C.A.I.R. is HAMAS: How the Federal Government Proved that the Council on American Islamic Relations is a Front for Terrorism

photoshop-ccscreensnapz004

Center for Security Policy, by Kyle Shideler, December 2, 2016:

(Washington, D.C.): Since its founding in 1993, the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has presented itself publicly as a benign Muslim American “civil rights organization.”  From that time to this, however, the United States government has known that CAIR actually is an entity founded by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian franchise: Hamas, a group officially designated since 1994 as a terrorist organization.

Evidence of CAIR’s true character as a U.S.-based instrument for political warfare and fundraising for Hamas – and the federal government’s certain knowledge of the truth – did not come to light until the largest terrorism financing trial in the nation’s history: the 2007-2008 Holy Land Foundation prosecution.  In the course of that trial, FBI Agent Laura Burns testified about, and helped explain, the transcripts of wiretap surveillance conducted in the course of two planning sessions leading up to the organizational meeting of CAIR held in Philadelphia in October 1993 and during the meeting itself.  Specifically, she presented proof that CAIR’s mission was to assist “Sister Samah,” its founders’ hardly opaque code-name for Hamas, as the prospect of its terror designation loomed.

Annotated highlights of the CAIR transcripts are now available for the first time, complete with relevant excerpts from Agent Burns’ testimony, in the latest product of the Center for Security Policy’s “Muslim Brotherhood Archival Series”: CAIR Is Hamas: How the U.S. Government Proved that the Council on American Islamic Relations is a Front for Terrorism. As with the first two publications in this series – “An Explanatory Memorandum”: From the Archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America and Ikhwan in America: An Oral History of the Muslim Brotherhood in their Own Words, this new product from CSP Press is making accessible original source material together with professional analysis concerning the inner workings of the network the Muslim Brotherhood has operated in America for more than fifty years for the stated purpose of “destroying Western civilization from within.”[1]
Upon the release of CAIR is Hamas, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney observed:
The production of this proof of CAIR’s jihadist nature is especially timely as legislatures in states around the country are considering resolutions seeking to discourage their agencies from interacting with this Hamas front and as the U.S. Congress considers legislation calling for the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. CAIR is Hamasshould be required reading for lawmakers, other officials at every level of government, the press and ordinary Americans misperceiving CAIR’s true jihadist and subversive nature.
CAIR is Hamas is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback format at Amazon.com. As with all editions of the Archival Series, can be downloaded for free HERE

UTT Throwback Thursday: Treasonous Leadership Decisions by Ohio Officials Have Deadly Consequences

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, December 1, 2016:

Ohio is reaping what it has sown.  They have protected and promoted jihadis for several years.

In 2009, the Ohio Department of Homeland Security hosted a day-long seminar which included senior Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood officials, including Hani Sakr, a member of the U.S. MB’s Board of Directors, and the leader of Hamas in Ohio, Asma Uddin.

screen-shot-2016-11-30-at-10-24-44-pm-768x577

Member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Hani Sakr Speaking at Ohio DHS Conference

Member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Hani Sakr Speaking at Ohio DHS Conference

Ohio Hamas Leader Asma Uddin Speaking at Ohio DHS Conference in 2009

Ohio Hamas Leader Asma Uddin Speaking at Ohio DHS Conference in 2009

In 2010, the Strategic Engagement Group (predecessor to UTT) conducted a 3-day training program at the Columbus (Ohio) Police Department.  At the end of the program, the Ohio DHS Director Bill Vedra, the Chief of the Columbus Police Department, and others came into the room and defended Hamas (doing business and CAIR), the outreach programs to the Muslim community, and commented negatively about the 3-day program even though none of them sat through one minute of the training.

Several of the officers in the room stood up and confronted the leadership, calling them out.

Ohio DHS Director Vedra, Omar Alomari (Ohio DHS), & Hamas Leader Babak Darvish (CAIR)

Ohio DHS Director Vedra, Omar Alomari (Ohio DHS), & Hamas Leader Babak Darvish (CAIR)

One of the people Ohio DHS Director Vedra defended was Omar Alomari, a Jordanian who was later fired from Ohio DHS.  Alomari produced a pamphlet for Ohio DHS which listed organizations they worked with including Hamas (dba CAIR), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Muslim Alliance of North America (MANA), Muslim American Society (MAS), Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and the Muslim Students Association (MSA) – all Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood organizations.

After this was made public in articles by The Jawa Report, Ohio DHS tried to secretly destroy all the pamphlets.

As recently as 2015, Hamas (dba CAIR) trained the Columbus Police Department on “diversity.”

In February 2016, Somali Mohamed Barry walked into the Nazareth Restaurant in Columbus, Ohio with a machete screaming “allah u akbar” and began attacking customers.  He injured four people and was later shot dead by police.  The restaurant is owned by an Israeli.

Columbus police spokesman Sergeant Rich Weiner stated, “There was no rhyme or reason as to who he was going after.”  The FBI investigated Barry in 2012 for making “radical Islamic threats” but then abandoned the investigation, and FBI Special Agent Rick Smith said it was “too early” to jump to conclusions. (dallasnews.com, 2/12/16, “Man Killed After Machete Attack”)

CNN is still searching for a motive.

In describing this attack, the Washington Post wrote, “Did the quiet immigrant suffer a mental breakdown? Or was the attack an orchestrated act of international jihad as claimed by a host of anti-Islamic groups?”

Is it possible the entire effort by the jihadi Movement in Ohio – and everywhere else across the nation – was/is to get the leadership of the police and FBI to place their trust in the Muslim leaders to “help” them “understand” acts of “terrorism” in a way that never points back to jihad, Islam and sharia?

This week, after yet another jihadi attack in Ohio, the response was the same.

Until law enforcement decides to prosecute and lock up terrorists instead of befriending them and allowing them to train their departments, this nonsense will not end.

Citizens must stand firm and hold elected officials, police chiefs and state homeland security officials feet to the fire, and ensure they are trained by UTT, not by Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

Get them a copy of Raising a Jihadi Generation for Christmas.

CAIR Leader: Overthrow the U.S. Government

by Daniel Pipes
Nov 11, 2016
Cross-posted from National Review Online

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) successfully presents itself to the media as a benign civil rights organization, comparable to the NAACP or the ADL, a description that conservatives ineffectively rail against. In this light, perhaps a tweet sent out just after midnight EST on Nov. 9 by Hussam Ayloush, long-time head of CAIR’s Los Angeles office, will help awaken the press to CAIR’s true Islamist identity. Ayloush wrote:

Ok, repeat after me:
Al-Shaab yureed isqat al-nizaam.
(Arab Spring chant)

ayloush-tweet

That second line is Arabic (“الشعب يريد إسقاط النظام‎‎”) for “The people wants to bring down the regime.”

In other words, Ayloush unambiguously and directly called for the overthrow of the U.S. government.

Comments: (1) Ayloush may be the most vicious of the CAIR leaders. So far as I know, for example, he’s the only one of them to bandy about the term “Zionazi,” as evidenced in his e-mail below, dated March 18, 2002.

3616

(2) Ayloush is not a marginal figure but someone with access to the heights of American power, including the White House. According to an Investigative Project on Terrorism analysis in 2012, he

was a delegate to the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C. [and] … attended at least two White House meetings. The logs show Ayloush met with Paul Monteiro, associate director of the White House Office of Public Engagement on July 8, 2011 and Amanda Brown, assistant to the White House director of political affairs Patrick Gaspard, on June 6, 2009. According to reliable sources, Monteiro was White House liaison for secret contacts with CAIR, especially with Ayloush.

Further, “IPT has learned that the White House logs curiously have omitted Ayloush’s three meetings with two other senior White House officials.”

(3) The dawning of Donald Trump’s victory was apparently a trying moment for Ayloush, so he let loose with an emotion he’d normally have kept under wraps. In other words, he offered a rare, candid insight into the mind of one CAIR apparatchik.

(4) According to 18 U.S. Code § 2385, “Advocating overthrow of Government”:

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States … Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

So, journalists, editors, and producers: do please note what CAIR stands for. (November 11, 2016)

***

CAIR Whips Pre-Election Hysteria and Fear Against FBI

shiblyIPT News
November 7, 2016

Federal law enforcement officials reported concern Friday over vague threats of an al-Qaida terrorist attack that could come today in an attempt to disrupt Tuesday’s U.S. elections. Three states – New York, Virginia, and Texas – were identified as potential targets.

So it makes sense that FBI agents in eight states reportedly wore out some shoe leather during the weekend, knocking on doors of people with family connections to Afghanistan or Pakistan – both operating bases for al-Qaida. One of those questioned reportedly is a youth group leader. Others were doctors.

No one was arrested.

To the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), this is an “outrageous and … borderline unconstitutional” “sweep” of American Muslim leaders.

The Dallas Morning News, Washington Post and Time magazine all published stories on the FBI action, offering little in the way of push-back to CAIR’s narrative.

The FBI is “harassing” Muslims in Oklahoma, CAIR’s state director Adam Soltani wrote on Facebook, Time reported.

CAIR-Florida director Hasan Shibly heard from six people contacted by the FBI, the Post story said. CAIR’s Texas office heard from 17 people. The stories lamenting this alleged FBI outrage, therefore, offered two dozen examples nationally.

CAIR officials sounded the alarm on social media, urging Muslims not to say anything to the FBI without a lawyer present. The organization offered to provide counsel to those who needed it. CAIR’s campaign then attracted the media coverage.

Calling it a “sweep,” as Shibly did, usually connotes mass arrests, not knocks on people’s doors. The Post at least placed the word in quotes.

This raises a question: What is the FBI supposed to do when it learns terror plots may be in the works? The news stories don’t say. They do quote CAIR officials expressing their outrage.

“The FBI actions … to conduct a sweep of American Muslim leaders the weekend before the election is completely outrageous and … borderline unconstitutional,” Shibly told the Post. “That’s the equivalent of the FBI visiting churchgoing Christians because someone overseas was threatening to blow up an abortion clinic. It’s that preposterous and outrageous.”

No, it’s not at all like that. There is no foreign terrorist network advocating American abortion foes to attack clinics. ISIS and al-Qaida have spent years advocating random, homegrown terror attacks in online videos, social media and in glossy publications.

It’s a disturbingly effective message, proven successful by the number of people who have tried to leave the country to join ISIS, or who have been arrested trying to do so, or who have plotted to carry out attacks.

Horrible attacks in just the past year show that individual actors responding to the call to jihad can create huge casualty counts. Omar Mateen killed 49 people at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub, pausing in his slaughter to call 911 and pledge allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people at an office Christmas party in San Bernardino last December.

And in September, 29 people were injured when a homemade bomb went off in a Manhattan dumpster. A second bomb was found nearby. Investigators later found five additional unexploded bombs in a trash can in Elizabeth, N.J. near a transit station.

CAIR officials insist they are not trying to hinder the FBI. They say they merely are ensuring people know about, and use, their constitutional right to have counsel present for any questioning. But CAIR’s long record of sowing fear against the FBI casts doubt on that assertion.

482Its “Know Your Rights” lectures have long included claims of tales of FBI agents breaking the law and willing to do anything in order to snare innocent Muslims. FBI agents are depicted as sinister forces lurking outside Muslim homes in images carrying the message “Build a Wall of Resistance: Don’t Talk to the FBI.”

Indictments of terror suspects involving informants and undercover agents are always dismissed by the group as entrapment, though no jury or court has agreed. A December promotional page touting an “entrapment workshop” depicting the FBI as a spider out to snare the Muslim community in its web remains active on CAIR’s Philadelphia office website.

1323

Last year, when authorities in Boston overheard a terror suspect they had been monitoring say he was going to go out and start stabbing police officers, CAIR spent days casting Usaama Rahim’s subsequent death as unjust despite video showing Rahim lunged at officers ordering him to drop a military grade knife.

No one would have learned that fact from reading any of the stories parroting CAIR’s outrage, unless he or she conducted independent web searches. Likewise, readers would not know that the FBI broke off outreach communication with CAIR in 2008, after an investigation placed the organization and its founders in the middle of a Muslim Brotherhood-created Hamas support network in America.

“[U]ntil we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner,” an FBI official explained in 2009. The policy remains in effect 7½ years later.

Once upon a time, the Morning News had CAIR’s number, investigating and exposing radical Islamist activity supporting Hamas in north Texas during the 1990s. The Posthas never devoted a story to the evidence that led to the policy.

The FBI declined to comment, the two newspapers reported. But missing from the stories were perspectives from retired law enforcement officials, at the very least, and an explanation about how the Bureau works in situations like this. This context would have been a service to readers, offering balance to CAIR’s talking points.

People in eight states are being targeted for questioning, the Post reported. “Several of the states — including Florida and Pennsylvania — are viewed as crucial swing states heading into the presidential election Tuesday,” the story said, underscoring Shibly’s claim that this is some kind of pre-election intimidation campaign.

But other states, especially Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, are not considered competitive Tuesday. No CAIR official presented anything to support the organization’s allegation that voter intimidation is in play. Yet, the Post and a story on Fusion.net included it.

Fusion’s story argued that the FBI is somehow ignoring threats of violence from white nationalists and militias, a claim belied by recent arrests.

If the FBI started arresting Muslim Americans without cause, CAIR’s campaign of fear and hysteria might make sense. But pursuing information about a possible terrorist attack, in swing states and decidedly red states, is not sinister.

It’s their responsibility.

The preferred candidate of jihadists loses the US presidential election

obama-hillaryJihad Watch, by Christine Williams, November 9, 2018:

Prior to Election Day, imams were out telling Muslims to vote, even launching a special campaign:

October 7 is My Muslim Vote National Khutba Day a day meant to encourage American Muslims to get to the polls this November. During this week’s services, spiritual leaders will be ascending minbars, or pulpits, to preach a khutba, or sermon, that focuses on the importance of voting in this election.

The #MyMuslimVote campaign is led by the activist group MPower Change and the national Muslim Students Association.

A CAIR survey predicted that 75% of Muslims will vote for Clinton. It is well known that:

CAIR has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding operation.

The Muslim Students Association – a leader in the “MyMuslimVote” campaign — also has Muslim Brotherhood links.

Most telling about Hillary Clinton was that she “raked in” over $41,000 “from prominent Islamists” in donations, which included “$19,249 from senior officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.”

An Aljazeera report stated that Muslims, “blacks, South Asians, Middle Easterners and converts…form a Democrat-leaning mass, according to CAIR’s survey.” That same report painted Trump as racist and Hillary as the preferred candidate, citing the CAIR survey. Meanwhile, Pakistani American Muslims were reportedly busy making a “final push” for Hillary Clinton:

The US Council of Muslim Organisations, an umbrella group of two dozen Muslim advocacy organisations announced this week that over one million American Muslims have registered to vote in the November 8 US elections.

Despite the old us-versus-them rhetoric of Islamic supremacists, CAIR, and the Left, who are all too eager to scream “Islamophobia” and claim that Trump is the preferred candidate of the whites-only club, a Fox News report pointed out a historic shift in party alignment:

First, for the first time since anyone can remember, Republicans have broken the communications monopoly Democrats have enjoyed among African-Americans.Trump is persistently reaching out to them; visiting their churches and neighborhoods, making a commitment to rebuild America’s cities, economy and jobs.

A report from last March, summing up the CAIR view of the election: “CAIR Super Tuesday Poll Shows Muslim Voters Support Hillary Clinton, Concerned About Islamophobia”,  CAIR, March 10, 2016:

Survey shows that more older Muslim voters back Clinton, while younger Muslims support Bernie Sanders

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 3/2/16) – The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today released the results of a six-state “Super Tuesday” poll of almost 2000 Muslim voters indicating that almost half of those voters (46 percent) support Hillary Clinton, followed by Bernie Sanders at 25 percent and 11 percent support for Donald Trump.

CAIR’s poll also showed that growing Islamophobia is the top issue for Muslim voters.

“American Muslim voters are worried about the unprecedented anti-Muslim rhetoric being used by presidential candidates and are going to the polls in increasing numbers at both the state and national levels to make their voices heard by the candidates,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.

An exit poll of Muslim voters in Texas and Virginia indicated that Sanders narrowed Clinton’s lead in those states – 34 to 40 percent in Virginia and 29 to 37 percent in Texas.

In upcoming primary elections in California, Illinois, New York, and Florida Clinton’s lead over Sanders ranged from 22 percent (California) to 40 percent (New York).

The survey indicated that older Muslim voters – 65 percent of those 45 to 64 and 80 percent of those 65 and older – backed Clinton, while younger Muslim voters (18 to 24) supported Sanders (78 percent). In the 25 to 44 age group, support for Clinton and Sanders was more evenly distributed at 44 percent for Sanders and 56 percent for Clinton.

CAIR noted that Muslim support for Sanders may actually be higher because its poll surveyed more voters over the age of 45.

Nationwide, Islamophobia continued to rank as the most important issue of concern for all Muslim voters (24 percent), a partisan divide was evident with Muslim Democrats ranking Islamophobia highest (27 percent) and then the economy (19 percent), while Muslim Republicans ranked the economy (38 percent) highest followed by Islamophobia (14 percent).

Support for the Democratic and Republican Parties mostly remained constant from previous surveys with 67 percent of Muslim voters supporting the Democratic Party and 18 percent supporting the Republican Party. CAIR’s February 1 poll of Muslim voters showed 67 and 15 percent respectively voiced support for the Democratic and Republican Parties…….

HAMAS dba CAIR Using 2016 Muslim GOTV Campaign to Fund Jihad

1286059732Center for Security Policy, November 3, 2016:

The Center for Security Policy reported in its September 2015 publication Star Spangled Shariah that the Muslim Brotherhood was actively setting its sights on the 2016 election cycle and preparing for a ‘get out the vote’ operation to mobilize its base. The United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), the first U.S. political party openly associated with the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, is aggressively pursuing many of its operational objectives behind a screen of feigned ‘patriotism’. Since the inception of the USCMO in March 2014, the Muslim Brotherhood-led organization more than once has relied upon a less-than-transparent modus operandi that obscure its true agenda, activities, and intentions for the U.S. political process from the general public and even members of Congress.

The Muslim Brotherhood agenda for the United States includes the subversive infiltration of every sphere of American society and recruitment of assistance in the subversive process from unwitting American themselves. The Muslim Brotherhood understood that the successful execution of its plan for societal destruction from within depends on what it calls the ‘settlement process:’ ‘In order for Islam and its Movement’ to become ‘a part of the homeland’ in which it lives, ‘stable’ in its land, ‘rooted’ in the spirits and minds and people, ‘enabled’ in the life of its society, and firmly established within organizations through which the Islamic structure is to be built, the Movement must work to obtain ‘the keys’ and tools of this of this ‘Civilization Jihadist’ project that is the responsibility of its vanguard, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

The USCMO and its Secretary General Oussama Jammal relied upon the expertise of veteran Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood leader Sabri Samirah, banned and deported from the United States for a decade until his (apparently temporary) 2014 return. Samirah worked as chairman of the Islamic Association of Palestine, the progenitor to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). It will be recalled that the IAP was established in 1981 by HAMAS operative Mousa Abu Marzook. Samirah has functioned effectively as a catalyst for the next steps of Civilization Jihad described in the 1991 document ‘An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for North America’ by working closely with USCMO leadership to ‘get out the vote’ to influence key elections before his return to Jordan in October 2015.

Today, the principal leader of the Muslim Brotherhood-led USCMO is none other than Foreign Terrorist Organization-listed HAMAS doing-business-as CAIR. In the fall of 2016, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad unveiled the first-ever Muslim Brotherhood ‘Muslims GOTV’ campaign. As noted on the CAIR website, donations to support the ‘Muslims GOTV’ campaign are both tax deductible and zakat eligible. As explained in Islamic Law (shariah), however, ‘zakat’ is not merely ‘charity,’ but rather an obligatory tax on all Muslims and Muslim firms. According to shariah, all zakat proceeds collected anywhere on earth must be distributed among a legally-fixed set of recipients, at least one-eighth of which is always jihad.

In essence, therefore, HAMAS dba CAIR and the USCMO are not only running an influence operation under cover of ‘citizen activism’ during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, but using proceeds dishonestly acquired under the cloak of star spangled shariah to support enemies of the United States and the Free World.

1

2

Jihadis in Suits Assail National Security Forum

3704830867

Center for Security Policy, November 1, 2016:

There they go again.

In response to a top-level national security panel presentation organized by Rabbi Jonathan Hausman at the Ahavath Torah Congregation tonight in Stoughton, Massachusetts, HAMAS-doing-business-as-CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) and the notorious jihad incubator at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center (ISBCC) have joined forces to mount a last-ditch intimidation campaign.

On Wednesday, 2 November 2016, the Ahavath Torah Congregation is scheduled to host an event featuring Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney, Family Research Council Executive Vice President Lieutenant General (Ret.) William G. “Jerry” Boykin, and The United West Founder Tom Trento. In response, ISBCC Executive Director Yusuf Vali has coopted nearly 100 interfaith leaders who represent the Christian and Jewish communities in the Boston area in an attempt to pressure the leadership board of Rabbi Hausman’s synagogue to cancel the program, which is dedicated to highlighting the national security threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood’s global Islamic Movement.

So, by whom exactly have these interfaith collaborators allowed themselves to be conned into this latest Brotherhood-led assault on free speech? It may be recalled that during the 2016 general election cycle, the United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), formed in 2014, described on its website the group’s efforts to “promote peace and harmony in society.” And yet, the principal leader of the Muslim Brotherhood-led USCMO is none other than Foreign Terrorist Organization-listed HAMAS dba CAIR. While CAIR tries to present itself as a civil rights organization, it has here joined forces with the ISBCC, jihad command and control center for the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

As noted by Robert Spencer in March 2016, the ISBCC has long been a haven for jihadists.

  • The Boston Marathon individual jihadis, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
  • Pakistani neuroscientist and jihadi, Aafia Siddiqui, who is serving an 86-year sentence for trying to kill American soldiers in July 2008
  • Tarek Mehanna, U.S. citizen pharmacist and jihadi, who is serving seventeen years for providing material support to al-Qaeda
  • Ahmad Abousamra, who before he was killed in a June 2015 airstrike in Iraq, was considered a key architect of the Islamic State’s social media presence
  • The Islamic Society of Boston’s founder, Abdurrahman Alamoudi, was once a major player in Washington and the nation’s most prominent “moderate” Muslim. Now he is serving a twenty-three year sentence for charges including fundraising for al-Qaeda.

That HAMAS dba CAIR is working alongside the ISBCC is not a coincidence. CAIR under the leadership of Executive Director Nihad Awad has not only condemned publicly and repeatedly the counterterrorism efforts of the local law enforcement community and United States government, but has an extensive record of defending jihadis and jihadi organizations. As former FBI Assistant Director Steven Pomeranz stated, “By masquerading as a mainstream public affairs organization, CAIR has taken the lead in trying to mislead the public about the terrorist underpinnings of militant Islamic movements, in particular, HAMAS.” In December 2015, USCMO member, CAIR’s Awad, openly declared the Muslim Brotherhood’s allegiance with the far-left racist and revolutionary movement, Black Lives Matter.

In early October 2016, USCMO leader CAIR (CAIR-Chicago) unsuccessfully led a campaign with a series of partners including Black Lives Matter – Chicago, Arab American Action Network, and the Center for New Community to cancel the Illinois Tactical Officers Association (ITOA)’s five day Tactical Training Conference (9 -13 October 2016) for law enforcement officers and emergency medical technicians. CAIR also mounted pressure in a botched attempt to terminate the contractual relationships between ITOA and the Cook County, IL Department of Homeland Security & Emergency Management (DHSEM), in addition to other government agencies.

Next, it was CAIR-Oklahoma Executive Director Adam Soltani’s turn to strike out on 25 October 2016, when he took aim at a national security briefing on ‘the ideological roots, nature and magnitude of the jihad threat’ provided to the Oklahoma State Legislature. Oklahoma State Representative John Bennett, a combat veteran Marine in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, called for an Oklahoma State Judiciary and Civil Procedure Committee’s Interim Study on “Radical Islam, Shariah Law, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Radicalization Process.” During the hearings Bennet sponsored, former FBI agent John Guandolo and Chris Gaubatz of Understanding the Threat provided a clear explanation about shariah as the doctrinal Islamic basis for jihad and set forth a succinct evidentiary legal framework about the subversive Brotherhood network in this country. Frank Gaffney, President and Founder of the Center for Security Policy, and Gen. Jerry Boykin also spoke at the hearing, with Gaffney explaining how zakat, the obligatory annual Muslim tax, according to Islamic Law is required to fund jihad.

Clearly, the facts of the accelerating worldwide jihad are becoming all-too obvious to all—and the only rear-guard action the MB’s U.S.-based jihadis in suits seem able to muster at this point is against the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee for free speech. Civilization Jihad and Star spangled shariah in action.

Also see:

UTT Calls Out Hamas In Oklahoma

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, October 31, 2016:

In this war, facts and evidence matter.  Its a war of narratives.  One narrative is based on facts and evidence.

That is what UTT specializes in.

Last Tuesday, UTT’s President John Guandolo and Vice President Chris Gaubatz testified before the Oklahoma State Judiciary and Civil Procedure Committee’s Interim Study on “Radical Islam, Shariah Law, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Radicalization Process” called by Oklahoma State Representative John Bennett, a combat veteran Marine in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

UTT’s John Guandolo and Chris Gaubatz, former jihadi Kamal Saleem, and Representative Bennett

UTT’s John Guandolo and Chris Gaubatz, former jihadi Kamal Saleem, and Representative Bennett

The UTT team laid out the evidentiary framework for the jihadi network in the United States, and explained that sharia is the basis for everything the jihadis do.

Watch a clip of Chris Gaubatz’s testimony HERE.

Watch a clip of John Guandolo’s testimony HERE.

Others testified as well including Stephen Coughlin and Frank Gaffney via skype, and a former Muslim who went undercover at the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City.  Additionally, former jihadi Kamal Saleem, Michael Hoehn who works with the counterterrorism caucus, and courageous pastor Paul Blair from Edmond, Oklahoma also testified at the state capital.

As was expected, the media in Oklahoma disregarded the evidence and ran to the aid of Hamas leaders like Adam Soltani, leader of CAIR Oklahoma, and Imad Enchassi, the Palestinian Imam of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City.

soltani

The lack of state legislators speaking out and standing by Representative Bennett is noticeable.  Only three, including Representative John Bennett and the Chairman of the committee, were present for the hearing.

When UTT says Sheriffs and Pastors are the two most important groups of people in this war, this is a great example.  Pastors because citizens must be engaged in this issue.  Now is time for citizens of Oklahoma and everywhere else to stand firm and not give one more inch to our enemies.

UTT encourages all its readers to contact the Speaker of the Oklahoma State House and let him know there is a war going on and he needs to grow some courage and stand by combat veteran and OK Representative John Bennett to send Hamas packing.

Oklahoma Speaker of the House Jeff Hickman. EMAIL – jwhickman@okhouse.gov / office (405) 557-7339

Robert Spencer wrote an excellent piece in Front Page Magazine about the hearing HERE.

Lets put freedom back on the offensive where it belongs.

Shariah Marches on in Florida and New York

ken-russellAmerican Thinker, by Michael Epstein, October 25, 2016:

On Friday, October 21st, the Miami, FL, Commission; the Monroe County, NY, Legislature; the Rochester, NY, Board of Education; and the Rochester, NY, City Council announced proclamations condemning hate speech against Muslims.  These proclamations define neither hate speech nor the person or persons who will decide what constitutes hate speech.  Far from benign calls to let peaceful Muslims go about their lives and prayers in peace, these proclamations represent a step towards elevating Shariah (Islamic law) over the Frist Amendment.

Why do I make this claim?  Backtrack to 2012 and the aftermath of Benghazi, when President Obama told the UN, “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”  The subtext of this statement was lost amidst several nods by Obama to the First Amendment later in his speech.  The subtext was this: slander in Shariah is not telling lies that hurt someone’s reputation; rather, slander in Shariah is telling a truth or a lie which someone doesn’t want to be told.  Slander in Shariah is thus defined by what the potentially aggrieved party wants or doesn’t want to hear, not by evidence.

For evidence of this, see Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.  On page 730 of the English translation of this law manual – – which has been endorsed by the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Al-Azhar University, the premier authority in Sunni Islam – – slander is defined as follows: “to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike, whether about his body, religion, everyday life, self, disposition, property, son, father, wife, servant, turban, garment, gait, movements, smiling, dissoluteness, frowning, cheerfulness, or anything else connected with him.”

Also consider the authentic hadith (report on the words and/or behaviors of Muhammad, the founder of Islam) from Sunan Abu Dawud #4856: “The Prophet was asked: ‘Apostle of Allah!  What is slander?’  He replied: ‘It is saying something about your brother which he would dislike.’  He was asked again: ‘Tell me how the matter stands if what I say about my brother is true.’  He replied: ‘If what you say of him is true, you have slandered him, and if what you say of him is not true, you have reviled him.”

Why is this important?

Let’s conduct a First Amendment test.  In the following lines, I am going to make several statements about Islam.  Making these statements without interference from the government is my First Amendment right.  Indeed, I have the right to make these statements without providing support for them, but I’m going to provide the support just the same – because my definition of slander is the definition used in the West, not the Shariah definition.  I will presume that the former still applies here in the US.  The test is this: will I be condemned?  Will the thought police show up at my door, as they’re already doing in other purportedly free countries like the UK and India under similar circumstances?

The potentially “slanderous” statements: Muhammad married a six-year old girl named Aisha and consummated the so-called marriage – meaning as far as I’m concerned that he raped her – when she was nine and he was 54.  There is ample documentation for this in Islamic sources.  Consider for instance this authentic hadith from Bukhari 7.62.88: “The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old….”  There are no authoritative Muslim sources that dispute this.

Slander, continued: If it were a simple matter of anachronism, this wouldn’t be such a big deal.  That was a long time ago.  Lots of people did that, and so forth.  The problem is not that the founder of Islam was a pedophile and rapist 1,400 years ago.  The problem is that Muhammad’s example is normative for Muslims, today and forever.  To understand why Muhammad is normative for Muslims today, consider as one example Qur’an 33:21: “We have indeed in the apostle of God a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in God and the Final Day, and who engages much in the praise of God” (translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, a Muslim).  To understand why this will be so forever, consider this: Muslims believe the Qur’an is a literal copy of a book residing with Allah in Paradise since the beginning of time, immutable.

I’ll offer just a bit more slander, as defined under Shariah: Pedophilia is rampant in the Muslim world, evidence of the immutability of Muhammad’s example.  This is why Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini lowered the marriageable age to nine when he took power in 1979 and called marriage to prepubescent girls a “divine blessing.”   This is why Iraqi ‘Justice’ Minister Hassan al-Shimmari proposed in 2014 to lower the marriageable age to nine.   This is why so many Afghani girls are married off and drop out of elementary school.  This is why Saudi cleric Salih bin Fawzan issued a fatwa in 2011 against having any age minimum for marriage, the only requirement being that girls “are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men.”  This is why the former leader of the Orlando office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Ahmad Saleem, tried to have sex with a 12-year-old girl in 2015.

Although I have no proof, I suspect that Saleem’s colleagues in CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial a few years back, are behind the proclamation process in Miami and Western New York State.  It’s also a safe bet that more such proclamations will be forthcoming soon, courtesy of CAIR and clueless, complicit, and/or scared politicians.  Perhaps politicians are clueless because CAIR is hiding its attacks on the First Amendment with side-by-side condemnations of violence against peaceful, innocent Muslims, which violence no decent person would condone.

I suspect there’s a fair bit of fear as well.  According to the ABC report on Miami’s proclamation, Miami Commission Vice Chair Ken Russell said the proclamation is “not about courage as a politician, it’s simply heartfelt empathy for someone’s freedom to express their religion and not be persecuted for it.  And to recognize it as a religion of love.”  Russell and I agree on one thing: these resolutions are not about courage as a politician.

In the ABC Local 10 News report, another Florida CAIR official, Wilfredo Ruiz, said, “Resolutions like this really help foster a better environment, where the contributions of this [sic] many Muslims that have served and keep on serving our nation are protected, and we are embraced as another part of the American fabric.”  Memo to Ruiz: promoting Shariah above the Constitution is not a good way to get non-Muslim Americans to embrace Muslims as part of the American fabric.

I’ll wrap up with a question for the politicians who were lulled into issuing these proclamations: Do you condemn me for stating facts?  Do you condemn me for stating that I hate the fact that Islam promotes pedophilia?  I slandered the prophet of Islam, according to the definition of Shariah.  My respect is not for Shariah, but for the First Amendment.  Is yours?

Realism About the Jihad Threat in Oklahoma

msc-house-bills-sidelined-bbf-1-web

Oklahoma State Rep. John Bennett ventures where few dare to tread.

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, October 27, 2016:

In an age of near-universal denial and willful ignorance at the highest levels about the ideological roots, nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, it is as unusual as it is refreshing to find lawmakers at any level who are willing to approach the problem honestly. State Representative John Bennett of Oklahoma, a Marine and combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, is one of an all-too-rare breed.

On Tuesday, Bennett held an “Interim Study” on “the current threat posed by radical Islam and the effect that Shariah Law, the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadist indoctrination have in the radicalization process in Oklahoma and America.” In his request to hold this study, he explained: “This will be a study of the current threat posed by radical Islam and the effect that Shariah Law, the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadist indoctrination have in the radicalization process in Oklahoma and America.”

This kind of study should have been held not just in the Oklahoma House of Representatives, but in the U.S. House, and Senate as well. That such an idea is inconceivable is an indication of the fix we’re in. And the situation is only marginally better in Oklahoma: nowadays the misinformation and disinformation about what we’re up against is so universal that anywhere the truth is told about this threat, there is significant pushback from the allies and enablers of jihad and Islamic supremacism.

And so it was in Tulsa on Tuesday. The interim study featured testimony by former FBI agent John Guandolo and Chris Gaubatz, whose exploits as an undercover agent infiltrating the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are chronicled in the eye-opening book Muslim Mafia.

Gaubatz and Guandolo presented evidence, including land records, showing that the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City (ISGOC) is owned by the Muslim Brotherhood group the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), that both CAIR, which has an active chapter in Oklahoma City, and ISGOC are Muslim Brotherhood organizations, and that CAIR has extensive ties to the jihad terror group Hamas, which styles itself the Muslim Brotherhood for Palestine. They pointed out that since Imad Enchassi, the imam of ISGOC, is a Palestinian and has all these ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, he likely also has links to Hamas.

Guandolo and Gaubatz did not base their case on innuendo and hearsay. They laid out FBI evidence, Muslim Brotherhood documents, and more, demonstrating that the claims they were making were based on solid evidence.

Predictably, however, the mainstream media, which we now know beyond any shadow of a doubt is simply and solely a propaganda arm for the Left and the Democratic Party, focused entirely on the presence of Adam Soltani of CAIR-OK and Enchassi. The Tulsa World ran a piece with the hysterical headline “State representative brands CAIR-OK, its director and a local imam as terrorists.” It quoted Soltani raging against Bennett: “Rep. Bennett is shamefully wasting taxpayer money to promote his own biased agenda. This hearing was a new low for Rep. Bennett, as his guests presented a biased narrative that achieves nothing more than demonizing and marginalizing the Oklahoma Muslim community.”

The World magisterially told its readers that “CAIR is a Muslim civil liberties and advocacy group working to enhance the understanding of Islam.” It didn’t see fit to mention that CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. There was not a word in the World report about how CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements. (Ahmad denies this, but the original reporter stands by her story.) A California chapter distributed a poster telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI, and a Florida chapter distributed pamphlets with the same message. CAIR has opposed virtually every anti-terror measure that has been proposed or implemented and has been declared a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates.

But the Tulsa World and other mainstream media outlets that covered Bennett’s study did not see fit to inform their readers of any of that; instead, predictably enough, they portrayed the hearing as a baseless exercise in race-baiting and fearmongering conducted by a politician up for reelection.

John Bennett, and the people of Oklahoma, deserve better. There are legitimate questions about CAIR and ISGOC; Bennett dared to raise them Tuesday; for that, he is being subjected to a media lynching that is cynically designed to obscure the genuine concerns he raised – yet ever since a member of ISGOC beheaded a coworker in 2014, these concerns are more urgent than ever.

The media enablers of jihad must be decisively repudiated. Please email the Speaker of the Oklahoma House, Jeff W. Hickman, politely and courteously expressing your support for John Bennett and requesting that his hearing be just the first of a series. His email is jwhickman@okhouse.gov and his phone number is (405) 557-7339.

John Bennett has yet again stuck his neck out for freedom. In these hard times, those who are willing to do that have to hang together.

John Guandolo: Anti-Muslim ‘Hate Speech’ Prosecutions in Europe Portend the ‘Destruction of Liberty in the West’

Matt Cardy/Getty

Matt Cardy/Getty

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 26, 2016:

Former FBI agent and counter-terrorism expert John Guandolo, founder of UnderstandingTheThreat.com, joined Breitbart News Dailyon SiriusXM Wednesday to talk about the cultural impact of mass immigration from Middle Eastern conflict zones into Europe.

Breitbart Editor-in-Chief and SiriusXM host Alex Marlow began the discussion with a story from Austria about an Iraqi asylum-seeker who confessed to raping a ten-year-old boy, but saw his rape conviction overturned because he said he was dealing with a “sexual emergency.”

LISTEN:

“What you described, and what the individual describes in this story, what the Muslim describes, that is actually lawful under sharia,” Guandolo said, referring to the Islamic legal code.

He continued:

It’s the reason that, according to sharia, a Muslim male can have sexual relations with an animal, with a woman, with a boy, is because of exactly what he said – from the Islamic perspective legally, sexual urges are things that can be released as the Muslim man needs to. It’s literally that simple. And it’s just a part of Islam that’s not talked about because of it’s crudity, how crass and crude this discussion can turn, but the reality is, that’s something that needs to be understood by your listeners.

Marlow mentioned another headline from Austria about the editor of the country’s largest paper being charged with hate speech for an article on the assaults and property damage caused by Syrian migrants.

Guandolo said this concept of “hate speech” has already reached the United States:

You have got Hamas doing business as the Council on American-Islamic Relations. My organization, Understanding the Threat, UTT, everywhere we go, you have Hamas doing business as CAIR, literally putting a massive amount of pressure on whoever is hosting our programs – whether it’s a three-day law enforcement program, or any other program.

I mean, right now, they teach classes on, literally when I come to town, how to shut my programs down. I put out an article a couple of weeks ago, we have them on video saying when John Guandolo comes to town, this guy’s gotta be shut down, here’s what you do.

“What is that all about? It is about shutting down the free exchange of ideas, that in this particular case is, because of my FBI background, a factual presentation based in evidence on the fact that CAIR is a Hamas organization,” Guandolo maintained.

He offered a timely story drawn from his own recent experience to illustrate how hate-speech accusations can obscure certain messages, even if they cannot (yet) be censored outright in the United States.

“I’m in Oklahoma right now. Yesterday Chris Gaubatz and I testified before the Oklahoma State Judiciary Committee about the Islamic movement in the nation and specifically in Oklahoma, and the two organizations we focused on that are Muslim Brotherhood were — I mean, we focused on a lot that I laid out — but they have a mosque here called the Grand Mosque in Oklahoma City, and the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, both Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas supporters. The Islamic Society here is a subsidiary of ISNA, which as you all know, because you’re reported it before, is a Muslim Brotherhood organization,” Guandolo recalled.

“But I laid out the evidence, I laid out the property records showing that it’s owned by the Muslim Brotherhood’s bank, laid out all kinds of stuff, their financial reportings, all that,” he continued.

“Well, the imam for that organization, who I identified as being Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood was sitting seven feet away from me, as was the director of CAIR Oklahoma, which is Hamas, and I identified them as Hamas. We laid it out. This was a three-hour interim study at the state level. We went into the next room after it was over and had a press conference, and the state legislator that invited us in brought me to the podium, and we said, ‘Are there any questions?’ There were at least fifteen people in the media. Nobody had a question,” he said.

“Soon as we were done, they flocked around the Hamas guys, and it was like ducks eating bread from a park bench. It was amazing to watch right in front of us. I literally interjected into what CAIR was saying when they were talking to me, I said, ‘This is exactly what I just testified to in there.’ They were like, ‘Hey, don’t interrupt!’ I said, ‘These men are Hamas terrorists that you’re talking to, and you just heard the evidence in the other room.’ And yet, what did they report all over Oklahoma, was that it was just ‘hateful,’ just hateful speech,” Guandolo reported.

“As we’ve learned from the WikiLeaks, the media is so in the bag. What you’re describing as going on in Europe is happening right here in America, and it is the complete shutting down of the free exchange of ideas, and free speech,” he warned.

“We already have people in the West, as you just noted, in Europe who have had handcuffs put on them because of Facebook posts, and free speech on the street corner. It is the destruction of liberty in the West, and I don’t see people in Europe fighting it. I am seeing some in America fight it, but we’re in a really bad way,” he said.

Marlow asked Guandolo for his estimate of how many mosques have been radicalized in the U.S., and how many are susceptible to radicalization.

“Well, we have over three thousand now, is the best number that exist. It looks like over three thousand. The number is increasing pretty rapidly, and has over the last couple of years,” Guandolo replied.

“Of those, the percentage that UTT usually looks at is a number between 75 and 85 percent, and that’s based on three things,” he explained. “It’s based on property records, it’s based on leadership of the mosque, and it’s based on the mosque’s study – which Chris Gaubatz, who’s a part of UTT, went undercover at CAIR, and the book Muslim Mafia is written about that experience, at least in part.”

“He also took part in a mosque survey where he went around the country, he and a few others, and went into a hundred random mosques, and they looked at what was being taught, and the sharia adherence there,” Guandolo continued. “We saw that sharia adherence, strict sharia adherence and extreme sharia adherence, is in about 81 percent of mosques in the United States. And where you have a high level of sharia adherence, you have violent jihad being taught and encouraged in these places.”

He explained:

So that number 80 percent that people throw around is not just kind of something that somebody pulled out of the air. There’s been testimony on Capitol Hill. There’s evidence of the studies that we’ve done, and we know that this is a number that puts it very close to the mark. So 80 percent of 3,000 is a big number. And of course we see, across the United States, that number is very close when we look at the number of organizations that are Muslim Brotherhood that are these mosques.

So you not only have kind of an independent look at it, when you look at the Muslim Brotherhood mosques and Islamic centers in this country, that number is right about 80 percent. That’s a massive number. And so we know that if they’re Muslim Brotherhood, they’re the kind of mosques, like the one we spoke about yesterday in front of the Oklahoma Judiciary Committee, the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City. These are Muslim Brotherhood mosques, and they teach jihad.

In the case of that one, that’s the mosque where Alton Nolen attended, and he ended up being on top of a woman in the office space in Oklahoma, screaming “Allahu akbar!” and sawing her head off. These are the kinds of things that come out of places like that. We can tie jihadi attacks, whether it’s the Boston bombing, the San Bernardino, Orlando, the shootings in Chattanooga, the killing of Private Andy Long in Little Rock, Arkansas – all these attacks that we’ve seen in the United States, we can almost always tie to a Muslim Brotherhood Islamic center or Islamic society.

Virginia: Hamas-linked CAIR enraged that sheriff’s office hosting seminar on jihad threat

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, October 25, 2016:

This vicious little hit piece is a textbook example of how the bought-and-paid-for establishment propaganda media defames freedom fighters and mainstreams allies and enablers of jihad terrorists. Much more below.

nihad-awad-corey-saylor

“CIA Director A ‘Secret Muslim’? Anti-Islam Conspiracy-Theorist Group Set To Speak At Virginia Law Enforcement Event,” by Jason Le Miere, International Business Times, October 25, 2016:

The Muslim community has reacted with anger after the sheriff’s office of Greene County, Virginia, announced plans to host a seminar on the alleged threat posed by Muslims. The event, scheduled for Nov. 5, will also feature a representative of a group led by former FBI agent and conspiracy theorist John Guandolo who has claimed that CIA Director John Brennan is a “secret Muslim” who has acted as an agent for the Saudi Arabian government.

IBT “journalist” Jason La Miere presents Guandolo’s charge that Brennan is a Muslim as if it were self-evidently false, the raving of a “conspiracy theorist.” On what basis? Has Brennan ever denied being a Muslim? No. Does Guandolo have any basis for saying so? He says it was widely known when he was in the FBI that Brennan had converted while serving in Saudi Arabia. Is that inherently implausible? No. Is it widely known that there is a top intelligence official in the Obama Administration’s CIA who has converted to Islam? Yes. It was reported in none other than the Washington Post in 2012. Why couldn’t it be Brennan? The movie Zero Dark Thirty about the killing of Osama bin Laden, for which the moviemakers gained access to classified material (the Obama administration was criticized for making it available to them) featured a top counter-terror official who strongly resembled Brennan and was shown performing Muslim prayers. Were the filmmakers hinting at something they knew? Did La Miere speak to Brennan? If he did, he doesn’t mention it in the article. What is much more likely is that La Miere didn’t speak to Brennan, and has no idea whether or not he is a Muslim, but since Brennan hasn’t said anything one way or the other about the charge, he uses it to portray Guandolo as a “conspiracy theorist.” (You can see the video of my interview with Guandolo, in which he discusses this charge, here.)

Greene County Sheriff Steven Smith posted on Facebook this past weekend that his office would be sponsoring a seminar for residents titled “Understanding the Threat, a very interesting and informative class on the Muslim religion.”

Following a backlash, Smith has since apologized for the wording of the original post and changed the title of the seminar to “Understanding the Jihadi Threat.”

“It’s not to say all Muslims are bad,” Smith told local station CBS19. “We’re not saying that at all and when the post first came out, I apologize for the way it was worded, it didn’t have Jihad in there, it does now. People that know me here in Greene County know I’m not like that. It’s just an educational tool.”

On Tuesday, Smith held an impromptu poll on his Facebook page asking the residents of Greene County to decide whether the event should still go ahead. Just a few minutes latest he wrote, “The seminar is on.”…

But the proposed presence of Guandolo’s group, as well as Suzanne Shattuck, a local activist who has called for the deportation of all Muslims who are “Sharia-adherent,” has drawn condemnation from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization.

In a letter to Smith, CAIR Department to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia Director Corey Taylor [sic!] called for the sheriff’s office to drop the seminar.

The hapless lackey La Miere can’t even get the names of his masters right. It’s Saylor, not Taylor. No need to thank me, Corey.

“Everyone, even anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant bigots, have the First Amendment right to spew their hatred and conspiracy theories, but that bigotry should not have the implicit endorsement of a law enforcement agency,” the letter read. “Let these individuals pay for their own private speaking venue and be ignored, as they deserve.”

“The sponsorship of this event by the sheriff’s office sends the message to members of the local Muslim community that they may not be protected against the growing number of hate incidents targeting Muslims nationwide due to rising Islamophobia.”

The objective of this hateful and hysterical rhetoric is to stigmatize and demonize any honest discussion of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, and to promote a spurious association between such a discussion and supposed “hate incidents targeting Muslims,” although no connection has ever been established. The obvious goal is to make it impossible to examine the motivating ideology of jihad terrorists, which would allow them to advance unhindered and unopposed.

The United States, which is home to 3.3 million Muslims, has in recent months seen anti-Muslim hate crimes rise to their highest levels since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

La Miere’s link goes to a New York Times story; here is Hugh Fitzgerald’s surgical evisceration of that story.

Guandolo, who has also stated that Muslims “do not have a First Amendment right to do anything,” resigned from the FBI in 2008 ahead of an investigation for misconduct. Since then, he has toured the country speaking to citizens and at anti-terrorism training seminars given to law enforcement agencies.

Last week he also spoke at a high school in northern Minnesota. When CAIR similarly protested his appearance, Guandolo alleged the organization has ties to Palestinian militant group Hamas.

“Guandolo alleged” — as if he made it up. In reality, the FBI and the Justice Department have affirmed CAIR’s ties to Hamas. But La Miere either doesn’t know that or doesn’t care. He has, of course, no business calling himself a “journalist” or working for something that claims to be a news outlet. But these days, he is just another cog in the Soros-funded hard-Left propaganda machine.

12 Percent of Muslim Voters Still Undecided as 4 Percent Back Trump

Muslims leave Bernards Township Community Center after a prayer service on Sept. 23, 2016, in Basking Ridge, N.J. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)

Muslims leave Bernards Township Community Center after a prayer service on Sept. 23, 2016, in Basking Ridge, N.J. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)

PJ Media, by Bridget Johnson, October 14, 2016:

A new poll commissioned by the Council on American-Islamic Relations found 12 percent of Muslim voters still undecided about their choice for president, with 3 percent agreeing with Donald Trump’s proposal for a temporary ban on Muslim travel to the United States.

The survey, conducted by Triton Polling & Research between the first and second presidential debates from Sept. 27 to Oct. 5, found that 86 percent of Muslims definitely or probably will vote on Nov. 8.

Forty-four percent identified as politically moderate, while 25 percent identified as liberal and 11 percent as conservative. In 2008, 49 percent of Muslims registered as Democrats while 36 percent were independent. Today, the number identifying as Dems has jumped to 67 percent with 18 percent calling themselves independent. The Libertarian and Green parties had 3 percent support apiece.

Three percent said the Republican Party was committed to “treating all citizens equally” and “protecting religious freedom,” while 32 percent said there was no difference between the Dems and GOP on “standing up for what they believe in.”

Sixty-two percent said this year that the Republican Party is unfriendly to Muslims, while 51 percent felt that way in 2008. Seven percent said the GOP is Muslim-friendly.

Seventy-two percent of those polled picked Hillary Clinton for president, with 4 percent saying they’ll vote for Trump, 3 percent favoring Green Party candidate Jill Stein, and 2 percent picking Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

Twenty-two percent of those surveyed were born in the United States. Of the foreign-born voters, 78 percent have been in America for 20 years or more. Seventy-eight percent of respondents were married, and 77 percent had a college degree. There were fewer millennials surveyed, with 69 percent age 40 or older.

Sixty-two percent of those surveyed said they attended mosque at least once a month, while 57 percent said they were not very or not all involved in their mosque’s activities outside of prayers. Just over half identified as Sunni, just 7 percent identified at Shiite, and 33 percent described themselves as “just a Muslim.”

Voters ranked their top issues as civil rights, education, jobs and the economy, protecting students from bullying and harassment, Trump’s proposed Muslim ban, terrorism and national security, and defeating ISIS. Eighty percent ranked defeating the Islamic State as a “very important” issue as voters, while 3 percent dismissed it as “very unimportant.”

The least important issue to Muslim voters, from a list offered by pollsters, was abortion, with 40 percent ranking it as “very important” and 12 percent calling it “very unimportant.”

Thirty percent of those surveyed said they had experienced discrimination or profiling in the past year, while two-thirds said they had not.

The poll also got into current events questions, with 47 percent saying the U.S. didn’t provide enough support over the past year to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria and 26 percent opining that the effort put forward by the Obama administration was enough.

Eighty-five percent said Islamophobia had increased in the United States over the past year, while 5 percent said anti-Muslim sentiments had decreased.

Eighty-two percent support settling Syrian refugees in America, while 7 percent opposed. Fifty-eight percent said overseas U.S. military campaigns “create resentment and lead to more terrorism,” while 18 percent called overseas operations “the best way to defeat terrorism.”

CAIR national executive director Nihad Awad said the poll “shows that American Muslims are both worried and hopeful.”

“They are worried that Islamophobia is becoming violent and acceptable with no push back by our nation’s leaders, and hopeful that their high turnout – with more than one million votes – will swing the election and make their voices heard,” Awad said.

Also see:

Islam is a religion of peace and war—and it’s not bigotry to acknowledge it

Getty Images

Getty Images

The Hill, by Shireen Qudosi, Sept. 28, 2016:

Last week, I warned a House Homeland Security Subcommittee that Islamist pressure groups were making it impossible for my fellow Muslims to do the crucial work of reforming and liberalizing Islam. Within hours, these grievance professionals were attacking me for Islamophobia and bigotry.

I’ve spent the last 15 years since the 9/11 attacks working toward reform in Islam; I recognized that, in order to change the potent and dangerous tone of the politics of global Islamism, Islamic theology must advance, as well. I am grateful that Rep. Scott Perry (R-Texas) chaired a Oversight and Management Efficiency Subcommittee hearing, “Identifying the Enemy: Radical Islamist Terror,” and gave me opportunity to tell Congress about my work with the Muslim Reform movement.

In order to defeat radical Islamist terror, we must first normalize our relationship with Islam itself, treating it the way we do Christianity, Judaism or any other religion over the last century. My fellow Muslims must be able to countenance criticism of Islam, from within and without—the theology, the political ideology, everything. Only by approaching the religion’s tenants with a new spirit of inquiry can we ever disentangle the Islamic faith from the Islamism that is a metastasizing threat to human rights around the world.

We must not be afraid to approach and contend with the complexity of Islamic law and history, the good, the bad, the ugly and the viscously anti-democratic. Muslim grievance professionals and well-intentioned liberals whitewashing the aspects of the Qur’an that conflict with the values of American society in the 21st Century do us no favors. “We must realize,” I said in my opening statement, that “we are dealing with a political ideology that is parasitically feeding off a religion that is already complex by being both peace and war.”

According to sacred Islamic sources themselves—not hated Islamophobes—the Prophethood of Muhammed was, in fact, both peaceful and war-mongering. Indeed, the Prophet would have been viewed as a violent terrorist to his opponents. I encouraged the audience to not withdraw from threats of bigotry, racism and “Islamophobia.” Muslims will find that, first, we do not suffer when we are offended; even more importantly we will learn that no ideas are above scrutiny, including our own most cherished ones.

Within hours of the hearing, however, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) launched an attack on me in a breathless video hit piece, alerting the world that I “call[ed] the Prophet Muhammad a ‘Warmonger’ and Islam Terroristic.” They branded my criticism Islamophobic—choosing to ignore that I, too, am a Muslim. Do I have a right to critique my religion without being called a bigot?

On social media, Zahra Billoo, Executive Director of CAIR San Francisco, and the Executive Director of CAIR Los Angeles, Hussam Ayloush, piled on, opened up a flood of hate Tweets that has jeopardized my personal security.

They are well aware that, by framing my historical assessment of early Islam as an attack on the Prophet, they are potentially marking me for death, either as an apostate or a slanderer, under Islamic law. They’ve opened up a flood gate to a not insubstantial number of Muslims that will do anything to protect their Prophet against slander. In this way, organizations like CAIR are no different than the most extreme radicals or Islamic states.

Islamist groups like CAIR use shame tactics and exclusionary practices to silence minority voices of reform in Islam – voices like mine – all the while crying that they themselves are a minority in America deserving of special protection. Even more alarmingly, many on the left and in the media instinctively defend aspects of Islam they neither practice nor understand; what they believe to be a chivalrous defense of Muslims has the effect of keeping Islam frozen in time.

In their attack, CAIR has proven my point: Muslim grievance professionals are quick to silence minority voices in Islam, reinforcing the idea that Islam doesn’t require any change or modernization. Worse, however, is the signal these groups send to non-Muslims: that any criticism aimed at liberalizing aspects of the faith—even from Muslims themselves—is tantamount to bigotry and Islamophobia.

This must stop in order to pave the way for real reform, like the embrace of human rights for women, Jews, the LGBTQ community, and others. This is the sometimes painful and messy work that needs to be done to make Islam just another religion in America.

Shireen Qudosi is a Muslim Reformer who lives on the West Coast. She writes at Counterjihad.com

CAIR’s Awad: Anti-Terror JASTA Bill Part of “War on Islam”

nihad1by IPT News  •  Sep 26, 2016

It might be one of the few things on which Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton agree: President Obama was wrong Friday when he vetoed the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.”

The bill, which passed the U.S. House Sept. 9 after passing the Senate May 17, would allow Americans victimized by foreign terrorist attacks to sue countries responsible. Specifically, 9/11 victims could sue Saudi Arabia, which generated 15 of the 19 hijackers who struck the World Trade Center, Pentagon and Flight 93, which crashed in a Pennsylvania field after passengers fought back.

But in an interview with the Arabic-language Al Sharq Al Awsat, Council on American-Islamic Relations Executive Director Nihad Awad cast the legislation as an anti-Muslim attack.

The bill “is a continuation of the series of [actions] attaching terrorism to Islamic societies, the Islamic world and Islamic countries, as well as Islamic personalities, since it aims to demonize Islam,” an Investigative Project on Terrorism translation of Awad’s remarks said. “… so that things have reached the point of attaching the accusation of terrorism against Saudi Arabia, which is the heart of the Muslim world, and accusing it is an accusation of Muslims all over the world.”

He compared the bill to campaigns against mosque construction in the United States and said it is pushed by the same ideology that “supports the campaign of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying that those who voted for the resolution in the Congress are those waging war on Islam and they always vote for wars and conflicts, and are exploiting the families of the victims in this crisis.”

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., co-sponsored and advocated for the bill, which enjoyed bipartisan support. In a statement, he pledged to make this President Obama’s first veto to be over-ridden by Congress.

More importantly, Awad’s description that the bill’s supporters “are those waging war on Islam” is especially dangerous and reckless. That message, that the West is at war against Islam, is considered the most effective at radicalizing Muslims.

CAIR officials used to repeatedly invoke that message, but seemed to have backed away from it in recent years. Awad’s revival was directed at an Arabic-speaking audience.

Former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham, who served as co-chairman of a congressional 9/11 inquiry, has long advocated for the release of 28 pages of his committee’s report focusing on the hijackers’ connections to Saudi government officials. Those pages were released in July. In a New York Times oped earlier this month, Graham said they raise more questions and advocated for the release of more investigative material still deemed classified.

His motivation for this campaign, and for supporting JASTA, had nothing to do with Muslims, he explained.

“It can mean justice for the families that have suffered so grievously. It can also mean improving our national security, which has been compromised by the extreme form of Islam that has been promoted by Saudi Arabia,” Graham wrote.

President Obama claims he vetoed the bill out of concern for unintended consequences, that it might open the door to similar litigation against U.S. military and government officials in other countries and “would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks.”

Both Trump and Clinton said they would sign the bill if elected president, CNN reported.