Posts Tagged ‘CAIR’

h1

Video: Progressive Islam | Tom Trento | Florida Security Council

February 24, 2010

Dear friends,  Please watch this important video and pass this link to your email contact list.  Thanks

SHORT LINK: http://tinyurl.com/yefe6fk

ORIGINAL LINK: https://bijenkorf.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/video-progressive-islam-tom-trento-florida-security-council/

h1

CAIR wants lawmaker to meet with Islamic leaders

January 25, 2010

PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEOS:


Senator’s call to profile angers ‘Muslim Mafia’


CAIR wants lawmaker to meet with Islamic leaders to explain


Posted: January 23, 2010

By Art Moore


WorldNetDaily


Sen. James Inhofe, R, Okla., at hearing Thursday

The Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Oklahoma chapter is calling on Sen. James Inhofe, R.-Okla., to meet with Muslim leaders to discuss his statement during a congressional hearing in favor of using religion and ethnicity as factors in profiling airline passengers.

“It is disturbing to hear a member of the United States Senate suggest that entire religious and ethnic groups should automatically be considered terror suspects,” said CAIR-OK Executive Director Razi Hashmi. “Our nation’s leaders have a duty not to exacerbate the growing anti-Muslim sentiment in American society.”


Read the rest of this entry ?

h1

Rifqa Bary and CAIR

December 14, 2009

New pics reveal Hamas-linked CAIR’s backstage media coordination in Rifqa Bary case

CAIR - Bary4.jpg

The picture above shows the parents of Rifqa Bary with Babak Darvish, an official of Hamas-linked CAIR. Here is the whole story: “Pics reveal CAIR backstage coordination of media in Rifqa Bary case and how the media kept silent,” from the Jawa Report, December 14 (thanks to Isabella):

Since early August we have been following the ongoing saga concerning Rifqa Bary, the Ohio Muslim-turned-Christian convert teenager who fled her home to Florida in fear of her life after her family discovered her conversion. Last Friday we reported a motion filed by the Bary’s CAIR attorney with the Ohio court considering Rifqa’s case demanding a ban and seizure of all Christmas cards sent to her from outside parties. We also broke the story of how CAIR officials were allowed to be present as “neutral observers” when the Bary family was interviewed by Florida investigators.

Early on in this case we reported that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) had convened a strategy session in Rifqa’s hometown of Ohio where they formulated their media strategy in response to the negative press the parents were receiving:

But a source who was inside a secret strategy meeting conducted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) earlier this week has conveyed the strategy that the media’s favorite Islamist group has devised to respond to the ongoing public relations crisis. According to my source who attended the strategy session, CAIR officials handed out copies of this Orlando Sentinel article and want supporters to push the meme that Christians have brainwashed and abducted this gullible teenage girl. They have also instructed supporters to circulate rumors that Rifqa had been carousing with infidel boys and engaged in acts of immorality. This CAIR strategy takes the focus off the near-universal Islamic legal precepts and Quranic injunctions that demand death for apostates and impugns the character of the innocent girl at the center of this controversy who appears to be in genuine fear for her life if she is returned to her parents.

That media narrative of Rifqa being brainwashed and abducted by a Christian cult was one that was carried by many media outlets, most notably Meredith “Hijab” Heagney of the Columbus Dispatch, Michael Kruse of the St. Petersburg Times, among others. In all their reporting, however, they carefully left the connections of the terror-tied CAIR out of their stories.

But from my source inside CAIR comes new information indicating media complicity with respect to concealing CAIR’s backstage management of the case on behalf of Rifqa’s allegedly abusive parents. Most of the stories by these media hacks featured pictures of the Bary family, such as this photo accompanying an article by the St. Pete Times’ Michael Kruse:

a4s_revolutionary082_81633c.jpgWhat is important about this photograph is not so much what you see as what you don’t see. As the late Paul Harvey said, and now for the rest of the story…

What CAIR’s media allies neglected to mention was that these interviews with the lapdog media were being conducted in the office of CAIR-Columbus executive director Babak Darvish as seen in the following photographs taken in various media interviews.

Go here to see the pictures. In a sane world, this revelation would destroy the credibility of the Kruse/Heagney media coverage of the story for good, as well as the credibility of the parents’ case against Rifqa and attempts to get her back home despite her fears for her life. Would it matter to the case that media interviews with the parents were being conducted in the offices of an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding case? Would it matter to the case that media interviews with the parents were being held in the offices of an organization that was known to have held meetings about false talking points it was going to circulate in order to discredit this girl and her defenders?

It should matter. But it doesn’t. For the elites to whom it should matter are just as corrupt and compromised as Kruse, Heagney and co.

source: Jihadwatch.com

h1

Muslim Mafia Update: FBI Served CAIR Warrant

November 25, 2009

FBI intercepts docs destined for CAIR


Agents enter law office with warrant for evidence on D.C. Muslim group


Posted: November 24, 2009 11:25 pm Eastern WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – While attorneys representing the co-author of “Muslim Mafia” were preparing late today to honor a federal court order to return documents obtained from the Council on American-Islamic Relations in an independent undercover operation, FBI agents served a warrant on a Washington, D.C., law office for the same documents.

The FBI agents entered the capital law offices of Cozen O’Connor tonight and issued a warrant for thousands of pages of documents as well as audio and video recordings gathered by P. David Gaubatz and his son Chris in a daring and lengthy undercover penetration of CAIR in which the younger Gaubatz served as an unpaid intern for the group that was labeled an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator in last year’s Holy Land Foundation trial.

CAIR claimed in a lawsuit that Gaubatz removed its papers and made recordings of employees “without any consent or authorization and in violation of his contractual fiduciary and other legal obligations.” A federal judge in Washington issued a restraining order Nov. 3 barring the Gaubatzes from further use or publication of the material – 12,000 pages of documents along with audio and video recordings – and demanding that they return it to the Muslim group’s lawyers.

Read the rest of this entry ?

h1

Introspection, Not Rationalization, Needed in Wake of Fort Hood Slaughter

November 6, 2009

Introspection, Not Rationalization, Needed in Wake of Fort Hood Slaughter

IPT News
November 6, 2009

http://www.investigativeproject.org/1500/introspection-not-rationalization-needed-in-wake

A picture of Nidal Malik Hasan is emerging from the slaughter he carried out Thursday during a ceremony at a Fort Hood readiness center, leaving 13 people dead and another 30 wounded.

Born in Virginia, sent to medical school by the U.S. Army, the psychiatrist was chastised for proselytizing to his patients about Islam. Asked his nationality, he didn’t identify himself as an American but as a Palestinian. He appeared pleased by the shooting death of a Little Rock Army recruiter in June and reportedly was heard saying “maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Times Square.”

In the fateful moment before he opened fire on his unarmed victims, he shouted “Allahu Akhbar.”

With each new disclosure, some media outlets and organized Islamist groups increasingly are trying to deflect attention away from Hasan’s religious motivation. In a statement condemning the attack, the Muslim American Society’s Freedom Foundation referenced past shootings by soldiers on their bases and cited the suicide rate at Fort Hood.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a statement once the killer’s name was known condemning the attack and saying “No religious or political ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence.”

The condemnations are welcome and appropriate if not the only thing that could be done in response to the tragedy. As we have noted previously, such unequivocal statements are much harder to come by when arrests are made before the killings can be carried out or when the killers share the Islamists’ ideology.

Arab-American Anti Discrimination Committee President Mary Rose Oakar issued a statement calling the Hasan attack “absolutely deplorable.” But she also emphasized that the violence “has nothing to do with any religion, race, ethnicity, or national origin.”

Friday morning, CAIR national spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told radio interviewer John Hockenberry that Hasan’s motivation remains unknown:

“He could have just snapped from some kind of stress. The thing is when these things happen and the guy’s name is John Smith nobody says well what about his religious beliefs? But when it is a Muslim sounding name that automatically comes into it.”

Contrast that with blogger Shahed Amanullah’s willingness to address the matter with courage and honesty lacking among the American Muslim community’s self-anointed national spokesmen:

“Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, was reportedly troubled by his impending deployment to Iraq. Mental instability and depression has resulted in violence within the armed forces before. But unless Hasan left an explicit message to that effect, a religiously-inspired political act of violence is, much as we’d be unwilling to admit it, entirely plausible. With that in mind, Muslims will have to ask themselves some difficult questions as to why there are still those among us who continue to find justification for acts such as this in their faith.”

Hasan’s murderous rampage is just the latest in a string of attempts to murder American soldiers at home. It’s a point Daniel Pipes made in 2003 after Hasan Akbar, a sergeant in the 101st Airborne Division, rolled a grenade into a tent holding his fellow soldiers on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. Akbar was found legally sane, convicted and sentenced to death in 2005.

In June, Abdulhakim Muhammad killed an Army recruiter in Little Rock and wounded a second recruiter. He told investigators he would have killed more people if he had seen them.

Fortunately, other plots were broken up by law enforcement before anyone got hurt. But in those cases, the Islamist organizations have cast the FBI as engaging in a sinister effort to entrap people otherwise uninterested in violence or incapable of carrying it out.

Among the examples:

Fort Dix

On May 7, 2007, six individuals were arrested for plotting an attack on the Fort Dix military base in New Jersey. The goal of the attack, according to court documents, was to “kill as many soldiers as possible.” Following a jury trial, the plotters were found guilty on charges of conspiracy to harm U.S. military personnel on December 22, 2008. CAIR initially was supportive following the arrests saying, “we applaud the FBI for its efforts and repeat the American Muslim community’s condemnation and repudiation of all those who would plan or carry out acts of terror while falsely claiming their actions have religious justification.”

Later, CAIR also requested that media outlets and public officials refrain from linking this case to the faith of Islam. The council asked mosques and Islamic institutions in New Jersey and nationwide to report any incidents of anti-Muslim backlash.

Bronx Terror Plot

On May 20, 2009, James Cromitie and three others were arrested and indicted on charges arising from a plot to detonate explosives near a synagogue in the Bronx and to shoot down military planes at the New York Air National Guard Base at Stewart Airport in Newburgh, NY. Although they initially condemned the plotters and congratulated the FBI on its efforts, MPAC came to question the motives and methods of the FBI saying that “none of these cases that we’re talking about now involved in al Qaida cells. These were individuals who were either petty criminals or gullible people who were guilty of stupidity. They were not imminent threats to our country, as the FBI has stated.”

North Carolina Jihad

On July 27, 2009, Daniel Patrick Boyd and six others were indicted in North Carolina for planning to “advance violent Jihad including supporting and participating in terrorist activities abroad and committing acts of murder, kidnapping, or maiming persons abroad,” after three years of being under surveillance by the FBI. Among the allegations was that Boyd and his co-conspirators intended to attack the Quantico Marine base. Because a member of Boyd’s group cooperated with law enforcement, MPAC insinuated the FBI improperly investigated the case: “the arrests come at a time when questions have been raised about the use of FBI informants in mosques and tense relations between law enforcement and local communities.”

The same pattern has been applied in the past two weeks, since FBI agents shot and killed a Detroit imam who fired first. Luqman Abdullah had a long history of advocating an offensive jihad and using his mosque for training in martial arts and with weapons. Yet CAIR and other Islamist groups have argued his religious justifications should not be a part of the case and allege the FBI reacted with excessive force after Abdullah fired his weapon.

There’s obviously a lot more to Hasan’s attack still to be learned. He reportedly dreaded his pending deployment to Iraq and may have snapped. But to dismiss his statements about people “strap[ping] bombs on themselves” or that Muslims should rise up and fight the aggressors is irresponsible and counter productive.

This is no isolated incident and the sooner national groups face that fact, the sooner they might heed Amanullah’s challenge to engage in a genuine search for the causes and confront those who help foster such violent ideology.

h1

Book Exposes CAIR’s Exaggerations,

October 16, 2009


A new book claims to give readers an inside look at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), arguing everything from its claims of financial and political clout to its genuine agenda are rooted in deception.

Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America is based in large part on access to CAIR operations obtained by Chris Gaubatz, the son of co-author P. David Gaubatz. Using an alias, the younger Gaubatz spent six months as a CAIR intern in 2008.

Working under the name David Marshall, Chris Gaubatz worked closely with CAIR leadership including Executive Director Nihad Awad, Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, and Legislative Director Corey Saylor. Chris Gaubatz claims to have walked out with 12,000 pages of documents (most of which he had been instructed to shred) and 300 hours of clandestine video.

Among the findings from co-authors Gaubatz and Paul Sperry: that CAIR wildly exaggerates its membership numbers, that it is plagued by budget problems and dissension, and that it is financially dependent on a small network of wealthy Persian Gulf-based donors. In many cases, the book adds precision to general facts about CAIR that already are in the public domain.

For example, the Washington Times reported on CAIR’s dwindling membership rolls in 2007, only to have officials vehemently deny the story. According to Muslim Mafia, however, CAIR had just 5,133 members at that time, a far cry from its claim of 50,000 members and further still from its stated goal of 100,000 members set at a 2002 board meeting.

CAIR has sought to blame its membership and financial problems on the U.S. government’s decision to list it as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror-finance case. But its problems started well before the designation. Internal records from the 2002 meeting showed CAIR’s membership was just 9,211 nationwide – with 903 people in California, 1,219 in Virginia, 870 in Texas, 775 in Illinois and 768 in New York.

Those figures, the authors argue, challenge CAIR’s claim that it is a representative of the American Muslim community: “Using Pew Research’s survey estimate of 2.5 million American Muslims, CAIR’s current five thousand members represent just two-tenths of one percent of the U.S. Muslim population. Using CAIR’s inflated guesstimate of seven million American Muslims, CAIR represents an even smaller fraction of the Muslim community.”

Muslim Mafia claims that CAIR relies on two dozen wealthy supporters, many of them from Persian Gulf countries including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, for 60 percent of its $2.7 million annual operating budget, including one donor who contributes $600,000 a year.

The authors point to notes from a 2006 board meeting where Awad reported that the Washington public-relations firm Hill and Knowlton had put together a “business plan” to help CAIR raise money from other Gulf states. State Department records obtained by the Investigative Project on Terrorism show that that year, CAIR officials, with Hill and Knowlton in tow, sought huge donations from the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, IRS tax filings show CAIR’s income from membership dues has been plummeting. In 2006, CAIR operated at a loss of more than $160,000 – more than triple the $50,000 deficit the group sustained in 2005. In 2004, by contrast, CAIR had a surplus of more than $338,000.

“Membership dues measures [sic] the organization’s success and base of support,” CAIR notes in a section of its report to the IRS explaining why it collects dues. But its IRS filings show dues plummeting from more than $700,000 in 2000 to just over $40,000 in 2006.

The bottom line, the authors say, is that “CAIR is unsupported by the broader Muslim population, which finds it more a liability than an asset. And given the anemic size of its member database, CAIR cannot possibly deliver on its threats to bring the weight of the Muslim community to bear against national politicians, CEOs, or advertisers for media personalities it doesn’t like.”

But even though CAIR is a paper tiger when it comes to mobilizing Muslim voters, the organization has had numerous successes in other areas – particularly in undermining law-enforcement efforts to secure Muslim cooperation in terrorism investigations.

In January, the Investigative Project on Terrorism broke the news that the FBI had cut off access to CAIR after evidence in the HLF trial showed CAIR founders were part of a Hamas-support network in the U.S. In a subsequent letter, an FBI official said questions about CAIR’s relationship to Hamas led to the conclusion the agency could “not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner.”

Anecdotes in Muslim Mafia won’t help the organization return to the FBI’s good graces. It offers examples of CAIR’s efforts to impede federal investigations related to terrorism despite its claim to be a partner to law enforcement.

For example, Chapter Six details the way CAIR coached a mosque leader in Western Maryland not to cooperate with an FBI investigation of suspicious activity.

Likewise, a 2004 investigation was thwarted when the FBI raided the Institute for Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America in Merrifield, Va. on suspicions of terrorist activity. But when the agents from the Bureau’s Joint Terrorism Task Force arrived, the book claims, the building had been cleaned out because CAIR had warned institute officials of the raid.

Another chapter is devoted to the case of former Fairfax County,Va. Police Department Sergeant Mohammad Weiss Rasool, who pled guilty to illegally searching a federal database in order to tip off a terror suspect about an FBI investigation.

“He’s a habitual liar and a traitor,” a senior FCPD official said of Rasool. “He disgraced the uniform.” As CAIR’s representative on the police force, Rasool traveled into the District of Columbia to meet with CAIR Executive Director Awad. A CAIR visitor log published on p. 325 of the book, documents one of Rasool’s visits in 2005.

The log is among numerous examples of internal CAIR documents cited in the book. Among them is a 2007 letter thanking Awad and CAIR for “the additional contribution of $9,000 to be used for the legal expenses relative to Imam Jamil Al-Amin’s case.” [Emphasis added]

Al-Amin was convicted in 2002 of killing a Georgia police officer. CAIR and other Islamist groups have touted his case, but the book shows CAIR gave directly to his legal fund.

Other published documents indicate a dysfunctional working environment in CAIR’s Washington headquarters, including allegations Sunni Muslims are treated better than Shia. A September 2004 staff memo by senior official Khalid Iqbal expressed concern about “Lost productivity,” “Low employee moral [sic]”; and lack of advancement opportunities and high turnover, with more than 50 percent of CAIR National’s workforce leaving in the past year.

Pages 321-324 of the book feature a detailed letter by Tannaz Haddadi, an official in CAIR’s Washington office, alleging that she was demoted by Mr. Iqbal after he learned that she was a Shia. Haddadi details her efforts to get Awad to intervene without success.

Most of the attention Muslim Mafia has received thus far focuses on details of CAIR’s efforts to place interns in congressional offices, especially with members serving on committees covering Justice and Homeland Security. The authors publish a 2007 memo in which Saylor reports that he placed Samia Elshafie in a “Congressional Fellowship” in the office of Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX). The authors identify Elshafie as “the congresswoman’s office contact for human rights issues.”

On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, who wrote the book’s foreword, was joined by three fellow Republicans in asking the House Sergeant at Arms to investigate whether CAIR infiltrated congressional offices – specifically judiciary, homeland security and intelligence committees. Additionally, the lawmakers are asking the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the legality of CAIR’s tax-exempt status.

CAIR still has its protectors in Congress, though, who stand by the organization despite repeated and harmful documented disclosures. U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-CA, has issued a statement denouncing Myrick and her colleagues for seeking an investigation of CAIR’s efforts to infiltrate Congress based on allegations contained in the book.

So far, CAIR has not challenged the veracity of the claims in Muslim Mafia. Instead, it has focused on the authors’ political backgrounds and minimized the findings. “All they can come up with is that we are political active?” Hooper asked in a Politico story. “The terror threat is that Muslims are politically active?”

That seems a deliberate attempt to misstate the issue, which is not whether Muslims should be employed on Capitol Hill or anywhere else. It is whether CAIR is an honest and reliable broker for American Muslims. The record, already long and detailed before Muslim Mafia‘s publication, shows CAIR habitually engages in deception about its activities. The book reinforces that conclusion with internal examples.

h1

IMPORTANT: CAIR PROBED

October 15, 2009

House anti-terror caucus wants CAIR probed

Islamic group’s infiltration of Capitol Hill ‘unnerving, to say the least’

h1

CAIR spent $160,000 to silence Savage

October 15, 2009

CAIR spent $160,000 to silence Savage
New book reveals memos behind campaign to run radio star off the air


Posted: October 14, 2009
9:00 am Eastern

By Art Moore


WorldNetDaily


Michael Savage (San Francisco Chronicle)

An explosive new book based on a daring six-month undercover operation exposing the subversive agenda of the Council on American-Islamic Relations reveals the Muslim group spent $160,000 in an unsuccessful effort to run top-rated nationally syndicated radio host Michael Savage off the air.

Internal CAIR documents uncovered in “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America” show that despite its high cost and the continued success of Savage’s show, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad believed the campaign was “worth every penny,” because, he says, the radio star lost at least $1 million in advertising.

Authors P. David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry recount how CAIR ran out of money before it could crack Savage’s most loyal sponsors.

As WND reported, Savage sued CAIR in December 2007, two months after the Muslim lobby group began urging “people of all faiths” to contact Savage’s advertisers to protest “anti-Muslim bigotry” on the air. CAIR cited Savage calling the Quran “a throwback document” and “a book of hate” and demanding CAIR be thrown out of the country for promulgating it.

Get “Muslim Mafia,” autographed, from WND’s Superstore

Savage’s copyright infringement and RICO lawsuit alleged CAIR illegally published singled-out quotes and audio excerpts from the show regarding Islam, misappropriated his words and used the clips for its own fundraising purposes, damaging the value of his copyrighted material. Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case, determining CAIR had a legal right to use excerpts of a public broadcast for purposes of comment and criticism. But Illston ruled in Savage’s favor when CAIR attempted to extract attorneys fees. Savage declared Illston’s November 2008 decision a “huge victory for me, personally, but also for the rest of America who is afraid of this lawsuit-happy group of intimidators.”

(Story continues below)

In their new book, Gaubatz, a counter-terrorism investigator and former federal agent with vast experience in the Middle East, and Sperry, a veteran reporter on the war on terror and author of “Infiltration,” document CAIR’s role as a U.S. front for the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan to transform America into an Islamic nation under the authority of the Quran.

In a chapter titled “Blackmailing Corporate America,” the authors show how CAIR tries to intimidate major corporations and media figures, such as Savage.

An internal memo – one of thousands of pages extracted by Gaubatz’s son Chris, who posed as a Muslim convert and became a CAIR intern for six months – showed CAIR considered broadening its campaign against Savage.

The effort against the talk-radio star included formation of a nonprofit called Hate Hurts America, which published on its website lists of advertisers along with contact information.

A CAIR staffer wrote in an internal memo that the “idea behind Hate Hurts America is great and has the potential to go far. However, I feel that if you want to continue with HHA and not lose momentum, the campaign needs to expand beyond Michael Savage to other bigoted talk show hosts.”

The report noted that it’s much easier to get the attention of large corporations rather than small firms or franchises, because large corporations like AT&T have a reputation at stake and “don’t want to be associated with anything that might seem controversial.”

The CAIR memo said, however, companies that are endorsed or directly promoted by Savage on the air, such as Life Lock or Swiss America, are “an absolute no” for targeting.

“They are loyal to Savage and there is a chance they might sue,” the memo said.

False figure

As WND reported, the British government apparently seized on campaigns against Savage by CAIR and others when it used his name to provide “balance” to a “least wanted list” dominated by Muslim extremists. Savage’s ban from entry to the U.K. prompted an invitation from the Cambridge Union to debate political correctness via a video link, but the society canceled his appearance, scheduled for tomorrow, citing “legal issues” among other problems.

The chapter in “Muslim Mafia” covering Savage’s ordeal with CAIR also shows how the Islamic group has tried to intimidate Hollywood and companies such as Nike, Bank of America and US Airways by citing a false figure of 7 million American Muslims who are ready and willing to boycott their services.

Despite widespread use of the figure in media, propagated by CAIR and others, the Pew Research Center recently estimated the American-Muslim population to be only about 2.35 million.

The book also reveals CAIR recently has teamed up with the American Civil Liberties Union to consolidate resources on Muslim cases.

“Muslim Mafia” includes new revelations about CAIR’s role in the “flying imams” case in 2006, in which six Muslim leaders were removed from an airline flight in Minneapolis after passengers and crew members reported what they believed to be suspicious behavior.

The book already has moved lawmakers on Capitol Hill to action.

U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., co-founder of the Congressional Anti-Terror Caucus, and other members of Congress – including Reps. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., and Paul Broun, R-Ga. – plan to hold a press conference today in Washington calling for an investigation and an end to political lobbying by front groups such as CAIR.

“Now we have proof – from the secret documents that this investigative team has uncovered, coupled with the ones recently declassified by the FBI – that [radical Islamists] agents living among us have a plan in place, and they are successfully carrying out that subversive plan,” Myrick said.

Note: If you’re a member of the media and would like to interview Dave Gaubatz or Paul Sperry, e-mail Anita Jenkins or telephone her at (703) 398-1137.

h1

Jasser Challenges Congressman on Reform’s Value

October 5, 2009

Jasser Challenges Congressman on Reform’s Value

IPT News
October 2, 2009

http://www.investigativeproject.org/1448/jasser-challenges-congressman-on-reforms-value

Multimedia for this item

Video Recording

At a Capitol Hill forum Thursday afternoon, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) demonstrated how Islamists use slander and distortion in an effort to silence Muslim reformers. Ellison delivered a tirade in which he falsely accused Dr. Zuhdi Jasser – one of the United States’ most prominent Muslim reformers – of encouraging anti-Muslim bigotry and attempting to censor Islamists.

Jasser, a Phoenix, AZ doctor who heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, came to Washington to brief members of Congress and their staffs about the dangers posed by “political Islam” as practiced by groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). He also invited Ellison to discuss the issue of Islamism after Ellison spoke at two recent CAIR fundraisers in Arizona and California. U.S. Rep. Trent Franks and other members of the Arizona congressional delegation wrote to Ellison urging him not to go to the CAIR function. The letter cited damning evidence linking CAIR’s founders to a Hamas-support network and the FBI’s decision to cut off communication with CAIR.

Franks then hosted the talk with Jasser and Ellison. In it, Jasser emphasized that Islamist terror cannot be defeated without addressing political Islam: “We’ve avoided talking about the fact that there is … a radical ideology behind a faith that I love” which “has been hijacked, exploited, used as a platform for radicalism.”

Criticizing policymakers in the White House and elsewhere who claim that “our enemy is simply Al Qaeda,” Jasser noted the falsity of that argument. A series of recent arrests and convictions of in terror-related cases in Colorado, North Carolina, New Jersey and elsewhere demonstrate that precisely the opposite is true.

“None of these individuals are related to Al Qaeda. The only unifying principle that we see them related to is violent jihadism or the concept of holy war that they pick up through the Internet, through communications in what has been demed the cyber-jihad,” he noted.

Islamist groups such as CAIR have repeatedly sought to obfuscate this by discrediting reports noting the connection between radical Salafism and support for jihad, Jasser said. The jihadists will not be defeated until Muslims “start to recognize” that they are on a “slippery slope” toward radicalism.

“The Islam my family taught me is one that that doesn’t say that ours is supreme to any other faith, that feels we are equal before God,” he said. “We separate mosque and state and do not feel that we have to impose unification as an ummah.”

But all too often, government policies appear to send a very different message — that organizations like CAIR speak for all American Muslims. And until Islam is brought through “an enlightenment, a reformation process just like Christianity separated the Church of England in Europe, we are not going to solve the problem of terrorism,” Jasser said. “The FBI and Homeland Security are going to continue chasing their tails for years so long as we do not separate mosque and state.”

“I think if Muslims want credibility and we want to be respected equally, we need to stand for reform within our faith of laws that are still in the 15th and 16th century,” Jasser said. “I think Muslims need to also stop collectivizing our community as one unit.”

Responding to Jasser’s call for reform, Ellison launched into a tirade. “I think you give people license for bigotry,” Ellison told Jasser. “I think people who want to engage in nothing less than Muslim-hating really love you a lot because you give them freedom to do that. You say, ‘yeah, go get after them.’ ”

Ellison all but called Jasser an Islamic “Uncle Tom.” Blacks, he said, are “familiar with people who would seek to ingratiate themselves with powerful people in the white community and would there turn them on the rest of us and give license to attack us all. Arguing ‘African-Americans are criminally inclined, they’re all in gangs, they’re all on welfare.’ Black people who say stuff like this. But what they’re really trying to do is win themselves individual benefit at the expense of everyone else.”

“I don’t know you well enough to know that’s what you’re doing,” Ellison told Jasser. “But I must admit that when I heard you speaking, that’s what I thought of.”

Muslims must “stand against” extremist members of their faith, Ellison said. But he seemed more threatened by Jasser. “Now is somebody going to snatch my 13-year-old daughter’s hijab off, call her a horrible name, spit on her because of something that you said, Dr. Jasser, I worry about that,” he added.

Pointing to the examples of Jewish terrorists like Baruch Goldstein, who massacred Palestinians in Hebron in 1994 and to Hindus who kill Muslims, Ellison claimed that Islam was no different from any other religion. He falsely accused Jasser of seeking to “suppress the way people believe in a country dedicated to the idea of freedom of expression.”

In response, Jasser said that Ellison is in denial about the level of violence being committed in the name of Islam. Muslims, he added should not be comparing an endemic problem in their community to “once in a decade” attacks committed by terrorists of other faiths.

Ellison had to leave for a vote on the House floor and wasn’t there to hear Jasser label the Congressman’s remarks as an “apologetic.”

“I’m tired of apologists speaking on behalf of our community,” Jasser said, adding that Ellison should travel to Egypt or Saudi Arabia to see for himself the mistreatment of women living under sharia. He called on Muslims to oppose persons like Muslim Brotherhood-linked cleric Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi who says it is permissible to kill apostates and Jamal Badawi of the Islamic Society of North America who says apostates should be “punished.”

Jasser also criticized the Assembly of Muslim Jurists for posting on its website a paper by a student (since taken down) that Muslims should not recite the Pledge of Allegiance because it is only permissible to pledge allegiance to a caliph or God.

As repugnant as such Islamist speech is, Jasser said, the worst thing the government can do is to try to censor it. He attributed Europe’s more serious problems with hate crimes to the fact that most European nations have laws criminalizing such speech.

“The antidote for the speech you don’t like is not squashing the speech. It’s introducing your own perspective and letting the American people sort it out in the marketplace of ideas,” Jasser said. In the end, “religious freedom is intimately tied with freedom of speech. That’s why you have to separate mosque and state.”

Highlights of Jasser and Ellison’s remarks appear at the top of this story.

Related Topics: Outreach

h1

Picturing The Enemy

August 25, 2009

Picturing The Enemy

Investors Business Daily 22 Aug. 09

Security: The ACLU sneakily photographing CIA officers near their homes, then showing the shots to the imprisoned planners of the 9/11 attacks. A fruitcake fantasy? The government is looking into exactly this.

When the Washington Post three and a half years ago uncovered the CIA’s “black prisons” program, in which enhanced interrogation was used against terrorist detainees to foil future atrocities, we forcefully argued that such secret wartime operations ought never be outed.

The Post may have won a Pulitzer for its revelation, but we feel more strongly than ever today. And a new story in that same newspaper gives new facts about the harm it did, and continues to do.

A Justice Department investigation is now apparently investigating whether photos of covert CIA officials surreptitiously taken by the American Civil Liberties Union’s “John Adams Project” were unlawfully shown to terrorist detainees charged with organizing the attacks of 9/11.

It’s all supposedly part of military lawyers’ aggressive defense of their terrorist defendants, on whom enhanced interrogation may have been used. But the Justice probe seems to have given quite a scare to ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero. Refusing to comment on the specifics of his organization’s photo activities on behalf of “our clients,” Romero complained that the government was not investigating “the CIA officials who undertook the torture.”

Has there ever been a more outrageous trading of places? Those behind the attacks that murdered thousands are now the victims? And the courageous U.S. government officials who grilled them for the purpose of preventing further terrorist attacks are now the villains?

Instead of receiving the protection they deserve, they and their family members have apparently been spied on by the ACLU and have had their likenesses displayed to al-Qaida members!

What if these detainees get released — which the ACLU obviously wouldn’t mind seeing happen? Will descriptions of those CIA officers be relayed up the al-Qaida food chain? Will there be “future ops” files on these interrogators and their families somewhere in the mountainous caves of Afghanistan and Pakistan?

The Post story notes that leftist groups here and abroad, European investigators and others “have compiled lists of people thought to have been involved in the CIA’s program, including CIA station chiefs, agency interrogators and medical personnel who accompanied detainees on planes as they were moved from one secret location to another.”

It says that “working from these lists, some of which include up to 45 names, researchers photographed agency workers and obtained other photos from public records.” The ACLU’s Romero shrugs his shoulders and calls all that “normal” lawyerly research.

It may be normal for a group that throughout its history has provided aid and comfort to America’s adversaries, but compiling a long enemies list and attaching pictures to go with the names should be the least-normal thing imaginable in a free society.

To al-Qaida, such a list of names-paired-with-faces might as well be Stalin’s list of those targeted for Communist Party purges in the ’30s, ’40s and ’50s — in other words, a collective death warrant.

This shows just how foolish it is to treat the POWs of the global war on terror as if they were American citizens protected by our laws and Constitution. Morale is already poor within the agency because the heroes within their ranks have been depicted as little better than the Marquis de Sade.

Who in the CIA will be willing to stick their necks out in the future, with prosecutions hanging over their heads, the blowing of their covers by the ACLU, and the physical endangerment of themselves and their families as their thanks? On top of it all, who really believes the Obama Justice Department will at the end of the day do anything to punish those guilty of aiding the enemy?

It’s a smutty business from top to bottom, but the most despicable of this sorry cast of characters have to be those who physically snapped the shots. How depraved must you be to violate and endanger the families of those who saved so many American lives?

h1

JUST A REMINDER: CAIR Michigan Director Indicted

June 15, 2009

Former CAIR Michigan Director Indicted for Spying for Saddam

(photo: Craig Porter, Detroit Free Press)

It’s Wednesday, and you know what that means, kids! Yet another CAIR official indicted!

The latest CAIR con is none other than former CAIR-Michigan director Muthanna al-Hanooti, who has been indicted for spying for Saddam Hussein and lying to the FBI (courtesy IPT). Hanooti is accused of working for Iraqi intelligence and coordinating trips to Iraq for congressional delegations while serving as CAIR director.

UPDATE: Read the NEFA Foundation’s Spot Analysis, “Muthanna Al-Hanooti and Life for Relief and Development

Heres the report by Niraj Warikoo of the Detroit Free Press:

An Iraqi-American from Michigan who worked for a Southfield charity has been accused of working as a spy for the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein, according to a federal indictment unsealed today in U.S. District Court in Detroit.

Muthanna Al-Hanooti was charged with several counts, including conspiracy to work on behalf of a foreign government and making false statements to the FBI. Al-Hanooti used to work for Life for Relief and Development, a Muslim charity based in Southfield that works in Iraq and other countries. That charity was raided by federal agents in Sept. 2006.

According to the indictment, Al-Hanooti would travel to Iraq and meet with conspirators of the Iraqi Intelligence Service. The indictment says that Al-Hanooti was rewarded with 2 million barrels of oil for his work.

The indictment also alleges that Iraqi intelligence officials used an intermediary in Michigan to help fund a trip to Iraq taken by U.S. members of Congress in 2002.

Al-Hanooti was active in other local groups. He was former head of the Michigan branch of the Council on American Islamic Relations and the president of Focus on American and Arab Interests and Relations.

CAIR: Hate and Terror would like to officially welcome Mr. Al-Hanooti to the long line of convicted and indicted CAIR officials who have betrayed their country and pledged themselves to Islamofascist thugs.

More on Al-Hanootis indictment and his past position with CAIR from the Investigative Project.

Exit question: How many more CAIR officials must be indicted for working for terrorist states and aiding terrorist organizations before the establishment media finally turn on their Islamist allies?

h1

South Florida Jewish Journal

May 20, 2009

Re: “Not Wild About Wilders” by Shani McManus – Staff Writer for – Palm Beach South Jewish Journal

I was at the Palm Beach Synagogue.  I heard Member of Parliament, the Netherlands, Geert Wilders’ speech.

I attended all of these “Free Speech Summit” venues that Jewish Journal identified (and several others that were not identified) – There was no “hate speech”.

When I see the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in bed together,  I’m ashamed – but not shocked.  The ADL gets it wrong way too many times.  The ADL can’t differentiate their friends from their enemies.

For Andrew Rosenkranz, ADL Florida regional director, to call Wilders’ words “hate speech” just shows everyone that Rosenkranz wasn’t listening very carefully.  And to find ADL and CAIR together in this instance makes me sick.

Carol Flatto, chairperson of the South Florida Chapter for Americans for a Safe Israel – also attended.  She got it right.  ADL got it backwards.  “The ADL should honor (Geert Wilders) instead of dishonoring itself….by defaming Wilders”.

Your readers should watch the 17 minute film “Fitna” – to learn where the hate speech comes from.

Sincerely,

Donald E. Van Curler

JewishJournal

Story text:

Not wild about Wilders

The old maxim, “politics makes strange bedfellows,” definitely came to mind this past week when two, philosophically divergent civil rights organizations joined forces in condemning a controversial, pro-Israel and anti-terrorist speaker who visited South Florida.

While not exactly in the same bed …, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which calls itself “the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism,” and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a controversial Muslim civil liberties and advocacy group, certainly seemed to be on the same page in blasting Dutch politician and filmmaker Geert Wilders for his outspoken views on Islamic extremism.

The brouhaha came on the heels of Wilders’ April 26 speech at Palm Beach Synagogue, one of three venues in Palm Beach County that hosted Wilders, and where he received a standing ovation.

“Islam is not a religion. Islam is a totalitarian political ideologue,” Wilders told the packed synagogue.

“Islam[s] heart lies at the Quran, and the Quran is a book that calls for hatred, that calls for violence, for murder, for terrorism, for war and submission,” he noted. “We should also stop pretending that Islam is a religion.”

The Dutch parliamentarian and leader of the Party for Freedom also called for stopping immigration from Muslim countries and urged “voluntary repatriation” to those countries. Wilders’ 2008 film “Fitna” (Arabic for “test of faith”), about Islam in the Netherlands, has received international attention, along with a number of death threats for the filmmaker. Unperturbed, Wilders is planning a sequel. And due to his outspoken views on Islam, he was recently banned from entering the United Kingdom, prompting him to embark on a speaking tour of the United States.

Prior to his Palm Beach Synagogue appearance, Wilders gave a similar address at a “Free Speech Summit” in Delray Beach, attended by Florida Sate Rep. Adam Hasner, R – Delray Beach, who was strongly criticized by CAIR for hosting Wilders. CAIR also called for Hasner to step down as majority leader of the Florida House.

“It is unconscionable that a top leader of an American state legislature would host a gathering at which the faith of millions of Americans is denigrated and their rights denied,” CAIR national communications director Ibrahim Hooper said in a statement. “Republican Party leaders in Florida and nationwide must demand that [Rep.] Hasner step down from his leadership post because of his support for Geert Wilders’ Nazi-like message.”

Following Wilders’ speech and a screening of his film at the synagogue, CAIR issued another statement calling on members of the Jewish community to “condemn the anti-Islam hate of a speaker who was recently given a standing ovation at a Florida synagogue.”

The ADL quickly responded by issuing its own statement blasting Wilders remarks.

“The ADL strongly condemns Geert Wilders’ message of hate against Islam as inflammatory, divisive and antithetical to American democratic ideals,” Andrew Rosenkranz, ADL Florida regional director said. “This rhetoric is dangerous and incendiary, and wrongly focuses on Islam as a religion, as opposed to the very real threat of extremist, radical Islamists.”

Next, CAIR issued yet another statement commending the ADL for its statement condemning Wilders.

“We commend the ADL for its repudiation of Geert Wilders’ Islamophobic views and ask all those who promoted his message of hate to recognize the negative impact such intolerance has on our society,” Hooper said.

The statements of both organizations did not sit well with Carol Flatto, chairman of the South Florida Chapter for Americans for a Safe Israel, who attended one of Wilders’ venues. But Flatto aimed her strongest criticism at the ADL.

“Geert Wilders has put his life on the line to expose Islam’s existential threat to Israel and America,” she said. “When speaking of his frequent and extended visits to Israel, Wilders proclaims, ‘I love it. I do love Israel.’

“The ADL should honor him instead of dishonoring itself and its once noble history by defaming Wilders.”

h1

Steven Emerson and the Grand Deception

March 13, 2009

Reader comments on this item

STEVE EMERSON IS TODAY’S PAUL REVERE

Submitted by WILL GRIFFITH, Mar 9, 2009 21:37

Having heard Mr. Emerson on a variety of occasions, I know his humility would dismiss what I am about to say. As a father, husband and American concerned with the future of our country, Steve Emerson has become the Paul Revere of our era.

The ‘kinder-gentler’ approach in the media with regard to Islamic fundamentalist extremism, and the passive, complacent mood of many Americans who have simply forgotten, or have chosen to forget, the threats against our nation, Mr. Emerson remains alert, vigilant and summons us through his passion for the national security of our country, our families and our communities.

Every era has its visionaries, and Mr. Emerson saw the threats against our country long before September 11th, 2001.

I am grateful to Mr. Emerson for his work, his steadfast commitment to the truth and for the work he will continue to do.

May God bless his efforts.

Will Griffith, Chairman
The Griffith Corporation
http://www.griffithcorp.com

h1

Ahmed Bedier – CAIR

March 10, 2009

Questions for Florida Lawmakers to Ask Ex-CAIR Leader

IPT News
March 6, 2009
http://www.investigativeproject.org/1006/questions-for-florida-lawmakers-to-ask-ex-cair

Busloads of new civic activists are due to hit the Florida Capitol in Tallahassee this Tuesday, ostensibly to engage in the state political process for the first time. But some lawmakers are suspicious because of the man leading the effort.

Ahmed Bedier used to run the Tampa chapter for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), where he was among its most visible spokesmen. That all ended mysteriously last spring, with CAIR saying it wanted to “go into a new direction” – indicating Bedier had been fired – and with Bedier saying he chose to leave to launch “a new peace-making initiative.”

One of them must be wrong. Regardless, Bedier did launch a new venture, called United Voices for America. Its call to increase “the participation of ethnic and religious minorities in the political process” is laudable. But at least one lawmaker, State Rep. Adam Hasner (R-Delray Beach) reportedly alerted a group of Jewish lobbyists seeking “an information campaign in opposition.”

In correspondence with a Miami Herald reporter, Hasner cited CAIR’s ties to Hamas as part of his concern. Bedier dismissed that as “ridiculous” and “nonsense,” unrelated to his effort.

Questions about CAIR’s Hamas connections, and Bedier’s knowledge of them, are far from nonsense. CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas-support case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF). Evidence in the case showed CAIR’s founders were part of a U.S.-based effort to support Hamas and that CAIR’s foundation was an outgrowth of that effort.

The evidence was so compelling, the FBI decided to cut off outreach meetings with CAIR last summer.

Bedier maintains a relationship with CAIR even if he doesn’t work directly for them. Since leaving his job last April, he has traveled the country to host CAIR-sponsored screenings of the documentary “USA v. Al-Arian,” which is sympathetic to the former University of South Florida professor who served in the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s leadership. In November, Bedier served as master of ceremonies at the CAIR national banquet outside Washington.

So questions about his knowledge of CAIR’s agenda, and where he departs from it, are legitimate. Has he ever read the transcripts from the Philadelphia meeting? What does he think of the fact that two of his former bosses participated in the meeting, in which they plotted ways to derail U.S.-led peace efforts between Israelis and Palestinians and in which they openly discussed deceiving the American people about it?

What does he think of CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad’s enthusiastic affirmation for the statement that “War is deception?”

“Politics is a completion of war,” Ahmad said.

Has he seen Ahmad’s and CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad’s names on this telephone list of the Palestine Committee? (see #s 25 and 32 on page 4. Omar Yehya is a pseudonym for Omar Ahmad).

A July 30, 1994 agenda for the Palestine Committee, seized by federal agents and introduced at trial, showed that “suggestions to develop the work” of HLF, CAIR and other organizations was on the agenda.

Under the heading “The need for trained resources in the media and political fields,” the agenda said: “No doubt America is the ideal location to train the necessary resources to support the Movement worldwide.”

If he did review the material, what does he think of it? How does he reconcile CAIR’s adamant denials that it has ever served in support of Hamas?

When it comes to defending accused terrorists and equivocating when challenged to condemn specific terrorist groups, Bedier is perfectly in sync with CAIR national leaders.

A more detailed report is here. Though he recently acknowledged Hamas is a terrorist organization, he minimizes Hamas’ deliberate storage of weapons and firing of missiles from civilian areas but places Israel among “Irresponsible rogue states, terror states like Israel.”

Like CAIR national leaders, Bedier often casts Muslim Americans who are accused of wrongdoing as victims of a bigoted government. As he told the Associated Press in 2004:

“From our position, prominent Muslim individuals are being targeted selectively by the government. The allegations are overstated and Muslims are facing a double standard.”

Asked for CAIR’s position on the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a designated terrorist group, during a 2004 news conference, Bedier replied, “We have not published one.” On a Tampa television program the following year, Bedier was asked whether support for the PIJ was immoral:

“To a certain degree,” he said. “Now, before 1995 there was nothing immoral about it.” Bedier later claimed he meant there was nothing illegal about it, but the question was about the morality of a terrorist group that has killed dozens of innocent civilians, including at least two American citizens.

The PIJ questions were prompted by Bedier’s unwavering support for Al-Arian, who was charged with providing material support to the terrorist group. Al-Arian later pled guilty to conspiring to provide goods and services to the PIJ, acknowledging that he knew it used violence to meet its objectives.

Likewise, Bedier staunchly defended two USF students arrested during a traffic stop in South Carolina in August 2007. Police found ingredients to make a pipe bomb in the trunk of their car, and a laptop computer they carried contained a number of jihadi videos.

Bedier portrayed the students as victims of unwarranted police attention, minimizing the explosives as “fireworks” and calling them “naïve kids.”

“No acts of terrorism are alleged; that is not even an issue,” he said after the arrests.

In fact, Ahmed Mohamed pled guilty last June to one count of providing material support to terrorists. A 12-minute video he produced was on the seized laptop. On it, Mohamed detonated a remote control bomb and explained how the device allows someone to “preserve his life” rather than carrying out a suicide bombing.

Rather than expressing betrayal, Bedier minimized the plea, writing on his web blog, that “Mohamed chose to cut a plea to one count of material support, which carries of a maximum of 15 years in prison, rather than risk spending the REMAINDER OF HIS LIFE behind bars if convicted.”

Bedier insists his upcoming Tallahassee trip has nothing to do with such issues. Instead, he said his group will focus on education, healthcare and the economy. It is unclear how many people Bedier intends to bring. The United Voices website advertised “Comfort charter buses are scheduled to depart Tampa, Orlando and Ft. Lauderdale.”

The program includes a breakfast atop the state Capitol building, a midday panel discussion and workshop, and a concluding rally outside.

In a letter requesting meetings with lawmakers, Bedier said the goal is “to introduce minorities to civic engagement and encourage their involvement in the political process. We believe this is a great opportunity for you to communicate directly with minority constituents you may not be able to reach via traditional channels.”

That’s all a lovely sentiment. And if the program brings more people into the process, that’s a good thing. However, Bedier’s involvement, given his history of defense of terrorist supporters, can only serve to taint that effort, not advance it.

Ahmed Bedier

http://www.investigativeproject.org/profile/175

Ahmed Bedier is the founder and past executive director of the Tampa chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Bedier left the position in May of 2008 after five years of service to CAIR.[1] He now serves as the president of the Tampa/Hillsborough County Human Rights Council[2] and has created an organization called United Voices for America.[3] According to the organization’s website, United Voices “is a non-profit non-partisan civic engagement organization dedicated to increasing the participation of ethnic and religious minorities in the political process.”[4]

However, a look at Bedier’s past statements shows his sympathies with designated terrorist organizations, including the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and Hamas, and with accused terrorist supporters – even after they admit their crimes. In addition, he equates acts of terrorism and has offered false information.

Moral Equivalence on Terrorism

Speaking about the 2005 film “Munich,” which depicts Israel’s attempt to hunt down and kill the terrorists who slaughtered Israeli Olympic athletes in 1972, Bedier said:

The only difference between what these so-called Mossad-sponsored assassins and other terrorists – they both use the similar means. They make bombs and they blow up people and they kill innocent civilians in the meantime. Violence begets violence. The policy has not worked and I’m glad that people like Steven Spielberg have produced a movie to raise questions about these certain policies of killing individuals. Especially without due process, without providing the evidence.”[5]

Blaming Israel for the Gaza War While Ignoring Hamas Rocket Fire

Bedier co-hosts a talk show on Tampa community radio station WMNF. During the January 23, 2009 broadcast of “True Talk,” Bedier called Israeli bombings in the Gaza Strip “terrorism.”[6]

Additionally, he and co-host Samar Jarrah say the war on terrorism should attempt to halt the Israeli bombings of Gaza. First, a clip of President Obama’s inaugural address is played in which Obama said:

“And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us and we will defeat you.” [Emphasis added]

Coming out of the clip, Bedier asked, “Does that include terror in Gaza?” Jarrah responded, “Not the terrorists in Gaza.” Bedier then asked a very similar question to emphasize his point, “Or the terrorism that happened in Gaza.” Jarrah responded, “of course not.”[7]

Earlier that month, during a debate on WMNF radio, Bedier argued that any effort to target Hamas would endanger civilians:[8]

“And every time they say Hamas is using this as a base, Hamas is using that as a base. Well Gaza’s very crowded. No matter where you’re gonna go you’re gonna find some Hamas people there. But that does not justify the killing and targeting of any innocent civilians.”[9]

That misrepresents the reality in Gaza, where Hamas deliberately stores its explosives in mosques and in residential areas and otherwise uses human shields.[10]

During the January 16th 2009 broadcast of “True Talk” Bedier argued that Hamas is powerless to stop rocket fire from the Gaza strip into Israel, while condemning resulting fire from Israel into Gaza. When a caller asked why Hamas or the Palestinians in charge did not stop people who shot rockets and comments that the Palestinian Authority is not trying to prevent the terrorists from lobbing rockets into Israel, Bedier said:

“So wait, wait, let me get this argument right. So Israel with its mighty army, the strongest army and military, with its biggest weapons in the whole region cannot stop the rockets, but you expect defenseless, helpless poverty stricken Palestinians to go and stop the rockets. Are you making any sense? Are you making sense?”[11]

Refusal to Condemn the Palestinian Islamic Jihad

At a May 27, 2004 CAIR-Tampa press conference concerning University of South Florida professor Sami Al-Arian, who was facing charges of aiding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Bedier was asked:

“Do you agree with the government designation of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad as a terrorist organization?”

He responded:

“We are not here to discuss the Palestinian Islamic Jihad or any other terrorist organization or any other group. We are here strictly to discuss the confinement conditions of this individual who is not in Palestine or in Israel. He is right here in Florida.”

Bedier was also asked whether CAIR had a position on the PIJ, a designated terrorist organization responsible for scores of deaths, including several Americans. “We have not published one,” he said.[12]

On December 8, 2005, Bedier appeared on a local Tampa show, “Your Turn with Kathy Fountain,” on WTVT to discuss the verdict in the federal prosecution of Al-Arian. The host asked him, “If he was associating with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, doesn’t that seem immoral, in your opinion?”

Bedier replied: “To a certain degree. Now, before 1995 there was nothing immoral about it.”[13]

On Hizbollah

Again on WTVT in Tampa, Bedier minimized that Hizbollah’s kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, citing, in his opinion, Israel’s lack of respect for Lebanon:

“I think there’s a – what did Hizbollah do in this latest incident. They captured two soldiers. Since when does Israel recognize the boundaries and borders of other sovereign states? They cross it all the time.”[14]

He also stated that Israel behaved like a terror state, and he did not condemn Lebanon or Hizbollah’s actions:

Irresponsible rogue states, terror states like Israel, that’s how they behave. And that’s unacceptable for Israel to do that.”[15]

On Hamas

During the WMNF debate, Bedier blamed the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict squarely on Israel:

Israel has a history of habitually choosing violence over dialogue. Why? Because they’re the stronger party. Israel is the mightiest army in the region and the 4th strongest army in the world. Who are they picking on? The defenseless, helpless, Palestinian people in the Gaza strip, how ridiculous is that? They always choose violence because they are the stronger party, thinking that through their strength, through their might, through their weapons, they’re gonna get their way.”

Hamas, he said, had moderated:

“Hamas which had been historically staying away from politics, and using violence and other means, decided for the first time in 13 years, after the Oslo agreements to join the political process. So here they are, they’re moderating themselves they’re finally thinking let’s give this politics a try. And they come out the winners.”[16]

Hamas has not moderated in its charter, which still contains rabid anti-Semitism in calling for Israel’s destruction and rejecting any negotiated peace.[17] Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza in 2005.[18] The new Hamas “moderation” resulted in thousands of indiscriminate rocket launches at Israeli cities.[19]

On the assassination of Hamas co-founder and spiritual leader Ahmed Yassin

CAIR issued a press release titled “CAIR Condemns Israeli Assassination of Religious Leader.” CAIR-Florida reprinted this press release on its website listing Bedier as the contact.[20]

The release stated:

“We condemn this violation of international law as an act of state terrorism by Ariel Sharon’s out-of-control government. Israel’s extra-judicial killing of an Islamic religious leader can only serve to perpetuate the cycle of violence throughout the region. The international community must now take concrete steps to help protect the Palestinian people against such wanton Israeli violence.”[21]

Defending Terror Supporters

On Sami Al-Arian

Al-Arian was indicted for conspiracy to provide material support to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). Prosecutors alleged Al-Arian, then a University of South Florida professor, was on the PIJ governing board and played a critical role in keeping the organization from disintegrating in 1994.[22] Following the arrest, Bedier told the Christian Science Monitor that the case merely was “an effective tool to silence anti-Israeli views in the country.” [23]

In December 2005, Al-Arian was acquitted on eight counts against him, while jurors deadlocked on nine other charges, including the material support count.[24] In April 2006, Al-Arian pled guilty to conspiring to provide goods and services to the Jihad.[25]

As part of the plea agreement, Al-Arian admitted that he “performed services for the PIJ in 1995 and thereafter” and that he was “aware that the PIJ achieved its objectives by, among other means, acts of violence.”[26]

After the plea deal was announced, but before details were released, Bedier mischaracterized the plea agreement. Contradicting the assertion of Al-Arian’s attorney that Al-Arian had in fact pled guilty to terrorism-related charges, in an interview with the Tampa Tribune:

Al-Arian “stayed true to his convictions – he stayed true he wasn’t going to plead to those issues…There is no conspiracy to support terrorism.”[27]

On Ahmed Mohamed, who later pled guilty to providing material support for terrorists

When University of South Florida students Ahmed Mohamed and Youssef Megahed were stopped by police in South Carolina in August of 2007, police found in their possession materials to make a pipe bomb. They also noticed Megahed hastily close a laptop that had been open on his lap.[28] Bedier, CAIR-Tampa’s spokesman at the time, defended the two students excusing them as nothing more than “naive kids.” Bedier added that he believed the materials were only leftover fireworks that Megahed had kept in his trunk since July and emphasized that he thought “if they didn’t do anything wrong they need to be released.”[29]

“Most people will tell you if these were some good old boys from South Carolina traveling through the highway of that county and getting pulled over and having some fireworks, I doubt that it would make news around the world,” Bedier said.[30]

No acts of terrorism are alleged; that is not even an issue.”[31]

In fact, Mohamed entered a guilty plea in June 2008 to one count of providing material support to terrorists. On his laptop, investigators found videos of bombing attacks on U.S. military vehicles and a 12-minute video produced by Mohamed in which he detonated a remote control bomb. On the video, he said a remote controlled explosion allows someone to “preserve his life” rather than carrying out a suicide bombing. [32]

On his web blog, Bedier minimized the plea, saying “Mohamed chose to cut a plea to one count of material support, which carries of a maximum of 15 years in prison, rather than risk spending the REMAINDER OF HIS LIFE behind bars if convicted.[33]

Megahed has pleaded not guilty to charges he illegally transported explosives. His trial is scheduled for later this month.

On Stoning Women

Bedier appeared on a public television panel to criticize the documentary “Islam vs. Islamists,” which aired in August 2007. In discussing a scene in which a woman is stoned as punishment, he incorrectly argues that the practice no longer exists and is never government sanctioned.

Bedier: Now, obviously the images we saw there, we don’t know the circumstances of who is being stoned, how long ago these images were. But if you just look at the religious text itself, when it comes to adultery, the punishment is on both men and women. That’s number 1. The second thing is, in order to convict someone on adultery, you have to have four eyewitnesses – who witnessed the actual intercourse happening. So you have to be like a porn star to get convicted. And they didn’t indicate that. So it’s almost impossible to prove [unintelligible] and let me tell you the punishment for whoever accuses a man or a woman of adultery and does not have four witnesses, they get 70 lashes. That’s the punishment.

Host Rob Lorei: But is this the kind of punishment that the four of you would sanction? Would you sanction stoning? Would you sanction lashing?

Bedier: It’s definitely not government sanctioned …that punishment is not carried out these days. You never hear about it.[34]

By questioning the circumstances, Bedier implies there are conditions under which stoning is acceptable.

In fact, an Iranian woman was reported stoned to death a month earlier.[35] Amnesty International routinely monitors nations that sentence people to punishments of stoning. In October 2005, the human rights group issued a statement expressing its horror that Iran continues to pass sentences of stoning despite having announced a moratorium on such executions.”[36]

On his approach to political action:

” … [L]obbying and advocacy is like sales. You wanna sell a product you have to sell it. Nobody is going to come buy your product just because you have it if nobody knows about it … AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee] and some of these other groups that are raising money to advocate for their position, their pro-Israel position, are having to spend millions and millions of dollars to be able to sell a shady product. They’re selling a lemon, they’re selling the worst product in the world. A product that creates more violence, a product that creates more insecurity, a product that doesn’t create any type of peace, a losing product that is going downhill that you have to pump more and more money into it in order to save it, but that’s what they’re selling, and that’s why every year they have to raise more and more money to convince and fool more and more people of the shady product.”[37]

[Emphasis added throughout]


[1] “Tampa CAIR director steps down to start new project,” St. Petersburg Times, May 19, 2008, http://blogs.tampabay.com/breakingnews/2008/05/tampa-cair-dire.html.

[2] “Tampa CAIR director steps down to start new project,” St. Petersburg Times, May 19, 2008, http://blogs.tampabay.com/breakingnews/2008/05/tampa-cair-dire.html.

[3] Articles of Incorporation, United Voices for America, Florida Secretary of State, May 8, 2008.

[4] United Voices for America, http://www.unitedvoices.com/.

[5] Ahmed Bedier appearance on Fox News, December 2005, posted to Youtube by Bedier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUQ8FzfE9z4 (last accessed March 2, 2009).

[6] Ahmed Bedier and Samar Jarrah, True Talk, WMNF 88.5 FM, Tampa, January 23, 2009.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Debate, Ahmed Bedier and Ben Cohen, WMNF 88.5 FM, Tampa, January 7, 2009.

[9] Ibid.

[10]“Gazans Tell How Hamas Used Them As Human Shields: Among others, an ambulance driver said that during Operation Cast Lead Hamas operatives used ambulances to leave battle sites, a tactic familiar from the past,” Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center, January 28, 2009.

[11] Ahmed Bedier and Samar Jarrah, True Talk, WMNF 88.5 FM, Tampa, January 16, 2009.

[12] Tampa CAIR Press Conference, Tampa Federal Courthouse, Tampa, Florida, May 27, 2004

[13] “Your Turn with Kathy Fountain,” WTVT Fox, Tampa, December 8, 2005.

[14] Ahmed Bedier. “World’s Response to Lebanon.” FOX’s Your Turn. June 20, 2006.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Debate, Ahmed Bedier and Ben Cohen, WMNF 88.5 FM, Tampa, January 7, 2009.

[17] The Hamas Charter reads: “The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [endowment] consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. ” available at http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

[18] Jefferson Morley, “Israel Withdrawal from Gaza Explained,” Washington Post, August 10, 2005.

[19] Steve Schippert, “Gaza Descends Under Hamas,” ThreatsWatch.org, May 21, 2007, http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2007/05/gaza-descends-under-hamas/ (accessed March 6, 2009).

[20] “CAIR Condemns Israeli Assassination of Religious Leader,” CAIR Press Release, March 22, 2004, http://www.cair-florida.org/ViewArticle.asp?Code=PR&ArticleID=192, accessed May 17, 2004.

[21] Ibid.

[22] USA v. Al-Arian, 8:03CR77, Indictment, (FLMD February 20, 2003).

[23] Warren Richey and Linda Feldmann, “Has Post 9/11 Dragnet Gone Too Far?” Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 12, 2003

[24] USA v. Al-Arian, 8:03CR77, Verdict (FLMD December 6, 2005).

[25] USA v. Al-Arian, 8:03CR77, Plea Agreement (FLMD April 14, 2006).

[26] Ibid., p. 11.

[27] Elaine Silvestrini, “Al-Arian To Be Deported,” Tampa Tribune, April 15, 2006, http://www.tampatrib.com/MGB4QU3F1ME.html.

[28]Valerie Kalfrin, “2 USF Students Remain Jailed In S. Carolina,” The Tampa Tribune, August 8, 2007, http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBHGH8135F.html.

[29] Andy Paras,”2 held in explosives scare; Islamic leaders says men are college students on road trip,” The Charleston Post and Courier, August 5, 2007, http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/aug/05/possible_bomb_scare_shuts_down_goose_creek_highway/.

[30] Audrey Hudson, “High Bonds set in ‘pipe bomb’ case; Islamic support group contends car was only carrying fireworks,” The Washington Times, August 8, 2007.

[31] Ibid.

[32] US v. Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed, Plea Agreement, 8:07cr342, Middle District of Florida, June 13, 2008.

[33] “Bedier’s Reaction to USF’s Ahmed Mohamed Plea,” http://ahmedbedier.blogspot.com/2008/06/bediers-reaction-to-usfs-ahmed-mohamed.html, June 13, 2008.

[34] Ahmed Bedier. “Islam vs. Islamists Panel,” WEDU Television, Tampa, August 23, 2007.

[35] “Amnesty International outraged at reported stoning to death and fears for victim’s co-accused,” Amnesty International, July 9, 2007.

[36] “Iran: Death Sentences of juvenile offenders and stoning sentences continue to be passed,” Amnesty International, October 20, 2005, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/063/2005/en/EBtxz_mXMUYJ (last accessed March 3, 2009).

[37] Ahmed Bedier, MAS Freedom Dallas and American Muslims for Palestine event Commemorating 60th Anniversary of Palestinian Catastrophe, Plano, Texas, June 29, 2008.

———————–

Apologists or Extremists

Ahmed Bedier

Ahmed Bedier is the founder and past executive director of the Tampa chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Bedier left the position in May of 2008 after five years of service to CAIR.[1] He now serves as the president of the Tampa/Hillsborough County Human Rights Council[2] and has created an organization called United Voices for America.[3] According to the organization’s website, United Voices “is a non-profit non-partisan civic engagement organization dedicated to increasing the participation of ethnic and religious minorities in the political process.”[4]

However, a look at Bedier’s past statements shows his sympathies with designated terrorist organizations, including the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and Hamas, and with accused terrorist supporters – even after they admit their crimes. In addition, he equates acts of terrorism and has offered false information.

Moral Equivalence on Terrorism

Speaking about the 2005 film “Munich,” which depicts Israel’s attempt to hunt down and kill the terrorists who slaughtered Israeli Olympic athletes in 1972, Bedier said:

“The only difference between what these so-called Mossad-sponsored assassins and other terrorists – they both use the similar means. They make bombs and they blow up people and they kill innocent civilians in the meantime. Violence begets violence. The policy has not worked and I’m glad that people like Steven Spielberg have produced a movie to raise questions about these certain policies of killing individuals. Especially without due process, without providing the evidence.”[5]

Blaming Israel for the Gaza War While Ignoring Hamas Rocket Fire

Bedier co-hosts a talk show on Tampa community radio station WMNF. During the January 23, 2009 broadcast of “True Talk,” Bedier called Israeli bombings in the Gaza Strip “terrorism.”[6]

Additionally, he and co-host Samar Jarrah say the war on terrorism should attempt to halt the Israeli bombings of Gaza. First, a clip of President Obama’s inaugural address is played in which Obama said:

“And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us and we will defeat you.” [Emphasis added]

Coming out of the clip, Bedier asked, “Does that include terror in Gaza?” Jarrah responded, “Not the terrorists in Gaza.” Bedier then asked a very similar question to emphasize his point, “Or the terrorism that happened in Gaza.” Jarrah responded, “of course not.”[7]

Earlier that month, during a debate on WMNF radio, Bedier argued that any effort to target Hamas would endanger civilians:[8]

“And every time they say Hamas is using this as a base, Hamas is using that as a base. Well Gaza’s very crowded. No matter where you’re gonna go you’re gonna find some Hamas people there. But that does not justify the killing and targeting of any innocent civilians.”[9]

That misrepresents the reality in Gaza, where Hamas deliberately stores its explosives in mosques and in residential areas and otherwise uses human shields.[10]

In a debate on the Gaza war held in Tampa February 20, Bedier said “We can all agree that Hamas is a terrorist group.” But in doing so, he described Israeli military responses to Hamas bombing as ” Nazi-like tactics.”[11]

During the January 16th 2009 broadcast of “True Talk” Bedier argued that Hamas is powerless to stop rocket fire from the Gaza strip into Israel, while condemning resulting fire from Israel into Gaza. When a caller asked why Hamas or the Palestinians in charge did not stop people who shot rockets and comments that the Palestinian Authority is not trying to prevent the terrorists from lobbing rockets into Israel, Bedier said:

“So wait, wait, let me get this argument right. So Israel with its mighty army, the strongest army and military, with its biggest weapons in the whole region cannot stop the rockets, but you expect defenseless, helpless poverty stricken Palestinians to go and stop the rockets. Are you making any sense? Are you making sense?”[12]

Refusal to Condemn the Palestinian Islamic Jihad

At a May 27, 2004 CAIR-Tampa press conference concerning University of South Florida professor Sami Al-Arian, who was facing charges of aiding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Bedier was asked:

“Do you agree with the government designation of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad as a terrorist organization?”

He responded:

“We are not here to discuss the Palestinian Islamic Jihad or any other terrorist organization or any other group. We are here strictly to discuss the confinement conditions of this individual who is not in Palestine or in Israel. He is right here in Florida.”

Bedier was also asked whether CAIR had a position on the PIJ, a designated terrorist organization responsible for scores of deaths, including several Americans. “We have not published one,” he said.[13]

On December 8, 2005, Bedier appeared on a local Tampa show, “Your Turn with Kathy Fountain,” on WTVT to discuss the verdict in the federal prosecution of Al-Arian. The host asked him, “If he was associating with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, doesn’t that seem immoral, in your opinion?”

Bedier replied: “To a certain degree. Now, before 1995 there was nothing immoral about it.”[14]

On Hizbollah

Again on WTVT in Tampa, Bedier minimized that Hizbollah’s kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, citing, in his opinion, Israel’s lack of respect for Lebanon:

“I think there’s a – what did Hizbollah do in this latest incident. They captured two soldiers. Since when does Israel recognize the boundaries and borders of other sovereign states? They cross it all the time.”[15]

He also stated that Israel behaved like a terror state, and he did not condemn Lebanon or Hizbollah’s actions:

“Irresponsible rogue states, terror states like Israel, that’s how they behave. And that’s unacceptable for Israel to do that.”[16]

On Hamas

During the WMNF debate, Bedier blamed the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict squarely on Israel:

“Israel has a history of habitually choosing violence over dialogue. Why? Because they’re the stronger party. Israel is the mightiest army in the region and the 4th strongest army in the world. Who are they picking on? The defenseless, helpless, Palestinian people in the Gaza strip, how ridiculous is that? They always choose violence because they are the stronger party, thinking that through their strength, through their might, through their weapons, they’re gonna get their way.”

Hamas, he said, had moderated:

“Hamas which had been historically staying away from politics, and using violence and other means, decided for the first time in 13 years, after the Oslo agreements to join the political process. So here they are, they’re moderating themselves they’re finally thinking let’s give this politics a try. And they come out the winners.”[17]

Hamas has not moderated in its charter, which still contains rabid anti-Semitism in calling for Israel’s destruction and rejecting any negotiated peace.[18] Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza in 2005.[19] The new Hamas “moderation” resulted in thousands of indiscriminate rocket launches at Israeli cities.[20]

On the assassination of Hamas co-founder and spiritual leader Ahmed Yassin

CAIR issued a press release titled “CAIR Condemns Israeli Assassination of Religious Leader.” CAIR-Florida reprinted this press release on its website listing Bedier as the contact.[21]

The release stated:

“We condemn this violation of international law as an act of state terrorism by Ariel Sharon’s out-of-control government. Israel’s extra-judicial killing of an Islamic religious leader can only serve to perpetuate the cycle of violence throughout the region. The international community must now take concrete steps to help protect the Palestinian people against such wanton Israeli violence.”[22]

Defending Terror Supporters

On Sami Al-Arian

Al-Arian was indicted for conspiracy to provide material support to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). Prosecutors alleged Al-Arian, then a University of South Florida professor, was on the PIJ governing board and played a critical role in keeping the organization from disintegrating in 1994.[23] Following the arrest, Bedier told the Christian Science Monitor that the case merely was “an effective tool to silence anti-Israeli views in the country.” [24]

In December 2005, Al-Arian was acquitted on eight counts against him, while jurors deadlocked on nine other charges, including the material support count.[25] In April 2006, Al-Arian pled guilty to conspiring to provide goods and services to the Jihad.[26]

As part of the plea agreement, Al-Arian admitted that he “performed services for the PIJ in 1995 and thereafter” and that he was “aware that the PIJ achieved its objectives by, among other means, acts of violence.”[27]

After the plea deal was announced, but before details were released, Bedier mischaracterized the plea agreement. Contradicting the assertion of Al-Arian’s attorney that Al-Arian had in fact pled guilty to terrorism-related charges, in an interview with the Tampa Tribune:

Al-Arian “stayed true to his convictions – he stayed true he wasn’t going to plead to those issues…There is no conspiracy to support terrorism.”[28]

On Ahmed Mohamed, who later pled guilty to providing material support for terrorists

When University of South Florida students Ahmed Mohamed and Youssef Megahed were stopped by police in South Carolina in August of 2007, police found in their possession materials to make a pipe bomb. They also noticed Megahed hastily close a laptop that had been open on his lap.[29] Bedier, CAIR-Tampa’s spokesman at the time, defended the two students excusing them as nothing more than “naive kids.” Bedier added that he believed the materials were only leftover fireworks that Megahed had kept in his trunk since July and emphasized that he thought “if they didn’t do anything wrong they need to be released.”[30]

“Most people will tell you if these were some good old boys from South Carolina traveling through the highway of that county and getting pulled over and having some fireworks, I doubt that it would make news around the world,” Bedier said.[31]

“No acts of terrorism are alleged; that is not even an issue.”[32]

In fact, Mohamed entered a guilty plea in June 2008 to one count of providing material support to terrorists. On his laptop, investigators found videos of bombing attacks on U.S. military vehicles and a 12-minute video produced by Mohamed in which he detonated a remote control bomb. On the video, he said a remote controlled explosion allows someone to “preserve his life” rather than carrying out a suicide bombing. [33]

On his web blog, Bedier minimized the plea, saying “Mohamed chose to cut a plea to one count of material support, which carries of a maximum of 15 years in prison, rather than risk spending the REMAINDER OF HIS LIFE behind bars if convicted.”[34]

Megahed has pleaded not guilty to charges he illegally transported explosives. His trial is scheduled for later this month.

On Stoning Women

Bedier appeared on a public television panel to criticize the documentary “Islam vs. Islamists,” which aired in August 2007. In discussing a scene in which a woman is stoned as punishment, he incorrectly argues that the practice no longer exists and is never government sanctioned.

Bedier: Now, obviously the images we saw there, we don’t know the circumstances of who is being stoned, how long ago these images were. But if you just look at the religious text itself, when it comes to adultery, the punishment is on both men and women. That’s number 1. The second thing is, in order to convict someone on adultery, you have to have four eyewitnesses – who witnessed the actual intercourse happening. So you have to be like a porn star to get convicted. And they didn’t indicate that. So it’s almost impossible to prove [unintelligible] and let me tell you the punishment for whoever accuses a man or a woman of adultery and does not have four witnesses, they get 70 lashes. That’s the punishment.

Host Rob Lorei: But is this the kind of punishment that the four of you would sanction? Would you sanction stoning? Would you sanction lashing?

Bedier: It’s definitely not government sanctioned …that punishment is not carried out these days. You never hear about it.[35]

By questioning the circumstances, Bedier implies there are conditions under which stoning is acceptable.

In fact, an Iranian woman was reported stoned to death a month earlier.[36] Amnesty International routinely monitors nations that sentence people to punishments of stoning. In October 2005, the human rights group issued a statement expressing its horror that Iran continues to pass sentences of stoning “despite having announced a moratorium on such executions.”[37]

On his approach to political action:

” … [L]obbying and advocacy is like sales. You wanna sell a product you have to sell it. Nobody is going to come buy your product just because you have it if nobody knows about it … AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee] and some of these other groups that are raising money to advocate for their position, their pro-Israel position, are having to spend millions and millions of dollars to be able to sell a shady product. They’re selling a lemon, they’re selling the worst product in the world. A product that creates more violence, a product that creates more insecurity, a product that doesn’t create any type of peace, a losing product that is going downhill that you have to pump more and more money into it in order to save it, but that’s what they’re selling, and that’s why every year they have to raise more and more money to convince and fool more and more people of the shady product.”[38]

[Emphasis added throughout]

[1] “Tampa CAIR director steps down to start new project,” St. Petersburg Times, May 19, 2008, http://blogs.tampabay.com/breakingnews/2008/05/tampa-cair-dire.html.

[2] “Tampa CAIR director steps down to start new project,” St. Petersburg Times, May 19, 2008, http://blogs.tampabay.com/breakingnews/2008/05/tampa-cair-dire.html.

[3] Articles of Incorporation, United Voices for America, Florida Secretary of State, May 8, 2008.

[4] United Voices for America, http://www.unitedvoices.com/.

[5] Ahmed Bedier appearance on Fox News, December 2005, posted to Youtube by Bedier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUQ8FzfE9z4 (last accessed March 2, 2009).

[6] Ahmed Bedier and Samar Jarrah, True Talk, WMNF 88.5 FM, Tampa, January 23, 2009.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Debate, Ahmed Bedier and Ben Cohen, WMNF 88.5 FM, Tampa, January 7, 2009.

[9] Ibid.

[10]”Gazans Tell How Hamas Used Them As Human Shields: Among others, an ambulance driver said that during Operation Cast Lead Hamas operatives used ambulances to leave battle sites, a tactic familiar from the past,” Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center, January 28, 2009.

[11] “Conflicts and Peace Initiatives in the Middle East,” Tiger Bay Club of Tampa, February 20, 2009.

[12] Ahmed Bedier and Samar Jarrah, True Talk, WMNF 88.5 FM, Tampa, January 16, 2009.

[13] Tampa CAIR Press Conference, Tampa Federal Courthouse, Tampa, Florida, May 27, 2004

[14] “Your Turn with Kathy Fountain,” WTVT Fox, Tampa, December 8, 2005.

[15] Ahmed Bedier. “World’s Response to Lebanon.” FOX’s Your Turn. June 20, 2006.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Debate, Ahmed Bedier and Ben Cohen, WMNF 88.5 FM, Tampa, January 7, 2009.

[18] The Hamas Charter reads: “The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [endowment] consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. ” available at http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

[19] Jefferson Morley, “Israel Withdrawal from Gaza Explained,” Washington Post, August 10, 2005.

[20] Steve Schippert, “Gaza Descends Under Hamas,” ThreatsWatch.org, May 21, 2007, http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2007/05/gaza-descends-under-hamas/ (accessed March 6, 2009).

[21] “CAIR Condemns Israeli Assassination of Religious Leader,” CAIR Press Release, March 22, 2004, http://www.cair-florida.org/ViewArticle.asp?Code=PR&ArticleID=192, accessed May 17, 2004.

[22] Ibid.

[23] USA v. Al-Arian, 8:03CR77, Indictment, (FLMD February 20, 2003).

[24] Warren Richey and Linda Feldmann, “Has Post 9/11 Dragnet Gone Too Far?” Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 12, 2003

[25] USA v. Al-Arian, 8:03CR77, Verdict (FLMD December 6, 2005).

[26] USA v. Al-Arian, 8:03CR77, Plea Agreement (FLMD April 14, 2006).

[27] Ibid., p. 11.

[28] Elaine Silvestrini, “Al-Arian To Be Deported,” Tampa Tribune, April 15, 2006, http://www.tampatrib.com/MGB4QU3F1ME.html.

[29]Valerie Kalfrin, “2 USF Students Remain Jailed In S. Carolina,” The Tampa Tribune, August 8, 2007, http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBHGH8135F.html.

[30] Andy Paras,”2 held in explosives scare; Islamic leaders says men are college students on road trip,” The Charleston Post and Courier, August 5, 2007, http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/aug/05/possible_bomb_scare_shuts_down_goose_creek_highway/.

[31] Audrey Hudson, “High Bonds set in ‘pipe bomb’ case; Islamic support group contends car was only carrying fireworks,” The Washington Times, August 8, 2007.

[32] Ibid.

[33] US v. Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed, Plea Agreement, 8:07cr342, Middle District of Florida, June 13, 2008.

[34] “Bedier’s Reaction to USF’s Ahmed Mohamed Plea,” http://ahmedbedier.blogspot.com/2008/06/bediers-reaction-to-usfs-ahmed-mohamed.html, June 13, 2008.

[35] Ahmed Bedier. “Islam vs. Islamists Panel,” WEDU Television, Tampa, August 23, 2007.

[36] “Amnesty International outraged at reported stoning to death and fears for victim’s co-accused,” Amnesty International, July 9, 2007.

[37] “Iran: Death Sentences of juvenile offenders and stoning sentences continue to be passed,” Amnesty International, October 20, 2005, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/063/2005/en/EBtxz_mXMUYJ (last accessed March 3, 2009).
[38] Ahmed Bedier, MAS Freedom Dallas and American Muslims for Palestine event Commemorating 60th Anniversary of Palestinian Catastrophe, Plano, Texas, June 29, 2008.

h1

Terrorizing Free Speech

February 10, 2009

Please help Tom (Florida Security Council) in this battle for our liberty. Who would have ever imagined that Americans would have to defend our rights in our country. Don

Florida Security Council

Terrorizing Free Speech

By Joe Kaufman
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, January 18, 2008

The freedoms in our country are what set us apart from the rest of the world. But those same freedoms can become endangered by those that have suspect intentions. I know, because I experienced that recently, when, during a protest I led against a group I know to have ties to terrorism, I was served with a lawsuit and a restraining order. At the beginning of next month, at a symposium sponsored by America’s Truth Forum, I will give my first public speech on the matter. The event will be held in the Dallas area, the same place that this unfortunate situation began. In speaking out, I hope to raise awareness at the fragility of our Constitution and hope to move people to strengthen it.

On October 12, 2007, I traveled to Texas from Florida to lead a protest on Sunday the 14th against the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), outside an event the group was sponsoring at Six Flags Over Texas in Arlington, Texas. The purpose of the protest was to expose ICNA’s ties to the financing of Hamas. I had discovered that ICNA was the top donor to a charity based in Pakistan called the Al-Khidmat Foundation (AKF), while that same charity gave $99 thousand to the head of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal, in August of 2006, and I believed that the public had a right to know about it.

During the protest, which lasted less than two hours, I was served with a temporary restraining order and a lawsuit. Although I wasn’t aware of the lawsuit part at the time, I knew that the restraining order was coming, because I was notified by the police department about it before the protest began. Regardless, I was in Texas to accomplish something, and I wanted to see it through, so I showed up, took the legal document from the server when it was presented to me, placed it in my pocket, and continued with the demonstration.

The protest was a peaceful one that featured about ten individuals holding signs and a speech given by me. While I was harassed by someone identifying himself as being from ICNA, who followed my every move with a video camera, no one on our side stepped out of line or did anything that would be seen as improper. No one shouted, and everyone acted in a courteous manner. Aside from being served the legal papers, everything went as planned.

There are seven Dallas-area plaintiffs in the case against me. They include the Dallas chapter of the Muslim American Societythree Islamic institutions owned by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), an organization that was named an “unindicted co-conspirator” by the U.S. government for a Hamas financing trial that began in July that named former leaders of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) as defendants. (MAS), a group that uses the internet to spread violent hatred against Jews and Christians, and

The groups are being supported by the Dallas chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA), the organization that was raising funds for HLF’s defense. Essentially, every major American Muslim institution is involved in this case, in some shape or form. But why go after me?

Before traveling to Texas, I had written an article for FrontPage Magazine, titled ‘Fanatic Muslim Family Day,’ discussing ICNA’s upcoming event and announcing our group’s (Americans Against Hate’s) protest against it.

I began the piece by stating the following: “On Sunday, October 14, 2007, Six Flags Over Texas, a Dallas-area amusement park, will be invaded by a radical Muslim organization that has physical ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and financial ties to Hamas. While most patrons of the park come for the games and rides, those involved with this group’s event, Muslim Family Day, may very well have found an original and appealing way to spread anti-Western hatred.”

According to the plaintiffs, none of whom were mentioned in the article, when I stated “those involved,” I was talking about all of the co-sponsors of the event, including them – that I had labeled them all “fanatics” and “radicals.” But anyone reading the article could clearly see that it (the article) was concerning ICNA and not some vast group of co-sponsors. And frankly, I didn’t know that the majority of these organizations (plaintiffs) even existed. Furthermore, to this day, not one of the names of the organizations (plaintiffs) is found on the sponsor page for the event’s website. Not one.

As well, the plaintiffs claim that the article and the protest are threats to them – that somehow me writing or demonstrating against “them” could cause them physical harm. However, during a hearing that was held for the case, on October 29th, where 70 to 90 members of the Muslim community packed the courtroom, witnesses for the plaintiffs admitted that neither I nor any of the other protestors ever threatened them in any way, physical or otherwise. In fact, it was us that were threatened, when someone posted to the internet that there better not be a protest or else.”

The suit against me is entirely a frivolous one, which attempts to deny my First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly. Really, the only threat that I pose to organizations such as these is my very existence. They do not want me writing about their friends and they do not want me giving speeches about their friends, because they fear that what I write and say may lead to arrests and the closures of groups – because what I write and say is fact and nothing less. So by taking me to court, they feel that they may have a chance to shut me up – to force me into financial ruin and shut me up.

In the end, will they succeed? That is up to the courts to decide, and so far the decisions have gone their way. If ultimately they do win, it will show that the freedom our countrymen lived and died for is little more than a facade, waiting to be dismantled and destroyed by our enemies within.

On February 1 – 2, 2008, I will appear as a featured speaker at America’s Truth Forum’s symposium, being held in Southlake, Texas. The name of the event is ‘Exposing the Threat of Islamist Terrorism,’ and it will include many of the biggest names in the field of counter-terrorism. It is here that I have chosen to make my first public speech regarding my case.

I hope you show up to listen, so get your tickets ASAP. Remember, THIS IS YOUR FIGHT TOO. It may be me today, but it will be all of us tomorrow, if we don’t work to stop them from silencing us now.

To help in the fight, contact info@americansagainsthate.org.

Joe Kaufman is the Chairman of Americans Against Hate, the founder of CAIR Watch, and the spokesman for Terror-Free Oil Initiative.

———— | Please help Tom in this battle for our liberty. Who would have ever imagined that Americans would have to defend our rights in our country. Don | ————

h1

FBI Severs CAIR Ties

February 10, 2009

Exclusive: FBI Severs CAIR Ties – Group’s Credibility Takes a Hit from Holy Land Terror Trial

by Joel Himelfarb
Family Security Matters
February 9, 2009
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.2476/pub_detail.asp

The public image of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), image has taken a huge blow as a result of new revelations that the FBI has severed ties with the group.

h1

Daniel Pearl Anniversary

February 5, 2009

Dear friends,

Please read this two page letter written by Daniel Pearl’s father – on the 7th anniversary of Daniel’s execution.

PLEASE READ THIS NOW.   It is important that you learn and do something about it.

Read Steve Emerson’s letter to us – and let the three people at the bottom of Steve’s letter know how you feel about the way America is failing it’s responsibilities to keep us free.

Don

LETTER FROM STEVE:

I am taking the liberty of sending you an op-ed that appears in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal by Judea Pearl on the commemoration of the 7th anniversary of, his son, Daniel’s execution. It is a most powerful and moving essay: Read and re-read it. And then do something.


Let Bill Moyers know that his purported “evenhandedness” is tantamount to justifying the same terrorism that robbed Daniel Pearl of his life. (email for Moyers below).


Let Jimmy Carter know that his rationalization of Hamas’ actions is no different than defending Nazism (email for Carter below).


Let the New York Times know that its inability to tell the difference between Hamas butchery and the State of Israel is the equivalent of saying that Daniel Pearl’s executioners were blameless (email for the Times below).


Let the Chancellor of UCLA know that the American public will not support taxpayers’ money going to campus-sponsored Hamas hate fests. (email below)


Let the White House, the U.S. Senate and Congress know that the leaders of radical American Islamic groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) are not welcome in the White House or Congress and should not be legitimized by the FBI, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security because they refuse to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah by name.

Steve Emerson

Email addresses for those described above:

Bill Moyers – moyersonpbs@thirteen.org

President Jimmy Carter – carterweb@emory.edu

UCLA Chancellor Gene Block – chancellor@ucla.edu

William Keller, New York Times Executive Editor – executive-editor@nytimes.com

White House Contact form – http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Daniel Pearl and the Normalization of Evil


When will our luminaries stop making excuses for terror?

ByJudea Pearl
Wall Street Journal
February 3, 2009

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123362422088941893.html

This week marks the seventh anniversary of the murder of our son, former Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. My wife Ruth and I wonder: Would Danny have believed that today’s world emerged after his tragedy?

The answer does not come easily. Danny was an optimist, a true believer in the goodness of mankind. Yet he was also a realist, and would not let idealism bend the harshness of facts.

Neither he, nor the millions who were shocked by his murder, could have possibly predicted that seven years later his abductor, Omar Saeed Sheikh, according to several South Asian reports, would be planning terror acts from the safety of a Pakistani jail. Or that his murderer, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now in Guantanamo , would proudly boast of his murder in a military tribunal in March 2007 to the cheers of sympathetic jihadi supporters. Or that this ideology of barbarism would be celebrated in European and American universities, fueling rally after rally for Hamas, Hezbollah and other heroes of “the resistance.” Or that another kidnapped young man, Israeli Gilad Shalit, would spend his 950th day of captivity with no Red Cross visitation while world leaders seriously debate whether his kidnappers deserve international recognition.

No. Those around the world who mourned for Danny in 2002 genuinely hoped that Danny’s murder would be a turning point in the history of man’s inhumanity to man, and that the targeting of innocents to transmit political messages would quickly become, like slavery and human sacrifice, an embarrassing relic of a bygone era.

But somehow, barbarism, often cloaked in the language of “resistance,” has gained acceptance in the most elite circles of our society. The words “war on terror” cannot be uttered today without fear of offense. Civilized society, so it seems, is so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by evil.

I believe it all started with well-meaning analysts, who in their zeal to find creative solutions to terror decided that terror is not a real enemy, but a tactic. Thus the basic engine that propels acts of terrorism — the ideological license to elevate one’s grievances above the norms of civilized society — was wished away in favor of seemingly more manageable “tactical” considerations.

This mentality of surrender then worked its way through politicians like the former mayor of London , Ken Livingstone. In July 2005 he told Sky News that suicide bombing is almost man’s second nature. “In an unfair balance, that’s what people use,” explained Mr. Livingstone.

But the clearest endorsement of terror as a legitimate instrument of political bargaining came from former President Jimmy Carter. In his book ” Palestine : Peace Not Apartheid,” Mr. Carter appeals to the sponsors of suicide bombing. “It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Road-map for Peace are accepted by Israel .” Acts of terror, according to Mr. Carter, are no longer taboo, but effective tools for terrorists to address perceived injustices.

Mr. Carter’s logic has become the dominant paradigm in rationalizing terror. When asked what Israel should do to stop Hamas’s rockets aimed at innocent civilians, the Syrian first lady, Asma Al-Assad, did not hesitate for a moment in her response: “They should end the occupation.” In other words, terror must earn a dividend before it is stopped.

The media have played a major role in handing terrorism this victory of acceptability. Qatari-based Al Jazeera television, for example, is still providing Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi hours of free air time each week to spew his hateful interpretation of the Koran, authorize suicide bombing, and call for jihad against Jews and Americans.

Then came the August 2008 birthday of Samir Kuntar, the unrepentant killer who, in 1979, smashed the head of a four-year-old Israeli girl with his rifle after killing her father before her eyes. Al Jazeera elevated Kuntar to heroic heights with orchestras, fireworks and sword dances, presenting him to 50 million viewers as Arab society’s role model. No mainstream Western media outlet dared to expose Al Jazeera efforts to warp its young viewers into the likes of Kuntar. Al Jazeera’s management continues to receive royal treatment in all major press clubs.

Some American pundits and TV anchors didn’t seem much different from Al Jazeera in their analysis of the recent war in Gaza . Bill Moyers was quick to lend Hamas legitimacy as a “resistance” movement, together with honorary membership in PBS’s imaginary “cycle of violence.” In his Jan. 9 TV show, Mr. Moyers explained to his viewers that “each [side] greases the cycle of violence, as one man’s terrorism becomes another’s resistance to oppression.” He then stated — without blushing — that for readers of the Hebrew Bible “God-soaked violence became genetically coded.” The “cycle of violence” platitude allows analysts to empower terror with the guise of reciprocity, and, amazingly, indict terror’s victims for violence as immutable as DNA.

When we ask ourselves what it is about the American psyche that enables genocidal organizations like Hamas — the charter of which would offend every neuron in our brains — to become tolerated in public discourse, we should take a hard look at our universities and the way they are currently being manipulated by terrorist sympathizers.

At my own university, UCLA, a symposium last week on human rights turned into a Hamas recruitment rally by a clever academic gimmick. The director of the Center for Near East Studies carefully selected only Israel bashers for the panel, each of whom concluded that the Jewish state is the greatest criminal in human history.

The primary purpose of the event was evident the morning after, when unsuspecting, uninvolved students read an article in the campus newspaper titled, “Scholars say: Israel is in violation of human rights in Gaza,” to which the good name of the University of California was attached. This is where Hamas scored its main triumph — another inch of academic respectability, another inroad into Western minds.

Danny’s picture is hanging just in front of me, his warm smile as reassuring as ever. But I find it hard to look him straight in the eyes and say: You did not die in vain.

Mr. Pearl, a professor of computer science at UCLA, is president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation, founded in memory of his son to promote cross-cultural understanding.

3546

The IPT accepts no funding from outside the United States, or from any governmental agency or political or religious institutions. Therefore we are totally dependent on American donations for keeping our operations going. We are the only non profit counter-terrorist group in the country that is conducting primary and exhaustive investigations into the operations, modus operandi and funding of radical Islamist groups here and their ties abroad. We also work to identify genuine Islamic moderates who we provide venues to speak out. Would you consider increasing your gift if you are already a donor, becoming a new one if you have not given, or contributing any type of equity for which you will get a tax deduction and avoid capital gains? Again, we are totally dependent on you. Your support of The Investigative Project on Terrorism is critical in winning a battle we cannot afford to lose. All donations are tax-deductible. Click here to donate online. The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation is a recognized 501(c)3 organization.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism

202-363-8602 – main

202-966-5191 – fax

h1

BEWARE OF CAIR

February 2, 2009

Beware Of CAIR

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Homeland Security: You’d think the Council on American-Islamic Relations would be savoring the results of an election that favors its agenda. Instead, it’s having to do major damage control.


Read More: Global War On Terror


Over the past several months, the Washington-based pressure group has suffered a series of punishing blows to its reputation as a self-proclaimed “moderate” voice for Muslim-Americans. In the latest setback, a “Dear Colleague” letter sent out to every House member warns lawmakers and their staffs to “think twice” about meeting with CAIR officials.

“The FBI has cut ties with them,” the letter says. “There are indications” CAIR has links to Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group.

The letter, signed by five Republicans, including the head of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus, is attached to an article by a homeland-security news service. It reports that the FBI has been canceling outreach events across the country with CAIR, following a recent directive from headquarters to cut ties with the group.

It’s a major policy shift at the FBI, which has appeased the notoriously litigious CAIR since 9/11. The group aggressively attacks critics with threats of boycotts and discrimination lawsuits.

The marginalization of CAIR, which has enjoyed astonishing access to official Washington, comes after the successful prosecution of leaders of a U.S. Muslim charity that funneled millions to Hamas terrorists. CAIR and its co-founder Omar Ahmed were named unindicted co-conspirators in that Holy Land Foundation case.

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, moreover, was caught on tape participating in a meeting with Hamas leaders to disguise payments as charity. During the trial, the FBI described CAIR as a front group for Islamic extremists.

It just gets worse for CAIR. Former clients of the group are suing it for fraud. The Muslims say CAIR, which claims to be an advocate for Muslim rights, extorted thousands of dollars from them in a scam in which CAIR said it would help them get U.S. citizenship.

According to the federal lawsuit, CAIR directed an unlicensed lawyer to handle their immigration cases. The phony lawyer shook them down for their life savings and bungled their paperwork. When the victims said they would go to the media, the suit charges, CAIR’s board threatened to sue them and forced them to sign releases.

Such aggressive tactics are typical of CAIR. The group has threatened CEOs who don’t kowtow to its demands to Islamize the workplace and airlines trying to protect passengers from terrorism. It’s bullied, as well, scores of critics on TV and talk radio, even getting some hosts fired. Thankfully, the threats are no longer working.

h1

CAIR’s Silence on Hamas

January 9, 2009

CAIR’s Silence on Hamas

IPT News
January 7, 2009

http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/969

Shortly after Israel started bombing Hamas targets in Gaza, four leaders of national Muslim-American organizations gathered at the National Press Club to condemn the violence.

Their language was nuanced, with calls for an “even-handed” U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When they were specific, their criticism went in one direction. Nihad Awad, a co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and its executive director, was the most pointed:

“And we demand that our government, the U.S. government, take immediate steps to end the immoral and illegal Israeli bombardment of Gaza and its population which has already resulted in more than 300 deaths, including many women and children.”

“Israel has to comply with international law. Israel has to respect the sanctity of human lives, and Israel has to respect its allies.”

One word was never mentioned: Hamas.

For years, CAIR officials have refused to condemn Hamas by name or call on it to cease terror attacks in the name of peace. Now they won’t even say the terror group’s name.

It’s not just Awad. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper was interviewed on CNN just after the news conference and was asked whether “making Hamas irrelevant in the region” would help improve life for the Palestinian people. His response made no reference to the terrorist group:

“Well what you want to do is give the Palestinians an idea that their future can be better. That their children can actually eat. Can you imagine right now, in the twenty first century, that we have a situation where there is a blockade keeping children from eating in any part of the world and America is supporting that blockade. It’s outrageous, it’s illegal, it’s immoral and it’s against international law. At a minimum we have to end the siege of the Gaza ghetto.”

CAIR-Los Angeles Executive Director Hussam Ayloush issued a statement on Dec. 30 echoing his national leaders:

“We demand that our government take immediate steps to end the immoral and illegal Israeli bombardment of Gaza. We also demand the Bush administration join with the international community in seeking the end to the savage collective punishment of the people of Gaza.”

Where international conflict fits in with CAIR’s stated mission isn’t entirely clear. The mission statement says CAIR seeksto enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.”

When it delves into international politics, it consistently sides with radical Islamists. In 1994, Awad publicly expressed his support for Hamas. Earlier that year, he called out editors at The Message, an American-Muslim publication, for simply using the term “Israel.”

“I hope,” he wrote, “that the use of ‘Israel’ in your news briefs was the result of an oversight and not intentional…Furthermore I hope you will return to the terminology ‘Occupied Palestine’ to refer to that Holy Land.”

Israel assassinated two Hamas leaders in the spring of 2004 in the wake of ongoing terrorist attacks. CAIR issued statements condemning the acts and, like now, concealing the terrorist movement’s role in precipitating them. Hamas founder Ahmed Yassin was mourned as a “wheelchair-bound Palestinian religious leader.” Yassin’s successor, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, was described by CAIR merely as “a political leader.”

Past behavior is relevant in assessing CAIR’s current stand. If the objective truly is to help the people of Gaza, demanding that Hamas cease its daily firing of missiles into Israeli cities is required. But that is not what is happening.

At this point, it bears repeating that internal Muslim Brotherhood records show Awad and his organization were part of a Brotherhood effort to help Hamas in the U.S. That’s why CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas-support trial of the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and why FBI case agent Lara Burns testified CAIR is a front group.

Exhibits in evidence in the show the foundation served as the Hamas fundraising arm in the United States and CAIR officials often participated in fundraisers for it. In November 2008, jurors convicted the foundation and five former officials on all 108 counts against them. In a statement, CAIR dismissed the verdict as “based more on fear-mongering than on the facts.”

But CAIR’s statements about the Gaza conflict are straight out of the playbook designed during a secret meeting of Hamas members and supporters held in Philadelphia in the fall of 1993. The stated purpose of the meeting was to find ways to “derail” the U.S.-brokered Oslo Accords, which led to the creation of a Palestinian Authority and was considered an important step toward a peaceful, two-state solution to the conflict.

The two-dozen men assembled had two principal reasons for opposing the Accords. The new PA was dominated by their competitors — the secular Fatah movement — and they were concerned any success would marginalize the Islamist Hamas. And, as the Hamas Charter states, a negotiated, peaceful settlement that leaves Israel a viable state is unacceptable.

Records and FBI surveillance tapes show Awad presented a report in Philadelphia on “political, media, popular action and public relations in North America.” During a 2003 deposition, Awad claimed he couldn’t remember whether he attended the meeting. In his presentation, Awad refers to “Samah,” the simple code name meeting participants agreed to use instead of saying “Hamas” – its inverse – out loud. He also describes how the group can get its message out through the media:

“If you hear of a false rumor, you want to discredit it, huh? If people need money we would provide media coverage. We encourage people to donate to you. If there is a political issue, a Samah’s input for instance, about this or that, we inform people to contact their representatives, I mean…the [unintelligible] and others, print circulations and send them to them.”

Now, fast forward to today. CAIR chapters throughout the country are urging followers to lobby members of Congress with a unilateral focus. And they are soliciting people to sign petitions, which, in classic CAIR code, note:

“all parties in the Middle East conflict have committed violence against civilians. We unequivocally condemn all of these actions.”

In reality, though, they do not. No CAIR official has called on Hamas to stop firing rockets into Israeli cities and no CAIR official has criticized Hamas for placing Palestinian civilians in harm’s way.

Contrast that with criticisms of Hamas from the Palestinian Authority, Palestinians in Gaza and even Iranian students. In a statement issued Dec. 30, the group Daftar-e Tahkim-e Vahdat said:

“Those who have armed and encouraged groups like Hamas – which only yesterday did not hide its sympathy for the criminal Saddam Hussein, and which declared three days of mourning after his death – have innocent blood on their hands: [the blood of those killed] in the [recent] hostilities [in Gaza]. Now it is they who must be accountable to humanity, and it is they who must explain this tragic situation.”

The group criticized the Israeli invasion, too, but added “it is equally [important] to condemn the terror organizations that use kindergartens and hospitals as a shield against the [Israeli] attacks. [Hamas’s use of human shields] prepares the ground for intensified bombardment [by Israel] and for the killing of children and civilians, and [therefore] it is an inhuman act.”

The next day, the Iranian government shut down a newspaper which published parts of the Daftar-e Takhim-e Vahdat statement. Neither the statement nor the newspaper’s closing has received much attention in the United States.

All of it casts doubt on just how committed CAIR really is to sparing Palestinian civilians from the violence. If there were no Hamas rockets being fired, there would be no Israeli invasion of Gaza. Can anyone say otherwise with a straight face?

h1

CAIR LAWYER HAS OWN LEGAL HISTORY

December 11, 2008
Print Send Comment RSS
h1

CAIR’S MAKE OR BREAK MOMENT

December 2, 2008
Print Send Comment RSS

Related Items

h1

CAIR: Big on the Gimmes

November 21, 2008

CAIR: Big on the Gimmes

IPT News
November 20, 2008
http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/862

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.

h1

Holy Land Foundation – HLF Defense Expert Offers Alternate Interpretations

November 18, 2008

HLF Defense Expert Offers Alternate Interpretations
IPT News
November 4, 2008
http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/799

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.