Katie Hopkins is Being Sued by Mayor of Jihadi Capital of Europe for telling the truth

A Belgian mayor is suing me for the crime of journalism, The Rebel, by Katie Hopkins, May 18, 2018:

Last week I went to Molenbeek, a Muslim no-go zone in Brussels, Belgium. It’s the most terrorist-infested neighbourhood in all of Europe.

Even its mayor, Francoise Schepmans, describes Molenbeek as a “breeding ground for violence.”

Countless terrorist attacks around the world have been plotted from there. Including the horrific attack on Paris in November, 2015, that killed 130 people and wounded more than 400. And after the Paris attacks, the orchestrator of the slaughter went back to Molenbeek to hide. In fact, it wasn’t until four months later that one of the Paris terrorists, Salah Abdeslam, was finally captured. The people of Molenbeek kept him hidden from police for that long.

Here’s the thing: when I was in Molenbeek, I literally bumped into Mayor Schepmans in the street. She approached me and told me not to sit on the benches because they were filthy. So I asked her a simple question: why didn’t you do anything?

After all, she knew. A month before the Paris attack, Mayor Schepmans was given a list of jihadists plotting in Molenbeek. And Salah Abdeslam’s name was on the list.

I asked her why she didn’t have police arrest him. And she told me: it wasn’t her job.

Well, that video went viral. And so did my other videos from Molenbeek — including when I made a list of all 22 mosques in town; and when I put on a burka, to “fit in” with the submissive women there.

If you haven’t watched my videos yet, you can see them all, here.

Well, Mayor Schepmans watched my videos. And she has decided to finally do something about the problem of the jihadis in her town. She’s launching a public prosecution. But she’s not prosecuting any terrorists. That’s not her job, remember.

No: she’s suing me. For my reports — including for my interview with her! To her, my journalism is a bigger threat than terrorists using her town as a base camp.

So, I need your help. Mayor Schepmans has all of the resources of the city government at her disposal. She has government lawyers, and a multi-million dollar budget. I’m an independent journalist, working with The Rebel media. We’re 100% viewer-supported.

Can you please help me level the playing field? Can you help fill up my legal war chest, so I can keep standing on guard for our western values of freedom of speech, and the separation of mosque and state?

If you can help me with my legal bills, I promise I’ll keep fighting. If you think it’s important to be able to talk freely about terrorism, please help me and The Rebel cover my legal bills. You can click below to make a secure, online donation. Whether it’s $10, $100 or even $500, it all adds up.

SUPPORT Katie at http://www.SaveHopkins.com

(NOTE: To donate in British pounds instead, please click here. )

Let’s show this mayor we’re as passionate about freedom as she is about censorship.

***

Watch Katie’s interview with Tucker Carlson on May  11, 2018:

NATO Ally Turkey Working with U.S. Muslim Brotherhood

Osama Abu-Irshaid (National Director of American Muslims for Palestine, AMP, a founding member of the USCMO), USCMO Secretary General Oussama Jammal (center) and Naeem Baig (President of the Islamic Center of North America, ICNA, a founding member of the USCMO) outside AK Party Headquarters in Ankara, Turkey, during an August 2014 visit

Center for Security Policy, April 3, 2017:

During the 2016 U.S presidential campaign, senior leadership figures of the United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) began strategic planning to ensure the advancement and protection of the group’s objectives, no matter who won the White House. USCMO Secretary General Oussama Jammal and HAMAS dba Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Executive Director Nihad Awad set plans in motion to defend the Muslim Brotherhood’s Civilization Jihad inside the U.S. Those objectives were first exposed and described in the Center’s 2015 publication, in Star Spangled Shariah: The Rise of America’s First Muslim Brotherhood Party.

Joining directly in those efforts then and now is the pro-HAMAS Turkish government, under the leadership of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP). The groundwork for what is now a close working relationship began well before the March 2014 announcement of the USCMO’s formation, but it is known that on 15 May 2013, a visiting President Erdoğan placed a ceremonial stone on the 16-acre construction site that would become the Turkish Diyanet Center of America in Lanham, Maryland. The following year, in August 2014, a USCMO delegation led by Secretary General Oussama Jammal traveled to Ankara to meet with President Erdoğan and AK Party leaders. And then, on 29 December 2014, in a recorded video message, Dr. Mehmet Görmez, President of the Presidency of Religious Affairs (Diyanet), addressed the 13th Annual MAS-ICNA (Muslim American Society-Islamic Circle of North America) Conference in Chicago, Illinois and discussed a gift for all Muslims: the Turkish Diyanet Center of America. Of note for the future of the US Muslim Brotherhood-Turkish relationship, this conference was sponsored by the Turkish-backed American Zakat Foundation and included the first-ever attendance of a Turkish-American group at a MAS-ICNA conference.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan shaking hands with USCMO Secretary General Oussama Jammal during the USCMO delegation reception with Erdoğan in NYC in September 2016

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan addressing an assembly of US Muslim Brotherhood leadership during the week of the September 2016 UN General Assembly meeting. USCMO Secretary General Oussama Jammal is in the front row at the far right, Mazen Mokhtar, Executive Director of the Muslim American Society (MAS), can be seen in the middle, and Nihad Awad, CAIR Executive Director, is seated at the far left. Awad also welcomed the Turkish government delegation to CAIR’s WDC headquarters that same week.

It will be recalled that Erdoğan himself joined U.S. President Barack Obama on 2 April 2016 at the opening ceremonies for the Diyanet Center of America, located on a large 16-acre site in Lanham, Maryland. The Diyanet Center, also known as the Turkish American Cultural Center (TACC), is a wholly-owned facility of The Presidency of Religious Affairs, an official state institution of the Turkish government.

Under the Trump administration, the USCMO is especially concerned with legal issues, as calls were heard during the 2016 campaign urging that the 2008 Holy Land Foundation (HLF) HAMAS terror funding trial be re-opened to pursue possible cases against the more-than-200 unindicted co-conspirators named by the Department of Justice. Apparently concerned over possible vulnerability should the books of mosques, Islamic Centers and Muslim Brotherhood front groups come under renewed official scrutiny, CAIR and other members of the USCMO therefore engaged the services of the Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA), itself a founding member of the USCMO.

It should come as no surprise, then, that the first major event to be co-sponsored by the USCMO, TACC and the MLFA in the Trump era will be a 13 May 2017 Muslim Non-Profit Leadership Conference, to be held at the Diyanet Center of America. Among the program topics are Safeguarding 501(c)3 status; Board fiduciary responsibilities; record keeping and disclosure requirements; Fundraising regulations, state registrations, unrelated business income; and Banking regulations, FDIC, DOJ, Watchlists, international charitable giving.

One of the MLFA’s top legal representatives, now working openly with the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, is U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander (ret.) Charles Swift, formerly of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps. Swift, a 1984 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, who was recognized by the Muslim Brotherhood for his legal role advocating for client Salim Ahmed Hamdan in the U.S. Supreme Court case Hamdan v. Rumsfield 548 US 557 (2006). This role doubtless contributed to the choice of Swift as Director and Counsel for the Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America (CLCMA), a project of the Muslim Legal Fund of America led by Executive Director Khahil Meek.

The MLFA’s CLCMA project presents itself as dedicated to two primary missions:

  • “Challenging governmental security measures affecting Muslim communities which encroach upon the constitutional liberties guaranteed to all.”
  • “Protecting the rights of Muslim individuals and organizations in the United States to exercise their constitutionally and statutorily protected rights to worship.”

Pictured left to right: “Jihadis in Suits” Nihad Awad, Khalil Meek, Oussama Jammalerdogan

In apparent pursuance of these missions, the MLFA continues actively to seek the release from federal prison of defendants in the HLF trial, which concluded in late 2008 with a unanimous guilty verdict on all 108 counts. The MLFA also engages in lawfare, using lawsuits as an offensive means of shutting down opposition to its civilization jihad operations. For example, as noted by the Thomas More Law Center in the 2009 case of Joe KAUFMAN, Appellant, v. ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF ARLINGTON, Texas, Islamic Center of Irving, DFW Islamic Educational Center, Inc., Dar Elsalam Islamic Center, Al Hedayah Islamic Center, Islamic Association of Tarrant County, and Muslim American Society of Dallas, Appellees, No. 2-09-023-CV: “The head of that organization [MLFA], Khalil Meek, admitted on a Muslim radio show that lawsuits were being filed against Kaufman and others to set an example. Indeed, for the last several years, Muslim groups in the U.S. have engaged in the tactic of filing meritless lawsuits to silence any public discussion of Islamic terrorist threats.”

More recently, in response to U.S. President Donald J. Trump’s early March 2017 revised executive order to restrict immigration from six Muslim-majority nations, the MLFA working in conjunction with the USCMO, is referring all Muslims to its “advisory prepared by Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America.” The MLFA may cloak itself in the colors of Star Spangled Shariah as a “constitutional rights organization” but Executive Director Khalil Meek still whines that “We continue to be troubled by this administration’s ongoing attempts to single out Muslims for adverse actions. Such blatant discrimination is a violation of our nation’s constitutional freedoms of speech, expression and religion.”

Finally, it is worth taking note of the following guidance. The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) provides the authoritative juridical backup on Islamic Law (shariah) for the American Muslim community and U.S. Islamic legal organizations such as the MLFA. Addressing the U.S. Muslim community on 28 November 2016, shortly after Donald Trump won the U.S. presidential election, AMJA issued the following bracing statement:

“No one could possibly be unaware of the political storm that has recently overtaken this country…For this reason, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America is addressing the Imams, Islamic workers and the entire Muslim community with permanent values that must be emphasized during this stage as well as a number of principles to be used in dealing with these events, what has happened as well as what is expected to happen…Islam, with respect to its belief and legal foundations, is unalterably fixed. It does not accept any replacement for change. (emphasis added)

While the Center for Security Policy has followed the activities of the USCMO, MLFA and AMJA, the realization of just how closely the Turkish government at the highest level is working in collusion with these Muslim Brotherhood-associated groups to thwart any legal measures that may be directed their way by the new Trump administration and Department of Justice led by Attorney General Jeff Sessions still comes as something of a shock. The U.S. Brotherhood and its international partners were way ahead of the Trump team in foreseeing a possible renewal of legal risk and liability under this new management and began taking steps to confront it. They bring significant financial and legal resources to the fight, plus, as we now see, state-level backing from NATO member Turkey whose pro-HAMAS stance has long been known.

But given that an official organization of the Ankara regime is now operating a large Center (with numerous associated centers and mosques) barely thirteen miles from the U.S. Capitol and working there in collaboration with the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood to thwart possible legal actions by the U.S. government is certainly noteworthy. As the international as well as U.S. Muslim Brotherhood gear up for coming confrontations, so must U.S. national security leadership as well.

Yes, It’s Legal To Designate The Muslim Brotherhood A Terrorist Organization

shutterstock_211423306Designating the Muslim Brotherhood would be a serious impediment to continuing the bipartisan, but failed, policy of cooperating with Islamists in the Middle East.

The Federalist, by Kyle Shideler, February 10, 2016:

As President Trump moves towards designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization, we’re hearing all the reasons he can’t or shouldn’t.

The latest tactic has been to assert that designating the Muslim Brotherhood is not possible, or simply illegal, because it does not conform with the letter of the law regarding Foreign Terrorist Designations. This is a specious claim, but made with such confidence that it requires a serious examination to debunk.

Yes, the Muslim Brotherhood Exists

One of the chief arguments that designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization would be illegal is there is no such thing as the Muslim Brotherhood. A textbook example of this claim comes from Benjamin Wittes in the Lawfare Blog:

The short answer is that the Brotherhood is not in a meaningful sense a single organization at all; elements of it can be designated and have been designated, and other elements certainly cannot be. As a whole, it is simply too diffuse and diverse to characterize. And it certainly cannot be said as a whole to engage in terrorism that threatens the United States.

While Wittes admits that there does exist a single body known as the International Muslim Brotherhood, he claims “it is difficult to assess the strength of the ties between the international organization and the various Brotherhood chapters, because of the organization’s penchant for secrecy.”

Indeed, the International Muslim Brotherhood is so secretive that it published its bylaws on the Muslim Brotherhood’s website in 2010. These bylaws make clear that the leadership of national branches answer to the overall Muslim Brotherhood leadership. The bylaws state that branch “secretary generals must abide by the higher leadership’s decisions,” are obliged to “get approval of the general guidance office prior to making any important political decision,” must file “annual reports” with the higher leadership, and must “pay an annual subscription” to the higher leadership.

The claimed ability to approve policy, enforce common decisions, and closely scrutinize activity, and the transfer of funds from lower members to higher leadership would all seemingly meet the requirement of a single organization. No doubt plenty of district attorneys would long for such an overt statement of hierarchy and cooperation when attempting a racketeering prosecution.

But the argument about the level of the Brotherhood’s cohesiveness is ultimately a distraction. The law governing Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) designation defines a terrorist organization by citing a separate section of law , 8 U.S. Code § 1182, which reads in part:

(vi) “Terrorist organization” defined As used in this section, the term “terrorist organization” means an organization—

(I) designated under section 1189 of this title;

(II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, as a terrorist organization, after finding that the organization engages in the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv); or

(III) that is a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in, or has a subgroup which engages in, the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv).

The key section here is (III), “a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in, or has a subgroup which engages in, the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv).” So while Wittes cites pro-Islamist experts to argue that the International Muslim Brotherhood lacks demonstrable cohesion or the ability to enforce common policy, ultimately the total level of organization is irrelevant. The only question is whether the organization has engaged, or possesses a subgroup that engaged, in terrorist activities. Here the answer is an obvious yes, given that Hamas is a self-acknowledged subgroup of the International Muslim Brotherhood, and is already a legally designated FTO.

Yes, Muslim Brotherhood Affiliates Engage in Terrorism

Even aside from the role of Hamas as a subgroup of the International Muslim Brotherhood, there is strong evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood engages in “the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv).” Those read as follows:

(iv) “Engage in terrorist activity” defined As used in this chapter, the term “engage in terrorist activity” means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization—

(I) to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;

(II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;

(III) to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity;

(IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for—

(aa) a terrorist activity;

(bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or

(cc) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization…

The key factor here is (IV), “to solicit funds or other things of value” for “a terrorist organization.” The U.S. government has already successfully argued in court that the Muslim Brotherhood founded Hamas, and that the Muslim Brotherhood created and maintained an international infrastructure to finance and support the Hamas subgroup. Specifically, the Muslim Brotherhood established a “Palestine Section,” which in turn oversaw “Palestine Committees” in each of the Muslim Brotherhood’s branches, in order to raise funds and engage in propaganda (obviously a thing of value) on behalf of Hamas.

Muslim Brotherhood apologists know that designating the Muslim Brotherhood would be a serious impediment to continuing the bipartisan, but failed, policy of cooperating with Islamists in the Middle East.

Whether U.S. engagement with Islamists is useful is a policy question that can be debated, but it should be done openly. The recent invocation of claims it is “illegal” to designate the Muslim Brotherhood is an attempt to hide behind dubious legal claims, in order to avoid a policy argument on the merits. Such tactics perhaps suggest how weak the apologists’ policy position is.

Kyle Shideler is the director of the Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy. Kyle has worked for several organizations involved with Middle East and terrorism policy since 2006. He is a contributing author to “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West’s Fatal Embrace,” and has written for numerous publications and briefed legislative aides, intelligence, and law enforcement officials and the general public on national security issues.

Killing Over Cartoons Is Totally Rational, Says John Kerry

2015-11-17T141640Z_1_LYNXNPEBAG0S2_RTROPTP_3_FRANCE-SHOOTIN-KERRYTown Hall, by Adam Turner,  Nov 23, 2015:

“There’s something different about what happened [in the November 13, 2015 Paris terror attacks] from [the January 7, 2015 terror attack targeting the French magazine] Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.”

Secretary of State John Kerry, November 17, 2015

Secretary of State John Kerry opened his mouth again, and as usual, inserted his foot (with a Kinsley gaffe).

But we should be thankful that Secretary Kerry is his usual foolish, undisciplined, and talkative self. Because it, once again, exposes what Kerry, and his boss, President Obama, really think about the right to free speech in the United States, if that speech focuses on Islam, Islamism, radical Islam, and related topics, including terrorism, terror fundraising, sharia, female genital mutilation in the Muslim world, and other issues relating to Islam. (Islam et al.)

Simply put, they do not like it.

Without a doubt, we know this to be true. Let’s not forget, President Obama hasdemanded, from the podium of the United Nations itself, that “(t)he future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” President Obama’s words (probably) inspired Secretary Kerry’s predecessor, Obama first term Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – who is also the likely 2016 Democratic nominee for U.S. President – to illustrate the methods the Administration planned to follow:

So we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing anti-discrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.

From this statement, it is clear that the Obama Administration is willing to utilize two of the three prongs of the strategy often used by opponents of free speech regarding Islam et al. The tripartite strategy to punish and silence all speech opponents disapprove of includes: 1) violence, or the threat of violence; 2) lawfare; and/or 3) political correctness pressure, e.g., smearing reputations by alleging “racism,” “Islamophobia,” or other epithets. In this situation, lawfare is specifically defined as malicious lawsuits, or other legal actions, in American courts, designed to punish and silence those who engage in public discourse about Islam et al, which are often predatory, filed without a serious expectation of winning, and undertaken as a means to intimidate, demoralize, and bankrupt defendants.

Obviously, violence is not a strategy that any U.S. Administration would follow. However, as shown by the Terry Jones affair (see below), this does not mean that the Obama Administration is unwilling to cite the threat of violence as a reason to object to the free speech of Americans regarding Islam et al.

Over the past seven years, the Obama Administration has followed through with its rhetoric by engaging in a number of disturbing anti-free speech actions:

· In 2011, at a summit meeting between Secretary of State Clinton and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Secretary General, the U.S. committed to the “Istanbul Process” to implement the United Nations resolution 16/18, which calls for the domestic and international criminalization of language that defames religions, most especially Islam. The OIC is a bloc of 56 Muslim countries plus “Palestine.” The Administration has participated in subsequent meetings of the Istanbul Process, but little information has been released about these meetings.

· The Obama Administration named an Islamist, Salam al-Marayati, its official representative to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) premier conference on human rights. At the OSCE, Al-Marayati took part in the “intense lobbying campaign by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of 57 Muslim countries that are aggressively pressuring Western countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam.”

· A U.S. Attorney appointed by President Obama, Bill Killian, of the Eastern District of Tennessee, has been quoted by the Tullahoma News suggesting that some inflammatory material on Islam might run afoul of federal civil rights laws. This is not legally correct, but seems to reflect Secretary Clinton’s earlier statement.

· The Obama Administration was responsible for the imprisonment of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the American Coptic filmmaker who was responsible for the film clip that President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and others initially and incorrectly blamed for inciting the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Nakoula was prosecuted and imprisoned by the federal authorities under suspicious circumstances that should lead an objective observer to believe that he was being punished for producing his anti-Islam clip.

· Also in response to Nakoula film clip, Obama administration officials admitted that they “asked YouTube to review the video and determine whether it violates the site’s terms of service.”

· The most comprehensive campaign against such speech was waged by the Obama Administration against a little known American gadfly named Terry Jones. Jones has burned, or threatened to burn, a Koran, numerous times. His threats prompted President Obama, then Secretary of State Clinton, then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and then General David Petraeus, among others, to all plead with him to cease and desist. Jones has also been plagued by legal punishments and restrictions, although these are largely as a result of the actions of local, and not federal, authorities.

For the next year and a half, we can expect this Administration to continue its campaign against such free speech. Unfortunately, by a margin of 41% to 37%, Americans support criminalizing “hate speech,” and even more disturbingly, in the subset of Democrats, a 51% majority approve of criminalizing “hate speech,” with only 26% opposed. So President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and Hillary Clinton well represent their political party.

It used to be that all Americans were united in the belief that speech was sacred, and that religion – any religion – should not be able to restrict the speech rights of Americans. No longer. John Kerry’s statement clearly demonstrates that many Americans, including the Administration he represents, believe differently now. This is not good news. How long will the other half of America be willing to stand up for their right to free speech?

It is hard to defend your speech rights, when you know that others are willing to sue, pressure, or even kill you for doing so. Not everyone is a Molly Norris.

Adam Turner serves as general counsel to the Endowment for Middle East Truth. He is a former counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, where he focused on national security.

A clock or a bomb trigger, can you tell the difference?

Ahmed Mohamed and his

Ahmed Mohamed and his “clock”

Center for Security Policy, by Jim Hanson, Sep. 17, 2015:

The latest outrage being used to promote the false narrative about unfair treatment of Muslims is the teenager, Ahmed Mohamed, in Irving Texas arrested for bringing a homemade clock to school. If you just skimmed the surface and saw the picture of the skinny nerd in the NASA t-shirt in handcuffs it would be easy to see a problem.

And there is one, but it’s not discrimination against a Muslim kid that wouldn’t have happened to a non-Muslim. It’s nanny state, zero tolerance policies that take away the ability to apply common sense to complicated situations. In this case, whether or not to put cuffs on a 14 year old.

But as far as the other question, was the clock device he brought to school a legitimate cause for concern, the answer is an unequivocal yes. I have built and taught classes on improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and the clock he brought to school is a dead ringer for the trigger used on many of these homemade bombs.

Ahmed1
Here is a side by side comparison of Ahmed’s clock and an Iranian-made IED trigger used to kill US troops in Iraq. Even more importantly, here is a picture of an IED training device sold to US law enforcement agencies to help them identify and learn how to deal with homemade bombs. They would have been deficient in performing their public safety duties if they had not done a full examination and investigation of the device, it’s presence at school and the person who built it and brought it there.

The grievance mongers of CAIR and other Islamist front groups are using this incident to portray the Irving, TX police and government as anti-Islamic. They point to another incident where Mayor Beth Van Duyne refused to accept an Islamic tribunal in her town that was trying to supplant US law with Shariah law. That would have been un-American and Mayor Van Duyne was appropriately American in saying absolutely not. We felt strongly enough about that to award her our Defender of Freedom award earlier this year.

We don’t know why Ahmed built and brought his clock to school, but he and his father were certainly quick to trot out quotes about it happening because of his brown skin, or that it wouldn’t have happened if he wasn’t a Muslim. There is zero evidence that Ahmed was singled out due to his religion, and two teachers who saw the device both told him to put it away because it resembled a bomb.

It is time to tell the outrage industry to quit abusing our public servants for doing the jobs we ask them to do.

***

Jim Hanson discusses this story with Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio:

Also see:

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