CAIR, Recognized Terrorist Org., Exposed in TV Debate

Cair-Nihad-Awad-Ibrahim-Hooper-HP_11Clarion Project, BY RYAN MAURO, November 20, 2014:

A senior official of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Nezar Hamze, repeatedly denied the existence of Department of Justice documents tying CAIR to the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamze made the remarks during a televised debate with Clarion Project National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro on NewsmaxTV’s “MidPoint with Ed Berliner.”

The topic of the debate was the designation of CAIR as a terrorist organization by the Muslim government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Hamze, Regional Operations Director of CAIR-Florida, argued that there’s no evidence that CAIR is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas and is a moderate organization. Yet he failed to answer the charge of CAIR being a terrorist organization.

Mauro argued that documents provided by the Justice Department establish a firm connection between CAIR and the internationally designated terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood and brought forward those documents as proof.

You can watch the debate below:

 

CAIR Denies Existence of Publicly-Available Evidence

The most remarkable feature of the discussion was that Hamze repeatedly denied the existence of quotes by federal prosecutors about the CAIR-Brotherhood connection, even after those quotes were read aloud and the documents were shown to the audience. All of these documents are publicly available online.

Mauro opened the discussion by reading an exact quote from federal prosecutors in a court filing that states:

From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists…the conspirators agreed to use deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists.

Hamze’s response was that the quote does not exist. He said, “No U.S. government or U.S. prosecutor has ever said that CAIR has any ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.”

When Mauro referenced U.S. government documents, Hamze again said this evidence does not exist.

He accused CAIR’s critics of making things up out of thin air. He claimed, “Their evidence is very well-documented by themselves. They create it; they regurgitate it; they put it out on the Internet and it’s fantastical… In reality, it’s just a bunch of propaganda.”

Mauro pointed out that the Justice Department’s list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial explicitly lists CAIR as an entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. He even showed the document to the audience. CAIR is listed in the third section of the document on page 5 (line 11).

Hamze — yet again — said no such documentation exists. He rebutted, “It doesn’t say anything like that.”

CAIR Dismisses Muslim Brotherhood Documents

Mauro also showed a 1994 Muslim Brotherhood document discussing how to “develop [the] work of” CAIR, mentioning it by name.

Hamze’s rebuttal was, “We have nothing to do with the production of that document and Ryan knows that.”

He was responding to an accusation that was never made. The argument was that the Muslim Brotherhood wrote the document and it proves a link to CAIR; not that CAIR produced it.

CAIR Denies Prosecution of Its Officials

Hamze said, “No CAIR leader, no CAIR organization, no CAIR chapter, has ever been charged with a crime.”

This is patently false. There are at least four convicted CAIR officials:

  • Ghassan Elashi, founding board member of CAIR-Texas (sentenced to 65 years in prison for terror-related charges in Holy Land Foundation trial)
  • Randall (Ismail) Royer, a CAIR communications specialist (sentenced to 20 years for aiding and abetting other terrorists in gaining access to a training camp in Pakistan)
  • Bassem Khafagi, CAIR director of community relations (sentenced to 10 months in prison for bank and visa fraud).
  • Muthanna Al-Hanooti, CAIR-Michigan executive director (sentenced to 1 year in prison for attempting to buy oil from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq while it was under sanctions)

In 2011, it was reported that CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad was nearly indicted. Serious questions are also being asked about foreign donations to CAIR and possible money laundering. This list does not include fundraisers who have been indicted or deported, such as Mohammad El-Mezain who raised over $100,000 for CAIR-NY.

Keep in mind, the core issue isn’t illegal activity. It is CAIR’s legal activity in support of the Islamist ideological cause.

The evidence introduced in the Holy Land Foundation suggests CAIR was established to support the Islamist agenda through influencing the media, governmental officials and public policy. It may not be a revenue stream for Hamas, as one of the purposes of the Holy Land Foundation was, but CAIR is still part of the Muslim Brotherhood network.

CAIR Claims Unindicted Co-Conspirator Listing Means Nothing

Hamze dismissed the list of unindicted co-conspirators as being just a “list of names” and “just a blatant list of things.” Being listed by the Department of Justice as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terror financing trial doesn’t happen to just anyone. The designations happen for a reason.

An unindicted co-conspirator is defined as a “person who is identified by a law enforcement officer to have engaged in a conspiracy, but who is not charged in the indictment charging that person’s fellow conspirators.”

CAIR was included because of its involvement in the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy to support Hamas, which one main component – the Holy Land Foundation – was successfully prosecuted for.

What CAIR Didn’t Tell You About the Judge’s Ruling in 2009

Hamze correctly states that a federal judge ruled in 2009 that the Justice Department should not have made the list of unindicted co-conspirators public. What he chose not to mention is that the judge upheld the designation, ruling that the government provided “ample evidence” to justify it.

He also claimed that CAIR was not given an opportunity to challenge the designation. This was true of the Holy Land Foundation, hence the 2009 ruling. However, CAIR was given the opportunity to defend itself to Judge Solis and it failed.

CAIR Says It Shouldn’t Be Held Responsible for CAIR’s Actions

Hamze distanced himself from CAIR’s national leadership and other chapter leaders by describing it as a “federation of chapters” and saying he does not report to the Executive-Director.

CAIR chapters register independently, but Hamze’s organization wouldn’t be called CAIR-FL if it wasn’t a part of CAIR. If his chapter doesn’t reflect CAIR, then it wouldn’t have been honored with the2013 CAIR Chapter of the Year Award.

The deceptive registering of independent front groups was discussed by CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad during a 1993 Brotherhood/Hamas meeting that was wiretapped by the FBI. He was recorded saying, “Registering an organization is easy. I can register 100 organizations in 100 cities in one day.”

And even if CAIR-FL were independent, it has its own radical history. For example, in June, CAIR-Tampa leader Hassan Shibly said, “Nationalism was pumped into Muslim communities to divide us to weaken Islam which united us.” You can read more about his history here.

It is ludicrous to suggest that the actions of senior CAIR officials do not reflect the entire organization. If a senior CAIR official like Hamze genuinely objects to CAIR’s conduct, he can leave.

Throughout the debate Hamze was unable to answer the charges levied against his organization, namely that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a designated terrorist organization listed alongside Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic State by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). He could not refute that it forms part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s network of affiliated organizations dedicated to furthering to cause of the international Muslim Brotherhood’s totalitarian Islamist goals.

***

Poole tweet

 

PPoole tweet

 

Also see:

Who let CAIR off the hook in the first place?

CAIRdiorama32 (1)WND, By ERIK RUSH:

As was widely reported this week, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim American Society were recently designated as terrorist organizations by the United Arab Emirates. The two American groups were named alongside ISIS, al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood branches in a list numbering 83 Islamist groups.

CAIR, which claims to be a mainstream “religious community service organization,” is widely known to be a terror sponsor and a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood – itself the wellspring from which all global Sunni Muslim terror organizations flow. They were named by federal prosecutors in 2007 as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in a Hamas funding case connected with the Holy Land Foundation trial. Hamas has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. government since 2007.

If you’re thinking that the Muslim UAE’s designation of CAIR as a terrorist organization speaks volumes vis-à-vis the group’s geopolitical toxicity, you’re quite right. CAIR was also one of the organizations that sponsored the first Muslim prayer service held at the Washington National Cathedral last Friday, by the way.

Earlier this week, it was also revealed that CAIR is spearheading efforts to exacerbate racial tensions in Ferguson, Missouri, by using social media to advance the claim that Michael Brown (the black teenager who was shot and killed by a police officer in August) and Luqman Ameen Abdullah (a Muslim activist shot during an FBI raid in 2009) were victims of racist police targeting blacks. According to federal prosecutors, Abdullah was a radical Islamist intent upon overthrowing the U.S. government.

In July of 2009, U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis supported CAIR’s request to strike its name from documents listing it as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case. While Solis is often portrayed as having been critical of CAIR (sometimes even being credited with publicly outing the CAIR-Hamas connection), the fact that he essentially acted on the organization’s behalf is evident in his order.

Then, in October of 2010, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the Justice Department had violated the Fifth Amendment rights of CAIR and another Muslim advocacy organization by including them on the publicly filed co-conspirator list in the case.

The pressing question here is how the government got from the firm belief in CAIR as a terror supporter to practically being an advocate for their so-called civil rights.

I believe it is high time we expose the irresponsibility, incompetence and/or corruption in such instances – no matter where the trail leads. It isn’t enough for Americans to be outraged time and again at the fact that our courts and government officials pay inordinate deference to malignant, subversive organizations and let it go at that.

Judges are, of course, quite adept at crafting their rulings, opinions and orders to appear legally iron clad and rhetorically cogent, even if their premises are dramatically flawed. In the interest of expedience, we won’t attempt to unravel those right now.

In the interest of accountability and future reference, however, we can look at the justices involved in this case.

Jorge Solis of the 5th Circuit Court is a George H.W. Bush appointee. Appeals Court Judges Emilio Garza, Fortunato Benavides and Marcia Crone entered the 2010 opinion. Garza, who wrote the opinion, is also a George H.W. Bush appointee. Justice Benavides was appointed to the court by Bill Clinton, and Crone by George W. Bush.

These things considered, while the DOJ may be accused of letting cases against terror facilitators unravel under the Obama administration, it is difficult to make the accusation of the justices engaging in the sort of left-wing, sympathist activism we have seen on the part of federal judges in recent years.

On the other hand, it would not be the first time that even mainstream government officials (including judges, who have political allegiances even though they’re not supposed to) insisted upon treating suspect individuals, governments, or organizations as legitimate, law-abiding contemporaries. This, of course, lends credence to the argument (some claim “conspiracy theory”) that militant Islamic organizations are being deftly manipulated by globalists against America in their own bid for supremacy.

Whatever the case, Americans need to realize that Islam is bad news, and it has been for 1,400 years. There are fewer examples more illustrative of this right now than CAIR. You don’t negotiate, let alone fraternize, with someone whose stated goal is your utter subjugation, and you certainly don’t take their words at face value when lying is actually enshrined as part of their creed.

We need a revival of nationalism in America – not a poisonous “My country, right or wrong” nationalism, but one wherein there is a resurgence of the common belief that there’s nothing wrong with placing our interests first. It is those who advance the notion – subliminally or otherwise – that “America sucks” who need to be driven from the arena of public debate.

First Amendment protections have never superseded national survival; thus First Amendment arguments ought not shield the subversives among us now, whether individuals or organizations.

To this end, we cannot afford to countenance the effete, would-be princes of global governance within the ranks of our government officials or captains of industry, those who are willing to empower primitive, misogynistic pedophiles, regardless of the supposed political or economic advantages. Neither can we afford dunderheads on the federal judiciary who are either corrupt or too short-sighted to know they are being played by the aforementioned parties. Federal judges can be impeached.

Neither globalists nor Islamists would have any sway whatsoever over the American people or our political process if we merely held our public officials accountable and adhered to the Constitution. If a substantial number of Americans decide not to participate in these civic duties, the rest of us can take up the slack.

Media wishing to interview Erik Rush, please contact media@wnd.com.

Also see:

In a written statement, CAIR correctly noted the ruling concluded that the U.S. government violated the rights of Muslim Americans when it made its list of un-indicted co-conspirators public. The list, in addition to containing CAIR’s name, also included the Islamist Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

However, CAIR failed to mention that the court declined “to strike CAIR, ISNA and NAIT’s names from those documents.” “Maintaining the names of the entities on the List is appropriate in light of the evidence proffered by the Government,” ruled U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis.

Solis affirmed that “the government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, with NAIT, the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas.”

As an example of evidence that established these ties, the ruling cited a 1994 Palestine Committee memo naming CAIR and other groups as “working organizations for the Palestine Committee.” According to internal documents submitted as evidence in the 2008 terror financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation, the Muslim Brotherhood created the Palestine Committee with a “designed purpose to support HAMAS” politically and financially.