‘Clock Boy’ Loses in Court, Father’s Defamation Lawsuit Dismissed

Ahmed Mohamed, center, and father Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, left, look on as their lawyer Susan E. Hutchison speaks holding the school pencil box holding the clock Ahmed built. (AP Photo/LM Otero)

Ahmed Mohamed, center, and father Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, left, look on as their lawyer Susan E. Hutchison speaks holding the school pencil box holding the clock Ahmed built. (AP Photo/LM Otero)

PJ Media, by Debra Heine, January 11, 2017:

A district court judge in Texas has dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by Ahmed Mohamed on his own behalf and on behalf of his 15-year-old son, Ahmed Mohamed. They had sued Fox News, Glenn Beck, and the mayor of Irving — among others — for defamation in September of 2016.

A year earlier, Ahmed, then a 14-year-old freshman at an Irving, Texas, high school, was arrested, briefly detained by police, and suspended for three days after bringing to school a “cool clock” that looked like a briefcase bomb. Ahmed claimed to have “invented” the easily assembled clock, and that he had brought it to school to show it to his shop teacher.

The incident led many to question the Mohamed family’s motives. Newly appointed District Court Judge Maricela Moore dismissed the lawsuit following a nearly three-hour hearing on Monday, according to the American Freedom Law Center:

The motion to dismiss was filed by lawyers from the American Freedom Law Center (“AFLC”) and local counsel Pete Rowe on behalf of the Center for Security Policy (“CSP”) and Jim Hanson, two of the defendants in the defamation case, which also named as defendants the local Fox affiliate, Glenn Beck, and Beck’s production company.

Mohamed had sued Hanson and CSP for statements Hanson had made on Beck’s program about the connection between the Clock Boy hoax bomb affair, the attendant media frenzy created in large part by his father Mohamed, civilization jihad, and the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”), the Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group in the United States that promotes civilization jihad.

During the hearing, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel David Yerushalmi explained to Judge Moore that the purpose of the lawfare-driven lawsuit was to intimidate into silence those who might comment publicly on the connection between jihad, terrorism, sharia, and Islam. As such, Yerushalmi argued, “this case is a classic Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation or ‘SLAPP’ case and should be dismissed.”

During the lengthy hearing, Judge Moore pressed Mohamed’s lawyer, Fort Worth attorney Susan Hutchison, to provide any facts that would suggest that Hanson and the other defendants had said anything false or defamatory about Mohamed or his son during the television broadcasts. After spending a painfully embarrassing 15 minutes flipping through reams of paper, Mohamed’s lawyer was unable to provide any such evidence.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Moore said that she would rule by the end of the day. On Tuesday, the court published Judge Moore’s ruling dismissing the lawsuit against Hanson and CSP with prejudice.

Upon leaving the courtroom, Yerushalmi made the following statement:

“This lawsuit filed by Clock Boy’s father is yet another example of Islamist lawfare, which is a component of the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihad.”

Yerushalmi further explained that the purpose of such lawsuits, formally labelled Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”), is to intimidate into silence those who might comment publicly on the connection between jihad, terrorism, sharia, and Islam.

Yerushalmi added:

The Islamists employ the progressive mainstream media to label any public criticism of a sharia-centric, jihad-driven Islam as “Islamophobic,” and they add fear and financial ruin to the equation by utilizing the legal system to file SLAPP actions.

Now that the lawsuit has been dismissed, the AFLC is petitioning the court for lawyer fees and sanctions against Clock Boy’s dad.

***

Clock Boy’s Defamation Lawsuit Attacked as Lawfare: AFLC Lawyers Ask Court to Award Sanctions

clock-boy

AFLC, December 6, 2016:

Today, lawyers for the Center for Security Policy (“CSP”) and Jim Hanson filed a motion in a Dallas, Texas court seeking to dismiss the defamation lawsuit filed by Mohamed Mohamed on his own behalf and on behalf of his 15-year old son, Ahmed Mohamed.

Ahmed is better known as “Clock Boy” for bringing a hoax clock bomb to his Irving, Texas middle school in September 2015 and causing a bomb scare that led to his arrest and suspension from school.  Later, Ahmed claimed the look-a-like briefcase bomb was just a “homemade clock.”  In reality it was neither a bomb nor a homemade clock, but a disassembled digital clock put in a small carrying case giving it the look of an improvised digital bomb or trigger for a bomb.

The Clock Boy’s lawsuit seeks unspecified damages from various media companies and personalities, such as Glenn Beck, the Glenn Beck Show, and the local Fox News station, for commenting on the hoax bomb affair during their programs.

Jim Hanson, a CSP senior vice president, a former member of the U.S. Army Special Forces, and an expert on counter-terrorism, was sued along with CSP and the other media defendants for suggesting that the entire affair was a PR stunt by Clock Boy’s father in order to generate a media firestorm about anti-Islamic bias and Muslim-victimization.

During Hanson’s appearance on the Glenn Beck Show, Hanson noted that the Clock Boy’s father had orchestrated an intense media campaign with the local chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”), which the U.S. government has formally linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and to the designated terrorist organization Hamas in several formal court filings in federal terrorism cases.

Hanson went on to explain that the entire affair had the look and feel of a typical “influence operation”—the standard operating procedure of what the Muslim Brotherhood calls its “civilization jihad” against the West.

The motion to dismiss, filed by the American Freedom Law Center (“AFLC”), along with AFLC’s local Texas counsel Pete Rowe, not only seeks dismissal of the lawsuit, but also requests the court to award attorneys’ fees and to sanction Clock Boy’s father for filing a meritless lawsuit whose only purpose is to silence those who might speak out publicly against such influence operations.

David Yerushalmi, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel, issued the following statement:

“This lawsuit filed by Clock Boy’s father is yet another example of Islamist lawfare, which is a component of the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihad.”

Yerushalmi further explained that the purpose of such lawsuits, formally labelled Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”), is to intimidate into silence those who might comment publicly on the connection between jihad, terrorism, sharia, and Islam.

“The Islamists employ the progressive mainstream media to label any public criticism of a sharia-centric, jihad-driven Islam as ‘Islamophobic,’ and they add fear and financial ruin to the equation by utilizing the legal system to file SLAPP actions,”

Yerushalmi added.

Texas, like California and a number of other states, has an anti-SLAPP statute that requires a court to dismiss such lawsuits and to sanction those plaintiffs who file them.

Robert Muise, AFLC’s other co-founder and senior counsel, made clear:

“AFLC was formed in large measure to take on Islamists like CAIR who use and abuse the legal system with their cynical form of lawfare to undermine our constitutional liberties—notably free speech.  We have confronted these lawsuits across the country in federal and state courts and have defeated CAIR and its minions at every turn.  When appropriate, we have won sanctions.  This lawsuit will be no different.”

Obama Is Right to Veto Bill Enabling Suits against the Saudis

President Obama with Saudi King Salman in Riyadh, April 20, 2016. (Reuters photo: Kevin Lamarque)

President Obama with Saudi King Salman in Riyadh, April 20, 2016. (Reuters photo: Kevin Lamarque)

Relations between governments are best handled through diplomacy, not legal proceedings.

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, September 14, 2016

Why, when the Republican-controlled Congress is finally willing to fight President Obama to the point of forcing and potentially overriding a veto, do they pick an issue on which Obama is right?

In a grandstanding exhibition, Congress has enacted legislation that would enable private litigants — the most sympathetic imaginable, the families of 9/11 victims — to sue the government of Saudi Arabia. Obviously, even if it is sued successfully, the Saudi government is never actually going to pay any judgments. More to the point, legislation of this kind will spur other countries to enact laws allowing their citizens to sue the United States — and maybe even criminal laws allowing the arrest of current and former American government officials (including military personnel) — for actions taken in defense of our country and pursuit of our interests.

Since we have interests throughout the world and a military that acts globally (and lethally), our nation has far more to lose than most nations by playing this game. Consequently, while I get the populist zeitgeist, it is disappointing to see people who ought to know better claiming that a veto would represent Obama’s prioritizing of Saudi interests over American interests. It would do nothing of the sort.

Moreover, the fervor for this legislation is indeed ironic for Republicans who complain — quite justifiably — that Obama regards international terrorism as a law-enforcement matter to be pursued in the courts. The judiciary is no more proper a forum for conducting diplomacy than it is for dealing with a national-security challenge.

Relations between the United States and any other sovereign, including the Saudi regime, ought to be managed by the political branches — in particular, the executive — in whom the Constitution vests responsibility. They should not be subject to litigation overseen by politically unaccountable courts. Legal cases can be unpredictable due to the differences in the predispositions and skill levels of the individual judges and litigators. That is not a problem in the vast run of private lawsuits, since the appellate process sorts out most errors. But it can be a huge problem in international relations, on which hinge alliances and intelligence-gathering arrangements on which our security depends.

That, of course, is why countries mutually grant their officials diplomatic immunity, which bars prosecution of even serious crimes committed by diplomatic personnel. It is why a country’s diplomatic installations are considered its sovereign territory even on foreign soil — such that violating them — as, for example, Iran did to our embassy in 1979 — is an act of war. These norms often work injustices in individual cases, but it is imperative that we preserve them.

To be clear, I have no sympathy for the Obama administration’s concerns about enraging the Saudi regime. We should be enraging them. I doubt if anyone was more vigorous than I in arguing that there should be full disclosure of the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks — including the publication of previously sealed pages from a congressional report. The United States should stop pretending that the Saudis are a reliable counterterrorism ally. We should be exposing and condemning the regime’s enforcement of barbaric sharia corporal penalties, as well as sharia’s systematic discrimination against women, apostates, non-Muslims, Muslim minorities, and homosexuals.

As I’ve previously argued, there is also no reason why the Obama administration could not negotiate with the Saudis in an effort to create a fund to compensate 9/11 victims. The Saudis would of course be resistant, but we have cards to play in such a negotiation. Plus, the Saudis might well prefer to appear magnanimous in contributing to a fund than suffer the indignity of being found culpable for 9/11 in legal proceedings. It may not work, but it is worth trying.

Furthermore, there is no restriction, and should be none, on civil lawsuits against individual Saudi citizens and entities that are complicit in terrorism, including the 9/11 attacks. We should be more aggressive in prosecuting Saudi entities, including “charities,” that provide material support to terrorism — an imperative President Obama has slackened on in the name of appeasing Islamists.

Nevertheless, a foreign government is not like a private litigant, and has historically not been treated as such. Real security depends on maintaining the international system of sovereign states that respect each other’s sovereignty. It is the transnational progressives who envision a post-sovereign world in which unelected judges and international organizations call the tune, undermining the prerogatives of nationhood and democratic self-determination. (See, e.g., my review in The New Criterion of Justice Stephen Breyer’s The Court and the World.) Why would Republicans want to contribute to that effort?

Obviously, the bipartisan legislation is popular: We would all like to see the 9/11 families made as whole as possible (though their losses can never really be fully compensated). And we’d like to see the Saudis get their well-deserved comeuppance as a leading sponsor of jihadist terror.

A great deal of long-term damage, though, can be done by something that, however fleetingly popular, sets a terrible precedent. This is a wrong-headed bill, and President Obama is right to veto it.

 Andrew CMcCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Muslim Flight Attendant Sues For Refusing Passengers THIS

Capture

CAIR immediately takes up her cause.

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, Aug. 11, 2016:

Flight attendants have a number of duties and one of them is providing customers with food and beverages – including drinks containing alcohol. However, for one Muslim flight attendant working for ExpressJet serving alcohol has come into conflict with her religious beliefs. The Muslim woman, Charee Stanley, is now on unpaid leave and suing “the airline of wrongly suspending her because she refused to serve alcohol to passengers.” The Detroit News reports the chain of events leading up to the lawsuit:

According the lawsuit, Stanley converted to Islam in January 2013 and began work with the airline that month.

She served alcohol to passengers and was “not aware” that Islamic proscriptions on alcohol consumption extend to the act of serving alcohol to others, the complaint says.

In June 2015, Stanley learned of the proscription and the following work day asked ExpressJet to grant her a religious accommodations [sic] in which she did not have to personally serve alcohol to passengers.

The company accommodated her by having her ask other flight attendants to serve alcohol to passengers.

Around August 2015, Stanley alleges she was told to either resign or serve alcohol. She made another request for the accommodation and was denied, according to the complaint.

Stanley was placed on unpaid leave on Aug. 25, 2015, for 12 months, after which her employment would be terminated.

The federal court case follows a discrimination complaint filed last year with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which dismissed it without determining whether the airline violated the law.

Stanley alleges ExpressJet didn’t provide a reasonable religious accommodation and seeks back pay and other damages.

So, Stanley essentially served alcohol for over two years for the airline as a Muslim woman, then decides it conflicts with Sharia and now refuses to serve the intoxicant. How is it fair to make other flight attendants and staff take over her duties in that area all because she changed her mind on what’s halal (permitted) and haram (forbidden) in Islam? Is this about a reasonable religious accommodation or Sharia? Furthermore, what happens if Stanley decides that she can’t serve pork products since “the flesh of swine” is haram (Quran 2:173, Quran 6:145) or serve passengers with seeing eye dogs because dog saliva is impure in Islam? Would these religious accommodations as well as many others be reasonable? Stanley’s case is still pending but it’s important to note that religious accommodations cannot be made for a totalitarian ideology like Sharia which lacks moderation.

Of course, the one filing the lawsuit is none other than the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations – CAIR (Michigan chapter). As highlighted in this video CAIR is notorious for filing these alleged religious discrimination complaints – using them as a way to advance their Islamist agenda by pressuring companies and government agencies to give into their demands.

Also  see:

Café Countersuit Accuses Muslim Women of ‘Civilizational Jihad’

Facebook

Facebook

Breitbart, by Adelle Nazarian, June 24, 2016:

The attorney representing the Muslim owner of a popular Orange County café is countersuing a group of Muslim women who initially sued her business for anti-Muslim discrimination. The counter-suit accuses the group of waging “civilizational jihad” and trespassing.

According to the UK Guardian, David Yerushalmi of the Los Angeles-based American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), the lawyer representing Urth Caffé in Laguna Beach and café owner Jilla Berkman alleged that the initial lawsuit was part of a wider “civilizational jihad” being waged by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which aims “to weaken western civilization”. Further, Yerushalmi reportedly said the women’s discrimination suit was a form of “extortion”, calling the lawyers representing the seven female Muslim plaintiffs “ambulance chasers.”

The seven women, six of whom wore hijabs (a traditional head covering required under Sharia law and in most Muslim countries) claimed that they were asked to leave before they finished eating at the café, and suggested the owner called the police on them due to Islamophobia. However, the restaurant has a stated 45-minute time limit per table and Yerushalmi argued that his client said the women “were loud and abusive to the Urth Caffe employees and refused to give up their table per the stated policy.” Berkman personally authorized one of her employees to call the police on the women.

“That night, as every Friday night, a large number of young people, including a majority of whom are Muslim and of Arab descent, make up the base of Urth Caffe’s customers,” Yerushalmi wrote. “Not surprisingly, many of these customers are women wearing hijabs. None of these other Muslim women were asked to leave.”

Mohammad Tajsar, one of the attorneys representing the Muslim women, had painted the incident as just he latest in a series of hate crimes against Muslims in the area.

Yerushalmi pointed out in the initial case that “the lead plaintiff in the frivolous lawsuit is Sara Farsakh, a college-age activist for Palestinian causes who self-promotes her involvement in radical organizations, at least one of which calls for the destruction of Israel.” He also noted that “the organization behind the scenes organizing this fraudulent lawsuit is CAIR.”

(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.)

Yet CAIR’s Executive Director in Los Angeles, Hussam Ayloush, told the Guardian that contrary to Yerushalmi’s allegations, his organization was not involved with the Urth Caffé case. He blasted Yerushalmi in an interview with the Guardian‘s Nicky Woolf, saying “if anyone had any doubts about what happened on that day, those doubts are eliminated by the fact that the owners of Urth Caffé decided to retain David Yerushalmi. There are 1.2 million attorneys in America, and for them to choose the most hateful, the most bigoted attorney, tells a lot about the values that Urth Caffe’s owners hold.”

CAIR has often had a hand in representing Muslims in troubling situations. For example, they helped the families of San Bernardino terrorists Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. a

As for the claims of Islamophobia against Yerushalmi, he issued the following statement to the Guardian:

I represent Muslim Americans, running from jihad and seeking asylum. If you want to say I’m an anti-jihad lawyer, you’re 100% right. Am I anti-Sharia? Yes, I am. Am I anti-Muslim? Not if he doesn’t have a gun in his hand shooting at me.

Follow Adelle Nazarian on Twitter @AdelleNaz

BOOK RELEASE: Offensive and Defensive Lawfare: Fighting Civilization Jihad in America’s Courts

lawfare

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Center for Security Policy, 27 October 2015:

For Immediate Release                                           

For more information contact: Adam Savit | 202-719-2413 | savit@securefreedom.org

NEW MONOGRAPH ILLUMINATES THE CIVILIZATION JIHADISTS’ LAWFARE AGAINST AMERICA – AND HOW IT CAN BE FOUGHT

In Offensive and Defensive Lawfare: Fighting Civilization Jihad in America’s Courts, David Yerushalmi, Esq., Director of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) and General Counsel for the Center for Security Policy, and AFLC co-founder Robert J. Muise, Esq. describe the use by our Islamic supremacist enemies of U.S. jurisprudence to compel submission to the doctrine they call shariah. As with so many other facets of the Muslim Brotherhood’s stealthy, pre-violent jihad against this country, most of us are unaware that such lawfare is taking place, let alone with such deleterious effects.

Even more importantly, Messrs. Yerushalmi and Muise lay out their recommendations for an offensive strategy to defend the U.S. Constitution and the rights it guarantees our countrymen and women from any further encroachment by Islamic law.Photoshop CCScreenSnapz001 In stark contrast to the longstanding use of such techniques to intimidate or suppress freedom-loving peoples, offensive lawfare against the Brotherhood and its ilk is a relatively nascent area of the law, in which the authors are true pioneers and formidable innovators.

Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. said on the occasion of the publication of the latest monograph in the Center’s Civilization Jihad Reader Series:

“In Offensive and Defensive Lawfare, David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise, have added to the great service they perform for the nation every day through their public interest law firm’s pro bono representation of exponents of religious and other freedoms. We hope that this treatment of their battlespace – with its clear depiction of the Islamic supremacists’ lawfare and insights into how this front of the civilization jihad can best be countered – will inspire many other accomplished litigators to join the authors in this fight.”

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present this monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series . Offensive and Defensive Lawfare: Fighting Civilization Jihad in America’s Courts is available for purchase in kindle andpaperback format on Amazon.com.

—> Full PDF of the newly released monograph

JIHAD BY COURT: A MODERN STRATEGY TO “TERRIFY THE ENEMY OF ALLAH”

al-banna3IKHWANINFO, by Valentina Colombo , Sep. 27, 2015: (h/t Creeping Sharia)

Hasan al-Banna in the Letter of teachings, which is still one of the key documents in the Muslim Brotherhood curriculum, explained the meaning of jihad in the following way: “By jihad, I mean that imperative duty until the day of Resurrection which is reflected in the following saying of the Messenger of Allah – praise and benediction of Allah upon Him: “Whoever dies without carrying out a military expedition, or wishing to do so, dies a pre-Islamic death.” Its lowest degree is the heart’s abhorrence of evil, and its highest degree is fighting in the path of Allah. Between these two degrees are other forms of jihad: jihad with the tongue, pen, hand, and speaking a word of truth to the unjust authority. The call can survive only with jihad. The more lofty and far reaching is the call, the greater is the jihad in its path. The price required to support it is immense, but the reward given to its upholders is more generous: ‘And strive in the Way of Allah as you ought to.’ By this you know the meaning of your slogan ‘Jihad is our path’.”

Jihad by court is another form of “intermediate” jihad and is a modern and aggressive form of jihad through legal means. It is the Westernised and pseudo-democratic form of the Islamic institution called hisba which is derived from the Qur’anic order upon every Muslims of “commanding good and forbidding wrong”: “Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors” (Qur’an 3: 110).

Jihad by court is one of the favourite means of the organizations and individuals ideologically linked with the Muslim Brotherhood in the West and sometimes is connected with the accusation of islamophobia. The strategy is clear: any journalist, writer, intellectual, academic, activist or any newspaper, organisation, association criticising or exposing an MB individual or organisation is very likely to be sued for defamation. The Legal Project, based in the USA, has given a very useful definition of this tactic: “Such lawsuits are often predatory, filed without a serious expectation of winning, but undertaken as a means to bankrupt, distract, intimidate, and demoralize defendants. Plaintiffs seek less to prevail in the courtroom than to wear down researchers and analysts. Even when the latter win cases, they pay heavily in time, money, and spirit. As counterterrorism specialist Steven Emerson comments, “Legal action has become a mainstay of radical Islamist organizations seeking to intimidate and silence their critics.” Islamists clearly hope, Douglas Farah notes, that researchers will “get tired of the cost and the hassle [of lawsuits] and simply shut up.”

This has been going on for years in Europe and the US. In some countries there are Western lawyers representing generations of leaders of political Islam from Yusuf Qaradawi to Rached al-Ghannouchi, from Tariq Ramadan to the UOIF, from the global Muslim Brotherhood to national organisations.

Only a few recent examples. On September 4, the Police Tribunal in Lille found Soufiane Zitouni guilty of non-public defamation and non-public insult toward the Lycée Averroès in Lille, linked with UOIF and his president Amar Lasfar, for an email he had sent colleagues accusing the school’s leadership of being a “hypocritical vipers’ nest.” The court assessed that Zitouni did not substantiate his claim and thus found him guilty. In a press communiqué, Averroes high school welcomed the court’s decision against Zitouni’s guilty verdict: “The Lille Court sentenced Soufiane Zitouni and found him guilty of defamation and insults against the Lycée Averroès.” It further stated that “this decision comes after a report from the Ministry of National Education which demonstrated no violation of the Republic’s values.” In the same press release the Lycée “mistakenly” wrote that Zitouni was condemned for public defamation instead of “non-public defamation”.

The court judgement has been an apparent victory for the Lycée, that however did not dare to sue Zitouni for his articles on Liberation where he exposed the methods and the contents of classes in the high school. A few days later, Mohamed Louizi, another prominent critic of the MB in France, announced on his Facebook page that he was being sued for public defamation by the President of the Association Lycée Averroès, Amar Lasfar for a series of critical articles he published last Spring on his Mediapart blog. If found guilty, he could be liable for a fine of up to 12,000 Euros.

On July 29, 2015, the Italian newspaper Il Giornale launched a call to financially support its journalist Magdi Cristiano Allam after an Italian court ordered him to pay more than 8,000 Euros because he linked the Italian Union of Islamic Organisations in Italy (UCOII) with the MB and Hamas during a TV program in 2006. Although I do not agree with his political choices and his harsh stand against Islam, Magdi Cristiano Allam was condemned to death by Hamas and has been living under the protection of the Italian Ministry of Interior since 2003 as a result. During the program, he accused the Muslim Brotherhood of being at the origin of his death sentence.

Allam has been one of the staunchest accusers of the MB network in Italy and has been for years the target of the jihad by court, led by the Italian lawyer Luca Bauccio who counts among his clients Rached Ghannouchi, Tariq Ramadan, Yusuf Qaradawi, Youssef Nada and all Italian leaders of political Islam.

Another example is the lawsuit that was initiated by the Union of the Islamic Organizations of France and the Great Mosque of Paris against “Charlie Hebdo” for republishing the Danish cartoons about Muhammad is one of the most famous examples of this kind of jihad. In March 2008, the Paris Court of Appeals rejected all the accusations as, the cartoons, “which clearly refer only to a part not to the whole Muslim community, cannot be considered neither an outrage nor a personal and direct attack against a group of people because of their religious faith and do not go beyond the limits of freedom of expression.” However, the deadly attack against Charlie Hebdo on January 2015 confirms that jihad by court can turn out to be the green light to more radical organisations that decide to use less democratic means.

The French Court acted in a responsible and sensible way, but what happened to “Charlie Hebdo,” and keeps on happening to many writers and journalists should lead us to conclude that: first, the attacks of “jihad by court” do not come from all Muslims, they come from so-called “Islamic communities and organizations”, that usually are simple non-profit associations which do not represent anybody but themselves, and from individuals and organizations who protect themselves by attacking the others in the name of freedom and defamation.

In Europe and the US there is a long list of people who have been victims of jihad by court: from Daniel Pipes to Fiammetta Venner, from Mohammed Sifaoui to Magdi Cristiano Allam, from Soufiane Zitouni to Heiko Heinisch, from Souad Sbai to Mohamed Louizi. Most of them perfectly know political Islam, its actors and strategies. Some of them have also been in the past active members of political Islam. However, Western judges have not realised yet that anti-defamation laws have been exploited by political Islam in the West to silence the other, that political Islam is not Islam and does not represent the majority of Muslims living in Europe.

Last but not least, Western judges and law makers should realise that jihad by court is one of the new strategies to implement not only Hasan al-Banna’s Letter of teachings, but also the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood represented by the following Qur’anic verse: ““And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged” (Surat al-Anfal, 60).

Jihad by court is the non-violent, but aggressive way to “terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy.”

It Is CAIR’s History of Falsehood That Raises Clock Questions

d455913e-196d-4a67-9033-7e65be8d909cTown Hall, by Kyle Shideler, Sep. 18, 2015:

As the initial hubbub surrounding the story of Ahmed Mohammed and his “clock” is beginning to die down to a dull roar, it’s worth looking at where exactly the skepticism of his story arrives from.

Obviously, the young man, in his NASA T-Shirt and glasses cuts a sympathetic image. But the swift appearance on the scene of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), raises questions. If this was a misunderstanding and overzealous “Zero tolerance” police work, perhaps it has since been manipulated into something more.

In the case of Ahmed Mohammed, the introduction of CAIR into the equation suddenly pivoted the discussion from whether police exercised decent judgment, to accusations that all of the city of Irving, it’s school system, police, and government were islamophobes, and it was their Islamophobia, and not a beeping box filled with strange wires and circuits, that led police to Ahmed Mohammed.

It’s no surprise that an organization like CAIR would target Irving, since its Mayor, Beth Van Duyne, brought attention to an attempt by Muslim Brotherhood (MB) linked Imams to form a Shariah law tribunal in North Texas, and raised a ruckus by supporting the Constitution over the introduction of foreign law. One of the organizations linked to the tribunal runs the mosque attended by the Mohammed family.

Is it possible CAIR is attempting to use this controversy in order to target one of its political opponents? Judging from history, it seems likely.

The Council on American Islamic Relations was formed in response to a 1993 meeting in Philadelphia held by members of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and took place under the watchful eye of the FBI.

CAIR has always been far more than the civil rights organization it purports to be. Indeed at that very meeting, the members of Hamas, including those who would found CAIR, discussed how they could manipulate civil rights in order to further their interests.

From the testimony of FBI agent Lara Burns discussing the propaganda effort to oppose the 1993 Peace Accord:

Q. Were there additional discussions making presentations to America on human rights?

A. Yes.

MR. JONAS: If we can go to Philly Meeting No. 10,

Segment G. That is on page 5 of the excerpted portion. If we can put that on the screen, please, the bottom segment.

Q. (BY MR. JONAS) What does this unidentified male say, please?

A. He says, “The first is to make the agreement fail, and this is a public policy and all of us are opposing it. It is the just the media which exaggerated the issue. Second, finding the alternatives. The first step should be taken advantage of by the brothers in — how to make the agreement fail. The national rights, human rights, stuff which will be exploited in order to make you look legitimate while you call on the annulment of the agreement. (Emphasis added)

Thusly CAIR and its antecedents in the Muslim Brotherhood are on record as feigning concerns about civil and human rights in order to achieve their ends.

Skepticism of CAIR and it’s feigned civil rights posture also appeared when federal prosecutors responded to a CAIR and Muslim American Society (MAS) Amici brief in the case United States V. Sabri Benkahla. In that case the prosecutors noted:

In describing themselves in Amici Brief at 1, CAIR and MAS omit reference to a shared background that limits their membership to those of a particular political bent, and undercuts their credibility. (Emphasis added)

The prosecutors go on to describe CAIR and MAS as Muslim Brotherhood entities which the federal government has shown engages in deception in order to further the interest of terrorist organizations.

Since CAIR was first outted by the Federal government for its role in deception operations on behalf of terrorism, CAIR has been caught up in numerous false hate crimes. As Professor Daniel Pipes noted in a 2005 article, CAIR has routinely, and knowingly, claimed as hate crimes events that either did not occur, or where the victim was in fact the perpetrator, such as claims of racist arson when the motive was in fact insurance fraud.

Perhaps most notorious was CAIR’s involvement in the 2006 “Flying Imams” case, where six imams returning from a conference of the North American Imam Federation (a group whose website publicly praises a MB leader Yusuf Al Qaradawi, who issued a 2004 fatwa calling for the death of Americans in Iraq), claimed they were unfairly ejected from a U.S. Airways flight for loudly praying.

As it turned out, those men were ejected from the flight not for prayers, but after passengers and airline employees reported that they had engaged in a number of suspicious behaviors involving swapping seats to take up those known to be favored by hijackers, seeking heavy metal seatbelt extenders which their size did not require, and other activities which even a Federal Air Marshal agreed were telltale signs of alarm.

CAIR intervened with a press conference and a lawsuit against the airline, the employees and even “John Doe passengers.” In that case the public rallied around the passengers, and congress passed a law protecting private travelers from lawsuits, when their good faith suspicions of terrorist activity led to security officials taking action.

Like the situation with the Flying Imams, CAIRs interjection into this case suggests that it is about much more than the intentions of a young man bringing an odd electronic device to school. One’s positions on zero tolerance policies in school are not the issue of debate.

The issue is CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood, and their efforts to keep those who “see something” that seems suspicious from “saying something.” That goes for teachers, airline passengers and mayors.

***

Video: A Closer Look at Ahmed’s Clock

***

Reverse Engineering Ahmed Mohamed’s Clock… and Ourselves 

For one last bit of confirmation, I located the pencil box Ahmed used for his project. During this video interview he again claims it was his “invention” and that he “made” the device – but the important thing at the moment, at 1:13, we see him showing the pencil box on his computer screen. Here it is on Amazon, where it’s clearly labeled as being 8.25 inches wide. Our eBay seller also conveniently took a photo of the clock next to a ruler to show it’s scale – about 8 inches wide. The dimensions all line up perfectly.

So there you have it folks, Ahmed Mohamad did not invent, nor build a clock. He took apart an existing clock, and transplanted the guts into a pencil box, and claimed it was his own creation. It all seems really fishy to me.

If we accept the story about “inventing” an alarm clock is made up, as I think I’ve made a pretty good case for, it’s fair to wonder what other parts of the story might be made up, not reported factually by the media, or at least, exaggerated.

I refer back again to this YouTube video interview with Ahmed. He explains that he closed up the box with a piece of cord because he didn’t want it to look suspicious. I’m curious, why would “looking suspicious” have even crossed his mind before this whole event unfolded, if he was truly showing off a hobby project, something so innocuous as an alarm clock. Why did he choose a pencil box, one that looks like a miniature briefcase no less, as an enclosure for a clock? It’s awful hard to see the clock with the case closed. On the other hand, with the case open, it’s awful dangerous to have an exposed power transformer sitting near the snooze button (unless, perhaps his invention was to stop serial-snooze-button pressers by giving them a dangerous electrical shock!)

So again, I’m pointing all this out – about the specifics of the clock – not to pick on the poor kid. I’m picking on us, our culture, and our media. I don’t even care about the clock itself at this point.

If we stop and think – was it really such a ridiculous reaction from the teacher and the police in the first place? How many school shootings and incidents of violence have we had, where we hear afterwards “this could have been prevented, if only we paid more attention to the signs!” Teachers are taught to be suspicious and vigilant. Ahmed wasn’t accused of making a bomb – he was accused of making a look-alike, a hoax. And be honest with yourself, a big red digital display with a bunch of loose wires in a brief-case looking box is awful like a Hollywood-style representation of a bomb. Everyone jumped to play the race and religion cards and try and paint the teachers and police as idiots and bigots, but in my mind, they were probably acting responsibly and erring on the side of caution to protect the rest of their students, just in case. “This wouldn’t have happened if Ahmed were white,” they say. We’re supposed to be sensitive to school violence, but apparently religious and racial sensitivity trumps that. At least we have another clue about how the sensitivity and moral outrage pecking order lies.

Because, is it possible, that maybe, just maybe, this was actually a hoax bomb? A silly prank that was taken the wrong way? That the media then ran with, and everyone else got carried away? Maybe there wasn’t even any racial or religious bias on the parts of the teachers and police.

***

Also see:

CAIR’s Lawfare Jihad

Slide12

Victory Against “Civilization Jihad” – Court Slams CAIR One More Time: Pay AFLC’s Legal Fees!

American Freedom Law Center, June 2, 2015:

On June 1, a Michigan federal judge once again held that the Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), must pay legal fees and costs after the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) successfully “quashed” harassing and burdensome subpoenas issued by CAIR to Ms. Zaba Davis, a private citizen who received the subpoenas because she publicly expressed her opposition to the construction of an Islamic center in her neighborhood.  This was the third ruling by the court upholding what it termed a “sanction” for CAIR’s reckless violation of federal law.

“Apparently, hell hath no fury like a Muslim Brotherhood ‘civil rights’ organization scorned,” remarked David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC.  “This was CAIR’s third bite at objecting to the sanction.  You’d think they’d concede this one rather than continue to run up our legal fees with each new frivolous objection they file.”

Robert Muise, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented: “Private citizens have a fundamental First Amendment right to express to their elected officials their personal views on matters of public concern.  CAIR’s ruthless attacks demonstrate that its objectives are dangerously at odds with the Constitution.  Consequently, this reaffirmation by the court sanctioning CAIR’s lawless behavior was important not only for our clients, but for all private citizens who want to speak out against CAIR.”

“CAIR employs egregious lawfare tactics to frighten honest citizens so as to prevent them from exercising their constitutional rights,” Yerushalmi explained.  “Our clients opposed the new mosque construction, like many neighborhoods oppose new construction of any type, not because it was Muslim, but because it would wreak havoc on their neighborhood with un-remediated traffic and noise.”

Yerushalmi continued,  “CAIR’s abuse of federal subpoena power is analogous to Sharia-adherent jihadists threatening violence against anyone who, in their perverse view, insults their religion or Mohammed.  When you threaten people with enough violence or litigation, the media and the self-anointed talking heads on cable TV and radio begin to lecture us about ‘civility’ and ‘provocation’ not because criticisms of some fundamental aspects of Islam are wrong or in and of themselves uncivil or objectively provocative, but because these pundits are frightened themselves of standing up to these bullies—whether they be violent jihadists or lawfare jihadists like CAIR.”

In 2012, the Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor (MCA) requested that Pittsfield Township, Michigan, rezone a parcel of land to build an Islamic School and community center.  The Township denied the request, citing infrastructure and traffic concerns.  Nevertheless, CAIR, which bills itself as “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization” but is widely known in government circles as a Muslim Brotherhood front group, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Township on behalf of the MCA, alleging that township officials denied the MCA’s rezoning application out of discrimination against Muslims.

The MCA’s rezoning request was opposed by a group of Township residents who live in the neighborhood of the proposed development.  The residents expressed concerns about the traffic congestion that the new construction would cause in their neighborhood.  Pursuant to their rights protected by the First Amendment, these private citizens circulated and submitted to their elected Township officials a petition expressing their opposition to the rezoning and several of them spoke out at public hearings held by the Township to discuss the matter.

As a result of the citizens’ involvement, CAIR served harassing subpoenas on a number of these citizens, demanding that they produce private emails and other documents, and in some cases, appear for a deposition.  In one instance, Township resident Zaba Davis and her husband came home to find several papers jammed in the crack of the front door of their home.  The papers included subpoenas demanding the production of personal emails and other documents and a subpoena commanding Ms. Davis to appear at a deposition.

In response to CAIR’s abusive discovery requests, AFLC, a national nonprofit Judeo-Christian law firm, which is representing seven of the targeted private citizens, filed a motion to “quash” and for a protective order against CAIR.  The court granted the motion, ruling that the subpoenas violated the First Amendment and caused undue burden.  According to the court’s ruling:

[CAIR] contends that its sole interest in deposing Davis stems from a genuine belief that she has what it believes to be relevant information, and not from any personal malice against her for her public opposition to the school.  This argument fails for a few reasons.  First, . . . the Court finds unpersuasive [CAIR’s] relevance argument.  Second, for the reasons noted in the preceding paragraphs, to the extent information possessed by Davis is relevant, that relevance is far outweighed by the chilling effect that allowing the subpoenas would have on speech, not only for Davis, but for all others who wish to be involved in public discourse on matters of public concern.

CAIR filed an objection to the magistrate judge ruling, which the district judge rejected on principle but asked the magistrate judge to clarify which of two possible sanction provisions he relied upon to sanction CAIR.  After the parties briefed the matter, the magistrate judge ruled quickly and decisively, sanctioning CAIR under both provisions.

CAIR objected to this ruling yet again, and the district judge ruled on Monday upholding the magistrate judge’s sanction against CAIR.

Muise concluded: “Discovery sanctions in federal court are rare.  They are typically reserved for the most egregious violations.  CAIR’s conduct in this case, not unlike other cases in which we have litigated against CAIR, almost always meets or exceeds this threshold.  Yet, only rarely are CAIR and their minions sanctioned.  We applaud the court for its courage and fidelity to the rule of law.”

***

For more on CAIR’s lawfare read this interview with Deborah Weiss:

And here are reports on the latest victory for CAIR:

Muslim United Airlines Passenger Alleging Discrimination Has Ties to Suspect Islamist Groups, Radical Imams

657fccbc-17e1-4f94-bd9e-e8f187ce33f9_16x9_600x338-640x480Breitbart, by JORDAN SCHACHTEL, June 1,  2015

A Muslim woman who claimed over the weekend–in a social media post that has since gone viral–that United Airlines discriminated against her because of her faith, has a history rife with deep connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Imams.

31-year-old Tahera Ahmad, who serves as the Muslim chaplain at Northwestern University, claimed over the weekend that she was discriminated against because a United Airlines flight attendant allegedly refused to give her a full can of unopened Diet Coke. When asked for an explanation as to why she had been refused her unopened Diet Coke, the flight attendant allegedly told her that the Coke can could be used as a “weapon on the plane,” Ahmad stated in a Facebook post. After she complained, a passenger told her, “You Moslem you need to shut the f—k up,” according to Ahmad’s recounting of what happened on board. Ahmad’s Facebook page was taken down this afternoon.

Without any evidence (but for her firsthand account) that the incident ever occurred, many in the mainstream media have taken to reporting on Ahmad’s account as a case of “Islamophobia,”

Islamic supremacist groups such as CAIR (Council on American-Islamic relations) have condemned United, telling Al Jazeera that they have taken an interest in filing a lawsuit on behalf of Ahmad.

Ahmad’s claims of discrimination have not been corroborated by any passengers, and United Airlines rejects that any wrongdoing or acts of discrimination occurred.

United Airlines released a statement that the flight attendant “attempted several times to accommodate Ms. Ahmad’s beverage request.” However, her post has since went viral, with many calling for a boycott of United Airlines due to its alleged mistreatment of Ahmad.

Ahmad has shown to have an affinity for radical Islamist groups that seek to employ deceptive tactics in order to advance Sharia law, Breitbart News has found. Ahmad has attended and participated in multiple conferences over the past couple years which were hosted by alleged Muslim Brotherhood front groups. She has also proudly written about, and has happily posed in photos with radical Imams.

In late December, Ahmad attended the MAS-ICNA (Muslim American Society- Islamic Circle of North America) conference, which featured prominent leaders within the global Muslim Brotherhood network.

One month earlier, Ahmad posted a picture to Facebook of her standing next to Suhaib Webb, who is the Imam of the Islamic Society of Boston, an outfit run under the same umbrella organization as the mosque attended by Boston Marathon bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and a plethora of other convicted terrorists. Webb has a demonstrated history of radical connections, including him being a close confidant of Al Qaeda mastermind Anwar al Awlaki prior to the 9/11 attacks.

Screen Shot 2015-05-31 at 11.30.58 PMAhmad (center) with terror-connected Imam Suhaib Webb (left), Facebook 

Ahmad is “well-known” to Yasir Qadhi, a cleric who she has frequently invited to speak to the student body at Northwestern. An audio tape of one of Qadhi’s sermons revealed that he once called for Muslims to wage holy war against non-Muslims. During his speech, Qadhi went on to discuss how he did not believe that the Holocaust had ever occurred.

In April 2014, Ahmad joined an MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council) delegation of American Muslim women, who partnered with the White House “to host a historic forum recognizing the contributions of American Muslim women.” MPAC, like the MAS and ICNA, was originally founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group has in the past endorsed a paper that rejects the designations of Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. In 2009, the group hosted a protest where demonstrators called for the annihilation of the State of Israel. 

In 2013, she recited the Quran at the annual ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) convention. Declassified FBI documents found that the Bureau regarded ISNA as a Muslim Brotherhood front group. The FBI also found that ISNA was founded by prominent members of the global Muslim Brotherhood organization. Ahmad’s bio states that she has “supported leadership for premier Muslim organizations including [ISNA].”

Although she has an extensive record of supporting radical Islamist groups, Ahmad was recognized by the Obama White House as a leading “Muslim female in the United States,” according to a release from her University. She is a frequent Ramadan dinner attendee at the White House, according to the report.

Irish Islamic Cleric with MB links Threatens Lawfare Against Journalists over Cartoons

Image: Andy Delaney/Photocall Ireland

Image: Andy Delaney/Photocall Ireland

CSP, by Kyle Shideler:

Irish Muslim Cleric Dr. Ali Selim of the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland threatened legal action against any Irish media which dared to republished the famous cartoons produced by Charlie Hebdo, the target of a massacre carried out yesterday by three jihadist gunmen which killed twelve people:

When asked by Niall Boylan on 4FM if he (Boylan) retweeted the cartoon would his life be in danger, Dr Selim – who condemned the shootings – said: “Not your life would be in danger but definitely we will check the Irish law and if there is any legal channel against you, we will take it,” he said.

The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch, an intelligence digest which tracks Muslim Brotherhood connected groups, has previously documented that Dr. Salim is an Irish Muslim Brotherhood leader, with ties to Muslim Brotherhood chief jurist Yusuf Al Qaradawi:

The Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland (ICCI) is an important part of the European Muslim Brotherhood serving as host for the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR), the theological body headed by global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi. The ICCI is also the registered headquarters for Qaradawi’s International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS). Noah Al-Kaddo, the ICCI Executive Director, is also an officer of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE), the European umbrella organization for the Muslim Brotherhood and the parent organization of the ECFR. Ali Selim is the private secretary to ICCI Imam Hussein Halawa and is described as a “resident theologian.” Mr. Selim attracted a great deal of local media attention in September 2006 when he told a newspaper interviewer that, ideally, he would like to see Shariah law adopted in Ireland in the “event of a Muslim majority.”

Selim, perhaps unintentionally, illustrates the key role played by Muslim Brotherhood groups in the overall global effort by Islamists to institute Islamic law- including blasphemy law. While Al Qaeda (or perhaps ISIS) may have been responsible for the murder of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, acting as sharia enforcers, it’s Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups which attempt to implement “lawfare”-abusive litigation and other legal tactics- to achieve the same end, often successfully. The two efforts are not diametrically opposed, rather they are symbiotic. MB groups offer an apparently reassuring way out, telling us what we must, and must not do, to avoid the wrath of their fellow ideologues.  For this reason it’s just as vital to oppose Islamist lawfare and legal intimidation as it is to engage the kinetic jihadist actors. Sadly Selim’s confidence in openly stating such an agenda shows just how far down the road to imposed blasphemy laws much of the West has gone.

Pat Condell: Islam in the workplace

Published on Jan 6, 2015 by Pat Condell

Why is the UK Muslim unemployment rate so high? Take a guess.

***

Useful Resource for employers: 

Watch and Share – Your Freedom of Speech is Under Attack

Brooke Goldstein at Lawfare Project has produced a very powerful video to raise awareness on the Islamic threat to free speech.

 

You can download the book, “Lawfare – the War Against Free Speech – A First Amendment Guide for Reporting in an Age of Islamist Warfare” by Brooke Goldstein and Aaron Eitan Meyer for free at http://www.thelawfareproject.org/

Council on American–Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation

cair (1)Frontpage, By Jamie Glazov:

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Deborah Weiss, an attorney, writer, public speaker, and a 9/11 survivor of the WTC attacks in NYC. She formerly served as a counsel for the Committee on House Oversight in Congress and for the Office of the Corporation Counsel under Mayor Giuliani. She currently works for Vigilance, Inc. and is considered an expert on OIC UN resolutions. She is the primary writer and researcher for a recently released book, Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation, published by CFNS.

FP: Deborah Weiss, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

DW: Thank you for inviting me.

FP: Tell us a little bit about CAIR and its background.

DW: CAIR holds itself out as a Muslim Civil Rights organization, but in fact it’s an Islamist supremacist organization whose ultimate goal is the implementation of Sharia law. It has a network of chapters that are separately incorporated, but have similar goals, tactics and often overlapping or interchanging directors and staff. It’s based in America and Canada.

CAIR’s roots spawn out of Hamas and the Islamic Association of Palestine, both of which are State-designated terrorist organizations. It adheres to the same interpretation of Islam as the Muslim Brotherhood and serves as the propaganda wing of the so-called “Islamic Resistance Movement” in the West.

It has some funding from its membership, but also receives large contributions from donors in Saudi Arabia, Iran, the UAE and Kuwait.

FP: What are CAIR’s goals in the United States?

DW: CAIR appears to have three main goals. One is to silence all criticism of anything related to Islam including Islamic terrorism. Second, it seeks to Islamize the workplace, and third, it works actively to hamper American national security.

FP: Can you give us some examples of how CAIR engages in each of these activities?

DW: Sure. CAIR often files frivolous lawsuits against anyone who blows the whistle on CAIR in order to silence their speech. It also tries to smear reputations and shut down speakers, authors, and politicians who seek to inform the public about the dangers of Islamism, whether it’s regarding Islamic terrorism, Islamic persecution of religious minorities or human rights violations committed in the name of Islam. But it also tries to shut down individuals or companies that make jokes, cartoons or films that shed Islam or Muslims in a negative light.

Additionally, CAIR engages in strong-arm tactics to pressure corporations to comply with what amounts to Islamic blasphemy codes. For example, years ago Nike launched a sneaker, called “Nike Air.” Someone complained that the logo for the word “air” looked similar to the word “Allah” in Arabic. CAIR went on a campaign to force Nike to recall the product on a world-wide scale and change the logo design. Unfortunately, it was successful. It also demanded that Nike make a public apology to all Muslims, that it change its design procedures and consult with CAIR in the future, and donate tens of thousands of dollars to Islamic schools and playgrounds. CAIR also threatened a global boycott, not just of Nike Air sneakers but of all Nike products. Nike resisted at first but eventually capitulated, in part, because it has a large audience in the Middle East that buys its products, and it feared a boycott would put the company out of business in that region.

This is just one example of the numerous companies that have been pressured and subsequently caved into CAIR’s demands. Some of the others include Liz Claiborne, Burger King, Heinz, Disney, Bank of America, and more.  The list is rather long and spans a comprehensive range of types of organizations from greeting card companies to banks to publishing houses to food organizations to clothing designers to film producers and broadcast stations.

On the employment front, CAIR often files EEOC claims on behalf of its clients and makes demands to companies to provide special preferences to Muslims which are not afforded to employees of other religions. These include demands for prayer breaks, on-site prayer rooms, exemptions from company uniforms, and separate rules for Muslim employees which exempt them from various company policies. Often the EEOC claims do not proceed to trial. Yet, CAIR frequently issues press releases falsely implying that the EEOC found the company in question to be discriminatory, when the EEOC merely issued a ruling giving CAIR permission to file a lawsuit so that a jury may determine the facts. CAIR misleads the public to believe that a positive ruling from the EEOC concludes there is discrimination, when it often it just means there’s a question of fact which warrants a trial. However, the negative press can hurt a corporation and the cost of litigation is high. Most companies don’t want the PR headache caused by these threats, so they enter a pre-trial settlement to get CAIR off their backs. Needless to say, CAIR usually flaunts the settlement as a win and falsely indicates that it’s an admission of “anti-Islam” bias.

Regarding national security, CAIR is engaged in a number of activities. CAIR tries to silence speech regarding Islamic terrorism, ensuring that counter-terrorism experts, law enforcement and national security professionals won’t get the training needed to identify Islamic terrorist threats in their early stages. Partly because of CAIR, a few years ago the Obama Administration rewrote all the training material for federal national security agencies, purging them of all mention of anything to do with Islamist ideology. This was true even if the word had a qualifier like “radical Islam” or “radical Muslims” because CAIR is on a mission to disassociate any interpretation of Islam with terrorism. It is not telling terrorist organizations that Islam doesn’t support their terrorist activities. Instead, CAIR cries “Islamophobia” or “bigotry” whenever national security professionals, the public, the media, or anyone else makes an accurate observation about this connection, teaches this fact or reports on the terrorists’ self-proclaimed Islamic beliefs.

The agencies that have changed their training programs include DHS, the FBI, the National Counterterrorism Center, the State Department and the Department of Justice. Under Mayor DeBlasio in NYC, CAIR has also been successful in getting the NYPD’s terrific counterterrorism program partially dismantled. It is eliminating content regarding Islamist ideology in training, and reducing its surveillance programs. The NYPD had one of the best counterterrorism programs in the country. It is a totally false accusation by CAIR and other Islamist organizations that the NYPD surveilled the Muslim community simply for “practicing its faith”. The NYPD, like any credible counterterrorism organization, merely followed its leads and focused on the source of the threats. If it happened to focus on certain mosques, CAIR leadership or Muslim business owners, it’s because it had reason to believe these posed a national security threat. It was not because these organizations refused to recognize Jesus as Lord and Savior! That is the type of religious persecution that occurs in Islamist countries, where religious minorities are oppressed and denied the right to practice their faith. In America, so long as one follows the laws, he can pray and worship as his heart desires.

The other thing CAIR does is make numerous FOIA requests and other types of document requests. It also often demands “investigations” of national security investigators, including those who are investigating CAIR leadership. This serves two purposes. One, it informs CAIR of whom in its ranks has to watch their backs. And two, it ties up government resources. Instead of using money and personnel to investigate bad guys, the government is wasting time meeting CAIR’s bogus demands.

FP: Does CAIR leadership have terrorist ties? How does CAIR evade prosecution for its activities?

DW: Yes, Jamie. In additional to having its roots in Hamas, the IAP, and the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR was also an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terror-financing trial in the history of the United States. There were other unindicted co-conspirators as well. Many people think that CAIR and the other co-conspirators should be prosecuted, and it’s unclear why they haven’t been.

Read more

American Taliban Sues Prison for the Right to Wear Short Pants!

Published on Jun 5, 2014 by The United West:

Daniel Greenfield, Shillman Journalism Fellow, brilliant author and expert on Islam exposes the absurdity of the un-American ACLU and its’ role in abetting the traitorous American Taliban – John Walker Lindh. Watch this short video and you too can learn to use Islam as an excuse for not abiding by the rules that govern others