Could man vying to become first Muslim governor be part of stealth jihad?

Jihad Watch, by Christine Douglass-Williams, Aug. 10, 2017:

The 32-year old Dr. Abdul el-Sayed recently announced his campaign for governor of Michigan. Winning the November 18 election would make him America’s first Muslim governor. The charming el-Sayed knows well how to talk the talk in putting Americans at ease. According to Dick Manasseri, spokesman for the group, Secure Michigan, which educates about the threat of Shariah law: “He’s young, attractive, he does not give out a lot of information, he speaks in platitudes about celebrating inclusiveness and diversity.” Manasseri “predicts that Sayed will at least win the Democratic nomination for governor” and warns that “America is headed down a suicidal path” through a stealth invasion. His words are not without merit:

El-Sayed has substantial connections to the Muslim Brotherhood in both his past and present. So the suspicion that El-Sayed may harbor Islamist convictions and be a Trojan horse are not unfounded, especially given the reality of what some have dubbed a “stealth jihad.”

Linda Sarsour, who called for jihad against the American government in early July, also threw her backing behind El-Sayed in an address she made to the Islamic Society of North America’s 54th annual convention:

When I think about building power, I think about brothers like Abdul Sayed, who is in this room today, who is running to become the first Muslim Governor of the state of Michigan

El-Sayed was sitting in the audience as Sarsour went on to urge the crowd to donate to his political campaign, an increasing pattern in the West, where Muslims are actively solicited to influence election outcomes.

For instance, a company called Jetpac Incorporated focuses on “training Muslim Americans how to leverage social media, data analysis and other critical political tools to build winning campaigns for city council, school committee and other down ballot races.” Jetpac also operates a “separate political action committee” called the Jetpac Action Fund, which raises money for Muslim candidates.

The article below points out that the “liberal convictions” expressed by El-Sayed “don’t seem very congruent with some of El-Sayed’s past and present associations.” This is typical of those Muslims with proven connections to Muslim Brotherhood entities who have made their way into the political arena. For example, while El-Sayed was a student at the University of Michigan, he was “an active member and vice-president of the Muslim Students’ Association (MSA) – a group founded mainly by members of the Muslim Brotherhood for the express purpose of spreading Wahhabist ideology — an austere form of Islam that insists on literal interpretation of the Quran and views those who disagree as enemies.”

Like all Western nations, the stealth invasion of American civilization continues from within with great fervor, while most remain too unaware and passive to stymie its advance.

“Could Man Vying to Become First Muslim Governor Be Part of ‘Stealth Jihad’?”, by Julie Roys, Christian Post, August 9, 2017:

Abdul El-Sayed, potentially the nation’s first Muslim governor, sounds like the quintessential progressive politician. According to his website, the Michigan Democrat upholds “strict separation of church and state,” and vows to “defend the right of all Americans to pray as they choose.” He also opposes discrimination against the LGBTQ community, and supports a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

This son of Egyptian immigrants also has an impeccable pedigree for public office. He’s a Rhodes Scholar with a bachelor’s degree from the University of Michigan, a doctorate in Public Health from Oxford University, and an M.D. from Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons. In 2015, when El-Sayed was just 30 years old, he was appointed executive director of the Detroit Health Department, becoming the youngest health commissioner ever to serve a major U.S. city.

Not surprisingly, those opposing El-Sayed’s candidacy, claiming he has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and is being groomed by far-left billionaire George Soros to become the “next Barack Obama,” are being dubbed Islamophobes and conspiracy theorists. In a Vice article, Muslim journalist Beenish Ahmed attributed the allegations to a “vile political climate” and “right-wing paranoia about Sharia law.”

El-Sayed denies any ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. And according to one fact-checking website, though El-Sayed received a fellowship to attend medical school from the foundation of Paul and Daisy Soros (George Soros’s older brother and his wife), “there’s no indication that George Soros is tied to the foundation, or to El-Sayad.”

The problem, however, is that despite these vehement denials and inconclusive evidence tying El-Sayed to George Soros, El-Sayed has substantial connections to the Muslim Brotherhood in both his past and present. So the suspicion that El-Sayed may harbor Islamist convictions and be a Trojan horse are not unfounded, especially given the reality of what some have dubbed a “stealth jihad.”

El-Sayed and the Brotherhood Stealth Model

According to the Middle East Forum, the Muslim Brotherhood differs from other radical jihadist groups in strategy, but not in goals. Both the Brotherhood and groups like ISIS seek to destroy the West and establish Sharia, or Islamic, law. But while groups like ISIS promote a military means of conquering the West, the Brotherhood, as stated in its internal documents, seeks to penetrate and destroy Western civilization from within — “‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their (own) hands.”

As a result, the Brotherhood tends to be “more deceptive in language and appearance,” actively recruiting Muslim professionals and intellectuals, who can infiltrate Western legal and social systems without detection.

As one correspondent with the Middle East Forum put it, both the Brotherhood and militant jihadists will “shout Allahu Akbar and bomb Israel, support jihad, and support the violation of the rights of women and non-Muslims. One will do it openly and loudly while wearing his primitive Islamic dress and his untidy beard, but the other will be a PhD holder from Oxford University or the Sorbonne, and he will do it cunningly and secretly while wearing his German or French suit and a tidy beard, from an air-conditioned office, all the while making deals with the Americans.”

So the ideal Brotherhood politician would be someone who secretly harbors radical Islamic convictions, but looks, acts, and talks like a mainstream, major-party candidate. This candidate would not hide his Muslim identity, but instead would leverage it for political advantage, making Islam sound moderate and appealing to values like multiculturalism.

Publicly, El-Sayed espouses a very tolerant form of Islam, once remarking that he was running for public office “because of the values my Islam teaches me” like beliefs in “equity” and “the fundamental rights of all people.” El-Sayed also frequently talks about people of different faiths coming together, upholding his “extremely diverse” family as a model. (El-Sayed’s father, Mohamed El-Sayed, married a white woman who converted to Islam. So now, through his step-mother, El-Sayed has a grandmother who’s a Presbyterian and apparently, an uncle who’s an atheist.)

Yet these espoused liberal convictions don’t seem very congruent with some of El-Sayed’s past and present associations, prompting suspicions that he fits the stealth Brotherhood profile. While a student at the University of Michigan, El-Sayed was “an active member” and vice-president of the Muslim Students’ Association (MSA) – a group founded mainly by members of the Muslim Brotherhood for the express purpose of spreading Wahhabist ideology — an austere form of Islam that insists on literal interpretation of the Quran and views those who disagree as enemies.

The MSA bills itself as a networking and support group for Muslim students. But according to terrorism expert Patrick Poole, the MSA “has been a virtual terror factory. Time after time after time again, we see these terrorists . . . MSA leaders, MSA presidents, MSA national presidents — who’ve been implicated, charged and convicted in terrorist plots.”

The extensive list of MSA terrorists includes Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Queda senior recruiter and organizer who was the first U.S. citizen to be targeted and killed in a U.S. drone strike. During his tenure at Colorado State University, al-Awlaki was president of the campus MSA. Similarly, Ramy Zamzam, convicted in Pakistan for attempting to join the Taliban and kill U.S. troops, was president of the MSA’s Washington, D.C. council. And then there’s Omar Shafik Hammami, the former president of the MSA at the University of South Alabama, who abandoned his wife and infant daughter to join the terrorist group Al-Shabaab in Somalia.

The MSA’s pledge is almost identical to that of the Muslim Brotherhood and states, “Allah is my lord. Islam is my life. . . . Jihad is my spirit. Paradise is my goal. I will die to establish Islam.” As an executive in an MSA chapter, El-Sayed certainly would have recited this pledge repeatedly.

I emailed El-Sayed’s office, inquiring about his prior involvement with the MSA, but it did not respond. The office also denied my request for an interview.

El-Sayed’s involvement with the MSA, however, is not his only association that raises red flags. El-Sayed’s father-in-law is Dr. Jakaku Tayeb, former president and current board member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Michigan.

Like the MSA, CAIR purports to be mainstream — simply a “grassroots civil rights and advocacy group.” Yet many have asserted that it’s really a terror group with board members and staff who have been accused and/or convicted of terrorist charges. In 2007, CAIR was actually named by federal prosecutors as “unindicted co-conspirators” in a criminal plot to support the terrorist group Hamas.

Some, like Dick Manasseri, spokesman for Secure Michigan, have also expressed concerns that El-Sayed wants to promote Sharia law. There’s no doubt that El-Sayed and his wife, Sarah Jakaku, are Sharia compliant. Jakaku wears a hijab in public. And in a 2010 radio interview about his courtship and marriage, El-Sayed said he didn’t touch his wife when they were courting because “in my interpretation of Islamic law, I wasn’t allowed to touch her until after we were married.”

Of course, these are personal matters, which would seemingly have no bearing on holding public office. However, according to Manasseri, “Sharia adherents believe … that Sharia is the supreme law and takes precedence over any man-made law.”

This makes El-Sayed’s support for making Michigan the nation’s first “sanctuary state” especially disconcerting. Adopting sanctuary status would mean giving the state permission to defy federal immigration officers and essentially, violate the U.S. Constitution. This, Manasseri said, would open the door for legal pluralism, which many see as a first step to embracing Sharia…..

Meet ‘next Obama’ groomed to make political history

Abdul El-Sayed with wife Sarah.

WND, by Leo Hohmann, April 3, 2017:

The Democratic Party may have found its next Barack Obama.

His name is Dr. Abdul el-Sayed, he’s a 32-year-old medical doctor and he recently launched his campaign for governor of Michigan, the election for which is in November 2018. If he wins he would be America’s first Muslim governor.

He speaks articulately, without an accent, inserts humor into his speeches at seemingly just the right moments, and he has the full backing of America’s powerful Muslim Brotherhood-linked network of Islamic organizations.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, El-Sayed said Michigan voters are having “buyer’s remorse,” and that President Trump’s decisions “are at odds with deeply held American values, and distractions from real issues.”

Sayed served as the executive director of the Detroit Health Department and Health Officer for the City of Detroit, appointed by Mayor Mike Duggan. At 30 years old, he was at the time of his appointment in 2015 the youngest health director in a major U.S. city.

According to El-Sayed, his decision to run for governor was influenced by concerns over state leadership following the lead-tainted water crisis in Flint, as well as policies being implemented in Washington, D.C., under President Trump.

Dick Manasseri, spokesman for Secure Michigan, a group that educates Michiganders about the threat of Shariah law, predicts that Sayed will at least win the Democratic nomination for governor.

“It is the exact same thing as Barack Obama in Chicago in the early 2000s,” said Manasseri. “He’s young, attractive, he does not give out a lot of information, he speaks in platitudes about celebrating inclusiveness and diversity.”

Sayed is known as a warrior for environmental justice. He talks about “standing up to corporate polluters,” and how, in his family, he was taught that having “love and compassion” for the vulnerable are “more important than where you’re from.”

“How could any good progressive Democrat vote against that in good conscience?” asks Manasseri.

Sayed is highly educated, a Rhodes scholar who attended Oxford University in 2009 and became a practicing epidemiologist.

“He’s very well packaged,” Manasseri said. “He’s far more accomplished than Barack Obama. Obama was not this accomplished, they connected him to certain foundations and his candidacy took off.”

Sayed is the recipient of several research awards, including being named one of the Carnegie Council’s Policy Innovators. He created and taught the Mailman School’s first-ever course on systems science and population health. He co-edited a textbook on the topic published in 2017 by Oxford University Press entitled “Systems Science and Population Health.”

In his new video ad Sayed says that as health director one of the first big things he did was come up with a government program to purchase eyeglasses for every kid that needed a pair. “Why? Because every child deserves the right to see what’s on the blackboard,” he said in his campaign launch speech.

He pointed to his hand as the map of Michigan to locate Gratiot County, “in the heartland of Michigan,” the place where he was born to Egyptian-immigrant parents and raised by his dad, Muhammad, and his stepmother Jacqueline, a native Michigander.

Watch Sayed’s 2-minute campaign ad for governor of Michigan:

In his campaign launch on Feb. 25 at Detroit’s Eastern Market, Sayed talked about his dad growing up one of six kids in a one-bedroom apartment in Egypt and coming to America and bringing his diversity of culture to Michigan. It’s all about celebrating multiculturalism, he said, standing at a podium in the market amid supporters holding signs that read “Abdul for Michigan.”

“He would come to this market to buy the foods to make the dishes that would make him feel at home. You see this market for him brought him home, from Alexandria right here in Detroit. Some of my most wholesome memories took place right here,” Sayed said. “And I remember buying those foods… but not only that I remember the diversity of faces that I would experience here, black and white, Asian, Latino. People who are coming together to celebrate something, together. Farmers and truckers and factory workers. Families from up north doing business with families from right here in Detroit. Each of them Buying and selling the same exact ingredients that they would take home to turn into the dishes that celebrated their families’ history.”

Sayed promotes what he calls his “rather unusual American story.”

Watch Abdul Sayed’s full campaign-launch speech.

He said his proud Egyptian parents, Fattah and Muhammad, emigrated to the U.S. “in search of a better life.

“When they came here they took a bet on an America that was big enough for them, too. They believed in a country that would give them dignified well-paying jobs, that would educate their children. Where they could pray however they wanted to pray.”

Sayed said his “diverse if highly unlikely family” taught him that “what you believe and stand for is more important than where you come from, to have compassion and care and respect for those more vulnerable.” He said he was taught that “real leaders are those that can stand firm against the powerful, stand strong with the weak, and stand humbly before God.”

At the Thanksgiving dinner table, “which is a very diverse dinner table,” hosted by he and his wife Sarah, he said his family includes a Presbyterian deacon from Flint, an imam from Egypt and an atheist-Polish uncle who is a professor at Michigan.

“And they share hard conversations about life in American and they don’t always agree, but they respect and love each other…they share a common future that brings them together. And as Michiganders, so do we.”

Manaserri says the Muslim Brotherhood would never support a candidate that didn’t have tons of money behind him and that they did not believe “has a real chance of winning.”

“Any Republican would be afraid to confront him on his Muslim Brotherhood connections or his views on Shariah,” Manasseri said. “He is a devout Shariah-compliant guy, and I would predict that he will be endorsed by the Catholic Church, which is very powerful in Michigan.”

Manasseri points out that a bill supporting American Law for American Courts, widely regarded as an anti-Shariah law, was defeated in the Michigan Legislature when two powerful lobbies – the Michigan Catholic Conference and the Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR – teamed up to kill it. He expects the same coalition to form behind a candidate who would make history as America’s first Muslim governor.

“So if this guy rises in the polls, I would predict the Catholic Church will support his candidacy,” he said. “Just like with Obama, because we gotta make history.”

“It’s Obama II,” Manasseri said. “Elizabeth Warren will be coming to campaign for him, the Democrats in other states will be raising money for him. The DNC number-two man [Keith Ellison] will be raising money for him. Of course this guy is going to be on the Sunday morning talk shows. He’ll be everywhere. A candidate for governor who is Muslim Brotherhood …if that doesn’t tell you there’s a Shariah swamp in Michigan I don’t know what does.”

Michigan Township Defies Feds: ‘Will Not Actively Participate in the Refugee Resettlement Program’

AP

AP

Breitbart, by Michael Patrick Leahy, October 25, 2016:

Waterford Township trustees in Oakland County, Michigan, passed a resolutionon Monday telling the federal government not to resettle any refugees, including those from Syria, within the township’s boundaries, until the program “has been significantly reformed.”

The vote was unanimous, seven to zero.

The resolution stated: “[T]he Charter Township of Waterford will not actively participate in the Refugee Resettlement Program until the Program has been significantly reformed, and until it has been demonstrated that the Townships of Oakland County have the capacity to absorb refugees without diverting funds from needy residents or exposing their residents to unwarranted security risks.”

Waterford Township has a population of 72,000 and is located in the geographic center of Oakland County, population 1.2 million, a suburban Detroit county.

The resolution passed just hours before the Thomas More Law Center announced on Tuesday that it has been selected to represent Tennessee it its lawsuit against the federal government on Tenth Amendment grounds over the operation of the refugee resettlement program by the federal government in the Volunteer State.

It also indicates further legal trouble ahead for the federal government in Oakland County, Michigan, where County Executive L. Brooks Patterson has said he intends to sue the federal government for resettling refugees in the county while failing to comply with the “consultation clause” of the Refugee Act of 1980 that requires the federal to government and the director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement to consult with state and local government officials prior to the placement of refugees within their jurisdictions.

The full resolution reads:

RESOLUTION TO SECURE THE TOWNSHIPS OF OAKLAND COUNTY AND PROTECT THEIR RESIDENTS FROM THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT PROGRAM

WHEREAS: Refugees are placed in Michigan through the Federal Refugee Resettlement Program, a federal taxpayer funded program that contracts with vendor agencies to coordinate placements and welfare benefits for refugee families coming into our country, and

WHEREAS: State records show that federal vendors operating in Michigan have requested a total of at least 4060 refugees be settled into Michigan in FY 2016, and

WHEREAS: President Barack Obama has called for the resettling of at least 10,000 Syrian refugees in the United States this fiscal year, and

WHEREAS: Federal vendors have, thus far this fiscal year, resettled more Syrian refugees in Michigan than any other state; Oakland County is a focus area for resettlement; and the arrival numbers are expected to surge dramatically given the federal vendors’ preparations, and

WHEREAS: The FBI and other homeland security agencies have testified before Congress that refugees from failed states such as Syria cannot be adequately vetted to ensure that they do not have terrorist ties because the necessary records do not exist, and

WHEREAS: Intelligence officials have testified before Congress that terrorists are seeking to use the program to enter the United States, and

WHEREAS: Federal immigration law requires that local governments be consulted prior to placement of refugees in their communities and that they be involved in defining their local capacity for refugee placements, and

WHEREAS: Federal reports indicate that there continue to be major gaps in communication between federal vendors and local governments and schools prior to the placement of refugees, and

WHEREAS: The Refugee Resettlement process creates significant unfunded financial burdens for receiving states, counties and local communities to provide public assistance to meet refugee needs for schools, law enforcement, housing and health care, etc., and

WHEREAS: There is pending federal and state legislation to reform the Refugee Resettlement Program requiring federal vendors to operate with more transparency, to more fully involve local governments in placement decisions, and to report to the state police all situations which could be related to security risks or human trafficking events,

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Charter Township of Waterford will not actively participate in the Refugee Resettlement Program until the Program has been significantly reformed, and until it has been demonstrated that the Townships of Oakland County have the capacity to absorb refugees without diverting funds from needy residents or exposing their residents to unwarranted security risks.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be provided to all elected county, state and federal officials representing the Charter Township of Waterford.

“The resolution, which has been pushed by the Oakland County Association of Township Supervisors, states that the federal Refugee Resettlement Program creates significant financial burdens for communities to meet the needs of the refugees, WWJ, the local CBS television affiliate in Detroit, reported.

“We’ve got so many people who need jobs in Waterford, what are you gonna do with the refugees that come in here? You’re gonna feed them, you’re gonna clothe them, you’re gonna house them. We can’t afford that; we’ve got veterans that need help,” one Watership Township resident present at the meeting told WWJ.

But resident Scott Hancock had a different view.

“I’ve lived here my entire life. I’ve never been embarrassed to be a Waterford citizen until I saw this resolution,” Hancock told WWJ.

Under the Refugee Act of 1980, state and local governments have standing to sue the federal government for failure to comply with the “coordination clause” of the act.

To date, only two states, Alabama and Texas, have sued the federal government for violation of the Refugee Act of 1980. Both suits lost in federal district court, but are on appeal.

No local governments have yet sued the federal government for its failure to comply with the consultation clause of the Refugee Act of 1980.

The Tennessee lawsuit has not yet been filed, but it is anticipated to be in court within the next few months.

***

Ann Corcoran has more a Refugee Resettlement Watch:

This lawsuit is available for only those so-called Wilson Fish states (feds and a non-profit contractor call the shots on resettlement bypassing the state legislature) that have withdrawn from the federal program.  As mentioned above, Texas is the most recent one to do so.  Within the last year Kansas and New Jersey have withdrawn as well, so they don’t yet appear on this outdated ORR list.

So what should you do—tell your state to withdraw and then have the governor sign up as a plaintiff with the Thomas More Law Center!

But, don’t forget to pressure your member of Congress to DEFUND the program in the lame duck session of Congress next month.  This lawsuit is going to take a little while to work its way through the system and in the meantime (if Trump isn’t elected) we could have another quarter of a million refugees spread out across 49 states (assuming Wyoming continues to hold out!) by the time a legal judgement and the appeals process has been exhausted.

Here are the Wilson Fish states.  By the way, there is one county on the list (San Diego County) so this could mean a county could withdraw and join the lawsuit.  I’m not a lawyer, but I can’t see why that wouldn’t work!

Alabama
Alaska
Colorado
Idaho
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Nevada
North Dakota
South Dakota
Tennessee
Vermont

And then New Jersey, Kansas and Texas have joined the list.

Come on Governors Abbott (TX), Brownback (KS) and Christie (NJ) show some fight!

Victory for Freedom of Speech

AFLC_FreeSpeechVic_Banner-3Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Oct. 30, 2015:

On Wednesday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals completely reversed a lower court’s decision and ruled in favor of Evangelical Christians who were arrested for disturbing the peace at the 2012 Arab Festival in Dearborn, Michigan.  The Christians had bottles, eggs, and other items hurled at them by Muslims for publicly preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  A short video of this episode can be found here.

During this festival, a group of Muslims approached the Christians and asked to hear about the Gospel. The Christians obliged and began sharing about the Bible, Jesus, and their faith.  Other Muslims became angry and assaulted the Christians for their speech.  The police ended up arresting the Christians, not the Muslims.

The case, Bible Believers v. Wayne County, was brought by the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) on behalf of the Christians.

On August 27, 2014, a divided, three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit dismissed the civil rights lawsuit, finding the violent response of the Muslim hecklers justified the Wayne County sheriffs’ order to the Christians they would be arrested for disorderly conduct if they did not leave the festival area.

Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the Christians on every issue, completely reversing the lower court opinion, and directing the court to enter judgment in the Christians’ favor.

In its decision, the Sixth Circuit ruled the County and the two Deputy Chief defendants were liable for violating the Christians’ First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion, and for depriving the Christians of the equal protection of the law. The court ruled the individual defendants did not enjoy qualified immunity, and the County was liable as a municipality for the constitutional violations.

In its opinion, the Sixth Circuit stated, in part:

“In a balance between two important interests—free speech on one hand, and the state’s power to maintain the peace on the other—the scale is heavily weighted in favor of the First Amendment. . . . Maintenance of the peace should not be achieved at the expense of the free speech. The freedom to espouse sincerely held religious, political, or philosophical beliefs, especially in the face of hostile opposition, is too important to our democratic institution for it to be abridged simply due to the hostility of reactionary listeners who may be offended by a speaker’s message. If the mere possibility of violence were allowed to dictate whether our views, when spoken aloud, are safeguarded by the Constitution, surely the myriad views that animate our discourse would be reduced to the standardization of ideas by the dominant political or community groups. Democracy cannot survive such a deplorable result.

“When a peaceful speaker, whose message is constitutionally protected, is confronted by a hostile crowd, the state may not silence the speaker as an expedient alternative to containing or snuffing out the lawless behavior of the rioting individuals. Nor can an officer sit idly on the sidelines—watching as the crowd imposes, through violence, a tyrannical majoritarian rule—only later to claim that the speaker’s removal was necessary for his or her own protection.”

In short, this was a complete victory for the Constitution and for all freedom-loving Americans who enjoy the protections of the First Amendment.

The AFLC is first and foremost a public interest litigation firm, which aggressively seeks to advance and defend America’s Judeo-Christian heritage in courts all across our Nation.  The AFLC’s mission is to fight for faith and freedom through litigation, education, and public policy programs.

A short video detailing AFLC’s mission and accomplishments can be seen here.

AFLC is comprised of attorney Robert Muise, a combat veteran Marine Officer and expert in Constitutional law, and attorney David Yerushalmi, one of the nation’s most knowledgeable attorneys on national security, Constitutional law, as well as Sharia (Islamic Law).

AFLC states on their website:  “The strength of our Nation lies in its commitment to a Judeo-Christian heritage and moral foundation and to an enduring faith and trust in God and His Providence. AFLC seeks a return to America’s founding commitment to receive God’s continued blessing to preserve the soul of this great Nation.”

This ruling demonstrates there are still bastions of sanity in the American judicial system where liberty under law still reigns in America, and where judges committed to justice win over the progressives trying to destroy our nation.

Let us celebrate this significant victory today and raise a glass to the courage of the Americans who withstood the attack, the AFLC for its work to defend our liberties, and the Court for doing what it should always do – rule judiciously.

CAIR Targets Private Citizens in Michigan for Opposing Construction of Islamic Center

cair_michigan_borderjpg_a1303223f31e4345.pngThe American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) is representing seven private citizens who were issued harassing subpoenas by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) because they publicly expressed their opposition to the construction of an Islamic center in their neighborhood in Pittsfield Township, Michigan.

In 2012, the Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor (MCA) requested that the Township 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,” filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Township on behalf of the MCA, alleging that the denial of the MCA’s rezoning application violated the Islamic group’s constitutional and statutory rights.

The MCA’s rezoning request was opposed by a group of Township residents who live in the neighborhood of the proposed construction.  The residents expressed concerns about the traffic congestion that would be caused by the construction of a school and community center 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, 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.

Indeed, AFLC is representing a husband and wife who came home one day 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 the wife to appear at a deposition.

In response to CAIR’s discovery requests, AFLC filed a motion to “quash” and for a protective order in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, arguing that CAIR’s discovery demands were harassing, irrelevant, and oppressive.  As stated in AFLC’s memorandum in support of its motion:

As a private citizen and resident of the Township, [AFLC’s client] has a fundamental right to publicly express to her elected officials her opposition to Plaintiff’s proposal, which will personally impact her by increasing traffic in her neighborhood.  [AFLC’s client] had no authority whatsoever to either grant or deny Plaintiff’s rezoning application—she is a private citizen, not a public official.  Her personal views, whether expressed to the Township, Township officials, or her neighbors, are not remotely relevant in this litigation.

Robert Muise, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented:

“There is no doubt that CAIR – a sharia-adherent Islamist group that notoriously uses the legal system to silence any opposition to its nefarious agenda – is abusing the discovery process to retaliate against and intimidate private citizens who dared to publicly express their opposition to the Islamic center.  AFLC is quite familiar with CAIR’s bullying tactics, which is why it is important that we defend these private citizens’ constitutional rights.”

David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented:

“CAIR’s discovery demands plainly infringe upon precious First Amendment liberties and the paramount right of a private citizen to publicly express her opinions to elected representatives on matters that affect her and her community.  On a broader level, CAIR’s decision to browbeat these ordinary Americans clearly shows the pervasiveness of sharia-adherent Islam and its ‘civilizational jihad’ within our borders.  Needless to say, if CAIR wishes to persecute Americans through the legal system, they’ll have to contend with us.”

CAIR, a self-described Muslim public interest law firm, was previously named as a Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the federal criminal trial and conviction of a terrorist funding cell organized around one of the largest Muslim charities, the Holy Land Foundation (HLF).  HLF raised funds for violent jihad on behalf of Hamas, and top CAIR officials were part of the conspiracy.  As a result, the FBI publicly announced that it has terminated any outreach activities with the national organization.

 

Islamizing the Public Schools

545819_115655711905193_1324446356_n-450x337By :

The Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is pressuring public schools in this country to make special accommodations for Muslim students and to deny comparable accommodations for students of other faiths.

For example, CAIR’s instructional material for teachers entitled “An Educator’s Guide to Islamic Religious Practices” advises schools to permit Muslim students who wish to attend Friday congregational worship (known as Jum’ah) to “request a temporary release from school.”

In Michigan, CAIR went beyond dispensing general advice from its guidebook. In April, 2013, it pushed for public schools in Dearborn, Michigan to accommodate Muslim students who wish to comfortably pray on school grounds and to allow Muslim students to leave early on Fridays for Jumu’ah prayers.

The school superintendant caved, and CAIR got its wish.

Just a few months earlier, the same CAIR Michigan branch had complained that a Detroit area elementary school was being too accommodating to Christians when it allowed its teachers to distribute permission slips for  parents to sign so that their children could be released to attend off-site Bible studies classes.

In his letter to the school district, CAIR-MI Executive Director Dawud Walid wrote in part:

School staff and teachers are not to serve as advocates for one particular religion or congregation within a religion by passing out slips inviting parents to give permission for their children to attend religious instruction. . . According to the United States Supreme Court, the First Amendment clearly requires that public school students and their parents are never given the impression that their school/school district prefers a specific religion over others or sanctions religion in general.

CAIR’s sanctimonious, hypocritical letter worked.  It intimidated the school district into offering an apology.

In California, the Islamists have already won in their efforts to get special treatment for Islam in the public schools.

For example, several years ago seventh-graders at a San Francisco-area school were required to “become Muslims” for two full weeks as part of California’s world history curriculum. This included professing as “true” the Muslim belief that “The Holy Quran is God’s word,” reciting the Muslim profession of faith — “Allah is the only true God and Muhammad is his messenger” —and chanting “Praise be to Allah.”  Just imagine what would happen if a public school told Muslim students to become Jews for two weeks and recite the traditional Jewish prayer: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one.”

Yet, in 2006, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California dismissed a case brought by outraged parents even though Supreme Court decisions have kept religion out of public schools for decades.  In a brief memorandum opinion, the appeals court concluded that the activities did not constitute “overt religious activities that raise Establishment Clause concerns.” The Supreme Court apparently forgot its own precedents when it refused to take an appeal from the 9th Circuit decision.

While allowing Islamist indoctrination in public schools, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld another public school’s ban on a student performance of an instrumental version of Ave Maria at their high school’s graduation, because the performance could be seen as endorsing religion. These judges saw no inconsistency in allowing Muslim prayers in the classroom, while upholding the banning of a one-time performance of a Christian-themed instrumental classic.

Read more at Front Page

CAIR Demands School Accommodate Muslim Prayers, Attacks Off-Site Voluntary Bible Lesson

9530ac80-6059-45df-b288-b39f79378887Townhall, By Kyle Olson:

How is the radical Council on American-Islamic Relations bending public school policy to its will?

Two stories from Michigan tell the tale.

From a CAIR press release:

 

The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MI) said today that a Detroit-area school district has apologized for handing out permission slips for Bible study classes to elementary school students. 

CAIR-MI sent a letter to Roseville Public Schools after receiving a complaint from two parents of children who attend Huron Park Elementary School about distribution by teachers of permission slips for the Bible classes at a local Baptist church.

 

CAIR Executive Director Dawus Walid wrote in a letter to the school district, “School staff and teachers are not to serve as advocates for one particular religion or congregation within a religion by passing out slips inviting parents to give permission for their children to attend religious instruction.”

But that’s precisely what CAIR sought in the nearby Dearborn district.

The Arab American News reported that CAIR staff “recently met with Dearborn Public Schools Superintendent Brian Whiston to discuss concerns from some parents regarding prayer accommodations in Dearborn Public Schools.

“Dearborn Public Schools has implemented a policy which fully accommodates student-led prayer in all the schools, as well as unexcused absences for students who leave early on Fridays for Jumu’ah prayers. CAIR-MI is currently in discussion with Melvindale Public Schools to get similar accommodations for students that are now in place for Dearborn Public Schools.”

So Muslims can conduct religious activities within a public school, but Christians can’t go off-site to receive voluntary Bible lessons? What’s wrong with this picture?

Is political correctness accommodating such hypocrisy?