Archive for November, 2008


A Criminal Charity – HLF

November 26, 2008

A Criminal Charity


Homeland Security: U.S. citizens have spoken with a resounding verdict of GUILTY and said they’re not going to tolerate those who fund terror in this country under the cover of Muslim charity.

Read More: Global War On Terror

In one of the biggest wins yet in the battle against terror-financing, federal prosecutors convinced a Texas jury to convict the nation’s largest Muslim charity and five of its former organizers of illegally funneling more than $12 million to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.

Jurors read guilty verdicts on all 108 felony charges in the conspiracy — a clean sweep for the Justice Department, which streamlined its case against the Dallas-based Holy Land Foundation after a mistrial last year. It also got a new judge, who allowed previously banned evidence.

Donations are the lifeblood of jihadist groups such as Hamas. With the help of willing co-conspirators, they conceal their activities and use the Muslim obligation of charitable giving to mask support for their murderous agenda.

But Americans won’t be fooled. This verdict sends a clear message to Islamists still operating within the terror-support network in America that the courts will view their cash as the moral equivalent of a car bomb. And that this country will not be used as a cash cow for terrorists operating here or abroad.

Over the course of the years-long case, prosecutors put more than 300 co-conspirators on notice. They include prominent Muslim leaders and major Muslim groups once thought moderate and mainstream — including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which lobbies the government from its headquarters in the nation’s capital.

One of the guilty defendants in the case, Ghassan Elashi, was a founding director of CAIR. He and the others could face up to 20 years in prison.

Wiretap evidence heard in the case for the first time put CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad, at a Philadelphia meeting of Hamas leaders and activists secretly recorded by the FBI. Participants hatched a plot to deceive Americans and disguise payments to Hamas as it launched a campaign of terror attacks. CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad joined Hamas big shots at the summit.

Washington officials who agree to meet with CAIR so it can mau-mau them about “anti-Muslim bigotry” and “politics of fear” ought to study that evidence to understand what CAIR is and is not.

Prosecutors argued that CAIR’s leaders are part of a wider conspiracy overseen by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egypt-based jihadist group and parent to Hamas. In fact, court papers list Ahmad as a key Brotherhood leader in the U.S.

Prosecutors unveiled a secret Brotherhood memo outlining the group’s ambitions in America. The memo, written in Arabic, calls for “a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated, and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Thanks to the Holy Land trial, we now know the true agenda of CAIR and other Islamist groups in the U.S.: the abolition of the U.S. system as we know it, and support for designated terror groups.



November 26, 2008

ACTS 12:21-23



Sound a little like Obama?


Holy Land Foundation Officials Convicted – All counts

November 26, 2008

HLF Officials Convicted on All Counts

IPT News
November 24, 2008

updated 8:35 p.m

DALLAS – A jury convicted five former officials at the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) on all counts in the Hamas-support case after 8 days of deliberations.

The men, Shukri Abu-Baker, Ghassan Elashi, Mohamed El-Mezain, Mufid Abdulqader and Abdelrahman Odeh, could face up to 20 years in prison for their convictions on conspiracy counts, including conspiring to
provide material support to terrorists. The verdicts, read Monday afternoon, ended a two-year saga in what is considered the largest terror financing case since the 9/11 attacks.

In the original trial last year, jurors acquitted El-Mezain on 31 of the 32 counts against him, but could not reach unanimous verdicts on any other counts, prompting a mistrial.

Prosecutors made a series of significant adjustments, from dropping 29 counts each against defendants Mufid Abdulqader and Abdelrahman Odeh, to adding new witnesses who could put the charity support in context. In addition, jurors in this trial saw three exhibits Israeli military officials seized from the Palestinian Authority which showed the PA also considered HLF to be a Hamas financer and that an HLF-supported charity committee was controlled by Hamas.

The result was a much more streamlined case that followed a logical narrative, said Peter Margulies, a law professor at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island. Seeing the Palestinian Authority reach the same conclusion as the U.S. government had to have helped, he said.

In addition, prosecutors provided summary exhibits that served as “a road map” to the case and had to help jurors deliberate, Margulies said. “The jury was able to look at the evidence and get past the perceived biases of any of the witnesses and see the evidence as a whole.”

That evidence made clear that the defendants knew where the money raised in the U.S. was going despite legal prohibitions against support for Hamas.

The verdict was hailed by M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. Prosecutors prevailed because they were able to “connect the ideology of political Islam and the overriding mission of Islamist organizations like the HLF to their desire to contribute to the efforts of terror groups, like Hamas,” he said. “When this connection is made we will see the return of a guilty verdict. In future [terrorism financing] cases DOJ will not only have to connect the financial dots but [will have] to demonstrate an overarching common Islamist mission.”

Prosecutors say HLF was part of a Palestine Committee – a conglomerate of U.S. based Muslim organizations and individuals committed to helping Hamas financially and politically. HLF was its fundraising arm, a designation formalized by Hamas deputy political director Mousa Abu Marzook in 1994. Support for Hamas became illegal with a 1995 executive order by President Bill Clinton and subsequent congressional action.

Defense attorneys say the men were simply providing desperately needed charity to Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. HLF routed millions of dollars through a series of Palestinian charities known as zakat committees. While Hamas was designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. Treasury, those zakat committees never were. That, defense attorneys argued, meant donations to them did not violate the law.

Holy Land Foundation Raid

“This is one of the most significant victories the Justice Department has won in the war on terror,” said Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted blind cleric Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 others for conspiring to blow up a series of New York landmarks. “Financing is the life-blood of jihadist organizations like Hamas. With the assistance of willing co-conspirators, they conceal their activities and use the Muslim obligation of charitable giving to mask support that is actually channeled to their murderous agenda. Today’s verdicts say, loudly and clearly, that Americans aren’t fooled and won’t tolerate it. As a former federal prosecutor, I am especially proud of the assistant U.S. attorneys who persevered through some real travails in securing justice for the American people.”

Journalist Douglas Farah studied the HLF evidence on behalf of the Nine Eleven Finding Answers (NEFA) Foundation and was the first to identify the significance of a Muslim Brotherhood memorandum outlining the group’s ambitions in America. He said Monday’s verdict

has implications for unindicted co-conspirators in the case – most notably the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) – because it validates what already was “a clear public record of why these groups were founded and how.”

The Muslim Brotherhood memo called for “a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

CAIR is listed as a member of the Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and founders Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad are included on a telephone list of committee members. CAIR has not refuted the evidence, Farah said. Government officials ought to study that evidence to realize CAIR is not what it presents itself as.

“The main currency CAIR and these groups have is their access,” he said. “The time is now, with full justification and with a full public record – not a whispering campaign, not innuendo – for the government to now say without hesitation: you don’t have access here. We don’t want to deal with you.”

After the verdicts were read, jurors were asked to determine whether convictions for money laundering meant HLF assets should be forfeited to the government, the Dallas Morning News reported. Jurors agreed $12.4 million from the defendants’ assets should be forfeited. Click here to see more coverage from the Morning News.



November 24, 2008

The UN is a waste of money – and an enemy of the U.S. on our soil!

India Shows The Way


Piracy: India, from whose Hindi language we get the word “thug,” knows how to handle them. Its navy blew away two Somali pirate ships in a week, sending a message in the only language thugs understand. Kudos.

The next Somali crew of pirates on a ship slinking through the toon111908Gulf of Aden looking for an easy ransom won’t smile through its cutlasses if it spies an Indian-flagged ship. It will move the other way as fast as possible.

Tuesday, a pirate mother-ship crew aimed grenade launchers at an Indian naval frigate and tried to ram it. The Indian ship Tabar fired back, set the vessel on fire, and left it at the bottom of the sea. It was the second pirate ship India’s navy had blown out of the water, another was taken out Nov. 11. There won’t be many more.

India’s clear response to the Somali pirates is the only one likely to prove effective. It contrasts sharply with the handwringing helplessness of other navies patrolling the area under a United Nations mandate. Their mission is proving ineffective, and the enemy is growing bolder. Since a Saudi supertanker was seized on Saturday, pirates have commandeered three more ships.

It’s happening because the current international mission is largely hamstrung by attempts to enforce laws on nationals from a state without laws, let alone prisons or courts. Somali pirates right now get a free ride. When they aren’t reaping ransoms from captured ships — $50 million in 2008, with another $10 million expected from the Saudi supertanker — they are being captured and released by international patrols that have no place to take them. It all adds up to a riskless venture for pirates.

India showed that the only message with authority in this perversely incentivized void is force. The West may have bigger, more technologically advanced navies than India’s 118-ship naval flotilla, but only India has demonstrated the way to raise the cost of piracy. As a result of its actions, there are stirrings in the U.N. and NATO to adopt this strategy.

India’s actions probably saved many more ships than the few it has protected and saved unnecessary costs, as well. Indian companies faced a $450,000 increase in shipping insurance costs due to the increased risk of piracy. That’s a pittance here, but not in a country full of poor merchants trying to play by the rules and legitimately integrate into the global economy through trade. India’s act was motivated by a desire to stand up for its nationals, but in reality, it stood up for all of us.

The West needs to heed India’s example because its energy supply is at stake, and every ransom paid empowers the pirates and their terrorist allies. India’s leadership and resolve should increase its international stature. That’s what comes to nations that have the common sense to confront thugs.


Headlines Today – Jobless Claims, Citi, JPMorgan, GMAC, Iran

November 21, 2008



[LEFT} No one has come up with a plan said Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, James Clyburn and Sen. Christopher Dodd. A SORRY BUNCH


Index points to worsening manufacturing, shrinking to -39.3 in Nov.

U.S. workers on the dole soared to a 26-year high, stark proof job market is rapidly weakening.

Mid-Atlantic Factory Woes Deepen

Factory index feel to minus 39.3 in Nov., lowest since Oct. ’90. The employment gauge hit an 18-year low, new orders gauge sank to lowest since ’80, cuts in output and payrolls. Jobless claims rose to 4.01mil, highest since the ’82 recession.

Citi, JPMorgan Shares Tumble

Citigroup (NYSE:CNews) tumbled 26% as a Saudi prince’s move to raise his stake overshadowed by fears it won’t have enough cash. Alwaleed bin Talal, Citi’s largest individual investor, lifted his stake to 5% from less than 4%. JPMorgan Chase fell 18%.

GMAC applies for bank status

Financing arm of General Motors applied to become a bank holding company, eligible for aid under the government’s $700 bil bank rescue plan. said the change in status would shore up its capital position to provide automotive and mortgage financing. GMAC is majority owned by Cerberus Capital Management, which also owns most of Chrysler. General Motors (GM) owns a 49% stake.

Iran Has Uranium For Nuke: IAEA

International Atomic Energy Agency says Iran has produced 1,390 pounds of enriched uranium, enough to build a nuclear bomb. Iran would need to further refine the material and put it in a warhead to make a full-fledged weapon. The country says it’s enriching the uranium for nuclear energy.

Stalled bailout fueld 6.7% dive on S&P 500, erasing the last of its gains since 2002.


CAIR: Big on the Gimmes

November 21, 2008

CAIR: Big on the Gimmes

IPT News
November 20, 2008

When a golfer has a putt of a foot or less, it’s considered can’t miss – a “gimme” – in the parlance of the game.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations took a gimme Wednesday when it issued a statement condemning remarks from Al Qaeda’s No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri. In an 11-minute video, Zawahiri slurs President-Elect Barack Obama as a “House Negro.”

CAIR’s statement was out within hours, saying the organization “condemned threatening rhetoric and racial slurs contained in a new video by Ayman al-Zawahri and said Al-Qaeda’s second-in-command does not speak for Muslims in this country or worldwide.”

The statement continued:

“As Muslims and as Americans, we will never let terrorist groups or terror leaders falsely claim to represent us or our faith. The legitimate grievances of Muslims in many areas of the world can never serve as an excuse or a justification for attacks on civilian populations. We once again repudiate Al-Qaida’s actions, rhetoric and worldview and re-state our condemnation of all forms of terrorism and religious extremism.”

No reasonable person would quarrel with that. But it’s not exactly going out on a limb. And it raises some key questions that are central to understanding what CAIR stands for.

For starters, just what are the “legitimate grievances” referenced in the release? How many of those grievances conflict with U.S. policies in Iran, Lebanon and Israel, including those that are expected to be continued by the President-elect?

And, if CAIR is so eager to condemn a statement from Al Qaeda, what meaning should be drawn from its stubborn refusal to condemn terrorism from the likes of Hizballah and Hamas or fatwas sanctioning attacks on American soldiers from a Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader?

CAIR has yet to utter a critical word about Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who has called suicide bombings “heroic martyrdom operations.”
He issued a fatwa stating that Muslims killed fighting American forces in Iraq are martyrs. “Those killed fighting the American forces are martyrs given their good intentions since they consider these invading troops an enemy within their territories but without their will.”

Britain won’t let Qaradawi into the country due to his extremist rhetoric. But to CAIR officials, he is a scholar. That’s what Hussam Ayloush said at a 2002 Orange County CAIR fundraiser:

“Several people were asking about the eligibility claim for CAIR. And according to many scholars including Yusuf Qaradawi, basically this is one of the venues of Zakat (charity) for your money as vis a vis basically educating about Islam in America and the West.”

Over the years, CAIR officials have established a consistent pattern of providing squirrelly answers when challenged to condemn terrorist groups other than Al Qaeda:

  • In a 2002 interview with the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said questions about his organization’s opinions about Hamas and Hizballah were part of “a game” pushed by “the extremist wing of the pro-Israel lobby.” Hooper made it clear he wasn’t playing: “We’re not in the business of condemning.”
  • Asked in a May 27, 2003 deposition, “Do you support Hamas?” CAIR co-founder and Chairman Emeritus Omar Ahmad answered, “It depends. Qualify ‘support.'” Asked whether he had “ever taken a position with respect to… [Hamas’] ‘martyrdom attacks.'” Ahmad responded, “No.”
  • In 2005, then-CAIR Tampa spokesman Ahmed Bedier was asked about his organization’s position toward the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. “We haven’t published one,” he said.
  • This past August, CAIR spokesman Corey Saylor was pressed by David Lee Miller of Fox News to condemn Hamas and Hizballah. He wouldn’t:

Saylor: “I’m telling you in a very clear fashion – CAIR condemns terrorist acts, whoever commits them, wherever they commit them, whenever they commit them.”

Miller: “That’s not the same thing as saying you condemn Hamas and you condemn Hizballah.”

Saylor: “Well I recognize that you don’t like my answer to the question, but that’s the answer to the question.”

Miller: “It’s not no, it’s not whether I like it or dislike it. I was asking whether or not you can sit here now and say- CAIR condemns Hamas or Hezbollah. If you don’t want to, just say that. If that is a position your group doesn’t take, I certainly accept that. I just want to understand what your answer is.”

Saylor: “The position that my group takes is that we condemn terrorism on a consistent, persistent basis, wherever it happens, whenever it happens.”

The record makes it clear that this is not the case. CAIR makes sweeping statements about condemning the deaths of innocent civilians, but does not define what it considers innocent. It’s a tone set from the top, as evidence from the Hamas-support trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) shows.

Exhibits in evidence show CAIR is listed among members of the Palestine Committee, a group created by the Muslim Brotherhood to help Hamas. Omar Ahmad and fellow CAIR founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad appear as numbers 25 and 32 in this Palestine Committee telephone list. Ahmad is identified by his pseudonym of “Omar Yehya.”

Awad publicly stated his support for Hamas over the secular PLO in 1994, six months after the Oslo Accords made the PLO the governing party in the new Palestinian Authority. His endorsement also came after he and Ahmad participated in a secret meeting of Hamas supporters in Philadelphia called to discuss ways to derail the peace initiative.

The Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel through terrorism and other violence. It also rejects out of hand any peaceful settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At a rally in New York six years later, Awad said “Our final destination is Palestine. They [the Jews] have been saying ‘next year to Jerusalem,’ we say ‘next year to all Palestine.’

Consistent with that is Omar Ahmad’s declaration during the Philadelphia meeting that the group’s goal had to be kept secret from Americans:

We’ve always demanded the 1948 territories,” he said.

“Yes,” replied an unidentified speaker. “But we don’t say that publicly. You cannot say that publicly, in front of the Americans.”

“No,” Ahmad agreed, “We didn’t say that to the Americans.”

As noted, Ahmad and Awad remain prominent voices in CAIR leadership. So kudos to CAIR for condemning violence and offensive statements by Al Qaeda. Stretch that moral stand to other terrorist groups and people might take notice.


Pirates Hijack Ships & Auto Companies

November 20, 2008

“Pirates Hijack Saudi Supertanker”

Investors Business Daily – 19 Nov. 08

•    Put a Blackwater team on every ship. (Don)

toon111908Pirates who hijacked a Saudi supertanker now anchored it off Somalia’s coast, while the U.S. and other nations decided for now, not to intervene.  Filled with $100 mil in oil, it’s the largest merchant vessel ever seized.  Pirates took an Iranian Cargo ship Tue., the 7th vessel seized in 12 days.  Some shippers have said they’ll go round South Africa instead of via Egypt’s Suez Canal, citing piracy.

•    What they don’t tell you here – they have seized over 100 ships over the last two years. (Don)

Indian Frigate Sinks Pirate Ship

Investors Business Daily – 20 Nov. 08


The Indian warship INS Tabar sank a suspected pirate ship after a brief gunbattle in the Gulf of Aden, an area that has seen a surge in ship hijackings by Somalia-based gunmen.  Meanwhile, pirates succeeded in hijacking 2 more vessels in one of the world’s busiest shipping channels.  In the last week, pirates have captured 8 vessels, including a giant Saudi oil tanker.

Pulling Plug On GM Would Help Both Auto Industry And Michigan

IBD – John Tamny – 12 Nov. 08

Capital and jobs will continue to flee the state if GM is saved with the money of others.

Sectors reliant on government help are invariably weakened as opposed to strengthened.

Poorly run businesses find it hard to raise money.

Were GM a well-managed company, it would have no need to run to the federal government.

If there’s a defense of GM at this point, it has to do with dollar policy in this country that has made long-term planning very difficult. GM did relatively well when the dollar was strong due to lower gasoline prices that made its large vehicles very popular. But as GM presently seeks to create new, smaller models for a world allegedly running out of oil, a stronger dollar has driven down gasoline prices, which means its inventory might yet again not match future economic realities.

The complication there is that GM’s management has regularly advocated a weaker dollar, so the problem remains one of management clueless when it comes to understanding what makes the firm prosper.

In the end, the state of Michigan and the U.S. automobile sector are struggling not due to back luck, but precisely because they cling to a company that investors no longer value. And with GM shares near all-time lows, those with capital are stating loudly that so long as GM remains as is, the funds necessary for job creation will continue to flee.

So rather than waste precious capital in the naive hope of propping up that which investors don’t value, it’s essential to let GM fail. Only then will a necessary change of ownership occur;


Here’s why we say – let the auto companies file bankruptcy: (Don)

example: A Ford assembly line worker – works 2 weeks with 2 weeks off.  –
but paid for 4 weeks – for not working.  Engine plant near Ann Arbor.

“Job bank” – employees (8000) get paid $105,000/year – for years.

“a radio personality in Ann Arbor talks about a Ford worker paid to teach the Guitar to auto workers.”


CPI Falls Record 1%, Housing Starts Dive; Fed Fears Deflation?

November 20, 2008

CPI Falls Record 1%, Housing Starts Dive; Fed Fears Deflation?


Huge sell-off on Wall Street. 1%, biggest drop on records that go back to 1947.  Core costs, food and energy, fell 0.1%, first drop in 26 years.

“Prices have reversed,

Energy costs dropped 8.6%, led by a 14.2% dive in gasoline prices.

But prices for clothing, airline fares and new vehicles also fell as Americans sharply restrict discretionary spending.

Overall consumer costs rose 3.7% from a year ago — a sharp deceleration from 5.6% in July. Core inflation was 2.2%, down from 2.5% in September.

Meanwhile, housing starts dived 4.5% to an annual rate of 791,000 units in October, the slowest pace since 1959.

Give the Fed more room to cut rates next month.

Chronic deflation discussed for the first time in years.

We’re seeing deflation in the short term.

Negative for housing. Building permits —  plunged 12% to a 708,000-unit pace.

Slack construction should erase the glut of unsold homes.


We Have Become A Nation Of Thieves

November 20, 2008


We Have Become A Nation Of Thieves

By WALTER E. WILLIAMS | Investors Business Daily – 20 Nov. 08

Evil acts can be given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution or caring for the less fortunate. Let’s think about socialism.

Imagine there’s an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here’s my question to you, and I’m almost afraid of the answer:

Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady’s lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment?

In Favor Of Slavery

I’m hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow’s lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings? That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn.lawn-boy-insight-gas-powered-lawn-mower-103685

I’d say that there is little difference between the mandates. While the mandate’s mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn.

This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible, but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable such acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive.

This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one’s fellow man.

Helping one’s fellow man in need, by reaching into one’s own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another’s pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation.

Some people might contend that we are a democracy where the majority agrees to the forcible use of one person for the good of another. But does a majority consensus confer morality to an act that would otherwise be deemed immoral?

In other words, if a majority of the widow’s neighbors voted to force one neighbor to mow her law, would that make it moral?

I don’t believe any moral case can be made for the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another. But that conclusion is not nearly as important as the fact that so many of my fellow Americans give wide support to using people. I would like to think it is because they haven’t considered that more than $2 trillion of the over $3 trillion federal budget represents Americans using one another.

Madison Rejected

Of course, they might consider it compensatory justice. For example, one American might think:

“Farmers get Congress to use me to serve the needs of some farmers. I’m going to get Congress to use someone else to serve my needs by subsidizing my child’s college education.”

The bottom line is that we’ve become a nation of thieves, a value rejected by our founders. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, was horrified when Congress appropriated $15,000 to help French refugees. He said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Tragically, today’s Americans would run Madison out of town on a rail.


Hate Speech: Obsession?

November 19, 2008



Obsession the Movie

Obsession the Movie


Muslims in America today


Also please note the Ann Arbor News version that I was asked to send for publication (250 words).

Muslims are looking for a case of hate speech. Americans are the victim of hate speech from Islam.

Please read the very careful way I wrote this letter response to the Ann Arbor News letter to the editor – of this writer. (naive)

We are all very aware of the ‘hate speech’ threat – but Americans do not use this tactic against Islamists.


14 November 2008

Re: In Response to an Ann Arbor News Letter to the Editor: (original letter to the right)

“Obsession’ DVD is hate speech against Muslims”

Whether or not Amir A. Kamoune is an American citizen, he should know better than to make the claim of “hate speech directed against me” when he is talking about a mass mailing of anything. He tells us “I got a copy of the DVD ‘Obsession’ in the mail.” (From what I read – many millions of others did as well.) Some time ago, I watched the same film on Fox News and learned that the only hate speech shown in the film is from voices of radical Islam, targeted against him and me and the entire free world. But his letter places him on the side of being a Muslim, clearly separating himself from the rest of us. Why?

Kamoune wrote: “Non-Muslims may defend the filmmakers”, I’d guess implying that Muslims wouldn’t – or couldn’t? Many Muslims that I know, as friends, would strongly disagree with Kamoune’s viewpoint. Aren’t we always told that we shouldn’t assume that all Muslims support the terrorists, the radical Islamists? So why does Amir Kamoune take his unusual stand?

Kamoune is telling us, quite clearly, that Muslims consider this film to be against them. His words clearly tell his reader that he has placed himself on the side of these radical leaders and Imams who hate America and have plans to ‘take’ America for Islam.

He places himself on the same side as those Muslims who are spouting hate speech against America from their pulpits.

Any hate speech claim belongs to me and my fellow Americans.

The hate speech is targeted against us! and Kamoune tells us he isn’t one of us.

He emphasizes this point by specifically, in his words, identifying the “hate speech directed against me.”

“I have no doubt the film is a form of hate speech directed against me.” Well, he is mistaken. The only hate speech in the film was and is directed against America. It is directed against me – and I am offended by this hate speech against my country.

But by his own words, Kamoune clearly tells us that he isn’t on the side of America. Is he telling his readers that he is one of those who has targeted America?

We Americans would agree that the film shows us numerous examples of hate speech – all of which is directed against America and Western Civilization. That hate is against me. Yet Kamoune tries to tell us that he considers the “hate speech directed against me” “as a Muslim”. Well, he is mistaken.

Are we beginning to see where Kamoune comes from?

In his second paragraph we read an interesting sentence:
“Non-Muslims may defend the filmmakers…” So, is Kamoune telling us that Muslims wouldn’t defend the filmmakers? Muslims that I know would disagree with him.

I personally know many Muslims who would and do, in fact, defend the filmmakers – who at the same time realize the awkward position in which they find themselves.

But Kamoune clearly writes that he and his fellow Muslims certainly wouldn’t defend the filmmakers.

Why not? It seems, I’d have to assume, apparent to Kamoune that he believes all Muslims don’t like this film. Again, I know many Muslims who would disagree emphatically with Kamoune. Many Muslims in America do not agree with the hate speech directed at America and Western Civilization – but Kamoune puts himself on the side of the hate speakers shown in this film – “Obsession”. He implies quite clearly that he defends the hate speech makers – those hateful speakers shown in the film.

Then he continues his explanation: “They (non-Muslims, Americans) may claim ‘Islam has been hijacked’ by radicals and this kind of film is necessary to increase awareness of this issue.” Well, yes, that is what many good hearted Americans claim in order to defend Muslims living here in America who appear to be hard-working, friendly neighbors.

But Kamoune treats them with little respect by his next words: “However, they don’t get to define hate speech directed against me”. He makes it quite clear that this hate must be targeted at him – why?

Then, to reinforce the ‘Me’ and ‘they’ (He obviously intended to make the distinction quite clear that he isn’t one of us) he adds this interesting statement: “However, they don’t get to define hate speech directed against me.” Again, the hate speech shown in this film “Obsession” was directly at Americans and the free world and not to the viewer.

“They” and “me” – We would have to be pretty stupid not to get his distinction. He isn’t with us on this issue of a threat to America and the entire Western World – the threat of radical Islam. He clearly identifies his position – with his strongly implied hatred for the West.

“They (the film makers of the movie “Obsession”) don’t get to define hate speech” – He does!

Then quickly he turns himself into a victim. “They don’t get to define hate speech directed against me.” He is sent by mail – a DVD on a subject that quite obviously he is sensitive about – a film that has already been seen by hundreds of millions of people. (I’m pretty certain about that figure because we are told that – two years after Fox News showed this movie on television, according to Fox News, viewed by 25 million, another 28 million copies were sent to recipients all over the country.)

“Me”! and “they” – Kamoune here may have told us a lot more than he intended to tell us – with his distinctive differentiation. “Me” “As a Muslim I have no doubt that the film is a form of hate speech directed against me.” Why would he do that? Why would Kamoune put himself on the opposite side of America? Me and they? Why would he tell us, quite blatantly, that since he considers this hate speech against him and since he alone gets to define hate speech the way he wants to define it – and he wants to tell us that he believes it was directed at him – in the very next sentence he makes another unusual claim. He’s now the victim of this speech! And since now he has identified himself as the victim – he claims the right to define it! “The perpetrators do not get to practice their right of free speech”! Go back and look at his letter. Does the reader understand what this writer has said?! ‘They’ – I guess meaning us – in this writer’s opinion – ‘us’ being Americans. Let’s read that again!

His letter: “The perpetrators do not get to practice their right of free speech and then trample on my human right to be offended by it” So “his right”? – Mr. Kamoune’s “right”? “His right to be offended by it” If he is offended by it (the film I guess) then he is telling us that somehow he endorses what the recorded speakers have said – and he just wants to tell us that since we are highly offended by the hate speech recorded – he wants us to know that the hate speech targeted at Americans is OK with him – but at the same time – apparently he agrees with the ranting Imams who were preaching hate targeted at his hosts in America. But he is offended because Americans and the filmmakers are exposing radical, hate-filled speakers displaying their hate toward America.

He couldn’t have made it clearer.

Then Kamoune gets into the ‘offended’ issue by throwing out an unusual illustration:
“When a woman is raped, some jackass always says she encouraged it.” – We Americans might find this example of Mr. Kamoune kind of unusual. From what I read, when a women is raped in an Islamic country – she must have 4 witnesses to defend herself – almost an impossibility. Usually she is killed for ‘her’ crime of getting raped. It’s called “honor killing”. Often we read that her murder is preformed by her own father or a relative. She’s raped – the perpetrator goes free – and she’s killed.

Kamoune tells us he got a copy of the DVD “Obsession” in the mail – then “Because of it’s controversial nature, I forced myself to watch it from the beginning to end.” How did he already know about it’s controversial reputation before he had ever seen it?

Why would the word “Obsession” cause him to determine and use the words, “Because of it’s controversial nature”?

Then he tells us “I forced myself to watch it” adding “from beginning to end”.

He continues “As a Muslim (we already know that because he said so in his first paragraph) I have no doubt the film is a form of hate speech” adding for emphasis, I would assume, “directed against me”.

I know about this movie “Obsession” from seeing it 2 or 3 times on Fox News television a few years ago (2006). It was widely discussed by Fox News reporters and guests – so I’d have to assume that Mr. Kamoune knew all about “Obsession” at least for a couple of years. Fox News invited a great deal of discussion about this production. Millions of Americans have seen the movie. But now, after all this time, Kamoune is telling us that he has “no doubt the film is a form of hate speech directed against me.” No, the film included a great deal of hate speech – that is for sure – but all of the hate came from Imams speaking from Muslim mosques and other settings (such as the mall in Washington, D.C.) targeted at me – at all Americans – at our entire Western Civilization. The hate certainly was not directed at Kamoune. If we assume that he is an American citizen or a Muslim living here with a green card – he should be the first to know where the hate speech comes from – radical Islam. But he doesn’t say that. He tells us in the first paragraph of his letter to the editor – that “As a Muslim I have no doubt the film is a form of hate speech directed against me.”

Isn’t it interesting? Why would Kamoune write that “As a Muslim I have no doubt the film is a form of hate speech directed at me.” He clearly has identified that, because he is a Muslim – I guess – the “hate speech is directed at me”. How could he come to a conclusion like that? Any why? Unless, of course, he doesn’t consider himself part of us, or part of Western Civilization that is being targeted by radical Islam.

I’ve just watched this movie again and found absolutely nothing spoken by the narrator that could be considered hate speech targeted at Americans – or targeted at any viewer of the program. All the hate is targeted and directed at the viewer by the terrorist-supporting Imams and activists and from the children being indoctrinated in the Madrassahs.

Mr. Kamoune then writes, “The rise of hate crimes against Muslims is a verifiable fact.” Well, my research into that statement indicates, surprisingly, that hate crimes of this nature, on a national basis, are very low – almost non-existent. Americans aren’t into hate crimes or unfair treatment of anyone. The same regarding the next sentence. “Hate speech against Muslims has been prevalent since 9/11.” Again, the almost surprising things is that this behavior is almost non-existent. As it should be.

His closing, “This DVD is just the latest installment in the same old trend.” Here again, just because he writes that doesn’t make it a fact. The fact is that no American behaves in the manner that Mr. Kamoune claims. Americans have welcomed people from every nation on earth. We are the only country in the world where you can come here and call yourself an American. I couldn’t go to Saudi Arabia and plan on calling myself a ‘Saudi’.
The only problem is – we expect that everyone who comes here to live – will become an American citizen – a real American. Americans are learning to have serious concern about that when we hear these radical Imams preaching hate against America!

Americans should watch “Obsession” again and again to understand the very serious threat of radical Islam to America and to all of us who believe in liberty.

Should we come to the conclusion that Amir A. Kamoune might know all about the speakers illustrated in “Obsession”? I hope not and I pray that every American will pray for him.

A careful reading of Kamoune’s letter might have told us a lot more about his position on the subject than he intended.


Donald E. Van Curler


Two Great DVD’s Relating to HATE CRIME LAWS:

1. “Assault of Liberty: The impact of Hate Crime Laws” + 2. “Hate Crime Laws”


Holy Land Foundation – HLF Defense Expert Offers Alternate Interpretations

November 18, 2008

HLF Defense Expert Offers Alternate Interpretations
IPT News
November 4, 2008

DALLAS – When officials at the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) spoke of jihad, or the need to support Palestinian mujahideen, they weren’t necessarily endorsing violence. And when they praised Hamas and brought in leaders of the designated terrorist group to speak at fundraisers, they weren’t necessarily providing support.

That was the message John Esposito, a Georgetown University professor of Religion and International Affairs and director of the university’s Saudi-funded Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding told jurors in HLF‘s terror support trial Monday. Esposito was called as an expert witness to explain that some of the strident language jurors have heard coming from Holy Land officials may have a different, more benign meaning.

The men are accused of illegally providing millions of dollars to Hamas through a series of Palestinian charities. Donating to charity is sacred in Islam, one of the five pillars of the faith, Esposito said.

But on cross examination, Esposito either didn’t remember or didn’t know about documented links between HLF and other groups he has worked with and Hamas.

One of those groups is the Council on American-Islamic Rela tions (CAIR). When asked by defense attorney Nancy Hollander if he was familiar with CAIR, Esposito described it as a “religious-oriented mainstream group” that worked on issues of discrimination against Muslims. He confirmed he had over a period of time met with senior CAIR officials, including Nihad Awad, Ibrahim Hooper, and “another person based in California in the Bay area.”

That person, he later said, turned out to be CAIR co-founder and chairman emeritus Omar Ahmad.

CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF case. In his cross examination by federal prosecutor James Jacks, Esposito said that he had attended a handful of CAIR events in the past 15 years. But he struggled to identify the last time he attended a CAIR event.

It was three months ago in Dallas, Jacks said. He’s also scheduled to speak at a CAIR fundraiser in Tampa later this month.

Although Esposito was a featured speaker at the Dallas event in August, he said he was unaware that the funds raised at the event went to the Muslim Legal Defense Fund, a nonprofit group set up to raise money to pay defense attorney’s fees in the HLF trial.

That wasn’t his only appearance at a Dallas CAIR event. A=2 0year earlier, Esposito offered his wholehearted support for CAIR and its wishes to see the defendants set free in the HLF case, “Let me begin by saying that CAIR is a phenomenal organization….The main reason I decided to come was because of how I see the situation with regard to both the Holy Land Fund and the way government recently handled the situation and also to show solidarity not only with the Holy Land Fund, but also with CAIR.”

Esposito described himself as an expert on the Muslim Brotherhood movement.* He said he had “studied the movement for many years.” However, when Jacks asked whether he was familiar with the Muslim Brotherhood motto, Esposito said he wasn’t. The motto states:

“God is our goal, Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle [jihad] is our way, and death in the service of God is the loftiest of our wishes.”

[* NOTE: Muslims lie.  They are taught to lie as tiny kids.  They lie and believe it isn’t a sin.  To lie to an infidel is appropriate, commendable.  We must learn that our court system’s “the truth” means nothing.]

Esposito also did not know that Hamas’ charter repeats the same motto. He’s a Muslim Brotherhood expert, he said, not a n expert on Hamas.

Jurors were shown a videotape seized from the HLF office of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood scholar known for his militant religious rulings. In the video, al-Qaradawi cites a passage from the Prophet’s Hadith, also listed in Article 7 of the Hamas charter:

The Prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!”

Qaradawi is a “very prominent Islamic scholar,” Esposito said. He tried to rationalize Qaradawi‘s statement, saying that the reference to “Jews” was really a reference to the “government of Israel.” How could he be sure, Jacks asked, if Qaradawi has never offered such an explanation. “No text can be interpreted without context,” Esposito said. Qaradawi perceives Palestine to be a “war zone” where “people are under occupation.”

“In that context all Israelis are part of the system and fighting, killing in the war zone is legitimate,” he said. Esposito further added that Qaradawi believes that “sacrificing against a superior military power is sacrificing for a noble and just cause.”

Esposito confirmed that al-Qaradawi had issued a fatwa (religious ruling) that approved of suicide bombings against American troops in Iraq, explaining that al-Qaradawi had issued the fatwa because “Iraq was under occupation.”

Esposito mentioned that over a course of several years he had met with some Hamas leaders, but he could not remember the names “since it was 10-15 years ago.” He said he may have also “run across someone who’s a Hamas leader at a professional conference in Europe,” but he could not say for certain.

Jacks asked Esposito whether he was familiar with the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), a think tank that used to be based outside Washington, D.C. Along with CAIR, HLF (Holy Land Foundation) and the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), the UASR was a member of the American Palestine Committee. Internal records show the Palestine Committee was established by the Muslim Brotherhood to help Hamas politically and financially.

CAIR was created in 1994, after the Palestine Committee existed. Records show CAIR was added to the roster of committee entities and Ahmad, the co-founder and chairman emeritus, played a signific ant role in its operations. Ahmad helped lead a secret 1993 gathering of committee members in Philadelphia called to discuss ways to derail the Oslo Peace Accords. Committee members worried the secular Palestinian Authority would marginalize the Islamist Hamas movement.

Esposito said he had attended conferences, seminars, and other events sponsored by UASR and had met its director Ahmed Yousef several times. Esposito said he had no knowledge at the time he met Yousef that the latter was a member of Hamas. Ahmed Yousef currently serves as political advisor to the Ismail Haniyeh-led Hamas government in Gaza.

But questions about Yousef‘s Hamas connections date back at least to August 1995, when the Washington Post asked about it. The Post was reporting on the arrest of Hamas political leader Mousa Abu Marzook by U.S. authorities:

“One of Marzook‘s few professional associations was to serve on the board of the United Association for Studies and Research, a Springfield think tank that has been branded by Israelis as a Hamas front.

Ahmed Yousef, the association’s executive director, who met Marzook while also studying engineering at Colorado State, said he knew Marzook as a successful businessman who agreed to promote the think tank during his Middle East travels. But Yous ef, who said his think tank has no ties to Hamas, was unable to describe the nature of Marzook’s business.”

Esposito‘s relationship with Marzook‘s think tank, the UASR, was more than a passing professional interlude. He served on the Board of Advisory Editors for the UASR’s publication, Middle East Affairs Journal. In a 2000 interview in the journal, Esposito challenged the U.S. designation of Hamas as a Foreign Terrorist Organization: “Are there any differences between acts of pure terrorism and resistance? For instance Hizbollah and Hamas contend that they are national liberation movements and are resisting occupation. Are they terrorist organizations?”

Esposito also denied any association with Marzook. He said he was aware Marzook was a founder of UASR after reading background materials on the trial provided him by the defense but other than that he had no memory of having met Marzook. He conceded it was possible he and Marzook “may have overlapped in Washington, D.C.”

Esposito and Jacks differed significantly on the structure of the Muslim Brotherhood. Jacks asked if the Islamist movement had a defined hierarchical structure, with spiritual guides. Esposito said that the Muslim Brotherhood exists in a number of countries but is “not20a centrally organized, top down organization” as claimed by Jacks. In response to Jacks’ question whether the global Islamist movement sought to establish a worldwide Islamic state, Esposito said that the Muslim Brotherhood aspires to establish Islamic law in “only those places where you have Muslim populations.”

[Note: There are Muslim populations in every country.  They believe they are told by Al’lah to take all the world for Islam.]

Jacks showed Esposito an internal Palestine Committee memo from 1991 outlining “the General Strategic Goal for the Group in America” and asked Esposito whether he was familiar with the document. Esposito said he had “read the document but had not done an analysis of it or studied it.” Jacks then read out the section on page 21, describing the Muslim Brotherhood’s role in America as a “Civilization-Jihadist process… eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Esposito said he didn’t remember reading that section in the document. [?] He then challenged the memo’s authenticity [?], saying “We do not know the source” but became silent when Jacks pointed out the author’s names appears on it. The author, Mohamed Akram was listed on the document and Akram was a member of UASR, Jacks said.

David McDonald, a professor of ethnomusicology and cultural anthropology at Indiana University was the next defense witness to take the stand. He described different types of Palestinian resistance music and the historical periods associated with it. During the prosecution’s presentation, jurors saw numerous videotapes of fundraising rallies in which a band performed incendiary songs.

McDonald said the literal meaning of the band’s name – “Al-Sakra” – means “The Rock,” an allusion to “The Rock” on which the Prophet Mohammad ascended to heaven. McDonald said a reference to Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin on a 1988 video should not be interpreted as a show of support for Hamas. Instead the commentator was “using music to communicate current events” in line with Palestinian folklore music wherein singers discuss current events in their performances.

McDonald’s testimony is expected to continue Tuesday.


The Iranian Missile Crisis

November 7, 2008

The Iranian Missile Crisis


National Security: While the U.S. scores yet another successful missile intercept, the missile defense chief warns that Iran could target all of Europe and the U.S. within five years. It’s 3 a.m., and the phone is ringing.

Our “unproven” missile defense system scored another successful intercept of a ballistic missile on Saturday. A Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) launched from the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Paul Hamilton (DDG-60) intercepted a target missile launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii.

This missile launched Saturday in Kauai became the missile defense program’s latest success.

The test was significant in that it was the first time the Navy, rather than the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency, oversaw the firing of an SM-3. The San Diego-based U.S. Third Fleet had command and operational control of the mission.
The day before the test, the head of the Missile Defense Agency, Lt. Gen. Henry Obering III, spoke in Prague in an effort to convince the Czech Parliament to approve the deployment of a missile-tracking radar facility near Prague as part of a missile shield. Along with missile interceptors based in Poland, this facility will provide a defense against Iranian missiles.

The Czech government has agreed to the deal, but it must be ratified by both houses of the Czech government. According to a report in the Jerusalem Post, Gen. Obering told Czech leaders, “There’s an urgency to getting the schedule on.”
That urgency, Israel Radio reported Obering as saying, was that Iran is not far from attaining the means to use missiles against all of Europe and against the U.S. in five to six years.

Earlier this year, Gen. Obering reported that Iran was “developing missiles at an accelerated pace” and was in fact the third most-active country in the world after Russia and China. Of further concern is an Iranian missile test conducted in February at the televised opening of an Iranian space center in the Semnan Desert southeast of Tehran.
The test, witnessed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was of a modified three-stage Shahab-3B missile, which was described as a space launch vehicle. Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin, former chief of staff of Russia’s Strategic Missile Force, said the Iranian launch showed that Iran could produce liquid-fuel rocket engines sufficient for missiles with a 2,500-mile range or more. With strap-on boosters, such a missile could reach North American targets.

Dinshaw Mistry, professor and missile proliferation expert at the University of Cincinnati, warns of the development or acquisition of missiles that “would give Iran the capability to strike Western Europe. A 3,000-kilometer-range Iranian missile could reach Rome and Berlin; a 4,000-kilometer-range missile could reach London and Paris.”

Mistry warns that if its own missile development falls short, Iran could acquire North Korea’s Taepo Dong ICBM technology [remember what just happened] to strike at the United States. It wouldn’t have to be accurate. A single warhead detonated high over the U.S. would unleash an electromagnetic pulse that would fry our high-tech economy and send us back a century or more. Millions would die or starve from its aftereffects.
Iran is frighteningly close to becoming the first Muslim country with a global nuclear reach. This is why the recent shoot-down of a decaying spy satellite with a Navy SM-3 missile interceptor looms so important.
The technology is here, and it works. We need to shoot down Iran’s Shahabs, not our own missile defense.

American Brotherhood: Sami’s Our Man

November 4, 2008

American Brotherhood: Sami’s Our Man

IPT News
September 5, 2008
The news of convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) operative Sami Al-Arian’s release from jail was greeted by a flood of congratulatory statements from the usual suspects and leading lights of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.
After more than 5 years behind bars, the former University of South Florida professor is still not free, subject to home detention and GPS monitoring, allowed to leave a northern Virginia apartment only for attending court proceedings and for medical reasons.
Al-Arian is still facing a possible criminal trial for contempt of court charges for refusing to testify in a grand jury proceeding investigating the terror ties of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a think tank linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. The judge in the case has postponed the trial, originally set for August 2008, pending a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court whether to review an appeal by Al-Arian from an unfavorable decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ordering him to testify before the grand jury. The ruling could come as early as October.
Upon Al-Arian’s release from prison, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), issued a press release titled, “CAIR Welcomes Release of Dr. Sami Al-Arian,” which stated:
“We welcome Dr. Al-Arian’s release and hope that it is an indication that justice may ultimately be served in this disturbing case,” said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. “After so many years of anguish, the Al-Arian children will finally be able to spend Ramadan with their father.”
CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas fundraising trial in Dallas, has long championed Al-Arian’s case. Its ties to the Brotherhood are documented in internal records of the organization’s U.S. operation and in a recent interview by the Brotherhood’s deputy supreme commander.
Former CAIR-Florida spokesman Ahmed Bedier famously even refused to condemn PIJ, a bloody terrorist group, while acting as Al-Arian’s de facto spokesperson during the Tampa trial.
Bedier left his perch at CAIR under fairly murky circumstances in May of this year, but according to the Tampa Tribune, is still “spokesman for the Tampa Islamic community,” which quoted Bedier as saying:
“The same person described by former Attorney General John Ashcroft as the most dangerous terrorist in the country, now is free in the United States,” Bedier said. “Some speculated that he would never walk the streets of the U.S. again. It calls into question the doubts people had as to how dangerous this person really was.”
Of course, Al-Arian is neither free nor walking the streets of the U.S., and he has served significant prison time for his crimes. Bedier is also purposefully conflating suicide bombers with those who direct and send such bombers to kill in an effort to paint Al-Arian as an innocent. One wonders if he feels the same about Mafia Dons versus Mafia hit men. One thing John Ashcroft did say about Al-Arian and PIJ while announcing the indictment in 2003, much to his credit, was:
Our message to them and to others like them is clear. We make no distinction between those who carry out terrorist attacks and those who knowingly finance, manage or supervise terrorist organizations. We will bring justice to the full network of terror.
Another Brotherhood outfit, the Muslim American Society (MAS), joined the chorus, issuing its own press release titled, “MAS Freedom Rejoices in the News of Dr. Sami Al-Arian’s Release on Bail,” which stated:
MAS Freedom (MASF), the civic and human rights advocacy entity of the Muslim American Society (MAS), rejoices with the family of Dr. Sami Al-Arian on learning that earlier today, as a result of the recently filed Habeas Corpus Petition challenging his continued detention, and the government’s subsequent failure to justify their position, Virginia’s U.S. Eastern District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema has released Dr. Al-Arian on bail.
“MAS Freedom, and many other organizations and individuals, have been working a long time for this day, and we hope that Dr. Al-Arian’s release initiates the vindication process in the tragic miscarriage of justice that has been inflicted on Dr. Al-Arian and his family,” stated MAS Freedom Executive Director, Mahdi Bray.
“We are truly grateful to Allah (swt) that Dr. Al-Arian and his family will be reunited in this blessed month of Ramadan,” Bray added.

Mahdi Bray:  Remember this name?  He was one of the group who got together to advise and fund Obama’s political campaign (15 Sept. 08).
Enclosed are my notes sent to all: (Don)
Mahdi Bray: Brags about his support for terrorist groups – Hamas and Hezbollah.
Executive director, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation.
“Raised his fist during rally in Washington, D.C. to demonstrate his support for those two terrorist groups.”

MAS was founded by Brotherhood members in the U.S. and its founders were listed in a telephone book listing Muslim Brotherhood members here.
And yet another group, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), issued the following release, stating:
The Muslim Public Affairs Council today welcomed the release of former professor Sami Al-Arian from federal custody.
Since his arrest five years ago, Al-Arian’s case has become an example of what many American Muslims perceived to be numerous post-9/11 political persecutions of individuals using tactics that amount to little more than guilt by association.
The Muslim Brotherhood-linked website, Islam Online, trumpeted, “US Muslims Rejoice Arian’s Release,” and proceeded to quote only Al-Arian’s daughter, CAIR’s Nihad Awad and MAS’ Mahdi Bray.
At a minimum, it must be noted that MPAC’s favorite “political prisoner” famously solicited money for terrorist attacks, and allowed himself to be introduced at fundraising events as the leader of PIJ in the United States. And those fundraising events included active solicitation for armed jihad:
This Jihad, which is still blazing in Palestine, from village to village. I am telling you: not for the organizations or anything else, with due respect for everyone. But only for Jihad.
One of them goes out of his house with a knife to stab the Jews. Twelve Jews, after the Gulf events. O brothers, the Intifada is calling upon you. $500.00. Who is going to top the $500.00? Who is going to top the $500.00 for this medal? (emphasis added)
Al-Arian’s jihad fundraising letter stated, referenced a double suicide bombing perpetrated by the PIJ with Hamas-made explosives, killing 21 people and injuring 69 others:
The latest operation, carried out by the two mujahideen who were martyred for the sake of God, is the best guide and witness to what the believing few can do in the face of Arab and Islamic collapse at the heels of the Zionist enemy and in keeping the flame of faith, steadfastness, and defiance glowing.
I call upon you to try to extend true support of the jihad effort in Palestine so that operations such as these can continue.
Yet this is the man whom MB-groups such as CAIR, MPAC and MAS, as purported “civil rights” organizations, champion as some sort of maligned, persecuted political prisoner, worthy of their support and efforts. This example illustrates one of the many fundamental problems of these self-appointed spokesmen for the American Muslim community – vocal support for jihadists.

Value Voters USA

November 3, 2008

Please watch: