ibrahim Hooper and CAIR’s ‘Islamophobic List’

36459-193808-1By Robert Spencer:

Editor’s Note: This is Part VI of an ongoing series by Robert Spencer highlighting human rights hypocrisy and fraudulent peace activists. For Part I see “The Hypocrisy of the ‘Islamophobia’ Scam,” for Part II see “The Hypocrisy of the Fatwa Against Terrorism,”  for Part III see “The Hypocrisy of the Feminist Response to Islam’s Oppression of Women,” for Part IV see “The Hypocrisy of the Western Christian Response to Muslim Persecution of Christians,” and for Part V see last week’s “The Hypocrisy of the Leftist Response to Ariel Sharon’s Death.”

Ibrahim “Honest Ibe” Hooper of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) last week sent out a crafty and deceptive op-ed as a “service,” and of course our lazy, clueless and compromised mainstream media was happy to oblige him by publishing it. The op-ed, “Islamophobic ‘List’ Used to Justify Suspicion of Muslims,” seems to have been a response to Pamela Geller’s recent exhaustive summary at Breitbart of Islamic jihad and supremacist activity in America in 2013. In response, Hooper offered not honesty and reform, but disingenuousness and deception.

Hooper claimed that,

one of the bigoted themes often promoted by the growing cottage industry of Muslim-bashers is that the increasing level of Islamophobia online and in the public arena is merely a legitimate response to the violent actions of Muslims worldwide.

He thus reveals the dishonesty at the heart of the entire “Islamophobia” initiative: Islamic supremacists and leftists use the term to refer both to analyses of how Islamic jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism (e.g., what my colleagues and I do) and also to attacks on innocent Muslims (which neither I nor my colleague nor any decent person favors).

The objective is to make Americans think that any criticism of Islamic texts that jihadis use to incite violence worldwide threatens and endangers Muslims at home who don’t approve of that violence in the first place. Then by saying that “Muslim-bashers” claim that “Islamophobia” is a “legitimate response to the violent actions of Muslims worldwide,” Hooper is implying that those who decry violence and terror committed by Muslims in the name of Islam approve of violence against innocent, peaceful Muslims, as if to say, they had it coming.

Hooper cannily designs all this to obscure the real point: that people are suspicious of Islam because of jihad terror attacks — but not just because of them, but also because of the endless mau-mauing, intimidating, opposition to counter-terror efforts, claiming of victim status, faked hate crimes, smear campaigns against foes of jihad terror, and all the other things that make people suspicious of Hamas-linked CAIR and other Muslim organizations in the U.S.

No genuine attack on any innocent person, Muslim or otherwise, is ever justified. If Hamas-linked CAIR really wants to stop such attacks, it could do so by working sincerely to end the suspicions people have of Islam and Muslims — not with disingenuous “outreach” sessions designed to dispel “misconceptions” about Islam (i.e., spread more misconceptions about Islam, fool people into thinking it is a “Religion of Peace,” etc.), but by honestly working within Muslim communities and with law enforcement to root out jihadis and teach against the understanding of Islam that creates jihadis. Instead, Hamas-linked CAIR has opposed virtually every counter-terror measure that has ever been proposed, and one of its California chapters distributed a poster reading “Don’t talk to the FBI.”

You might wonder why Hamas-linked CAIR would do this if it wants to end “Islamophobia” (in the sense of suspicion of Islam) — surely Hooper, Awad and co. must know that those things increase such suspicion? Yes, I am sure they do — but in fact they want “Islamophobia” (both suspicion of Islam and attacks on peaceful Muslims) because they can use such attacks to claim victim status and the privileges that come with it, thus intimidating officials into thinking that surveillance of Islamic organizations is unjustified and endangers innocent people.

“These Islamophobes,” Hooper also asserted, “scour the Internet to highlight every act of violence or political instability that can be tied to Islam and Muslims.” At my website Jihad Watch, I chronicle Islamic jihad activity in the U.S. and around the world, and I never in ten years have had to “scour the Internet” to do so. On the contrary, there is so much jihad violence that rarely am I able to post all the news items I’d like to post; time and resources limit the ones I can get to. Whatever I have on Jihad Watch, there is always more jihad. But Hooper, of course, would prefer you didn’t know that.

Read more at PJ Media

CAIR’s Guide to Media Manipulation

Nihad & CoreyBY RYAN MAURO:

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.”

 

 

Read more at Clarion Project about internal Muslim Brotherhood documents detailing their intent to use media to influence policies and laws with the ultimate goal of “Seizing power to establish their Islamic Nation “

 

After Nairobi Attack, CAIR Still Minimizing Shabaab’s Somali-American Recruitment

252_largeby IPT News:

WHERE ARE HAMAS-CAIR’S TAX RETURNS?

download (40)By Pamela Geller:

Hamas-CAIR lost its 501 C3 status because they refused to file tax returns (that’s for the apes and pigs, I guess).

CAIR failed to file required annual reports, known as form 990s, detailing their revenues and expenses, for three consecutive years. CAIR had been a non-profit on its own, but in 2007, the IRS approved a separate tax-exempt CAIR Foundation. The foundation never filed any subsequent reports. Both the foundation and CAIR national are on the purge list.

The CAIR Foundation won exempt status in 2007 and then never filed any annual reports. That year, theWashington Times reported that CAIR’s membership plummeted by 90 percent, from a high of 29,000 people in 2000 to less than 1,700 in 2006. CAIR vehemently denied the report when it was issued. But a year later, when the organization sought to have its name removed from a list ofunindicted co-conspirators in a Hamas-financing prosecution, CAIR attorneys tied the diminishing support to the 2007 co-conspirator list.

[...]

Anecdotal information indicates the group increasingly has turned to foreign donors for operating revenue. In 2006, State Department records obtained by the Investigative Project on Terrorism show, CAIR sent delegations to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates seeking millions of dollars in support.

The delegation included CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, then-board chairman Parvez Ahmed, and current chairman Larry Shaw.

In 2009, Awad solicited Libyan Dictator Muammar Gaddafi to help underwrite a program to distribute 1 million copies of the Quran to government officials and the general public in America and to help start up a new foundation Awad was trying to launch.

But CAIR got their 501C 3 status back while patriot groups like the Tea Party were being targeted by the IRS.

Read more at Atlas Shrugs

Infiltrating CAIR: Propaganda, Lawfare, Media Manipulation

HooperChris GaubatzChris Gaubatz is a businessman, activist and Chris Gaubatz (right) as a CAIR intern shakes hands with Nihad Awad, Executive Director and Founder of CAIRowner of Chris Allen Gaubatz Publishing. He infiltrated the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S.Muslim Brotherhoodentity, by becoming an intern. His undercover research was then featured in Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America.

He is a defendant in the ongoing case, CAIR v Gaubatz. He is currently working on the publication  of a book titled CAIRvGaubatz by Egyptian author Hany Ghoraba, who previously wrote Egypt’s Arab Spring: The Long and Winding Road to Democracy.

The following is Clarion Project analyst Ryan Mauro’s interview with Chris Gaubatz:

Mauro: Where do things stand in CAIR’s lawsuit against you?

Gaubatz: Judge Kotar-Kelly will be ruling on two motions for dismissal—one on behalf of Frank Gaffney, David Yerushalmi, Christine Brim, Adam Savitt and Sarah Pavlis and the other is on behalf of Dave and Chris Gaubatz (myself). Once the Judge rules, the trial will either be over for all parties, or the case will proceed to trial.

Mauro: One of the difficult things for average Westerners to understand is how likable Islamists can be. They are often genuinely nice, donate to charity, etc,. and it doesn’t seem to match with their ideology. When you were inside CAIR, what was your experience like with the officials?

Gaubatz: Most of the people I worked with at CAIR, whether they seemed to align themselves ideologically with the Muslim Brotherhood or were at CAIR for different reasons, were likable. In fact, one of the most dangerous characters at CAIR-National, Ibrahim Hooper (Communications Director), was the person I cottoned to the most.

On a personal note, this was very difficult, as the ideology of the person defines their motives. This doesn’t always align with their attitude toward people in general. Whether they are Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc., if a person believes they are doing the right thing, even if their ideology juxtaposes liberty the world over, their general attitude may be pleasant.

This fact in no way belies the danger they pose to society at large. I had to remember this constantly.

download (5)Yaser Tabbara was another person that fit the Muslim Brotherhood mold of being likable, professional and well-spoken. He once told me that President Obama had a limp hand shake when he met him in Chicago. He is now a senior spokesman for the Syrian opposition, the “rebels,” many of whom are Al-Qaeda and/or are fighting for a Sunni Islamic state.

Raabia Wazir was no more Muslim Brotherhood than I was, but she was still helping the Brotherhood and was very nice.

The ironic aspect of this question is that if I really think about it, the only person that wasn’t pleasant in my opinion (and in the opinion of some of the interns) was the Executive Director of CAIR, Nihad Awad. He was aloof, bordering on smug. He is not personable. He seethes discontent and represents an organization that beseeches mutual understanding. Very odd.

That whole cliché interview with the neighbor of a terrorist or a serial killer usually ends with the interviewee adding, “I can’t believe this, he was just  so nice—quiet but nice.” That’s how I feel about Nihad Awad and some of the other CAIR officials.

Read more at The Clarion Project

Dr. Matusitz Humiliates Islamic Intimidation Group CAIR

download (4)by ALAN KORNMAN:

Hassan Shibly, Director of the CAIR Tampa Office and Emerge USA instinctually attack anyone who challenges their Sunni version of Islamic doctrine and theology.  CAIR and Emerge USA were counting on a weak academic professor to attack,  not the academic cage fighter Dr. Jonathan Matusitz.

CAIR and EMERGE USA Attack Dr. Matusitz

Hassan Shibly of  CAIR Tampa and Ms. Laila Abdelaziz of Emerge USA attacked Dr. Jonathan Matusitz by publicly calling him unsubstantiated vile epithets hoping to derail his academic career and personal reputation as a source expert in Terrorism and Communication.  All CAIR and Emerge USA succeeded in doing was bringing shame and dishonor on themselves, their organizations, and their families.

CAIR and Emerge USA became the laughing stock of the Civil Rights movement in their   anger filled emotional response to the facts presented in this video.

How Culture Shapes Terrorism – Dr. Jonathan Matusitz & Rep. Sandy Adams

jonathan-matustiz-340x161Meet Dr. Jonathan Matusitz

Dr. Jonathan Matusitz (Ph.D., University of Oklahoma, 2006) is currently a tenured associate professor in the Nicholson School of Communication at the University of Central Florida (UCF). He studies globalization, culture, terrorism and health communication.

On top of having 95 academic publications and over 100 conference presentations, he taught at a NATO-affiliated military base in Belgium in 2010. Originally from Belgium himself, he moved to the United States in 2000. In 2012, he was honored with a prestigious teaching award by the College of Sciences at UCF.

Dr. Matusitz’s research was cited by the U.S. Supreme Court (2011), Governor’s Office State of Florida, and the United States Congress (2005). His most recent book, Terrorism & Communication: A Critical Introduction, was published in 2012 by SAGE. His research methodologies include qualitative interviewing, content analysis, semiotics and theoretical analysis.

Terrorism and Communication Lecture Series

Dr. Matusitz in 2012-2013 hosted a Terrorism and Communication lecture series that was heavily advertised,  free, and open to the public. By their own admission, no one from CAIR or Emerge USA attended this lecture series in person or by proxy.

The UCF  Muslim Students Association (MSA) or the UCF Shia Muslim Ahlul Bayt Society have spoken one unfavorable word publicly about Dr. Matusitz, his terrorism classes, or the lecture series in question.  No one from the Central Florida Muslim community has had a negative word to say about Dr. Matusitz or his academic work.

Dr. Matusitz’s Exemplary Reputation As An Academic And Teacher

Dr. Matusitz’s is a subject matter expert on Terrorism and Communication.  As a subject matter expert his work has been referenced by the Supreme Court of the United States, US Congress, US Military, Law Enforcement, UCF fellow academics, and the one hundred plus academic journals who publish his work.

Dr. Matusitz’s student evaluations are exemplary from both his Muslim and non-Muslim students.  Dr. Matusitz’s positive student evaluations expose CAIR National spokesman, Ibrahim ‘Doug’ Hooper’s lie about Dr. Matusitz teaching ‘hateful views’ when the facts don’t support his false claim.

Soviet propaganda specialists would call Hooper’s amateurish character assassination tactic a ‘big lie’.  Ibrahim Hooper is disgraceful and may be one of the reasons the Washington Times reports that CAIR’s membership has dropped 90% since 2001.

Only the best and brightest academics get tenured early in their careers,  Dr. Matusitz is one of those fast track tenured professors who is not intimidated when terrorist supporters attack him for teaching the truth about Terrorism and Communication.

Why CAIR Is Scared Of Dr. Matusitz

Among the 1400 footnotes in Dr. Matusitz’s textbook is a statistic by the respected RAND Corporation that has Islamic Intimidation Corporations like CAIR and Emerge USA cowering and afraid. They are afraid the statistic below will be common knowledge to all Americas.

FactRAND Corporation determined that 96% of deadly terrorist attacks in Europe and the U.S. between 2000-2010 were committed by Muslims.

CAIR and Emerge state they are upset because, “His blatant disregard for distinguishing between terrorists and the Muslim population as a whole is disturbing.”

The RAND Corporation Fact that 96% of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslims exposes CAIR and Emerge USA’s duplicity in trying to separate all the followers of Islam (Muslims) from Islamic terrorism.  CAIR’s reputation is determined by how effective they are at making themselves victims, while never condemning the Islamic doctrine terrorists use to justify violent Jihad.  Anyone who does not go lock step with the CAIR Islamist Party Line is labeled a threat and must be marginalized.

Groups like CAIR and Emerge USA exist to protect Islamic Doctrine and theology from those who publicly challenge their Islam.  CAIR is the public relations firm for modern day Islamist terrorists.

Read more: Family Security Matters

CAIR amplifies its message on website promoting Islamist ideologue Sayyid Qutb

Center For Security Policy, By Adam Savit:

This week, CAIR’s (Council on American-Islamic Relations) “American Muslim News Brief”– a publication distributed by mass-email– linked to a piece entitled “Challenges Test American Muslims” at OnIslam.net.  The piece is full of standard CAIR boilerplate, quoting Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper on supposed “Islamophobia machines” and the “virtual cottage industry of Islam-bashers and fearmongers.”

[CLICK FOR IMAGE DETAIL]

cair_qutb

However, lurking alongside the “Islamophobia” story on the front page was an article that might raise more eyebrows: “End of a Homosexual Town (True Story).”  It is a theological commentary on the Islamic version of the story of Lot, even featuring a detailed consideration of bodily fluids.

What the casual reader may not notice is that the article is an antique.  The author is Sayyid Qutb, billed benignly as “Muslim Intellectual – Egypt.”  OnIslam.net does not mention that Qutb was a leading member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, author of the seminal Islamist workMilestones, a key intellectual inspiration for al-Qaeda, and was eventually put to death in 1966 for plotting the assassination of secular Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser.

OnIslam.net seems to have great affection for the inflammatory works of Qutb.  In fact it has published more than 100 of his treatises going back to 2006.

One would think that CAIR– at pains to disassociate itself from anything Muslim Brotherhood-related since it was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation/Hamas terrorist funding trial– would be more careful about who it goes to for positive press.

CAIR’s message amplification via Islamist intermediaries is not limited to Sunni Muslim Brotherhood media outlets.  CAIR has also been known to cross the sectarian divide in utilizing Shi’a Islamist television.  In 2011, I documented for Breitbart’s Big Peace that 22 of the 30 videos on CAIR’s YouTube channel that featured CAIR talking heads were produced by PressTV, the state-owned English language propaganda arm of the Iranian government.

CAIR’s currency relies on a slick media image that features style over substance, and slippery platitudes over truthful answers.  The more the American public becomes educated about theirbackground associations, the less credibility their surface messages will hold.

The Muslims with No Name: Islamists Cover Up Their Existence in the Media

20130407_AP_SHSSSBy ANDREW E. HARROD, SAM NUNBERG:

As reported by U.S. News & World Report on April 4, 2013, the Associated Press (AP) has revised its definition of “Islamist” in the latest edition of the AP stylebook after the AP announced that it would likewise no longer approve of “illegal immigrant.”  This move, advocated precisely by a troubling Muslim group justifiably called Islamist in the past, shows once again how difficult it is for modern free societies even to identify their Islamist foes in the face of politically correct pressures.

Added to the AP stylebook in 2012, Islamist initially had the following entry: “Supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam.  Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.”  The updated entry reads:

An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam.  Do not use as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists.

Where possible, be specific and use the name of militant affiliations:  al-Qaida-linked, Hezbollah, Taliban, etc.  Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.

Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), praised “this revision” as a “step in the right direction” that “will result in fewer negative generalizations in coverage of issues related to Islam and Muslims.”  Hooper considered the “key issue with the term ‘Islamist’” to be “not its continued use,” but rather “its use almost exclusively as an ill-defined pejorative.”

Hooper had previously recommended on January 3, 2013, that the media “[d]rop the term ‘Islamist,’” which had “become shorthand for ‘Muslims we don’t like.’”  This term’s “almost exclusively pejorative context” has an “even more negative slant” when “often coupled with the term ‘extremist.’”  By analogy, Hooper rejected any hypothetical media references to the “‘Judaist government of Israel,’ the ‘Christianist leader Rick Santorum’ or ‘Hinduist Indian politician Narendra Modi’” when describing “those who would similarly seek governments ‘in accord with the laws’ of their respective faiths.”

“Many Muslims,” Hooper stated, who wish to serve the public good are influenced by the principles of their faith.  Islam teaches Muslims to work for the welfare of humanity and to be honest and just.  If this inspiration came from the Bible, such a person might well be called a Good Samaritan.  But when the source is the Quran, the person is an “Islamist.”

The “frequent linkage of the term ‘Islamist’” to various human rights violations was “strongly promoted by Islamophobic groups.”  This appeared to Hooper as attempts “to launch rhetorical attacks on Islam and Muslims, without the public censure that would normally accompany such bigoted attacks on any other faith.”  “Islam-bashers,” Hooper elaborated, “routinely use the term to disingenuously claim they only hate ‘political’ Islam, not the faith itself,” yet “fail to explain how a practicing Muslim can be active in the political arena without attracting the label ‘Islamist.’”

If retained at all by “media professionals,” Hooper recommended that “Islamist” appear only when a “group applies the term to itself,” analogous to the AP’s treatment of “fundamentalist.”  Absent such elimination or modification, “Islamist” entailed a “political and religious value judgment” that “is hardly fair or balanced.”

Hooper might well reject the “Islamist” label, for this term has in the past denounced CAIR in, for example, the Investigative Report on Terrorism (IPT)’s exhaustive 118-page report on CAIR.  IPT documents how CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the successful 2008 prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development for financing Hamas terrorists, has its origins in American entities of the Muslim Brotherhood affiliate Hamas.  Accordingly, CAIR has an extensive history of apologizing for militant jihad and repressive sharia practices as well as CAIR functionary convictions for supporting Islamic terrorism.  Hooper himself has in the past stated that he would like to see the United States government become “Islamic” and implement sharia.
Read more: Family Security Matters

Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School.  He is admitted to the Virginia State Bar.  He has published various pieces concerning an Islamic supremacist agenda at the Middle East Forum’s Legal Project, American Thinker, and Faith Freedom International.

 

CAIR to Media: ‘Stop Using the Term Islamist’

images (13)By Ryan Mauro:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), identified by the U.S. government as an entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, issuggesting  a New Year’s resolution for the media: Stop using the term “Islamist.”

CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, who expressed his desire for “the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future” in 1993 and, again, in 2003, writes that the media shouldn’t say “Islamist” anymore because it is “currently used in almost exclusively pejorative context.”

Hooper argues that being an Islamist isn’t necessarily a bad thing. He quotes from the Associated Press Stylebook that describes an Islamist as a “supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.”

This, he says, is no different than a Christian politician being influenced by Biblical values. But Christian politicians are influenced by the Bible as a moral influence. There’s no authoritative Christian doctrine on how a “Christian State” should be run.  As the definition itself says, Islamists view their religion as a system of governmental “laws” and a “political model.”

Hooper says that Muslims are unfairly called Islamists when there are political disagreements — sort of like the word “Islamophobe,” which he hypocritically uses in the very same sentence.

The attempt to eliminate the word “Islamist” from the media’s vocabulary is a reflection of what was said during a secret U.S. Muslim Brotherhood meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 that the FBI wiretapped. Two officials that founded CAIR the following year were present.

“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.

The meeting participants, who repeatedly referred to themselves as Islamists, understood that friendly media coverage was essential to their goal of influencing public opinion and policy towards them. As pointed out by the Investigative Project, future CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad said at that meeting:

“The fourth goal is becoming open to the media in the U.S. and the Western society to ease the intensity of the campaign and to explain the legality of the opposition led by the Islamists,” he said.

The government determined from these transcripts that deception was an integral part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s procedure. In a 2007 court filing, federal prosecutors state: “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.”

Read more at The Clarion Project