"JIHAD: The radical Islamic threat to America"
Whistleblower (www.wnd.com) November, 2001 edition

America is at war, but who is the enemy - the REAL enemy?

Like the patient who has just learned his body is riddled throughout with cancer, most Americans have just discovered that while they were living their busy lives, concerned with family and work -- a cancer has been growing and metastasizing in their midst.

The fear of further and deadlier attacks, coupled with disturbing reports of terror co-conspirators in the United States just waiting for orders to strike, has understandably caused America - the ultimate land of religious tolerance - to scrutinize closely, for the first time, all things Islamic.

Yet, Islam, which claims 1.2 billion adherents worldwide - and 3 to 7 million in the U.S. -- is largely unknown and mysterious to most Westerners.

"Islam is a religion of peace," Americans are constantly reassured, the terrorists supposedly comprising only a deadly lunatic fringe of a few hundred or even a few thousand who have "hijacked" Islam to philosophically justify their murderous hatred of the West.

Not so. While President Bush in his historic Sept. 20 speech "dismissed al-Qaida's version of Islam as a repudiated 'fringe form of Islamic extremism,'" explains Mideast expert Daniel Pipes, "Muslims on the streets of many places . are fervently rallying to the defense of al-Qaida's vision of Islam."

Although there are a great many law-abiding and peaceful practitioners of Islam in the U.S. and around the world, a dangerous and powerful strain of Islam, often called Islamism, is one of the fastest-growing movements in the world today. Like Communism and Nazism, Islamism is a brutal, coercive utopian movement - a politicized and virulent interpretation and implementation of Islam -- bent on nothing less than total world domination.

In fact, best estimates are that 10-15 percent of Muslims worldwide are of the militant Islamist strain. That means well over 100 million human beings are, to a greater or lesser degree, caught up with what amounts to the world's most dangerous cult.

The November issue of "Whistleblower" takes on Islamic terrorism, as well as the worldwide, militant totalitarian movement that spawns, fuels and, increasingly, enshrines terrorists like Osama bin Laden.

A partial listing of this special double issue's contents:

* "The war comes home: What you don't know about radical Islam can hurt you," by Joseph Farah, guides the reader through the minefield of misinformation and outright disinformation circulating about Islam.

* "Islam: From toleration to terror," by Paul Marshall, documents the horrific, modern-day epidemic of Christian persecution throughout much of the Islamic world, even in supposedly "moderate" nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

* "The secret world of suicide bombers," by Jack Kelley, takes readers on a rare, behind-the-scenes tour of the secretive and terrifying world of suicide bombers and the culture that creates them.

* "Bin Laden's lust for Saudi Arabia," by David Kupelian, shows how Osama bin Laden's sights are set on taking over Saudi Arabia - including its oil and its modern military.

* "What about Arafat?" by Joseph Farah, documents the Nobel Prize-winning Yasser Arafat's true distinction as nothing less than the father of modern terrorism.

* "America: Haven for terrorists," by renowned terror expert Steven Emerson, provides chilling and overwhelming evidence that America's ultra-lax immigration policies have allowed large numbers of known dangerous radicals to set up shop in the U.S.A.

* "America's militant Islamic lobby," by Daniel Pipes, is an extremely disturbing look at the hidden, radical loyalties of some of America's so-called "mainstream" Muslim organizations.

Plus, a 2-page world map depicting the growth and spread of Islam, and much more, including "The historic spread of Islam," "Is raising 'martyrs' child abuse?" "Silencing Muslim moderates," and finally - by WND editor and founder Joseph Farah -- "How to win this war."


Are Facts Obsolete?
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, July 15, 2008

In an election campaign in which not only young liberals, but also some people who are neither young nor liberals, seem absolutely mesmerized by the skilled rhetoric of Barack Obama, facts have receded even further into the background than usual.

As the hypnotic mantra of "change" is repeated endlessly, few people even raise the question of whether what few specifics we hear represent any real change, much less a change for the better.

Raising taxes, increasing government spending and demonizing business? That is straight out of the New Deal of the 1930s.

The New Deal was new then but it is not new now. Moreover, increasing numbers of economists and historians have concluded that New Deal policies are what prolonged the Great Depression.

Putting new restrictions of international trade, in order to save American jobs? That was done by Herbert Hoover, when he signed the Hawley-Smoot tariff when the unemployment rate was 9 percent. The next year the unemployment rate was 16 percent and, before the Great Depression was over, unemployment hit 25 percent.

One of the most naive notions is that politicians are trying to solve the country's problems, just because they say so-- or say so loudly or inspiringly.

Politicians' top priority is to solve their own problem, which is how to get elected and then re-elected. Barack Obama is a politician through and through, even though pretending that he is not is his special strategy to get elected.

Some of his more trusting followers are belatedly discovering that, as he "refines" his position on various issues, now that he has gotten their votes in the Democratic primaries and needs the votes of others in the coming general election.

Perhaps a defining moment in showing Senator Obama's priorities was his declaring, in answer to a question from Charles Gibson, that he was for raising the capital gains tax rate. When Gibson reminded him of the well-documented fact that lower tax rates on capital gains had produced more actual revenue collected from that tax than the higher tax rates had, Obama was unmoved.

The question of how to raise more revenue may be the economic issue but the political issue is whether socking it to "the rich" in the name of "fairness" gains more votes.

Since about half the people in the United States own stocks-- either directly or because their pension funds buy stocks-- socking it to people who earn capital gains is by no means socking it just to "the rich." But, again, that is one of the many facts that don't matter politically.

What matters politically is the image of coming out on the side of "the people" against "the privileged."

If you are a nurse or mechanic who will be depending on your pension to take care of you when you retire-- as Social Security is unlikely to do-- you may not think of yourself as one of the privileged. But unless you connect the dots between capital gains tax rates and your retirement income, you may fall under the spell of the well-honed Obama rhetoric.

Obama is for higher minimum wage rates. Does anyone care what actually happens in countries with higher minimum wage rates? Of course not.

Economists may point to studies done in countries around the world, showing that higher minimum wage rates usually mean higher unemployment rates among lower skilled and less experienced workers.

That's their problem. A politician's problem is how to look like he is for "the poor" and against those who are "exploiting" them. The facts are irrelevant to maintaining that political image.

Nowhere do facts matter less than in foreign policy issues. Nothing is more popular than the notion that you can deal with dangers from other nations by talking with their leaders.

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain became enormously popular in the 1930s by sitting down and talking with Hitler, and announcing that their agreement had produced "peace in our time"-- just one year before the most catastrophic war in history began.

Senator Obama may gain similar popularity by advocating similar policies today-- and his political popularity is what it's all about. The consequences for the country come later.
---

CAIR Targets Another Conservative Talk Show Host
Sunday, November 11, 2007 9:19 PM
By: Susan Jones, CNSNews.com Senior Editor

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is pressing advertisers to withdraw their sponsorship of Michael Savage's nationally syndicated radio program because of Savage's alleged "anti-Muslim bigotry."

Savage, on his Web site, is fighting back, urging his listeners to protect freedom of speech: "Email your representative; investigate CAIR for manipulating the U.S. media," his Web site says.

On Nov. 1, CAIR urged "radio listeners of all faiths" to contact companies that advertise on "The Savage Nation" to complain about an "anti-Muslim tirade" on Savage's Oct. 29 program. (CAIR periodically issues "incitement alerts," urging its members to contact various media outlets to express their concerns about "Islamophobic attitudes.")

CAIR was particularly disturbed by Savage's "shouted anti-Muslim attacks," which it quoted as follows:

"I'm not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I'm not getting' on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear anymore about Islam. I don't wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I'm sick of you."

"What kind of religion is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don't tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation. I don't need reeducation. Deportation, not reeducation. You can take C-A-I-R and throw 'em out of my country. I'd raise the American flag and I'd get out my trumpet if you did it. Without due process. You can take your due process and shove it."

"What sane nation that worships the U.S. Constitution, which is the greatest document of freedom ever written, would bring in people who worship a book that tells them the exact opposite. Make no mistake about it, the Quran is not a document of freedom. The Quran is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave."

CAIR also complained that Savage has a "long history of rhetorical attacks on Muslims and other minorities."

Savage's own Web site describes him as "explosive conservative radio talk show host" who "continues to dominate the airwaves with his brash commentary and unapologetic solutions...Savage is harder hitting than other conservatives...a media icon who is unafraid to take on the establishment."

"...In show, books and speeches, Michael Savage electrifies and galvanizes his audiences. If you're looking for someone with an opinion -- who isn't afraid to tell it like it is -- he's your man."

On Nov. 2, CAIR's Minnesota chapter announced that three companies in that state had agreed to pull their advertisements from "The Savage Nation."

And on Thursday, CAIR thanked Citrix Systems, Inc., for agreeing to drop its advertisements from Savage's nationally syndicated program. "We appreciate Citrix's principled action to disassociate itself from Michael Savage's hate-filled rhetoric," said CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina Rubin in a news release on Thursday.

"We urge other local and national companies running ads on Savage's program to follow Citrix's example in support of religious tolerance."

What about free speech?

"Free speech is a precious right that we fully support and strive to protect," Rubin added. "We are not seeking to curb Mr. Savage's freedom of speech, but to demonstrate that Americans and American companies will not tolerate hatred and bigotry."

CAIR, which describes itself as America's largest Muslim civil liberties group, says its mission is to "enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding."

But conservative commentators who have been on the receiving end of CAIR's anti-Islamaphobia campaigns disagree.

Radio talk show host Michael Graham, forced out of his job in the Washington, D.C., market for refusing to apologize for remarks that offended a Muslim group, landed a new job in Boston, Mass., last year.

CAIR, which pressed for Graham's removal, said it received complaints from Muslim listeners who heard Graham say, "Islam is a terrorist organization," "Islam is at war with America," "The problem is not extremism. The problem is Islam," and "We are at war with a terrorist organization named Islam."

Graham was suspended from his job at ABC-owned WMAL in Washington on July 29, 2005, after he refused a management request to apologize for practicing what CAIR called "hate radio."

"When CAIR is able to quell dissent and label every critic a 'bigot,' the chilling effect is felt far beyond ABC Radio and 630 WMAL," Graham said at the time.

On Thursday, CAIR said radio host Michael Savage has "stepped up his attacks on Islam and Muslims in response to CAIR's advertiser campaign."


Michael Savage Counterattacks: Sues CAIR

He’s filed suit against CAIR. This is something that I strongly agree with. If you click that link you’ll see the actual paperwork and there’s an article on it that’s being carried by Drudge here.

In case you haven’t been following this, CAIR went after Savage’s advertisers in much the same way Sharpton and crew went after Imus. A couple of the advertisers fled with their tails between their legs, too.

This case is an important one because CAIR’s attack on Savage is another transparent attempt at the suppression of free speech by the left. If they succeed at stifling Savage, they won’t stop there. There is no such thing as fair in their version of the Fairness Doctrine.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." -- Theodore Roosevelt

"That is what I admire about Michael Savage…He is not afraid to take on EVIL…..I hope he kicks CAIR’s butt !
Visit The Savage Nation (http://livinginthepast.us/?p=2160)


Islamic attacks on Savage target advertisers
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58915

Feds name CAIR in plot to fund Hamas
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56009

'Terrorist apologist' CAIR to meet in Capitol
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54667

Doubts grow over Muslim lawmaker's loyalty
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53241


American citizens aided Hamas terror
Former CAIR member gets 7 years, imam in 'quiet' town pleads guilty

Two American citizens with ties to a major U.S. Islamic civil rights group faced judgment in court today for aiding the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, with one sentenced to seven years prison and the other pleading guilty.

Ghassan Elashi, a founder of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and a member of the founding board of directors of the Texas branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, was sentenced to nearly seven years in prison for financial ties to a high-ranking terrorist and for making illegal computer exports to countries that back terrorism.

Meanwhile, an Atlanta imam, Mohamed Shorbagi, pleaded guilty to providing material support to Hamas.

A Justice Department statement said Shorbagi, 42, of Rome, Ga., "provided the support through donations to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development knowing that some or all of the money was in fact destined for Hamas."

Hamas, which won a parliamentary majority in the Palestinian territories in January, was designated by the U.S. as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997.

"This case illustrates that people who illegally support foreign terrorist organizations may be found anywhere in the United States, even in quiet and pleasant places like Rome, Georgia," said U.S. Attorney David E. Nahmias in a statement.

The Holy Land Foundation is tied to CAIR through the relief group's founder, Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook. CAIR's parent organization, the Islamic Association for Palestine, also was founded by Marzook, who was deported by the U.S. to Jordan in 1997.

CAIR casts itself as the leading Islamic civil rights group in the U.S., but other associated figures convicted of terrorism-related charges since 9-11 include Randall Todd "Ismail" Royer, a former communications specialist and civil rights coordinator, and Bassem Khafagi, former director of community relations.

Royer was sentenced to 20 years in prison on charges he trained in Virginia for holy war against the United States and sent several members to Pakistan to join Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Kashmiri terrorist group with reported ties to al-Qaida.

In a plea bargain, Royer claimed he never intended to hurt anyone but admitted he organized the holy warriors after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S.

After his arrest, Royer sought legal counsel from Hamas lawyer Stanley Cohen, who said after 9-11 he would consider serving as a defense lawyer for Osama bin Laden if the al-Qaida leader were captured.

Khafagi was arrested in January 2003 while serving with CAIR and convicted on fraud and terrorism charges.

Current CAIR leaders also have made statements in support of Hamas and the domination of the U.S. by Islam.

As WorldNetDaily reported, CAIR founder Omar Ahmad was cited by a California newspaper in 1998 declaring the Quran should be America's highest authority.

He also was reported to have said Islam is not in America to be equal to any other religion but to be dominant.

At a youth session of the Islamic Association for Palestine's annual convention in Chicago in 1999, Ahmad praised suicide bombers who "kill themselves for Islam," according to a transcript provided by terror expert Steve Emerson's Investigative Project.

"Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam, that is not suicide," Ahmad asserted. "They kill themselves for Islam."


Controversial Muslim group gets VIP airport security tour
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE-ID=51785

CAIR files FOIA on Bush wiretaps
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48039

CAIR issues U.S. 'travel advisory'
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48039


U.S. Muslims' anti-terror fatwa 'bogus'
Steven Emerson calls it 'fake' aimed at deceiving Americans

The fatwa, or religious ruling, issued by American Islamic leaders against "terrorism and extremism" is "bogus," charges a leading analyst.
In a Washington press conference organized by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization called the Fiqh Council of North America said several major U.S. Muslim groups endorsed the fatwa.

"There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism," the scholars wrote. "Targeting civilians' life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram – or forbidden."

The fatwa says Muslims are obligated to help "protect the lives of all civilians."

But in a 1995 speech, the head of the Fiqh Council, Muzamil Siddiqi, praised suicide bombers.

"Those who die on the part of justice are alive, and their place is with the Lord, and they receive the highest position, because this is the highest honor," he said.

Terrorism researcher and analyst Steven Emerson argues that along with the terror-related background of signatories, the decree is missing key elements.

"Nowhere does it condemn the Islamic extremism ideology that has spawned Islamic terrorism," Emerson said in a dispatch posted on Counterterrorism Blog. "It does not renounce nor even acknowledge the existence of an Islamic jihadist culture that has permeated mosques and young Muslims around the world. It does not renounce jihad let alone admit that it has been used to justify Islamic terrorist acts. It does not condemn by name any Islamic group or leader."

Emerson called it a "fake fatwa designed merely to deceive the American public into believing that these groups are moderate."

He pointed out officials of both organizations have been directly linked to Islamic terrorist groups and Islamic extremist organizations.

One is an unindicted co-conspirator in a current terrorist case; another previous member was a financier to al-Qaida.

The fatwa also does not name the perpetrators of Islamic terrorist theologies and leaders of Islamic movements, Emerson noted, such as Osama Bin Laden, Yousef Al Qaradawi and Ayman Al Zawahari.

In addition, it does not name terrorist groups, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

The chairman of the Fiqh Council, Taha Jaber Al-Alwani, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the case against Sami al-Arian, the alleged North American leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, whose trial began last month in Tampa.

Documents released in the Al Arian trial show Alwani funded Islamic Jihad front groups in Tampa.

Another past trustee of the Fiqh Council, Abdurrahman Alamoudi, is serving a 23-year prison sentence for illegal financial dealings with Libya and immigration fraud.

Alamoudi has declared support for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Recently he was named by the Treasury Department as having been a financier for al-Qaida.

In 1998, Fiqh Council member Sheikh Muhammad al-Hanooti gave a speech calling for jihad against the United States and the United Kingdom, saying that "Allah will curse the Americans and British" and "Allah, the curse of Allah will become true on the infidel Jews and on the tyrannical Americans."

Emerson also says Hanooti is strongly linked to Hamas, having served on the board of the Islamic Association for Palestine, or IAP.

The IAP has been identified by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a "front group" for Hamas.

One of the groups touting the fatwa, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a spin-off of the IAP.

Several CAIR leaders have been convicted on terror-related charges.

Emerson also points out that CAIR repeatedly has attacked the prosecutions of Islamic terrorists arrested or convicted since 9-11 and has attacked the government's freezing of Islamic terrorist fronts, calling it a "war against Islam" by the United States.

Another signatory is Fawaz Damra, convicted of immigration fraud related to his ties to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. He was denaturalized and awaits a deportation hearing.

Another signatory, the Muslim American Society, is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States whose publications repeatedly have supported suicide bombings.


New Muslim congressman avoids loyalty questions
Ellison had been greeted by shouts of 'Allahu Akbar!' from campaigners

When the first Muslim congressman in U.S. history, Keith Ellison (Hakim-Mohammed) of Minnesota, won the 2006 election and was making the regular thank-you-to-my-supporters speech, he allowed his fans to shout, "Allahu Akbar!," the same phrase allegedly used by the 9/11 suicide pilots.

Since November he's addressed various different Islamic groups and organizations, and he's used the Quran to be sworn into office. He's also been linked to Islamic organizations with questionable agendas.

What he hasn't done is respond to requests from WND to confirm that he will, in fact, base his decisions on the laws of the United States on the U.S. Constitution, not the Quran.

It was during his campaign that he raised the issue of his Islamic beliefs himself, and confirmed then that they would play a large role in his decision-making process:

"I am inspired by the Quran's message of encompassing divine love, and a deep faith guides my life every day," he wrote in his promotional materials.

He later told a group meeting in Detroit that, "I'm not here to be a preacher, but in terms of political agenda items, my faith informs these things."

He was given unprecedented permission during this week's swearing-in ceremonies to place his hand on a piece of the nation's archival history – the Quran once owned by Thomas Jefferson – for his photo-opportunity with family and friends.

The two-volume edition, published in London in 1764, was brought to him in a special case sent by messenger from officials at the Library of Congress.

Ellison said he chose to use the Quran because it showed Jefferson believed wisdom could be gleaned from many sources, although as superstar performer and WND columnist Pat Boone explained Jefferson quoted often from the Bible in his writings, not the Quran.

(Another explanation for Jefferson's possession of a Quran could have been a desire to know his enemies. It was during Jefferson's presidency that the U.S. took on the Muslim slave-traders and pirates on the Barbary Coast of Africa in war.)

Rick Jauert, a spokesman for the congressman, was reached at his campaign headquarters in Minnesota two weeks ago, and confirmed that the congressman does not believe there will be a conflict between his religious beliefs and his duty under the U.S. Constitution.

But when asked which would take priority if there is a conflict, or to describe how the congressman will resolve the differing philosophies provided by the U.S. Constitution and the Quran, which calls for beheading "infidels," he said he could not answer immediately.

Since then, WND has been unable to obtain answers from the congressman or his staff.

One blogger was a little concerned over the situation:

"During the victory celebration for the nation's first Muslim congressman (not that there's anything wrong with that... in principle), Congressman Keith Ellison's supporters scream 'Allahu Akbar!', the same phrase that the 9/11 hijackers screamed, the same phrase suicide bombers scream, the same phrase head choppers scream before slicing off the heads of hapless and bound victims. May God protect this country," the blogger wrote.

In a campaign document talking about his faith, Ellison said, "As a young man I was outraged and frustrated by the racism and injustice I saw in my community and the world around me. Those experiences propelled me to become a social activist, using my words and actions to draw attention to the very serious problems of inequality, racial injustice and poverty in our society.

"As I matured, I had to confront my anger and face it down. I eventually realized that it is easy to be a critic pointing out problems and failings, but it is a far more difficult thing to be part of creating the solution. As my father used to say, 'Any jackass can kick a barn down; it takes a carpenter to build it back up.' Eventually I understood what my father had been telling me, and I committed to being one of the carpenters."

But he confirmed he still holds that "outrage" at the direction of the United States.

Ellison said he decided to seek congressional office because, "I am for peace now, for universal health care, and for a sustainable future."

"I will fight for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and for an international reconstruction effort; for universal single payer healthcare so that Americans can get the medical care that they need whether they have a job that offers insurance or not; for green energy, conservation, environmental justice, and a sustainable future for our country and the world," he wrote.

He recognizes Israel, and said "a lasting peace in the Middle East should be one of the United States' most focused goals."

"Right now Hamas represents the greatest obstacle to this path, and until Hamas denounces terrorism, recognizes the absolute right of Israel to exist peacefully and honors past agreements, it cannot be considered legitimate partners in this process," he wrote.

Jauert explained that Ellison's conflicts between his faith and the law would be no more than those Catholics who support abortion, and then face objections from church leaders who believe they should not be allowed to take part in church rites.

"Not every follower of Islam supports Sharia law," Jauert told WND.

In his speech in Detroit, Ellison said it appears people "see their religion as an identity thing, much in the same way Crips or Bloods might say, 'I'm this, this is the set I'm rolling with.' They've never actually tried to explore how religion should connect us, they're into how religion divides us … they haven't really explored … how my faith connects me to you."

But as WND reported earlier, he's been linked to a radical Islamic school of thought that requires loyalty to the Quran over the U.S. Constitution.

A black convert to orthodox Sunni Islam, Ellison spoke to the North American Imams Federation, or NAIF, at the group's Nov. 19 conference in Minneapolis.

His talk flowed into a breakout session listed on the agenda simply as "American Open University," according to the conference program. It turns out the university is a "distance-learning" center based in Alexandria, Va., and known to local law enforcement as "Wahhabi Online."

Later that day, Ellison met with NAIF's president, Omar Ahmad Shahin, who lectures at the same American Open University. (He also met at the time with New York imam Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.) The radical Islamic school trains many of NAIF's more than 150 members, who control mosques across America.

American Open University supports Sharia, or Islamic law. And its founder and chairman, Jaafar Sheikh Idris, has denounced the U.S system of democracy as "the antithesis of Islam" and argued no man has the right to make laws outside Allah's laws expressed in the Quran.

"There is a basic difference between Islam and this form of democracy," he says. "The basic difference is that in Islam it is [Allah's] law as expressed in the Quran and the Sunna that is the supreme law within the limits of which people have the right to legislate.

"No one can be a Muslim who makes or freely accepts or believes that anyone has the right to make or accept legislation that is contrary to that divine law," Idris adds. "Examples of such violations include the legalization of alcoholic drinks, gambling, homosexuality, usury or interest, and even adoption."

Ellison's campaign also was backed by the Washington-based lobby group Council on American-Islamic Relations, a partner organization to American Open University-affiliated NAIF. CAIR held fundraisers for Ellison, a civil-rights lawyer and one-time acolyte of Louis Farrakhan who admits to making anti-Semitic remarks in the past (under various alias including Keith Hakim, Keith Ellison-Muhammad and Keith X Ellison).

CAIR's founder has argued the Quran should replace the Constitution as the highest authority in the land. The group's director of communications, moreover, has expressed his desire to see the U.S. become an Islamic state.


Risking death to avoid criticism
from WND

We're at war. It's not a joke.
How long will it take for the people of the free world to realize they're targets of an enemy that not only aims to eliminate their freedom but intends to kill them all.

That the British uncovered the terrorist plot to cause catastrophic plane explosions, which could have taken more than 3,000 lives in one, horrific, terrorist attack, merits the thanks and appreciation of all people who understand the fragility of freedom.

Thank you, Tony Blair and everyone involved with the effort. So too, thanks to Pakistan and other countries involved, including George Bush for any U.S. involvement, not the least of which was the method of tracing phone calls.

Have the revelations of the intricacies of the plot, the number of people involved, the ages and backgrounds of the terrorists, the sources of money to pull it off and the fact that this is just the tip of the terrorist iceberg made any difference in the awareness of Americans that we're the targets and that the enemy is militant Islam?

When President Bush calls the airplane plot part of the ''war with Islamic fascists,'' the media rush to report how U.S. Muslims are furious with his statement. Nihad Awad, executive director of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, was widely quoted calling the statement ''ill-advised,'' ''counter-productive,'' and urging ''public officials to restrain themselves.'' He said we should make sure ''we do not start a religious war against Islam and Muslims.''

How very thoughtful of him but I'm more concerned about the war against Christians and the West by militant Islam. His words would have more meaning if he started calling to task the militant, jihadist Muslims who plan, plot, and carry out terrorist acts as well as those who very publicly call for the elimination of Jews, Israel, the United States and everyone else. Let's have some restraint from them.

While we're dealing with the spread of militant Islam into the heart of free countries, and dilly-dally about the political correctness of how to protect ourselves, a battle for life and death is goes on.

Israel is fighting for its life trying to stop an enemy, which attacks its civilians and wants nothing less than its destruction.

Hezbollah maintains its goal to wipe out Jews and eliminate Israel. It continues firing rockets into Israel.

The United States supports Israel as having the right to defend itself but takes heat for it.

How bizarre that self-defense is criticized.

Judging by the media, just about everyone else it seems, with France in the forefront, wants a cease-fire. France?

The U.N. comes up with a cease-fire plan but Kofi Annan uses his moment in the spotlight to be upset it didn't happen sooner.

Anyone with sense would call that an Israeli surrender and Israel doesn't do that – or does it. We'll see.

Of course, despite the U.N., nothing will happen to change the fighting if Hezbollah doesn't agree and follow through.

Remember, this all started because Hezbollah finally kidnapped two Israeli soldiers as it continued to fire into Israel from Lebanon. It wasn't stopped by that government, or any other, for that matter.

Suddenly, when Israel fights back, the world is concerned.

Huh!

Hezbollah is a terrorist organization with the primary goal of the elimination of Jews. They're in league with other terrorist organizations and states, which not only support them but add to the kill-list the United States, Europe and ultimately Christians and western civilization.

That's quite a ''To Do'' list.

Funny, how they're not criticized for their goals.

Aside from some voices in the wilderness, the intended victims of what could ultimately be a holocaust of unimaginable proportions are mainly silent. By the way, that includes us. They won't speak out against militant Islam for fear of being criticized. Think of it – risking death to avoid criticism.

Where are the people defending the Jews in their battle of survival? In fact, where are the Jews defending Jews? Not a peep from them, because relativism and political correctness have turned the aggressors into victims and victims into the guilty. To them, Israel is the bad guy.

Last week, professional Jews were up in arms about the drunken rant of actor/producer Mel Gibson during his DUI arrest. Names in show business and the media came out of the woodwork with their sanctimonious accusations of anti-Semitism.

They suddenly became ''Jews'' and were offended, although in their other roles in the public eye, they are loathe to say anything even remotely religious, Jewish or otherwise.

The paid, professional Jews, associated with such organizations as the Anti-Defamation League, joined the fray heaping criticism on the actor.

If you didn't have a brain in your head, you might have praised them for standing up for their people, their heritage and their religious foundations. But wait, it wasn't too long ago, that many Hollywood and entertainment types were the ones fundraising for Israel, selling Israel bonds and planting trees in Israel to represent the sustenance of life in the arid desert. They championed Israel.

But that's all in the past. Now is now, and in their eyes, Israel is an armed aggressor who must be stopped.

Jews in Britain match the silence of American Jews.

Melanie Phillips, author of the excellent book about the Islamic takeover of Britain, ''Londonistan,'' put it perfectly in her commentary in the July 21, Jewish Chronicle. Her first line is: ''So, where is everyone?''

She spoke of the lies perpetrated in the media and in an advertisement in the Times of London, signed by what she called ''movers and shakers.'' It claimed, ''that Israel was guilty of 'collective punishment''' and ''terrorizing an entire people.''

Phillips said there was no protest ''at this malevolent collective libel – other countries do self-defense and military strategies but the Jews, it seems, only do revenge.''

I wish I'd said it first
---

FBI invites Muslim scholars to preach
The enemy within revisited

I hope the atheists of America took great comfort from remarks last week by Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., who told said: "You'll always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be atheists."
Gullibility comes in all shapes, sizes, colors – and apparently religions, judging from the applause that followed.

Ellison was in the middle of a brief interlude from one of his frequent tirades against his own country, suggesting, once again, the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were staged by President Bush, much like Adolf Hitler burned down the Reichstag in 1933 to expand his control over the nation.

"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," he said in his address last week. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the communists for it and it put the leader of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."

Ellison stopped just short of charging the terrorist attacks by his fellow Muslims was a government setup, saying: "The fact is that I'm not saying it was a plan or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nutball box – dismiss you."

Well, guess what? Ellison is very much in the nutball box – along with his fellow religionists in London, who, as WND reported earlier last week, were out in force calling for an Islamic takeover of the White House and the rule of the Quran over America and the United Kingdom.

If you had any doubts America's enemies are here already, these public statements, made in broad daylight, with cameras rolling and recorders capturing the audio, should serve as a wakeup call.

They're here.

They are unafraid.

They are not intimidated.

They are not cowering in fear.

They are bold.

They have positions of power and influence.

And there is very little price to pay for their outrageous, treasonous, fanatical, murderous calls for mayhem and jihad.

Listen to Anjem Choudary:
 
If you want to be chilled to the bone, listen to the hysterical, maniacal calls for the death of Western leaders, including Tony Blair and Queen Elizabeth, from Anjem Choudary, co-founder of Al Muhajiroun, a group tied to the 2005 London bombings and which praises the 9/11 attacks.
(http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56731)

At the same rally, Abu Saif, believed to be a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, linked to the most recent bomb attack in Glasgow, added: "Inshallah, (Allah willing), (Blair will) go to the Middle East as an envoy, and he'll come back in a box. Inshallah. What box that is, we leave to that up to you."

This public demonstration took place within days of the most recent UK car-bomb attacks and attempted attacks.

Just another day in Londonistan.

It could just as easily be Washingtonistan.

What is the reaction from Western leaders?

New British Prime Minister Gordon Brown refused to outlaw Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist group, instead banning his own ministers from attaching the word "Muslim" to the terrorist threat.

Likewise, President Bush has continued to refer to Islam as a "religion of peace," preferring, apparently, to pretend the West is not under siege from an evil ideology but rather some sort of epidemic of random criminal violence.

Those who pretend about the goals and intentions of their enemies are rarely victorious, as both Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan understood so clearly and enunciated so eloquently.

These enemies are not just in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

They are here.

They are vocal.

They are unafraid.

They are targeting us.

It's time to start targeting them.


The Enemy Within
by Marcus Tullius Cicero
(born January 3, 106 BC and murdered December 7, 43 BC)

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear."


Muslims demand pope convert to Islam
'Religion of peace' threatens destruction otherwise
By Bob Unruh

Christian churches in the Middle East are vandalized, a Catholic nun in Africa is killed and Muslims have demanded that the pope convert to Islam – all because he read a quote from a medieval text that described Islam as "evil and inhuman."

The pope has issued an apology for even referencing the historic text, emphasized that those views are not his, but still many in the Islamic world are demanding blood.

A new group called "The sword of Islam" contacted reporters and said it had fired gunshots at a Christian church in the Middle East during a demonstration over the comments.

"We want to make it clear that if the pope does not appear on TV and apologize for his comments, we will blow up all of Gaza's churches," the group said in a report.

The controversy arose a few days ago while Pope Benedict XVI was speaking in Germany, and he referred to the conclusions of Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, in which he made the reference to Islam being violent.

The pope, according to a Vatican statement, was simply reflecting on the "theme of the relationship between religion and violence in general, and to conclude with a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come."

But Muslims reacted to what they apparently perceived as an attack on their religion, and started vandalizing Middle East Christian churches, with seven so far sustaining varying levels of destruction.

In Africa, a nun was shot and killed, with indications the attack may have been a reaction to the statements.

And now, a report in the Jerusalem Post said that Muslim religious leaders in the Gaza Strip are warning the pope that he must "accept" Islam if he wanted to live in peace.

One Muslim cleric, Imad Hamto, said the pope must "repent and ask for forgiveness" and Hamto referred to a phrase taken from letters sent by the founder of Islam to the chiefs of tribes in his times – when he reportedly urged them to convert to Islam in order to keep their lives.

While President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, who himself has publicly called for the destruction of Israel and has denied the Holocaust without significant reaction, suggested that the pope has satisfactorily "modified" his remarks, others said they did not agree.

"Either apologize or don't come," read banners at a protest in Turkey, where the pope is scheduled to visit in November. And in Libya, a son of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi said the pope needs to change.

"If this person were really someone reasonable, he would not agree to remain at his post one minute but would convert to Islam immediately," the son, Mohammad Qaddafi, said.

The New York Times reported that the pope had issued condolences to the family of Sister Leonella Sgorbati, who was shot and killed in Somalia with her bodyguard.

"In repeating a firm condemnation of all forms of violence, his holiness the pope hopes that the blood shed by a such a faithful follower of the Gospel will become a seed of hope to build an authentic brotherhood between peoples," said a Vatican statement.

The Muslim American Society's Freedom Foundation said it plans a joint statement later with Catholic organizations over the pope's statements.

In the blog world, the "catholiclondoner" posted a number of photographs indicating that Muslims in the United Kingdom perhaps are not ready to move past the comments.

"Thought I'd refrain from posting anything substantial about his uproar …" he wrote. "Unfortunately after Mass today at Westminster Cathedral it was shoved in my face."

He said about 100 Islamists were chanting slogans in front of the church, including "Pope Benedict go to Hell," and "Pope Benedict you will pay, the Muja Hadeen are coming your way."

"It was a pretty nasty demonstration," he said.

"You have also given a witness to the hypocrisy of those Muslims who complain about being insulted on the one hand while giving grievous offence on the other. Well done," said one comment from "dunadan" on the Londoner's blog

"As a British citizen, I really hope that our government will now do something about the threat from Islam and Islamism – not just in words, but in deeds," said another.

"God Bless you brother in the Lord and friend for being a true witness to your faith. I am not surprised that there is protest. The pope simply cited the historic record. The Muslims have to face up to their history, they cannot forever live in deniel (sic)," said bigcatlady.

"You have helped expose the hatred and hypocrisy rotting beneath the polished 'Religion of Peace' façade," said emlin. "They feel free to curse and insult the Pope – but if you speak the truth about their beloved war-mongering Mohammed, well then a little jihad should help you feel the real peace of islam."

Pakistan's Parliament also approved a resolution criticizing the pope for his "derogatory" remarks. And Turkey's Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said the comments were "ugly."

The words that the pope quoted were: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

A report at LifeSiteNews.com said it traced the development of the furor and found a series of media reports contributing to the situation.

The report said the day after the speech, there was almost no reaction. A day later, however, there was a headline, "Pope's speech stirs Muslim anger."

As that headline spread through the Muslim world, the report said, the furor became real.

"On Sunday, Toronto-based columnist, David Warren, wrote in the Ottawa Citizen on the media-instigated uproar that has led to retaliatory attacks in Israel against Christian churches and clergy and the murder of a nun in Somalia," the report said.

"By manipulating the event, Warren says, the BBC was 'having a little mischief. The kind of mischief that is likely to end with Catholic priests and faithful butchered around the Muslim world.'"



Muslim-rights voice indicted in jihad plot
Ex-CAIR rep with group tied to al-Qaida, attorney also serves as lawyer for Hamas

A former spokesman for leading Islamic lobby groups opposed to U.S. counterterrorism efforts was among 11 men indicted for conspiring to train on American soil for a "violent jihad."
Randall Todd "Ismail" Royer – who little more than five weeks ago was communications director for a fund-raising effort sponsored by the American Muslim Council – allegedly trained with Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Kashmiri terrorist group with reported ties to al-Qaida.

Royer, 30, of Falls Church, Va., also was on the national staff of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group that considers itself a leading civil rights voice for American Muslims.

Most recently, he was a spokesman for the National Liberty Fund, which is defending Sami al-Arian, the Florida professor in federal custody as an alleged leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, according to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C.

The National Liberty Fund says it is combating the Justice Department's "opportunistic and politically motivated prosecutions."

The federal indictment, issued June 27, contends Royer traveled to Pakistan, engaged in propaganda work for Lashkar-e-Taiba and "fired at Indian positions in Kashmir." The charges also allege in September 2001, he "possessed in his automobile an AK-47-style rifle and 219 rounds of ammunition."

"A legal support structure for the terrorist front network in America is emerging," the Center for Security Policy asserts, noting Royer's defense lawyer, Stanley Cohen, also is an attorney for the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas.

CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association For Palestine, identified as a "front group" for Hamas, according to Steve Pomerantz, former chief of the FBI's counterterrorism section.

Another ex-FBI counterterrorism chief, Oliver "Buck" Revell, has called the Islamic Association For Palestine "a front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants."

In addition, Cohen's law partner, Lynne Stewart, is awaiting trial on federal charges that she served as a courier for Omar Abdel Rahman, the "blind sheik" convicted of masterminding the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York.

The center points out the Muslim groups for which Royer worked have pushed to repeal a law allowing terrorism-hunters to use classified information in the process of prosecuting and deporting foreign terror suspects.

Allegations denied

Royer characterized the allegations against him as baseless during an interview with the Washington Post. He dismissed the discovery of pistols and rifles inside the homes of some group members as insignificant.

"Ooooh, gosh, they have weapons," Royer said. "I really resent the idea that a Muslim with a gun – he's a threat. A Jew with a gun – he's not a threat."

In a brief description of Royer on Islam Online, he was identified as a communications specialist for CAIR, where he had worked in "research and civil rights since 1997."

The site said he formerly wrote investigative pieces on "anti-Muslim organizations" for an online newssite called iviews.com, where he served as Washington bureau chief. Islam Online said he wrote a story designated one of the "Most Censored Press Releases of 1999" by Timothy McSweeney's, a literary journal.

One of CAIR's chief targets of criticism is Daniel Pipes, director of the Philadelphia-based think tank Middle East Forum,

In a weblog Royer ran, dated Sept. 17, 2002, he called Pipes a "pop bigot" and responded to the scholar's New York Post article about militant Islamic influence on American campuses with the following comment: "[Pipes] has served up another steaming shovelful of fertilizer. What a joy it is to read this guy. His stuff requires no real effort to deconstruct, no deliberate propaganda analysis to realize how he intends to deceive the reader."

Royer is the second CAIR figure to be arrested this year. Bassem Khafagi was the group's director of community relations before his arrest in January. Also, Siraj Wahhaj, a member of CAIR's advisory board, was named as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in the attempt to blow up New York City monuments in the early 1990s.

'Danger to community'?

Yesterday, a federal judge said she is inclined to free Royer while he awaits his November trial but delayed her decision to learn more about the case, the Associated Press reported.

Prosecutors argue Royer is a danger to the community because of connections between Lashkar and al-Qaida and should be held until his trial. Last week, however, a magistrate judge ordered his release, prompting prosecutors to appeal the decision yesterday to U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg pointed out the spiritual leader of the Virginia network, Ali al-Timimi, called the United States the greatest enemy of Islam.

Royer's lawyer Cohen insists no evidence exists to show Royer had any hostile intent toward the United States.

He argues Royer's writings and statements as spokesman for various Islamic groups denounce al-Qaida and violence against the United States.

"The government keeps talking about al-Qaida," Cohen said, according to the AP. "They've been looking at [Royer] for at least a year and there's not a connection there."

Cohen acknowledged Royer fought in Bosnia with Muslim groups in the mid-1990s, but argued it was not illegal to do so.

Eight of the 11 men charged have been arrested. All have pleaded innocent.



Muslims grooming candidates
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32661

Muslim group sues congressman for $2 million
CAIR says charge of ties to terrorism 'malicious and defamatory'

By Art Moore

A Muslim lobby group has filed a $2 million defamation suit against a U.S. Congressman who asserted in a newspaper interview the Washington, D.C.-based group is tied to terrorism.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, charges Rep. Cass Ballenger, R-N.C., falsely claimed the group raised funds for terrorists and did so "with actual malice, wrongful and willful intent to injure and with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity."

The suit was filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in response to an interview with the Charlotte Observer published Oct. 4.

"With this lawsuit, we are sending a clear message to all those who make malicious and defamatory statements against American Muslims or their institutions that they will be held accountable in a court of law," said Arsalan Iftikhar, CAIR's director of legal affairs.

Coincidentally, the nine-term congressman announced yesterday he will not seek re-election. Ballenger's press secretary, Preston Hartman, told WorldNetDaily, however, CAIR's announcement of the lawsuit came "out of the blue."

Hartman said he first learned of it yesterday from a reporter.

In its lawsuit, CAIR said Ballenger's "defamatory statements" harmed the group's reputation and were "not protected speech because he did not make them within the scope of his role as a member of the House of Representatives."

In the October interview, Ballenger, 76, claimed the stress of living across the street from CAIR's headquarters in Washington, D.C., was partly to blame for the breakup of his 50-year marriage.

He downplayed the remarks in a story yesterday by the Raleigh, N.C., News & Observer, stating his family was concerned after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and during anthrax scares in Congress.

"I was quoting my wife's feelings," he said. "I could give a hoot about the Muslims across the street."

Ballenger noted he and his wife, who are both "very wealthy," are legally separated but do not plan to divorce. The congressman owns a plastics company.

According to the Observer's October story, Ballenger called CAIR a "fund-raising arm" for terrorist groups and said he reported CAIR to the FBI and CIA.

The couple's proximity to CAIR headquarters, just down the street from the Capitol, "bugged the hell" out of his wife, he said.

"Diagonally across from my house, up goes a sign – CAIR the fund-raising arm for Hezbollah," said Ballenger, according to the Observer, referring to the Lebanese group regarded by the U.S. as a terrorist organization. "I reported them to the FBI and CIA."

Ballenger told the Charlotte paper his wife, a homemaker, was anxious about all the activity at CAIR headquarters, including people unloading boxes and women "wearing hoods," or headscarves, going in and out of the office building on New Jersey Avenue.

"That's two and a half blocks from the Capitol," he added, "and they could blow it up."

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper responded in the Observer story.

"This is out-and-out bigotry," he said. "It's unworthy of an elected official at the national level. You wonder what he's been doing in Congress if this is the kind of analysis he does: 'You're a Muslim, so you're guilty.'"

But the lawsuit is an unusual move for CAIR, says Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes, a close observer of the group who notes some of its employees have been indicted on terror charges.

"I have always thought that they would be wary of engaging in a lawsuit of this sort, particularly one that associates them with terrorism, because of the discovery that will follow," he told WND. "So, this would seem to suggest that the leadership in CAIR is feeling confident."

In July, a member of CAIR's national staff, Randall Todd "Ismail" Royer, was among 11 men indicted for conspiring to train on American soil for a "violent jihad." Another CAIR figure, Bassem Khafagi, was arrested in January while serving as the group's director of community relations. Last December, Ghassan Elashi, the founder of CAIR's Texas chapter, was indicted for financial ties to Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook.

Pipes sees the suit as a form of intimidation, "an attempt to shut down political discourse."

"They've gone out of their way to take obscure statements in a local newspaper and give them national prominence," he said. "This is not something that was foisted on them."

CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association For Palestine, labeled a "front group" for the terrorist organization Hamas by two former heads of the FBI's counterterrorism section.

CAIR's leaders also have provided evidence the group has aims beyond civil-rights advocacy.

As WorldNetDaily reported, CAIR's chairman of the board, Omar Ahmad, was cited by a California newspaper in 1998 declaring the Quran should be America's highest authority.

He also was reported to have said Islam is not in America to be equal to any other religion but to be dominant.

Hooper himself indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he wants to see the United States become a Muslim country.

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," Hooper told the paper. "But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."


American Islamic lobby gets out the vote
Expert: 'Ultimately they want to make the U.S. a Muslim country'
By Art Moore

A controversial American Islamic advocacy group has planned a voter registration drive to coincide with the upcoming Muslim holiday at the end of the pilgrimage to Mecca.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, alleged to have ties to terrorist groups such as Hamas, says "our goal, insha'Allah (if Allah wills), is to register more than 100,000 new Muslim voters over the next eight months."

CAIR is urging Islamic communities to sign up Muslim voters at festivals that follow Eid ul-Adha prayers, held on Feb. 22 or 23, depending on the new moon. The holiday commemorates what Muslims believe was the prophet Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Ishmael at God's command.

Some observers of CAIR and similar organizations insist that while these groups have a right to lobby just as any other public interest, their aims are suspect.

"They may not admit it, but ultimately they want to make the U.S. a Muslim country," Steven Emerson, a leading anti-terrorism specialist, told WorldNetDaily.

"In the interim they want to acquire as much political power as possible to push their agenda, to be afforded legitimacy by political officials," Emerson said. "So this (voter drive) is part and parcel of their campaign."

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he wants to see the United States become a Muslim country.

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," Hooper told the Star Tribune. "But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

Hooper noted in the interview that Muslims aren't allowed to take over the U.S. and other governments. "What we fight for here and in the remainder of the world is to practice our beliefs," he said.

Calls to CAIR and Hooper's office by WorldNetDaily were not returned.

Emerson notes that Abdulrahman Alamoudi, then-executive director of the American Muslim Council, said at a conference by the Islamic Association for Palestine in December 1996 that the United States will become a Muslim country, even if it takes 100 years.

Emerson was a staff member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and a journalist for U.S. News & World Report and CNN. In a CAIR editorial published on its website, Hooper called Emerson "the attack dog of the extremist wing of America's pro-Israel lobby."

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad said in a statement on the voter drive that "recent events and new government policies have served to spur already growing political participation by American Muslims."

"We have an obligation, because of the Islamic duty of 'enjoining good and prohibiting evil,' to make our voices heard on a number of important issues," Awad said. "Voting, at both the local and national level, is the best way to accomplish that goal."

Awad once worked for the Islamic Association of Palestine, considered by U.S. intelligence officials to be a front group for Hamas operating in the United States. While acknowledging Awad's former affiliation, Hooper has denied any connection between CAIR and IAP.

But CAIR recently rallied to the defense of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development – a U.S.-based group accused of channeling funds to Hamas – arguing that President Bush's decision to freeze their assets could give the impression that "there has been a shift from a war on terrorism to an attack on Islam."

Emerson cites as evidence of CAIR's affinity for Hamas "their co-sponsorship of conferences calling for the death of Jews, statements on behalf of Hamas leaders, statements defending Iran and the Sudan and sponsorship of hate rallies where attacks on America are made."

Alamoudi, the former AMC director, was quoted at a Washington, D.C. rally, Oct. 28, 2000, saying: "I have been labeled by the media in New York to be a supporter of Hamas. We are all supporters of Hamas. I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah."

CAIR seeks to underscore its political clout by citing a figure of about 7 million Muslims in the United States, but recent counts have come up with a much lower total. An evaluation of current estimates, conducted by Howard Fienberg and Iain Murray of the nonprofit, nonpartisan Statistical Assessment Service, concluded there are about 2 million U.S. Muslims. A recent study commissioned by the American Jewish Committee puts the number between 1.9 million and 2.8 million.

CAIR and other groups such as the AMC, American Muslim Alliance and Muslim Public Affairs Council, helped get out the vote during the 2000 election. Their top issues included opposition to racial profiling and the use of secret evidence against people suspected of terrorist activity.

The groups claimed their support of Bush put him in office, but an exit poll by the Detroit News showed 66 percent of Muslims in Michigan voted for Al Gore. Muslims are heavily concentrated in Detroit and other major metropolitan areas including New York, Chicago and Southern California.

Arab-American pollster John Zogby estimates that U.S. Muslims are about 30 percent African-American, 20 percent Pakistani, 15 percent Arab American and 13 percent Indian. About 20 percent come from Iran, Turkey, Africa and Asia.

While most Muslims in the U.S. might not share CAIR's views or even know about the organization, adding 100,000 Muslim voters would give the group more clout to carry out its political agenda, Emerson said.

"I think we've already seen some of that in terms of what has happened over the last few years," he said, "when Hollywood studios change the scripts to take out any references to militant Islamic terrorists, or when school boards actually excise books from the curriculum because CAIR says they are deemed harmful to 'Islam,' or if counterterrorism laws are not enforced because of the fear that this is going to be anti-Muslim."

Emerson said that before Sept. 11 there was a strong move in Congress to stop the use of classified evidence in deportations of terrorists.

"They had been gaining a lot of momentum abetted by the naivete of the media," Emerson said.


Al Aqsa official: Jewish temples existed
Says proof passed down over the centuries by mosque custodians
By Aaron Klein

JERUSALEM – Contradicting most of his colleagues, a former senior leader of the Waqf, the Islamic custodians of the Temple Mount, told WorldNetDaily in an exclusive interview he has come to believe the first and second Jewish Temples existed and stood at the current location of the Al Aqsa Mosque.

The leader, who was dismissed from his Waqf position after he quietly made his beliefs known, said Al Aqsa custodians passed down stories for centuries from generation to generation indicating the mosque was built at the site of the former Jewish temples.

He said the Muslim world's widespread denial of the existence of the Jewish temples is political in nature and is not rooted in facts.

"Prophet Solomon built his famous Temple at the same place that later the Al Aqsa Mosque was built. It cannot be a coincidence that these different holy sites were built at the same place. The Jewish Temple Mount existed," said the former senior Waqf leader, speaking to WorldNetDaily from an apartment in an obscure alley in Jerusalem's Old City.

The former leader, who is well known to Al Aqsa scholars and Waqf officials, spoke on condition his name be withheld, claiming an on-the-record interview would endanger his life.

While the Islamic leader's statements may seem elementary to many in the West, especially in light of overwhelming archaeological evidence documenting the history of the Jewish temples and description of services there in the Torah, his words break with mainstream thinking in much of the Muslim world, which believes the Jewish temples never existed.

"I am mentioning historical facts," said the former leader. "I know that the traditional denial about the temple existing at the same place as Al Aqsa is more a political denial. Unfortunately our religious and political leaders chose the option of denial to fight the Jewish position and demands regarding Al Aqsa and taking back the Temple Mount compound. In my opinion we should admit the truth and abandon our traditional position."

The leader said his conclusion that the Jewish temples existed does not forfeit what he calls "Islamic rights" to the Temple Mount and Al Aqsa Mosque.

"Yes, the temple existed. But now it is the place of the mosque of the religious who came to complete the divine religion [that started with Judaism] and to improve humanity," said the leader.

"We believe that Islam is the third and last religion. It came to complete the monotheistic message. The mosque is here at the place of the temple to serve for the same purpose, for the work of Allah."

Al Aqsa Mosque built by angels?

The First Temple was built by King Solomon in the 10th century B.C. It was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. The Second Temple was rebuilt in 515 B.C. after Jerusalem was freed from Babylonian captivity. That temple was destroyed by the Roman Empire in A.D. 70. Each temple stood for a period of about four centuries.

The Jewish Temple was the center of religious Jewish worship. It housed the Holy of Holies, which contained the Ark of the Covenant and was said to be the area upon which God's "presence" dwelt.

The temple served as the primary location for the offering of sacrifices and was the main gathering place in Israel during Jewish holidays.

The Temple Mount compound has remained a focal point for Jewish services over the millennia. Prayers for a return to Jerusalem have been uttered by Jews since the Second Temple was destroyed, according to Jewish tradition. Jews worldwide pray facing toward the Western Wall, a portion of an outer courtyard of the Temple left intact.

The Al Aqsa Mosque was constructed in about 709 to serve as a shrine near another nearby shrine, the Dome of the Rock, which was built by an Islamic caliph. Al Aqsa was meant to mark what Muslims came to believe may have been the place at which Muhammad, the founder of Islam, ascended to heaven during a dream to receive revelations from Allah.

Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran. Islamic tradition states Mohammed took a journey in a single night from "a sacred mosque" – believed to be in Mecca in southern Saudi Arabia – to "the farthest mosque" and from a rock there ascended to heaven. The farthest mosque later became associated with Jerusalem.

Muslims worldwide deny the Jewish temples ever existed in spite of what many call overwhelming archaeological evidence, including the discovery of Temple-era artifacts linked to worship, tunnels that snake under the Temple Mount and over 100 ritual immersion pools believed to have been used by Jewish priests to cleanse themselves before services. The cleansing process is detailed in the Torah.

According to the website of the Palestinian Authority's Office for Religious Affairs, the Temple Mount is Muslim property. The site claims the Western Wall, which it refers to as the Al-Boraq Wall, previously was a docking station for horses. It states Muhammed tied his horse, named Boraq, to the wall before ascending to heaven.

In a previous interview with WorldNetDaily, Kamal Hatib, vice-chairman of the Islamic Movement, claimed the Al-Aqsa Mosque was built by angels and that a Jewish Temple may have existed but not in Jerusalem. The Movement, which works closely with the Waqf, is the Muslim group in Israel most identified with the Temple Mount.

"When the First Temple was built by Solomon – God bless him – Al Aqsa was already built. We don't believe that a prophet like Solomon would have built the Temple at a place where a mosque existed," said Hatib.

"And all the historical and archaeological facts deny any relation between the temples and the location of Al Aqsa. We must know that Jerusalem was occupied and that people left many things, coins and other things everywhere. This does not mean in any way that there is a link between the people who left these things and the place where these things were left," Hatib said.

'True' Islamic tradition affirms temples

But the former senior Wafq leader told WND "true" Islamic tradition relates the Jewish temples once stood at the site of the Al Aqsa Mosque. He said Al Aqsa custodians passed down history over the centuries indicating the mosque was built at the site of the former Jewish temples.

"[The existence of the Jewish Temple at the site is obvious] according to studies, researches and archaeological signs that we were also exposed to. But especially according to the history that passed from one generation to another – we believe Al Aqsa was built on the same place were the Temple of the Jews – the first monotheistic religion – existed."

He cited samples of some stories he said were related orally by Islamic leaders:

"We learned that the Christians, especially those who believed that Jesus was crucified by the Jews, used to throw their garbage at the Temple Mount site. They used to throw the pieces of cotton and other material Christian women used in cleaning the blood of their monthly cycle. Doing so they believed that they were humiliating, insulting and harming the Jews at their holiest site. This way they are hurting them like Jews hurt Christians when crucifying Jesus.

"It is known also that most of the first guards of Al Aqsa when it was built were Jews. The Muslims knew at that time that they could not find any more loyal and faithful than the Jews to guard the mosque and its compound. They knew that the Jews have a special relation with this place."

Temple Mount: No-prayer zone

Currently, even though the Jewish state controls Jerusalem, the Waqf serve as the custodians of the Temple Mount under a deal made with the Israeli government that restricts non-Muslim prayer at the site.

The Temple Mount was opened to the general public until September 2000, when the Palestinians started their intifada by throwing stones at Jewish worshipers after then-candidate for prime minister Ariel Sharon visited the area.

Following the onset of violence, the new Sharon government closed the Mount to non-Muslims, using checkpoints to control all pedestrian traffic for fear of further clashes with the Palestinians.

The Temple Mount was reopened to non-Muslims in August 2003. It still is open but only Sundays through Thursdays, 7:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., and not on any Christian, Jewish or Muslim holidays or other days considered "sensitive" by the Waqf.

During "open" days, Jews and Christian are allowed to ascend the Mount, usually through organized tours and only if they conform first to a strict set of guidelines, which includes demands that they not pray or bring any "holy objects" to the site. Visitors are banned from entering any of the mosques without direct Waqf permission. Rules are enforced by Waqf agents, who watch tours closely and alert nearby Israeli police to any breaking of their guidelines.

The former senior Waqf leader said the Jewish temples have lost their purpose:

"As we are the religion who are here to correct everything that was before us there is no need for the Temple. Allah chose Islam as its final and favorite religion."


Invasion (http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=959
by Michelle Malkin

In "Invasion," Michelle Malkin gives us the bad news -- terrorists are all still welcome in America -- even after Sept. 11, 2001

That is the alarming message about the gross negligence of our immigration system today.

This is a shocking expose of how America's lax immigration policies led to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks

Malkin, one of America's most important young journalists and a first–generation American of Filipino descent, shows how every component of our immigration system failed: from kowtowing consular offices to unguarded borders and ports of entry to toothless detention and deportation policies.

Plagued by inertia, political correctness and corruption, the U.S. government refuses to enforce its immigration laws with consistency and common sense.

In "Invasion," Malkin reveals:
How the Sept. 11 terrorists and other menaces exploited U.S. immigration laws;
How government officials sell residency and citizenship privileges for sex, Oriental carpets and cash;
Why New York City -- despite being targeted by terrorists who violated immigration laws -- insists on operating as a safe haven for illegal aliens;
How the very people paid to protect our borders let terrorists, cop–killers and other violent criminals loose on the American public;
How millions of foreigners are rushed through airports without proper screening because of pressure from corporate special interests;
How politicians' vote pandering -- from Bill Clinton's "Citizenship USA" program to George W. Bush's courtship of Hispanics -- endangers the nation's safety;


Feds leading U.S. into 'national suicide'
How the government's immigration policies are destroying America
(http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55980)

It's finally undeniable. America's very existence as a free nation is threatened by a full-scale illegal invasion from the south. The nation's transformation from what once was a unified Judeo-Christian culture into an angry cauldron of squabbling groups and nationalities grows daily. And the U.S. government's response to this momentous threat to America's national survival? Excuse it, legalize it and encourage it!

Why is the federal government doing this? How can Americans stop it? And most importantly, what is the right way to deal with the nation's overwhelming and ever-worsening illegal immigration problem?

That's the focus of the June edition of WND's elite monthly Whistleblower magazine, in a blockbuster issue titled "NATIONAL SUICIDE: How the government's immigration policies are destroying America."

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich calls the government's current effort to fix the problem "madness." Pat Buchanan and David Limbaugh both call it "suicide."

And President Theodore Roosevelt, looking forward through the decades to today, warned us sternly: "The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."

Yet today's government, by allowing and indeed encouraging a Third World immigrant invasion of the United States – encouraging it by offering endless incentives like Social Security, food stamps and free education, as well as refusing to enforce existing immigration laws – is overseeing a radical conversion of America.

But as "NATIONAL SUICIDE" proves, there are ways to cure the current illegal immigration cancer – ways that are sensible, fair, democratic, orderly, cost-effective and utterly do-able. All that is required to end America's national nightmare is courage and clear-headedness on the part of government, coupled with a strong, enlightened action plan, such as that laid out in this edition of Whistleblower.

Issue highlights include:
"Don't put the cart before the horse" by Joseph Farah, who shows why the government needs to secure America's borders and deport illegals with criminal records first, and then come back to law-abiding Americans with any further proposals.

"Path to national suicide," in which Patrick Buchanan explains, "Not only is the Melting Pot broken, it is rejected by our elites."

"Madness," in which Newt Gingrich calls government's current immigration reform effort "the most self-destructive bill" of his lifetime.

"The destruction of America's working class" by famed film director Ron Maxwell, who offers an inspired solution to the nation's immigration invasion.

"What's really behind America's immigration nightmare?" by David Kupelian, who shows poignantly how a leftist assault on this nation's moral foundation has opened America's doors to virtual invasion.

"Why aren't Republicans crying?" by David Limbaugh, who explains why current efforts of Congress are luring America into "suicide."

"Importing a slave class" by Ann Coulter, who says a "vast class of unskilled immigrants is the left's new form of slavery."

"Business visionary predicted North American union in '93," documenting celebrated author Peter Drucker's prediction 14 years ago that nothing could stop the integration of Mexico, Canada and the U.S.

"National ID card?" – which asks whether U.S. citizens will accept a national identity card for the sake of more effective immigration enforcement.

"Essential requirements for immigration reform" by Edwin Meese and Matthew Spalding of the Heritage Foundation, a comprehensive look at specific and detailed steps for solving America's immigration and border-security crisis.
Before there can be any "comprehensive immigration reform," said WND founder and Editor Joseph Farah, "first you have to deal with the root cause – open borders, unenforced immigration laws, and incentives. That is a costly and time-consuming solution – but one that is critical and vital if we take national sovereignty and security seriously. The alternative is lawlessness, cultural anarchy and continued subversion of the clear will of the people."

"Very simply," Farah added, "this powerful issue of Whistleblower reveals in detail how to solve America's most pressing problem. It needs to be read as widely as possible."

What's really behind the Washington elite's unpopular promotion of amnesty for millions of illegal aliens?

What is the bigger agenda that propels politicians from both parties to defy the will of the American people and ignore the laws of the land?

Is it possible it's really just part of a plot to erase the borders of North America and move Mexico, the U.S. and Canada toward a European Union-style superstate?

WND columnist Jerome Corsi exposes the whole globalist agenda in "The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada," his latest book that, for the first time, puts together all the pieces of the puzzle.

While the book will not be officially released to bookstores until the week of July 4, WND has in stock advance copies of the first edition and is offering them for a limited time at a bargain sale price personally autographed by Corsi, the best-selling author of "Unfit for Command" and many other books.

Using dozens of documents secured through the Freedom of Information Act and his trademark style of investigative reporting, Corsi sets out a chilling view of America's possible "harmonized" future – one being created covertly, without voter input, congressional oversight or even a national debate.

It's the latest release from WND Books, founded with the same mission as WND – to provide cutting-edge investigative reporting into government waste, fraud, abuse and corruption,

"Titles like 'The Late Great USA' are what we had in mind when we founded WND Books," explains Joseph Farah, founder of both the publishing company and the leading independent Internet news source.

Corsi, Farah and the WND editorial staff have led the way in breaking news about the North American Union agenda over the past two years. But "The Late Great USA" goes beyond what can be told or comprehended in dozens of news stories spread out over time.

"This book will be a news breaker," says Farah. "I believe the North American Union agenda will finally be the talk of the nation this summer as a result of the focus on the immigration debate. Everyone is wondering why President Bush and others are so adamant about ramming amnesty down our throats. This book has the answers. And it is bound to shock all Americans."


Borders, language, and culture! Get Michael Savage's 'The Savage Nation' at reduced price
(http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1037 & http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1037)


"Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy"
by Bruce Bartlett

George W. Bush is widely considered -- by liberals -- to be one of the most politically conservative presidents in history. But many on the right have a different perspective. Among the latter are Bruce Bartlett, a highly respected Republican economist and an alumnus of the Reagan White House, who in 2000 was an eager supporter of George W. Bush (and even helped to craft the President's early tax cuts) but has since become disillusioned by his big-spending, government-expanding ways. Now, in Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy, Bartlett attacks the Bush administration's economic performance root and branch -- showing how Bush has made no effort to restrain the growth of government, greatly increased domestic spending, created a new entitlement program for prescription drugs, failed to veto a single bill, and expanded both the size and scope of government in many ways quite apart from national defense and homeland security. Bartlett also explains why the Bush policies will have serious economic consequences for the country - and possibly fatal political consequences for the GOP. (http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6872)


"Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense," by Charl Van Wyk. The author, who lived through an Islamic terrorist attack on his church during worship service, during which he fought them off with his .38 pistol, makes a powerful, biblical case for armed self-defense.


In Allah We Trust?
"Infiltration" reveals shocking truth about Islamic spies, subversives in U.S.

While Americans continue to promote cultural diversity and religious tolerance as society's highest values, radical Muslims masquerading as "moderates" have insinuated themselves into the very fabric of American society, to the nation's extreme peril, says a startling new book by veteran investigative journalist Paul Sperry.

For a limited time, WND readers can buy "Infiltration" at a steep discount, even below Amazon's price.

"Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington" reveals how Islamic extremists, taking advantage of Americans' blind trust and gaining footholds in the nation's education system, government, workplace, law enforcement and military, have been covertly working to destroy America's constitutional government and the Judeo-Christian ethics on which the nation was built

In his blockbuster expose, Sperry uses classified documents and revealing interviews to courageously explain how, for the past 30 years, Muslims have labored to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Quran and turn America into an Islamic state. And, as Sperry details point-by-point, they have been unwittingly aided in their sinister aims by the politically correct media, government, and citizens, who don't fully understand the dangers of the Muslim faith.

"Infiltration" explodes the facade of moderation and patriotism that Muslim scholars, imams, clerics, businessmen and other leaders in the burgeoning Muslim community in America have conveyed in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In reality, says Sperry, the Muslim establishment that publicly decries the radical fringe – represented by al-Qaida’s brand of Islam known as Wahhabism, the official religion of Saudi Arabia – is actually a part of it. The only difference is that they use words and money instead of bombs to accomplish their goals.

Now, finally, their cover is blown. "Infiltration" promises not only to make readers forget nearly everything they’ve been told about these "moderate" and "mainstream" leaders, but it will also expose the true agenda of these "moderate" and "mainstream" leaders and explain the full scope of the dangerous threat of Islam in America.


"Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad" (book)
by Hal Lindsey

Best-selling author Hal Lindsey explains how, on Sept. 11, an ancient fight–to–the–death conflict exploded on the shores of the U.S. Though most Americans didn't realize it, we were already involved in this struggle. A struggle driven by a hatred that goes back over 4,000 years. Islamic fundamentalism's purpose is to replace the Judeo-Christian world order with an Islamic world order. Every American needs to understand the enormity of the threat we face -- and why.

In the aftermath of 9/11 most Americans are asking:
Why do so many Muslims hate Jews?
Why do Islamic fundamentalists hate the United States and call it "The Great Satan?"
Why did Islamic terrorists sacrifice their own lives to kill Americans?
Do Islamic fundamentalists have access to weapons of mass destruction?
Could Islamic terrorists imperil the survival of the United States?
What light does Bible prophecy shed on this?
Does the Koran call for violence and conquest?
Are the Islamic fundamentalists an aberration of the Muslim religion, or are they - as they claim - the "True followers of Mohammad?"
This book will answer these questions with both Biblical and secular history. It will also bring new hope to the coming "perilous times."

The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Islam (and the Crusades)
REVEALED, at long last: the whole "politically incorrect" truth about Islam's violent teachings, bloody history, backward culture, and morally depraved founder, PLUS: Why the Crusades were justified wars of Christian self-defense against centuries of Muslim aggression
by Robert Spencer.

When PC propagandists assure us that jihadist terror doesn't reflect "true," "peaceful" Islam, they're not only wrong, they're dangerous -- because they lull America and the West into letting their guard down against their mortal enemy. And not only do self-appointed "experts" lie elaborately and persistently about Islam -- they have also replaced the truth about Christian Europe and the Crusades with an all-pervasive historical fantasy that is designed to make you ashamed of your own culture and heritage -- and thus less determined to defend it. But now there's a remedy: in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), Robert Spencer reveals all the disturbing facts about Islam and its murderous hostility to the West that other books ignore, soft-pedal -- or simply lie about. (http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6805)

Borders, language, and culture! Get Michael Savage's 'The Savage Nation' at reduced price

"Israel in Crisis" (http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=23&ITEM_ID=335)

"Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict"  (http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=22&ITEM_ID=299) is a revised and updated version of the classic guide to the Arab-Israeli conflict including all the events since Oslo.

The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise has published an unparalleled guide to the ongoing Middle East conflict. It includes a comprehensive discussion of the many myths about Israel and the Jews that have circulated for decades. Author Mitchell G. Bard, a foreign policy analysts and expert on U.S.-Middle East policy, dispels scores of myths covering several different historical eras, including:

"Palestine was always an Arab country."
"The Zionists could have chosen another country besides Palestine."
"Israel usurped all of Palestine in 1948."
"The Jews started the first war with the Arabs."
"Israel has been an expansionist state since its creation."
"Israel illegally annexed the Golan Heights in 1981."
"The Palestinians have been denied a voice at the U.N."
"1 million Palestinians were expelled by Israel from 1947-49."
These and many other contentions are refuted with accurate historical data. The book also contains several maps and tables to help the reader gain a better understanding of the conflict.

Learn to discern the truth about today's events in the Middle East by arming yourself with this invaluable reference book.

From Time Immemorial: Origins of Arab-Jewish Conflict (by Joan Peters (http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=36)

This monumental and fascinating book, the product of seven years of original research, will forever change the terms of the debate about the conflicting claims of the Arabs and the Jews in the Middle East.

The weight of the comprehensive evidence found and brilliantly analyzed by historian and journalist Joan Peters answers many crucial questions, among them: Why are the Arab refugees from Israel seen in a different light from all the other, far more numerous peoples who were displaced after World War II? Why, indeed, are they seen differently from the Jewish refugees who were forced, in 1948 and after, to leave the Arab countries to find a haven in Israel? Who, in fact, are the Arabs who were living within the borders of present-day Israel, and where did they come from?

Joan Peter's highly readable and moving development of the answers to these and related questions will appear startling, even to those on both sides of the argument who have considered themselves to be in command of the facts.

This book is one that has already had a major impact on the policy discussions of one of the most vital and intractable of the world's problems, shrouded until now in a fog of misinformation and ignorance.


CAIR's war on talk radio
By Michelle Malkin
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin_2004_05_05.php3

The Council on American-Islamic Relations won't condemn Muslim fanatics, but it has declared war on outspoken Americans who will.

CAIR, which calls itself "America's largest Islamic civil liberties group," has lately focused its wrath on conservative radio talk show hosts. A new report by the group released this week attempts to tie talk radio to a dubious "sharp jump" in (self-reported) "Islamophobic hate crimes" in the U.S. CAIR fights dirty — fabricating quotes, taking comments out of context, indulging in the cult of victimology, and exploiting a gullibly sympathetic press. By manufacturing an anti-Muslim hate epidemic that doesn't exist, CAIR obfuscates its own suspicious role in fomenting anti-American extremism.

The most recent target of CAIR's campaign to stifle critics of radical Islam is Boston-based radio talk show veteran Jay Severin. On April 23, CAIR issued a press release headlined: "Boston Radio Host Says Kill All Muslims; Islamic Civil Rights Group Calls for Host's Termination." On April 25, the Boston Globe parroted the charges in a story that quoted CAIR spokeswoman Rabiah Ahmed accusing Severin of saying on his show, "I've got an idea, let's kill all Muslims."

Just one teensy problem with the story. It wasn't true. On April 27, the Globe was forced to publish a correction admitting that Severin never said "kill all Muslims." CAIR, however, has refused to admit the fabrication and continues to call for Severin's termination.

In Washington, D.C., CAIR took aim at local talk show host and JewishWorldReview.com columnist Michael Graham for making an "implicit" call for violence against all Muslims and for advocating common-sense security profiling. Singling Graham out for criticism, CAIR announced a new initiative "designed to counter anti-Muslim hate on radio talk shows" called "Hate Hurts America." Like Severin, Graham refused to be intimidated. (To read article, please click HERE.).

"What CAIR does is try to portray all criticism of all Muslims everywhere as bigotry," Graham responded.

"They singled me out because I said on the air (and have said in print as well) that Islam is a uniquely dangerous religion, that the religion itself needs a reformation much like those experienced by Catholicism and Mormonism, and that the one distinguishing attribute of 'moderate' Muslims is their reluctance to publicly criticize the actions of the Islamo-fascist extremists who continue to spread terror. Now, you might agree with me or you might disagree with me, but this is hardly bigotry. 'Stating the obvious' is a more apt description. But any criticism from an infidel like yours truly is unbearable to the folks at CAIR, and so they've launched their attack."

National radio personalities Paul Harvey and Dr. Laura have also come under fire for expressing opinions about Islam and calling on Muslims to disassociate themselves from terrorists. Harvey caved in to CAIR's pressure after members of the group besieged advertisers with threats and complaints because the veteran broadcaster alluded to Islam as "a religion which encourages killing." The ever-feisty Dr. Laura stood her ground, refusing to apologize for advising a mother not to let her daughter attend a field trip to a local mosque unless it was "one that has done its best to rout out terrorists in its midst."

CAIR attacks the "hate-filled rhetoric" of conservative talk show hosts, but as Middle East scholars Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, and others have amply demonstrated, several of the group's past and present leaders have refused to criticize the hate-filled rhetoric — and bloody acts of violence — of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Three former CAIR officials have been indicted on charges of terrorism, money laundering or fraud-related charges. Most recently, Ismail Royer — a former CAIR "communications specialist" who "wrote investigative pieces on anti-Muslim organizations" — was sentenced to 20 years in prison for weapons convictions related to his participation in a network of militant jihadists centered in Northern Virginia.

CAIR publicity hounds remain uncharacteristically silent about Royer's conviction. Instead, they fulminate about the civil rights of Muslims being violated whenever someone offers even the mildest public dissent from Religion of Peace propaganda. These people won't rest until they have achieved the Al Jazeera-fication of America's airwaves.



Dr. Laura: No apology to Muslims needed
Remarks 'quite specific to terrorists and the people who harbor them'

Radio counselor Dr. Laura Schlessinger says she will not apologize, as demanded by a controversial Islamic lobby group that accused her of launching an "anti-Muslim tirade" on her program this week.

"It's absurd that anyone would even imagine that I was expressing disdain for everyone who is a Muslim or who is an Arab," she said on her show Thursday. "That's even stupid. If anybody has listened to me for any period of time, that's absurd."

The Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations took offense to remarks made by Schlessinger on Monday's program in response to a mother who asked whether her 16-year-old daughter should take part in a Catholic high school class's field trip to a local mosque. The visit was part of a "moral themes" class that aimed to help students learn how "Muslims are treated" in the United States.

Schlessinger told the mother she should tell the teacher "you are willing to go to the mosque only if it is one that has done its best to rout out terrorists in its midst."

CAIR said Schlessinger "crossed the line from legitimate commentary on terrorism to Islamophobic bigotry."

Schlessinger said, in response, "Quite frankly I get really angry when people haven't even heard something and they're willing to be angry and do angry things on something somebody else told them happened. How dangerous does that make you and how much of a sheep does that make you? I'm certainly not inciting or condoning any acts of aggression toward any group, ever. I'm a Jew, I'm real aware of the pernicious and dangerous effects of prejudice."

She emphasized her remarks "were quite specific to terrorists and the people who harbor them. Not to Muslims or Arabs in general."

"That's absurd that anyone could say it with a straight face," she said of the condemnation. "And it sure gets us off the dialogue of what the issue is, doesn't it?"

The main point she said, "whether you are Arab-American, Hispanic-American, German-American – I don't care where you come from – our responsibility as Americans … is to stand between the innocent and evil doers and to rout them out of our midst. That's the issue."

On Monday, Schlessinger, a WND columnist, replied to the mother:

"This is a class on morals. What is the point of going to a mosque? ... You're joking of course. How many Americans have tortured and murdered Muslims. I think you ought to stand up against this class and this teacher. This is despicable. You tell him you are willing to go to the mosque only if it is one that has done its best to rout out terrorists in its midst. Instead of complaining.
"I am horrified that you would let her go. I am so sick and tired of all the Arab-American groups whining and complaining about some kind of treatment. What culture and what religion were all the murderers of 9-11? They murdered us. That's the culture you want your daughter to learn about?"

CAIR's communications director, Ibrahim Hooper, said in a response Wednesday,"Dr. Laura's anti-Muslim tirade demonstrates a level of hostility toward Islam that should be of concern to her program's audience and sponsors."


Sudan Trial on Teddy Bear Named "Muhammed" Ends with Guilty Verdict

Normally I wouldn't write about something so mainstream-media-ish, but this is just so ... outrageous. I actually thought this would blow over, particularly since officials Sudan's Foreign Ministry have tried to play down the case. In fact, they initially predicted Gillian Gibbons, 54, charged with inciting religious hatred by letting her pupils name a teddy bear "Muhammad," could be released without charge.

But the case has continued, and has now gone to trial. The ridiculous details are that Gibbons, a British citizen teaching at a British-run school in Khartoum, let her students vote on what to name a teddy bear being used in a exercise about animals. Nominees included Abdullah, Hassan and Muhammad, and a vote ended with 20 out of 23 students picking Muhammed.

Apparently one of those three who did not vote for Muhammed complained, and here we are. Despite repeated conjecture that she would "be released" or "not be charged," including as I said the Sudan Foreign Ministry and the school's director, she is now on trial. The possible sentence: up to 40 lashes, six months in jail and a fine.

Word is that the country's top Muslim clerics have pressed the government to ensure that she is punished, for what appears to be a genuine misunderstanding. It's unclear how long the trial will last, but Prosecutor-General Salah Eddin Abu Zaid said the Gibbons could expect a ''swift and fair trial.''

IMHO: This woman travels from the U.K. to Sudan, sacrificing a (one would assume) comfortable life in the U.K. for a definitely less comfortable one, and this is the thanks she gets? You can bet others mulling over the same choice might have second thoughts now.

Update: She's guilty. She will avoid the lashes, but she will get 15 days in jail and be deported.

Sudanese Protesters Call for Execution of "Teddy Bear Teacher"
As I previously said, I don't write about stuff like this normally, leaving it to the mainstream, but this is particularly egregious. You'll recall that Gillian Gibbons, a teacher who committed what was probably an honest mistake, naming a teddy bear used in a class exercise Muhammed (based on the students' votes, BTW!), was convicted yesterday of inciting religious hatred. Her sentence was 15 days in prison and deportation.

This is actually fortunate for her as it was possible she could get up to 40 lashes, and six months in prison.

However, today there are wild protests outside the presidential palace in Khartoum, with thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and knives, calling for Gibbons' execution. Other protesters marched to her former high school, Unity High School, chanting and protesting --- fortunately without weapons.

Because of the protests, Gibbons has been moved to a secret location for her safety.

A hard-line cleric, Abdul-Jalil Nazeer al-Karouri said, "This is an arrogant woman who came to our country, cashing her salary in dollars, teaching our children hatred of our Prophet Muhammad."

I'll say what I said yesterday verbatim because it still applies:

This woman travels from the U.K. to Sudan, sacrificing a (one would assume) comfortable life in the U.K. for a definitely less comfortable one, and this is the thanks she gets? You can bet others mulling over the same choice might have second thoughts now.

One more thing, though: I don't want to incite anything myself, but honestly, many have said that Islam is a peaceful religion. While that may in fact be true for the majority of its followers, how can you watch something like this and not have your opinion swayed negatively?

Sudan Pardons "Teddy Bear Teacher"
You'll recall that Gillian Gibbons, a teacher who committed what was probably an honest mistake, naming a teddy bear used in a class exercise Muhammed (based on the students' votes, BTW!), was convicted of inciting religious hatred. Her sentence was 15 days in prison and deportation.

Even worse, after the initial sentence, Sudanese protesters called for her execution! Definitely a case of overkill (no pun intended).

Apparently there exists some sanity in the government (or at the very least, the U.K. managed to push hard enough), as she was pardoned today by Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir.

Now why go through the trial if you were just going to end up doing this anyway? I mean, what a waste of money and effort. We in the U.S. would never do ... oh wait ... (yes, yes, I know, just a commutation; give me a break).

At any rate, Gibbons has been released and will soon be leaving the country. Might I say this whole "event" has certainly cast a poor light on Islam (again) and no doubt will make any other prospective teachers think twice about teaching in Sudan.

'Don't let teddy bear b-tch see light of day'
Mideast terror leaders tell Sudan: 'She must be stoned or fired on'

Mideast terrorist leaders are threatening to kill a British teacher imprisoned in Sudan for allowing her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad, accusing the teacher of engaging in missionary activity in interviews with WND Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein.

Some terror leaders warned of retaliatory attacks against U.S. and British targets.

During the interviews, Klein petitioned the Islamic terrorists to respond to recent notorious Muslim desecration of other religions' holy sites and asked them whether they considered it hypocritical they are currently protesting the teddy bear report.

The teacher, Gillian Gibbons, was pardoned today by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.

While Gibbons has been the target of violent street protests in Sudan, the jihadi leaders' threats mark the first time Mideast terror groups responded to the high-profile case.

"We call on our Sudanese brothers to prepare themselves with explosive belts and not allow this bitch to see the light of day," said Muhammad Abdel-Al, spokesman and a senior leader of the Gaza-based Popular Resistance Committees terror group.

"I pray to Allah that I could have the opportunity to go to Sudan with my brothers to slaughter this unbeliever Christian. We ask the Sudanese to execute her in [the] hardest way. Any execution must be public; she must be stoned or fired on and the punishment must be harsh," Abdel-Al told Klein.

Responding to reports yesterday the Sudanese president was contemplating pardoning the 54-year-old Gibbons, Abdel-Al asked the Sudanese government "not to give into the international and Christian-Crusader pressure to set this bitch free."

"[Gibbons] proves all their titles of human rights and any other activities [Westerners] do in our countries are only ways to hide the real goals of these people – they are all missionaries or Western intelligence agents. With all the tolerance that Islam has, we must not bear any of this activity."

Abdel-Al, whose group previously was accused of bombing Americans, told Klein his Committees was calling for "jihad to attack all these people wherever they are. Any attack must be loud. Any damage that can be caused to the Satanic empires of the U.S. and Britain is allowed."

Abdel-Al's Popular Resistance Committees is responsible for scores of suicide bombings and thousands of suicide attack and rocket launchings aimed at Jewish population centers. It is accused of bombing a U.S. convoy in Gaza in 2003, killing three American government contractors.

Another militant, Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' so-called military wing, told Klein that Gibbons "must be sentenced to death and harshly sanctioned according to Sharia law."

"This woman doesn't respect Islam, not only because of what she says but because she brings to the Sudanese people all of your Western and Crusader corruption. Crusaders have no religion, culture or human values ... all your values are corrupted, inhumane, based on sex and materialism."

Abu Ahmed, the northern Gaza Strip commander of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group, the declared military wing of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party, said his organization is presenting a proposal to the Sudanese government to allow street mobs to deal with Gibbons.

"Our point of view is we say this woman must be given to the Sudanese people in the street. This is my proposal so the government will not be responsible for any damage or killing of this woman. Just give her to the Sudanese people and I'm sure the people there will send this woman back to her family and missionary bosses in the way that is the most suitable."

Ahmed's Brigades took credit along with the Islamic Jihad terror group for every suicide bombing in Israel the past three years.

Ahmed said the Sudanese street should "use their imaginations" while meting out street justice to Gibbons, who was sentenced last week to 15 days in prison and deportation for insulting Islam when she allowed her students to name a class teddy bear Muhammad, a common Muslim name and also the namesake of Islam's founder.

Concern for Gibbons' safety was sparked Friday after thousands of Sudanese, many reportedly armed with clubs and swords, burned pictures of her and demanded her execution during a rally in Khartoum, the country's capital.

Gibbons was moved from a women's prison to a secret location after the angry demonstrations. There was no overt sign that the government had organized the protest, but such a rally could not have taken place without at least official assent, reported the International Herald Tribune.

Muslims confronted about desecration of other religions' holy sites

While the Mideast terrorists were quick to accuse Gibbons of insulting Islam, they sung a different tune when asked by Klein to account for rampant Muslim desecration of other religions' holy sites, with some desecrations carried out by the very militants Klein interviewed.

In one instance, when Israel evacuated the Gaza Strip's Jewish communities in 2005 but left behind 20 synagogues, Palestinian mobs destroyed the Jewish structures, including two major synagogues in Neve Dekalim, the largest Gaza Jewish community. Israel says it left the synagogues since Jewish law prohibits destroying the holy structures.

In front of international camera crews, the Palestinians ripped off aluminum window frames and metal ceiling fixtures from the Neve Dekalim synagogues, which were situated close to each other in the center of town. Members of Hamas and Abdel Al's Popular Resistance Committees reportedly flew the Palestinian and Hamas flags from the structures before mobs burned down the synagogues.

The Committees now control the swath of territory upon which the Neve Dekalim synagogues rested.

Abdel-Al told Klein the synagogue ruins are being used as rocket launch pads to fire projectiles into Israeli communities.

"We are proud to turn these lands, especially these parts that were for long time the symbol of occupation and injustice, like the synagogue, into a military base and source of fire against the Zionists and the Zionist entity," said Abdel-Al.

Asked how he can justify complaining about non-Muslims allegedly insulting Islam when his group desecrated synagogues, Ablel-Al blamed Israel for the Jewish structures' molestations:

"The Zionists left these so called synagogues in order to make that one day media outlets like WorldNetDaily would raise the pathetic and rude argument about what we have done to the poor Zionists holy places. (Israel) left the synagogues behind so the world would see the Palestinians destroying them," he said.

He said the synagogues were not holy since Judaism and Christianity were "falsified" and that "Islam came to correct all other fake religions."

In Klein's new book, "Schmoozing with Terrorists," the Jewish author ventured into Islamist strongholds to confront Mideast Muslim terrorist leaders accused of the rampant desecration of other religions' holy sites.

In 2002, Fatah terrorists fleeing an Israeli antiterror operation ran inside Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity – the believed birthplace of Jesus and one of the holiest sites in Christianity – where the gunmen took nuns and priests hostage and holed up inside the church for 39 days. After the siege ended, there were widespread media reports, including video footage, the Nativity church had been left in shambles.

Clergy trapped inside later told reporters top Palestinian gunmen slept on comfortable beds in an elegant apartment inside the church, using high-quality woolen blankets, while the civilians slept on cold tile floors in the main church downstairs.

Four Greek monks told the Washington Times the Palestinian gunmen holed up with them seized church stockpiles of food and "ate like greedy monsters" until the food ran out, while the trapped civilians went hungry. The terrorists also were accused of guzzling beer, wine and Johnny Walker scotch they found in the priests' quarters.

A Roman Catholic priest trapped inside told the Times some Bibles were torn up and used as toilet paper.

In "Schmoozing," Klein catches up with the director of the church siege, Jihad Jaara, who was chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group in Bethlehem, as well as with other terror leaders trapped inside.

The Jewish reporter confronted Jaara and other jihadi leaders with the toilet paper account.

"I am not ready to hear your dirty accusations," snapped Jaara. "It is completely untrue that we used the Bible as toilet paper."

Confronted about the video footage showing the church in poor condition, Jaara replied:

"As for the conditions in which we left the church, it is true there was a lot of dirt but it is normal to the conditions in which we were living. Thirty-nine days without any water and any possibility to move because of the snipers who were placed all around the church."

In what Klein labels the "most vile holy site desecration in recent history," when Israeli forces in 2000 evacuated the area outside the northern West Bank city of Nablus, or Biblical Shechem, Palestinians overtook Joseph's Tomb – Judaism's third holiest site – located at the area of the Israeli retreat. The Tomb is the believed burial place of the biblical patriarch Joseph – the son of Jacob who was sold by his brothers into slavery and later became the viceroy of Egypt.

Within less than an hour of the Israeli retreat, Palestinians stormed Joseph's Tomb and reportedly began to ransack the structure. Palestinian mobs reportedly tore apart books, destroying prayer stands and grinding out stone carvings in the Tomb's interior. The Palestinians hoisted a Muslim flag over the tomb, painted the dome green – the color of Islam – and later converted the site's attached yeshiva into a mosque.

In "Schmoozing," Klein meets with the chief of the terror group responsible for the repeated attacks on Joseph's Tomb leading up to the Israeli evacuation and also confronts Palestinian lawmakers reportedly involved in the tomb's desecration.

Tafiq Tarawi, a Palestinian lawmaker who led a major cell of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group responsible for many of the tomb attacks, claimed to Klein that Joseph's Tomb was never a Jewish site.

"This is a holy site where our fathers and grandfathers and all Muslims used to pray. This is part of our holy sites and part of our cult and faith and not the Jews."

Abu Mujaheed, another Brigades leader of the 2000 attacks against Joseph's Tomb, had a different story. He told Klein that Judaism's third holy site, firebombed by his group, really was an Israeli military base.

Klein accused the Palestinian mob that burned Joseph's Tomb of engaging in "the most barbaric behavior imaginable.

U.S. evangelist launches swine attack on Muslims
Outraged by Muhammad teddy bear flap, minister names pig after Islamic prophet
By Joe Kovacs

An American evangelist has jumped into the fray over the fate of a British teacher facing calls for death over a teddy bear named "Muhammad." Bill Keller, host of LivePrayer, has posted a video on YouTube featuring a pink, toy pig named Muhammad after the Muslim prophet.

"Indeed Muhammad was a man of murder," the pig, voiced by Keller himself, states in the video. "He was a pedophile, having a wife who was the age of six, and I came to find out that the Quran really is nothing more than a book of fairy tales."

Keller, a vocal critic of Islam, made the video in response to the case of Gillian Gibbons, who was sentenced to 15 days in a Sudan jail after being convicted of insulting Islam for allowing her student to call a teddy bear "Muhammad."

Gibbons was moved to a secure location in Khartoum last week after street demonstrators called for her death.

If Gibbons had been found guilty of inciting religious hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs, her sentence could have been 40 lashes and up to six months of prison.

Muhammad is the most popular boys' name in Sudan, and it has since been revealed the teddy bear was actually named by one of Gibbons' students.

In his latest devotional being sent to his subscribers, Keller states:

Of course there will be Muslim apologists who say that these are only the extremists, just like they try to distance themselves from their brothers in this "peaceful religion" who flew the planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the one intended for the Capitol building that was crashed in a Pennsylvania field by some real American heroes. ...

These people are not about love or peace or unity. They are about one thing. Converting the world to their false religion and those who get in their way or who refuse to follow their lies will be silenced and killed. The word "Islam" literally means "submission." Maybe you don't understand what it means when their "holy book" says "death to all infidels."

Muhammad teddy haters: Died in the wool
by Gillian Gibbons

Picture this: People swarming out of their place of worship after prayers and taking to the streets in angry demonstrations, swinging weapons and shouting demands. "Kill her, kill her, kill her by firing squad."

"Those who insult the prophet of Islam should be punished with bullets."

"Execute her!"

"No one lives who insults the prophet."

"No tolerance: Execution!"

"Shame, shame on the UK."

"Punishment, punishment, punishment!"

We've seen it before, and it's happened again. It's headline news, and it comes from the same source: Islam – the "religion of peace."

For thinking people, it's hard to equate "peace" with those post-prayer mobs of thousands, burning pictures, brandishing weapons and demanding beatings and death.

But there it is.

This time, the target of these fanatics is a unassuming, 54-year-old British teacher, Gillian Gibbons. She went to Sudan last August and began teaching at the private Unity School in Khartoum. She said it was a fulfillment of a dream.

That dream became her worst nightmare, all because of a stuffed animal – a teddy bear which was named Muhammad.

Apparently in September, she began teaching her class of 7-year-old children about animals. One of the children was asked to bring in a teddy bear, and Mrs. Gibbons asked the kids to name it. Since one of the most popular boys in the class is named Muhammad, the children chose that name for the bear.

Innocent enough, except this is Sudan, an Islamist country, under the rule of President Omar al-Bashir. He is militantly Islamist with strong anti-Western policies.

Apparently an office assistant in the school was offended at the bear's name and told the Ministry of Education that the prophet had been insulted. That was all it took.

Public anger was stirred up by militant clerics, and the government moved in and officially charged Mrs. Gibbons with "insulting Islam."

After an eight-hour trial behind closed doors, she was found guilty. She could have faced 40 lashes and six months in prison had the charge been inciting religious hatred. Gibbons has been taken to a secret location for her safety.

The street demonstrations, while not out of control, are nevertheless reflective of the street thinking of these Islamists, their fury fed by their own religious leaders in the mosques. Riot police kept things from getting out of control, but pictures of Gibbons were burned, and the death demands continued.

One dread-locked man, Yassin Mubarak, said, "It is a premeditated action, and this unbeliever thinks that she can fool us? What she did requires her life to be taken."

The kernel of truth at the heart of Islam is there: If you are an "unbeliever," then anything of which Islam disproves is punishable by death. They decide.

We've heard it before, "convert or die." Or at the very least, do everything the way Islam demands – or die.

If we don't see it that way, then what do we to make of vicious, threatening mobs reacting to an innocuous and innocent action of a British teacher and her 7-year-old students?

If we're to walk the same paths we've been pushed into, particularly since the 9/11 attacks in the United States, we're to consider mobs as just a "small part" of Islam.

Just as we were told after cartoons in Danish newspapers last year sparked violence across several continents, causing damage, injuries and death – those mobs represent just a "small part" of Islam.

Just as when a speech of Pope Benedict was deliberately taken out of context to reflect on Islam, leading to violent demonstrations and mobs demanding his death – we're told to consider it just a "small part" of Islam.

Just as in the premeditated vicious street attack and killing of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh because Islamists didn't like the subject matter of his films – we're told to consider it just a "small part" of Islam.

Just as in the death threats issued against people because Islamists don't like what they say or think – consider author Salman Rushdie, journalist Oriana Fallaci and Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali. There are many others.

Considering the pattern, it's hard not to consider these threats and this violence just the normal, peaceful religion of Islam in action.

There's a similarity in all these events – and so many more it would take pages to list them –and that is when there is a perceived slight to Islam; the reaction is mob violence, destruction and murder – always justified by Islam, the religion of peace.

It's sad and ironic that these demands for death to the teacher because of naming a stuffed animal are occurring in a country that persistently conducts genocide against all blacks, Christians and other non-Muslims in the Darfur section of Sudan.

Estimates are that some 300,000 have been slaughtered, hundreds of thousands of girls and women raped and mutilated and nearly 3 million people left homeless after their villages are destroyed. Sudan has consistently refused U.N. peacekeepers, and the African contingent sent in to help, has accomplished virtually nothing.

Yet they riot against a name and a teddy bear.

Poor Gillian. In her naiveté, all she wanted was to live in another culture, learn about a religion, which she said "fascinated" her, and help educate children.

Too bad she wasn't wise enough to learn the truth about what she was getting into and the reality of a Muslim country and Islam – the "religion of peace" – before she made the trip. What happened wasn't part of her lesson plan.

I hope she survives safely, gets home – and stays there.


Savage fights back, sues CAIR
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018985.php

The truth-challenged unindicted co-conspirators of the Council on American Islamic Relations have been targeting radio host Michael Savage, as they have targeted so many others before him. They've been pressuring advertisers to stop advertising on his show, and they've been succeeding. Background here.

But Savage, unlike Fox, unlike National Review, unlike so many others, is unwilling to play the dhimmi and kowtow to these lying Islamic supremacist thugs in their continued assaults on the freedom of speech. It's about time that somebody with the resources to do so has fought back.

The text of Savage's suit can be found here. A few highlights:

The conduct of CAIR (in addition to raising money) in violating the copyright interests of Michael Savage was to gain media attention and control so that CAIR would be seen as the “moderate” voice in the media. In fact CAIR is a radical voice that deliberately attempts to be seen as centrist so that media time goes to CAIR and once on the air, CAIR directs its rhetoric to the benefit of its extremist clients. This is a deliberate tactic and the theft of the copyright material was part of a pattern and practice advancing this tactic.

30. As set forth herein, CAIR is not a civil rights organization but is instead a political organization designed to advance a political agenda that is directly opposed to the existence of a free society that includes respect and dignity for all people and all religions.

The copyright infringement herein is part of this plan. CAIR’s fundamental purpose is to be a lobbyist for foreign interests.

[...]

34. CAIR while claiming in its paperwork to be a civil rights organization was in fact co-founded in 1994 by Ibrahim Hooper, Nihad Awad, and Omar Ahmad, all of whom had close ties to the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was established by senior Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook.

35. The director of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation counter-terrorism unit has stated that IAP is “a Hamas front…(that is) controlled by Hamas, it brings Hamas leaders to the US, it does propaganda for Hamas.”

36. CAIR opened its first office in Washington, DC, with the help of a $5,000 donation from the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a self-described charity founded by Hamas operative, Mousa Abu Marzook.

37. At a 1994 meeting at Barry University, CAIR co-founder Nihad Awad stated that:

"I am a supporter of the Hamas movement." Awad wrote in the Muslim World Monitor that the 1994 trial which had resulted in the conviction of four Islamic fundamentalist terrorists who had perpetrated the previous year's World Trade Center bombing was "a travesty of justice."

38. Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan, and the United States. Hamas is banned in the Muslim nation of Jordan, Australia and the United Kingdom.

39. Plaintiff contends that CAIR is still associated with foreign groups as set forth more fully herein and that the wrongful intent in violating the copyright as set forth herein was based in part upon a desire to silence a vocal critic of Hamas.

40. The involvement of CAIR’s founders in illegal conduct was addressed on February 2, 1995, when U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White named CAIR Advisory Board member and New York Imam Siraj Wahhaj as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in Islamic Group leader Omar Abdel Rahman's foiled plot to blow up numerous New York City monuments.

41. On May 7, 1996, CAIR coordinated a press conference to protest the decision of the U.S. government to extradite Marzook for his connection to terrorist acts performed by Hamas. CAIR characterized the extradition as "anti-Islamic" and "anti-American."

42. Prior to 9/11, CAIR continued in its claim that it was a civil rights organization. They made this claim when in October 1998, CAIR demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as "the sworn enemy," asserting that this depiction "offensive to Muslims."

43. Also in 1998, CAIR denied bin Laden's responsibility for the two al Qaeda bombings of American embassies in Africa. CAIR’s leader Ibrahim Hooper, claimed the bombings resulted from "misunderstandings of both sides."

44. In a July 1998 news article CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad is quoted speaking to a group of California Muslims expressing his hope of seeing an America under the domination of Islam. In that article, Ahmad is quoted as saying,

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran ... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.

45. On October 5, 2001, just weeks after 9/11, CAIR’s New York office sent a letter to The New York Times arguing that the paper had misidentified three of the hijackers and suggesting that the attacks may have been committed by people who were impersonating Arab Muslims.

46. CAIR further exploited 9/11 as it put on its website a picture of the World Trade Center in flames and below it a call for donations that was linked to the Holy Land Foundation website.

47. The HLF is the Holy Land Foundation. On December 4, 2001, the Attorney General of the United States stated that “the Holy Land Foundation, received much of its early money from Mousa Abu Marzuq, a top Hamas official who, the U.S. courts have determined, was directly involved in terrorism."

48.  The use CAIR’s website to misappropriate the spirit of 9/11 charity to raise money for a terror organization is a pattern of conduct of CAIR that has been repeated with the appropriation of Michael Savage’s material for CAIR’s own purpose. While the outrage of diverting 9/11 charity is unmatched in its callousness, the success of that enterprise may well have emboldened CAIR in its present conduct.

49. When the President of the United States closed the Holy Land Foundation in December 2001 for collecting money "to support the Hamas terror organization," CAIR decried his action as "unjust" and "disturbing."

50. On April 20, 2002, CAIR’s director spoke at a rally in Washington D.C. He spoke from a podium next to a Hezbollah flag.

51. On December 29, 2004 Wagdy Ghoneim, an extremist Egyptian cleric known for his advocacy in support of violence and hatred for Jews, decided to voluntarily leave the country after being accused of immigration violation, CAIR’s director in California, Hussam Ayloush, told The Los Angeles Times that the case demonstrated “the selective application of laws on Muslims.” CAIR has never publicly criticized the radical statements made by Ghoneim.

52. In a July 7, 2004 interview with BBC, Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s spokesman, defended Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi, a Qatar-based Muslim cleric known for his support for terrorism, as “respectable,” adding: “I don't think there's any incitement of violence on his part.” Qaradawi was an open supporter of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, as well as groups targeting U.S. forces in Iraq. Qaradawi is barred from entering the U.S. because of his advocacy of violence.

53. On April 13, 2005: Ghassan Elashi, a founding board member of CAIR’s Texas chapter, and two of his brothers, were found guilty of supporting terrorism by funneling money to the leader of Hamas. They were convicted in a federal court in Texas of handling and trying to conceal an investment by senior Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzuq. In July 2004, Ghassan Elashi was convicted on separate charges of illegally exporting goods to Syria and of money laundering. At that time, a representative of CAIR’s Dallas-Fort Worth chapter, Khalil Meek, argued that the only thing the Elashis were guilty of was the “crime of being Muslims in America.

54. On February 21, 2006, CAIR National Legal Director Arsalan Iftikhar appeared on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country debating the Dubai side of the U.S. ports story. Michael Savage was the leader of the public opposition to the purchase of major U.S. ports by Dubai and Savage herein alleges that the misappropriation and misuse of his content as set forth herein was done in part in retaliation for Savage’s opposition to overseas ownership of such a strategic asset.

55. Such political conduct in favor of foreign organizations supporting violence has continued to the present up to and including the time of the copyright infringement and during all times known to plaintiff up to the date of the filing of this lawsuit.

56. At 8:00 pm on June 6, 2006, the Ohio affiliate of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-OH) honored one of the unindicted conspirators in that 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Siraj Wahhaj. Wahhaj had also served as a defense witness at the trial of one of the men convicted for that terrorist attack, the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel-Rahman (a conviction that CAIR has labeled “a travesty of justice”). More than 400 CAIR-OH supporters gathered at this fund-raising banquet.

57. On August 7, 2006: Altaf Ali, executive director of CAIR-Florida, published an opinion piece in the Sun-Sentinel, in which he compared Israel and the U.S. government to Al Qaeda.

58. On August 12, 2006: CAIR participated in and endorsed several rallies in support of Hezbollah and the “resistance” fighting American forces in Iraq.

59. In October, 2006 a CAIR affiliated publication, InFocus, printed an article supporting Hezbollah. The commentary claimed that the war was part of an American-British conspiracy, a “phase of the larger plans of the colonialist superpowers.” It also praised the “epic heroism of the resistance fighters”.

60. In May 2007 CAIR was identified by the government as an unindicted co-conspirator in a case involving a charity that was allegedly affiliated with Hamas. Federal prosecutors in the case of the Holy Land Foundation listed CAIR under the category: “Individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations.” The government also listed Omar Ahmad, CAIR’s founder and chairman emeritus, under the same category.

61. In August 2-7, 2007 during the Holy Land Foundation trial in Texas, FBI agent Lara Burns testified about evidence connecting CAIR and two of its founders to the Holy Land Foundation as well as to the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood movement that established Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank. The agent identified CAIR executive director Nihad Awad as one of the scheduled participants at a meeting of Hamas officials in a hotel in Philadelphia in 1993. At the time, Awad was a representative of IAP. Burns also identified CAIR co-founders Awad and Omar Ahmed as members of the Palestine Committee set up by the Muslim Brotherhood.

62. Attacks on other public figures have included an attack on Presidential candidate, Rudy Guiliani for using the phrase “Islamic Terrorism” and for accepting the endorsement of Pat Robertson whose endorsement of Guiliani included a reference to the “bloodlust of Islamic terrorists”.

63. CAIR also attacked Guiliani’s choice of Daniel Pipes as foreign policy advisor. Pipes is the person who first published (in 1998) the quotation from CAIR’s cofounder that:

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran ... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.

64. CAIR has a pattern and practice of attacking critics. On or about January 6, 2004, an attorney and agent for CAIR wrote a “cease and desist letter” to Andrew Whitehead who runs a website www.anti-cair-net.org. In this letter, CAIR attacked Mr. Whitehead’s exposure of CAIR’s foreign ties deeming those facts as being “sociopathic and xenophobic,”. When Whitehead would not yield to CAIR’s demands they filed a $1.3 million dollar libel lawsuit against him.

65. Whitehead countersued and in his allegations made assertions similar to those of Daniel Pipes where he asserted that “Douglas Hooper, a/k/a “Ibrahim” Hooper (“Hooper”), CAIR's Director of Communications, also worked for the IAP before joining CAIR. He has stated: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future…” Hooper has defended payments of bounties to the families of suicide bombers who kill Jews.”

66. CAIR later dismissed that lawsuit at a time when Whitehead’s attorneys started demanding information relating to CAIR’s sources of funding.

67. The theft of Michael Savage’s copyrighted material and the destruction of the proper context of that material is yet another tactic to silence critics of CAIR. CAIR was specifically and by name attacked by Michael Savage in his October 29, 2007 statement but CAIR did not contest the truth of Savage’s attack on CAIR but instead sought to steal and sully his copyrighted work. Clearly CAIR did not wish to defend themselves and lose in the same manner that they failed in the lawsuit against Andrew Whitehead, therefore this new tactic was employed.

68. Based upon these facts and further facts to be produced at trial, plaintiff alleges that CAIR is not a civil rights organization but instead is a political vehicle of international terrorism and that the copyright infringement itself and the manner in which the material was used, was part of a deliberate practice and pattern to do material harm to those voices who speak against the violent agenda of CAIR’s clients. The attack on Rudy Guiliani, Daniel Pipes, Andrew Whitehead and Michael Savage are part of a pattern and practice to silence critics of CAIR and critics of CAIR’s foreign agenda under the false guise of civil rights.

69. In the summer of 2007, CAIR supported international terror when, in response to renewed fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon and Palestinian terror organizations in Gaza, CAIR did not condemn the terror organizations that provoked the fighting but instead launched an anti-Israel media campaign. This has nothing to do with the civil rights of Muslim Americans. When CAIR is criticized for these tactics, it unleashes campaigns against these critics under the guise of “civil rights” as set forth above and as will be further proven at trial.

70. Therefore CAIR seeks to silence its critics including those who use strong language but do not advocate violence while CAIR itself supports people who use even stronger language and advocate and urge actual violence against innocent civilians; all this under the guise of being a “civil rights organization”

Comments by Readers:
I heard a rumor that Savage intended to sue CAIR. Since it's Savage suing CAIR, CAIR will not be able to hide once the discovery process starts. The discovery process will go forward and CAIRs already established ties to terrorists will be revealed. Good job Savage.

Ok, so where can we send money to help out Savage? Saudi Arabia VIP's and CAIR will fight this and there will be legal expenses. We should start helping now. Go to Michael Savage (http://www.michaelsavage.com/) and follow the link.

Proper contexts make a big difference...
http://friends.macjournals.com/mattd/stories/storyReader$565
...even if it is from militants on their own "-phobe" agenda, who were setup artists to begin with...and deserved what they got.
(He doesn't attacks passive gays...He went after the hypermilitant ideologues so obsessed with their own hatred they can't see it for what it is, and have to resort to F**king with people they themselves hate with more fervor than those they accuse of the same thing, like this episode was all about).
Case-in-point, from the TV show:

CALLER: "Hey Michael Savage, a pleasure to speak with you today. I was flying out of LaGuardia, and there was two undercover security guards. Somebody was smoking in the bathroom"

SAVAGE: "Someone was smoking in the bathroom."

CALLER: "Unbelievable."

SAVAGE: "What happened?"

CALLER: "Half-hour into the flight, I need to suggest that Don and Mike take your [silence] cause your teeth are [unintelligible]

SAVAGE: "All right, so you're one of those sodomists? Are you a sodomite? "

CALLER: "Yes, I am."

SAVAGE: "Oh, you're one of the sodomites! You should only get AIDS and die, you pig! How's that? [off-screen crew can be heard shouting "Whoa!"] Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig? You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage? You got nothing to do today? Go eat a sausage and choke on it. Get trichinosis. OK, got another nice caller here who's busy because he didn't have a nice night in the bathhouse and is angry at me today? Huh? Get me another one, put another sodomite on! No more calls? I don't care. Let's go to the next scene. I don't care about these bums, they mean nothing to me. They're all sausages."

Savage also has said: "I don't care what anyone wants to do with their own bodies"..."just don't shove it in MY face." which is NEVER reported bythe one-sided haters in their own rite.

Hyperpartisan Ideology never wins in the end...that's why CAIR is also in serious trouble.
;-)

Savage has disappointed me in one respect.

Nonetheless, I've got to stand with Savage on this one. Of course I will and have stood with him. I called in on our central Fla. radio program where Savage is syndicated (WSKY 97.3 FM). Our radio hosts are well aware of CAIR's Muslim terrorist associations.

My beef with Savage. Like me Savage is a Jew, yet he will not stand with the good people of Israel, with Jews the world over, against what the Bush administration is trying to do. Savage equates this traitorous prime minister with all good and faithful Jews who are living in faith and obedience to God in the Holy Land.

Savage, like Bush, supports a Muslim terrorist state in the Holy Land. Before the Gaza retreat / expulsion, I challenged him on it, live on the air. He said he favored a Palestinian Muslim state in Israel. Now his call-screeners will not take my calls. Savage is a huge disappointment on Israel. During the second Lebanon war (Aug 2006), he appeared to be condemning Israel for defending herself against these killers.

Savage likes to read from the Bible to his listeners. Perhaps he's missed Gen. 12:3, "I will bless those who bless you and the one who curses you, I will curse."

Bush is cursing the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Perhaps Savage missed all the prophecies stating that God gave the to the sons of Jacob all the land of Israel as an everlasting covenant; to the Jews. Read Gen chapter 12, 13, 17, 22, 26, etc. Savage is no friend of the Jews or Israel.

Still, I am with Savage against these jihadist zealots who are allied with Hamas and Hezbollah, allied with the Bush White House -- Bush meets and prays with them in their mosques; those who are persecuting Savage and attempting to replace U.S. law with Sharia law. I am with Savage, even if he is not with me.

Savage has been an outward opponant of the dissection of Isreal by Bush/Sharon/Olmert.

I hope this really shines light on the Muslim American Bund Party, and I hope that other talk shows start circling the wagons. If they take him out they will be next.

I hope more people follow Michael Savage's lead and sue groups like CAIR. If CAIR and other similar organizations are bombarded by lawsuits, then they will realize that they can no longer get away with intimidating people into silence.

Michael Savage should have been condemning Bush for this Annapolis fiasco every night the last few weeks!

What did he say about this anti-Israel / pro-Muslim Arab president? Nothing. What can you produce in his behalf?

I've not seen such Jew-hatred from a Secretary of State as this Dr. Rice; from a US president as Mr. Bush. Savage has been silent. What has he said?

Did you read this fine piece by J. Post editor Caroline Glick? Look at this racism coming from this US president and his Secretary of State. Where is Michael Savage?


Apartheid, not peace
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST  Nov. 30, 2007

This week the Bush Administration legitimized Arab anti-Semitism. In an effort to please the Saudis and their Arab brothers, the Bush administration agreed to physically separate the Jews from the Arabs at the Annapolis conference in a manner that aligns with the apartheid policies of the Arab world which prohibit Israelis from setting foot on Arab soil.

Evident everywhere, the discrimination against Israel received its starkest expression at the main assembly of the Annapolis conference on Tuesday. There, in accordance with Saudi demands, the Americans prohibited Israeli representatives from entering the hall through the same door as the Arabs.

At the meeting of foreign ministers on Wednesday, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni called her Arab counterparts to task for their discriminatory treatment. "Why doesn't anyone want to shake my hand? Why doesn't anyone want to be seen speaking to me?" she asked pointedly.

Israel's humiliated foreign minister did not receive support from her American counterpart. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who spent her childhood years in the segregated American South, sided with the Arabs. Although polite enough to note that she doesn't support the slaughter of Israelis, she made no bones about the fact that her true sympathies lie with the racist Arabs.

As she put it, "I know what it is like to hear that you cannot go on a road or through a checkpoint because you are a Palestinian. I understand the feeling of humiliation and powerlessness."

Rice's remarks make clear that for the Secretary of State there is no difference between Israelis trying to defend themselves from a jihadist Palestinian society which supports the destruction of the Jewish state and bigoted white Southerners who oppressed African Americans because of the color of their skin. It is true that Israel has security concerns, but as far as Rice is concerned, the Palestinians are the innocent victims. They are the ones who are discriminated against and humiliated, not Livni, who was forced - by Rice - to enter the conference through the service entrance.

The Bush administration's tolerance for discrimination against Israel was not merely ceremonial. Diplomatically, the conference was equally prejudicial. At Annapolis, the US joined the Arabs in placing the lion's share of blame for the absence of peace between Israel and the Palestinians on Israel. But you wouldn't know that from listening to Olmert, who is working steadily to hide what happened there.

Olmert obfuscates the truth because his political stability rests in the hands of his hawkish coalition partners Yisrael Beiteinu and Shas. Both warned before the summit that if Olmert made any concessions on either Jerusalem or the so-called outpost communities in Judea and Samaria they would bolt his coalition and so spur new elections.

Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu expressed satisfaction with the outcome of the summit. Both Shas leader Eli Yishai and Yisrael Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman dismissed Annapolis as a pathetic joke and claimed that there is no reason for them to resign from the Olmert government. But these assertions are deliberately misleading.

The fact that the Israeli-PLO joint statement made no specific mention of Jerusalem, and that the government didn't announce a timetable for destroying the so-called outpost communities and expelling the hundreds of Israeli families who live in them, doesn't mean that Israel made no concessions on these issues. In fact, the Olmert government made massive concessions on these issues.

The Israel-PLO joint statement at Annapolis contains a joint pledge "to propagate a culture of peace and nonviolence; to confront terrorism and incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis."

Although Olmert, Lieberman and Yishai dismiss this Israeli acceptance of moral equivalence with Palestinian jihadists as a meaningless rhetorical concession, the government's move is rife with political and legal implications. US Ambassador Richard Jones's unprecedented meeting this week with Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch made clear that the US demands that Israeli courts interpret Israeli law in a prejudicial manner in order to demonize Israeli opponents of Palestinian statehood and the ethnic cleansing of the Jews from Judea and Samaria.

Their meeting also signaled that the US expects Israel to treat lawful building activities by Jews in Judea and Samaria and even in sections of Jerusalem as criminal acts. Since the Olmert government accepts that Israel is morally indistinguishable from the Palestinian Authority, it is hard to foresee it preventing the criminalization of its political opponents. From now on, Israelis who oppose the diplomatic moves of the Olmert government can expect to be treated as the moral equivalents of Palestinian terrorists.

At Annapolis the Americans accepted the role of sole arbiter of Israeli and Palestinian compliance with their commitments to the so-called 'Roadmap' and the peace process. They also committed themselves to reaching a comprehensive peace treaty by the end of 2008. But as former US Middle East mediator during the Clinton administration Dennis Ross has admitted, these goals are contradictory. It is impossible to both ensure Palestinian compliance and the achievement of a peace treaty in that timetable.

Writing in The Washington Post after the Oslo peace process collapsed at Camp David and the Palestinian jihad had begun, Ross explained, "The prudential issues of compliance were neglected and politicized by the Americans in favor of keeping the peace process afloat….Every time there was a behavior, or an incident, or an event that was inconsistent with what the peace process was about, the impulse was to rationalize it, finesse it, find a way around it, and not to allow it to break the process."

"What the peace process was about" for the Clinton administration was signing peace agreements. It was not about ensuring that the Palestinians were actually interested in living at peace with Israel. When Rice stated that "failure is not an option," in the coming peace process, she made clear that the same is the case for the Bush administration today. She wants an agreement. Whether the Palestinians are serious about peace or not is none of her business.

Although reporting on Palestinian non-compliance with their commitments to fight terror will harm prospects for speedy "progress," accusing Israel of filching on its commitments will actually speed things along. Alleging Israeli non-compliance will force the pliant Olmert government to make further concessions to the Palestinians.

In light of this, it is clear that contrary to Yishai and Lieberman's dismissive treatment of what happened at Annapolis, Olmert's acceptance of the Americans as both judge of compliance and guarantor of "progress" means that Israel already made massive concessions.

On Jerusalem, for instance, although Yishai is right that Jerusalem is not specifically mentioned in the joint statement, the fact is that Israel agreed to negotiate the status of its capital city by agreeing to discuss all outstanding issues. Since the Americans want a Palestinian state within a year and they know that Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas will not make any concessions on Jerusalem, they can be expected to pressure Israel to accept the Palestinian position. The thousands of Arab Jerusalemites now applying for Israeli citizenship are a clear sign that the Arabs understand that Israel has already made massive concessions on the city. And Yishai must know this.

The American status as arbiters of compliance has far reaching implications for Israel's ability to cope effectively with the security situation in Gaza and the Western Negev. Since Hamas seized control of Gaza in June, Abbas has opposed any wide-scale IDF counter-terror offensive on the area. Abbas has claimed - probably rightly - that an Israeli ground offensive in Gaza would weaken his position in Palestinian society since the Palestinians support Hamas's positions more than they support him. Given that the Americans are committed to strengthening Abbas, it is obvious that they will veto any Israeli plan to conduct an offensive in Gaza aimed at restoring security to the Western Negev.

Then there is Judea and Samaria. Lieberman claims that he can remain in the government because Olmert has yet to announce a timetable for throwing the Jews out of their homes in the so-called outpost communities. But that isn't Olmert's responsibility anymore. He ceded it to the Americans at Annapolis. They will set the timetable for expulsions, not Olmert. And it isn't only the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria that are now at risk.

By anointing the State Department arbiter of Israeli compliance, the Olmert government gave the Americans the right to veto IDF operations in Judea and Samaria. As the guarantors of progress in the peace process, the Americans will tell the IDF where it can - or more precisely where it cannot - erect roadblocks. The Americans will tell the Israelis what cities and towns to transfer to Fatah control. They will tell Israel what guns and armor to transfer to the Palestinians, what to do with terror fugitives and when and how many terrorists it must release from its prisons.

Actually, the US has been constraining Israel's counter-terror operations in Judea and Samaria for months now. That these American efforts have harmed the effectiveness of the IDF's operations is something that Ido Zoldan's widow can attest to. Zoldan, after all, was murdered last week by Fatah terrorists who owed their ability to move about freely to Israel's decision to bow to American pressure and dismantle 24 roadblocks and curb its efforts to arrest Fatah terror bosses.

In essence, what we see in Olmert's and Livni's machinations is a repeat of Ariel Sharon's and Livni's political maneuvering in the period that preceded the withdrawal from Gaza. In both cases, Israel's senior leaders abide by the basic political understanding that a fight postponed is a fight won.

In 2004 Sharon lacked the political strength to announce openly that he was going to completely withdraw from Gaza and destroy all the Israeli communities in the area. So he allowed the Likud to hold a referendum on his plan to withdraw and authorized Livni to draft the so-called compromise plan according to which the destruction of Israeli communities would take place in four stages over several months and that each stage would require separate government approval.

By the time the Likud rejected his plan, Sharon was strong enough to ignore the will of his party. And when the withdrawal took place, far from taking place in four stages, it took place in four days. Livni and Sharon could ignore their previous commitments because when the time came to pay the piper, they had already destroyed their opponents.

Today, by pretending that the joint declaration at Annapolis was a big nothing, Olmert and Livni are repeating the maneuver. By the time they start throwing Jews out of their homes, they won't need Shas or Yisrael Beiteinu anymore.

Lieberman and Yishai are under no obligation to leave the government. They can stay for as long as they like. But they cannot pretend that by staying they are not full partners in the government's policies. As Annapolis made clear, those policies include dividing Jerusalem, destroying the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria and compromising the security of the State of Israel.


'Terrorist apologist' CAIR to meet in Capitol
Republicans urge Democrats to retract offer to controversial Muslim lobby
 
A House Republican leadership group called on Democrats today to retract an offer to the Council on American-Islamic Relations to hold a seminar in a Capitol conference room.
Describing the national Islamic civil liberties group as "terrorist apologists," the House Republican Conference urged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to cancel tomorrow's event, which seeks to address "global attitudes on Islam-West relations."

CAIR brands itself as a mainstream advocacy group, but it is a spinoff of the now-defunct Islamic Association for Palestine, launched by Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook and former university professor Sami al-Arian, who pleaded guilty last year to conspiracy to provide services to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Several CAIR staffers have been convicted on terrorism-related charges, and CAIR founder Omar Ahmad allegedly told a group of Muslims they are in America not to assimilate but to help assert Islam's rule over the country.

A press release by the House Republican Congress bore the headline "Democrats arrange official meeting with pro-Hamas, pro-Hezbollah group in U.S. Capitol."

"It's really disappointing," CAIR national spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said in reaction, according to the Associated Press.

Whenever there's an attack from elected officials, he said, "we don't even ask any more which party it is. It should be a concern to ordinary Republicans that the party is being viewed as a reservoir of anti-Muslim hate."

Hooper himself, however, is on record stating his hope that the U.S. will one day be under Islamic rule, telling the Minneapolis Tribune in 1993, "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future. But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., arranged the CAIR meeting in a room used by the Ways and Means Committee, the AP reported. Pelosi's office said it has no direct authority over use of the facility.

Defending his group against the Republican complaints, Hooper pointed out CAIR launched public service ads on TV against terrorism and worked closely with the FBI and other government agencies, the AP said. He also noted CAIR officials joined President Bush in a visit to Islamic centers after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The group's regular meetings with the Justice Department and FBI, however, have prompted complaints from case agents, who say the bureau rarely can make a move in the Muslim community without first consulting with CAIR, which sits on its advisory board.

CAIR has conducted "sensitivity" and cultural training with federal agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement and with the military. In June, a senior Department of Homeland Security official from Washington guided CAIR officials on a behind-the-scenes tour of Customs screening operations at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in response to CAIR complaints that Muslim travelers were being unfairly delayed as they entered the U.S. from abroad.

CAIR says its aim is "to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding."


CAIR leader convicted on terror charges
Founding board member of Texas chapter funded Hamas
By Art Moore

FBI agents arrest Ghassan Elashi and brothers in 2002.
A founder of the Texas chapter of a highly influential U.S. Islamic lobby group was found guilty of supporting terrorism.

Ghassan Elashi, along with two brothers, was convicted in Dallas yesterday of channeling funds to a high-ranking official of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook.

Elashi was a board member of the Texas chapter of the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American Islamic Relations -- the third CAIR figure to be convicted on federal terrorism charges since 9-11.

CAIR is a spin-off of the Richardson, Texas-based Islamic Association For Palestine, or IAP, which was founded by Marzook.

Former FBI counterterrorism chief Oliver Revell has called the IAF "a front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants."

Prosecutors said Ghassan Elashi, with brothers Bayan and Basman, tried to hide a $250,000 investment by Marzook in their Richardson, Texas, computer company, then funneled payments to Marzook in return.

Marzook, deputy chief of Hamas' political bureau in Syria, founded the IAP in 1991. At its conferences in the U.S., the IAP hosted leaders of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Marzook was deported in 1997.

Ghassan Elashi, Bayan Elashi and their company were found guilty of all 21 federal counts: conspiracy, money laundering and dealing in property of a terrorist, the Associated Press reported.

The AP did not mention Ghassan Elashi's role with CAIR, however.

Each count carries a maximum 10 years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled Aug. 1.

Facing the same 21 counts, Basman Elashi was convicted of three counts of conspiracy but acquitted of the other charges.

Ghassan Elashi did not comment on the conviction, but lawyer Tim Evans said, according to the AP, "It's hard times for people of Middle Eastern descent."

Michael P. Gibson, vowing an appeal, said, "There is no evidence that money ever funded any terrorism. This is not a terrorism case, it's a financial crimes case."

When the Elashis were indicted in 2002, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft called them "terrorist money men."

It's not the first conviction for Ghassan Elashi.

As chairman of the Holy Land Foundation charity in Dallas, Elashi was convicted last year of making illegal technology shipments to two countries on the U.S. list of terrorist-sponsoring states, Libya and Syria. Four brothers, including Bayan and Basman, also were convicted.

Other CAIR figures convicted since 9-11 are Randall Todd "Ismail" Royer, a former communications specialist and civil rights coordinator, and Bassem Khafagi, former director of community relations.

Royer was sentenced to 20 years in prison on charges he trained in Virginia for holy war against the United States and sent several members to Pakistan to join Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Kashmiri terrorist group with reported ties to al-Qaida.

In a plea bargain, Royer claimed he never intended to hurt anyone but admitted he organized the holy warriors after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S.

After his arrest, Royer sought legal counsel from Hamas lawyer Stanley Cohen, who said after 9-11 he would consider serving as a defense lawyer for Osama bin Laden if the al-Qaida leader were captured.

Khafagi was arrested in January 2003 while serving with CAIR and convicted on fraud and terrorism charges.

Current CAIR leaders also have made statements in support of Hamas and the domination of the U.S. by Islam.

As WorldNetDaily reported, CAIR's chairman of the board, Omar Ahmad, was cited by a California newspaper in 1998 declaring the Quran should be America's highest authority.

He also was reported to have said Islam is not in America to be equal to any other religion but to be dominant.


Did CAIR founder say Islam to rule America?
Muslims confront Omar Ahmad as newspaper insists report of controversial remarks accurate
By Art Moore

It's a citation used frequently by critics to argue the highly influential Council on American-Islamic Relations is an extremist organization – founder Omar Ahmad's alleged 1998 assertion that Islam must one day dominate the U.S. – but now Muslim leaders have confronted Ahmad, expressing concern that someone from their community could voice such radical sentiments.
Ahmad told the Muslim leaders – and WND in an interview – the attribution is a "total fabrication" and assured them the newspaper, the Fremont Argus in California, issued a "clarification" after he "challenged" reporter Lisa Gardiner.

That seemed to satisfy the Muslim leaders, but Gardiner told WND she continues to stand by the story, and Editor Steve Waterhouse said he's confident she got it right. After hearing that news Thursday, one of the Muslim leaders immediately resurrected the issue with his colleagues, declaring Ahmad and CAIR need to find a way "to extinguish this fire."

"She was a good, solid reporter," Waterhouse said of Gardiner. "She was absolutely certain about what he said and what she reported."

Gardiner, who now works for a non-profit group, told WND last week she's 100-percent sure Ahmad was the speaker and that he made those statements, pointing out nobody challenged the story at the time it was published eight years ago.

"She's lying," Ahmad said upon hearing Gardiner's defense of the story. "Absolutely, she's lying. How could you remember something from so long ago? I don't even remember her in the audience."

CAIR, which has enjoyed access to the White House as the country's largest Islamic advocacy group, recently defended the six imams removed from a US Airways flight because they were deemed a potential security threat.

Ahmad, who stepped down as CAIR chairman last year, maintained to WND he "never uttered those words."

"It is not my stance, it is not what I believe in," said Ahmad, CEO of SiliconExpert Technologies in Santa Clara, Calif. "The year before (the 1998 event) I was a commissioner for my city and took an oath on the constitution and never had a problem. It doesn't make sense for me to think that way. I was shocked to hear somebody reported that."

It was WND's 2003 story about Ahmad's alleged remarks that prompted the Muslim leaders to query the CAIR founder two months ago. In a string of e-mail correspondence copied to WND, the leaders first debated among themselves, then asked Ahmad to tell them whether the report is true and, if so, to repudiate the remarks.

Mike Ghouse, president of a Dallas-based group called World Muslim Congress, told colleagues in the e-mails that Ahmad allegedly has made a "dangerously militant statement."

"The harsh reality [that] we do not want to hear and acknowledge [is] that no Muslim in America or anywhere else in the world wants to live in an Islamic nation," Ghouse wrote.

The 1998 Argus article, also published in the sister San Ramon Valley Herald, paraphrased Ahmad saying: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant," and, "The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

In one of his replies to the Muslim leaders, Ahmad wrote: "These statements are total fabrication and I never said them at all. Actually there (sic) were not direct quote and I challenged the reporter and the newspaper and they published a clarification 3 years ago."

The Muslim leaders, at the time, seemed satisfied with the denial, including Ghouse.

Ghouse told WND he understood Ahmad to be saying the newspaper and the reporter had backed off on their claim that the story is true, perhaps, at least, expressing some doubt about it.

But Waterhouse said flatly, "We did not publish a clarification."

''This is not going to die'

The editor explained that after hearing from Ahmad in the wake of WND's May 1, 2003, article, his paper published a story of its own one month later referencing Ahmad's denial but also clearly stating the newspaper was not backing down.

Upon hearing that information Thursday from WND, Ghouse sent out an e-mail to colleagues on his World Muslim Congress list with a copy of the June 2003 story by Waterhouse's newspaper chain and stated: "We had discussed this a few months ago, it appears that it still has some fire in it, this is not going to die."

"I think Mr. Omar Ahmad and CAIR need to think hard and figure out a way to extinguish this fire," Ghouse wrote. "The above statement is one of the most anti-Islamic, most arrogant, bullying statement[s] made in behalf of Islam. Let's strip this for good."

Ghouse acknowledged in the e-mail, "Most of us do not want to deal with this. However, that statement is dangerous, it is indeed frightening to the average American, given the false propaganda that Islam spread through sword is still in currency and I see that non-sense (sic) once a week on the net. The neo-cons live and thrive on propogating (sic) fear, their survival is dependent on hating and denigrating some one or the other. This is going to be a relentless battle."

CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad with Iftekhar Hai, president of United Muslims of America Interfaith Alliance (Photo: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs)

Another Muslim leader who participated in the string of e-mails in October, Iftekhar A. Hai, told WND that as a Sufi from India, he has a different view of Islam than Ahmad, an Arab, but he respects CAIR as the leading Islamic human rights organization in the U.S.

"If he said it, I say that he's wrong, but if he said he has not said it, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt," said Hai, co-founder and director of interfaith relations for United Muslims of America in Sunnyvale, Calif.

But Hai, who noted he was educated at a Catholic school in India, says his main job "is to work among religions for peace," and he is a part of CAIR only to the extent that once a year he buys a ticket for a local fund-raiser.

Ghouse also is a native of India.

'How Should We As Muslims Live in America?'

WND tried to get comment from others reported to be at the 1998 event in Fremont, Calif., a session organized by the local Islamic Study School titled, "How Should We As Muslims Live in America?"

Gardiner's article mentions two other speakers – Sheik Hamza Yusuf, a prominent American convert who directs the Islamic Study School's parent group, the Zaytuna Institute; and Hatem Bazian, an adjunct professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Bazian drew national attention during a 2004 anti-war protest in San Francisco when he asked why there is not an "intifada," or uprising, in the U.S. as there is in the Holy Land. Later, in an "O'Reilly Factor" interview, he explained he was referring to a non-violent, "political intifada."

Bazian did not respond to messages from WND, and an assistant to Hamza said the sheik was on sabbatical and was too busy to reply.

Hamza's aide, however, referred WND to Feraidoon Mojadedi, the director in 1998 of the Islamic Study School.

Mojadedi said in an e-mail he had no record – audio or visual – of Ahmad's presentation.

"I don't know if the article is accurate or not, because it's been about 10 years since that event," he wrote.

Mojadedi did not reply to a follow-up e-mail asking specifically if he heard Ahmad's speech, and, if so, what the CAIR founder said.

Gardiner's 1998 article, which quotes Mojadedi, said in part:

Omar M. Ahmad, chairman of the board of the Council on American-Islamic relations, spoke before a packed crowd at the Flamingo Palace banquet hall on Peralta Boulevard, urging Muslims not to shirk their duty of sharing the Islamic faith with those who are "on the wrong side."
Muslim institutions, schools and economic power should be strengthened in America, he said. Those who stay in America should be "open to society without melting (into it)," keeping mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam, he said.

"If you choose to live here (in America) ... you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam," he said.

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant, he said. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth, he said.

'We have to respect others and be respected'

Ahmad told WND he had no recollection of what he said at the 1998 event. Asked what he would say about the subject of the role of Muslims in America, he replied: "We're here as a minority, and we live in a pluralistic society, and we have to respect others and be respected."

Ahmad said it was only in 2003 that he learned of Gardiner's story, and by then it was too late to press any legal action.

"I would have gone there and sued them if I had known about it," he said.

In April 2003, CAIR national spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told WND his group had demanded a retraction from the California newspaper. But he amended his statement after being informed by WND the editors and reporter had not been contacted with any such demand.

Ahmad told WND he has tried to find some way of verifying the contents of his speech and even "offered $1,000 to someone" to find a tape of it, if any existed.

"I know I didn't say that," he said. "How could anybody believe that when I say Muslims enjoy freedom here to worship, and it's better for them than anyplace in the world.

"If people know me personally, they will say it's nonsense," he continued. "Look at the whole of my life, what I've said."

He was one of several contributors to an editorial published by the San Jose Mercury News, April 27, 2003, titled, "We need a conversation on the post-9/11 world; What does allegiance in a time of war mean?

Ahmad began his piece saying, "America is one nation out of many peoples. Many of us from diverse backgrounds and diverse experiences can band together around a common theme: freedom. The protection and preservation of freedom should be the mission of all of us today."

At the same time, he entered into another flap over explosive verbiage, protesting Rev. Franklin Graham's invitation to hold a Good Friday service at the Pentagon after calling Islam a "very wicked and evil religion."

"One day you get a signal from the administration that Islam is a religion of peace and of tolerance to the Muslim community," Ahmad told the New York Times in an April 28, 2003, story. "More of the time you get the other signal – the silence of the administration over comments made by evangelical Christians."

Terrorism charges

While Ahmad insists the alleged 1998 comments are inconsistent with his character, CAIR and a number of its staff members have been tied to jihadist groups bent on Islamic conquest.

Ahmad served as president of CAIR's parent group, the now-defunct Islamic Association for Palestine, or IAP, which was founded in 1981 by Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook and former university professor Sami al-Arian, who pleaded guilty this year to conspiracy to provide services to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The U.S. deported Marzook to Jordan in 1997.

Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook (Photo: Der Spiegel)

Ahmad denied any association with Hamas, arguing U.S. authorities never shut down the IAP – it folded in 2005 – and it was founded before the emergence of Hamas itself in 1987.

Two former FBI counter-terrorism chiefs, however, called the IAP a front organization in the U.S. for Hamas, which features in its charter the goal of Israel's destruction and Islam's dominance over the Holy Land.

Last year, investigative journalist Steven Emerson testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information that "internal Hamas documents strongly suggest that parts of the Hamas charter … were first written by members of the IAP in the United States in the early to mid-1980s."

Emerson said the IAP "has a long history of links to Middle East terrorism and its financial support." He pointed to a 2001 Immigration and Naturalization Service memo that "extensively documented IAP's support for Hamas and noted the 'facts strongly suggest' IAP is 'part of Hamas' propaganda apparatus."

In August 2002, a federal judge ruled there was evidence the IAP "has acted in support of Hamas," and in November 2004, a federal magistrate judge held IAP civilly liable for $156 million in the 1996 shooting of an American citizen by a Hamas member in the West Bank.

Further, Emerson testified, in November 2004, an immigration judge labeled IAP a "terrorist organization" and noted its "propensity for violence."

Organizing holy warriors

A number of figures associated with CAIR have been convicted on terrorism-related charges since 9-11, including Randall Todd "Ismail" Royer, a former communications specialist and civil rights coordinator, and Bassem Khafagi, former director of community relations.

FBI agents arrest Ghassan Elashi and brothers in 2002.

Royer was sentenced to 20 years in prison on charges he trained in Virginia for holy war against the U.S. and sent several members to Pakistan to join Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Kashmiri terrorist group with reported ties to al-Qaida.

In a plea bargain, Royer claimed he never intended to hurt anyone but admitted he organized the holy warriors after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S.

After his arrest, Royer sought legal counsel from Hamas lawyer Stanley Cohen, who said after 9-11 he would consider serving as a defense lawyer for Osama bin Laden if the al-Qaida leader were captured.

Khafagi was arrested in January 2003 while serving with CAIR and convicted on fraud and terrorism charges in connection with a probe of the Islamic Assembly of North America, an organization suspected of aiding Saudi sheiks tied to Osama bin Laden.

In October, Ghassan Elashi, a member of the founding board of directors of the Texas branch of CAIR, was sentenced to nearly seven years in prison for financial ties to a high-ranking terrorist and for making illegal computer exports to countries that back terrorism.

In his interview with WND, Ahmad downplayed the convicted figures' connection to CAIR, contending they acted as individuals. He argued that if someone who worked for WND went out and murdered, it wouldn't necessarily say anything about the nature of the news organization.

Critics of Ahmad and CAIR also have pointed to comments he made at a youth session of the Islamic Association for Palestine's annual convention in Chicago in 1999 in which he praised suicide bombers who "kill themselves for Islam," according to a transcript provided by Emerson's Investigative Project.

"Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam, that is not suicide," Ahmad asserted. "They kill themselves for Islam."

Ahmad told WND he does not justify suicide bombing and other acts of terrorism but says the desperation of Palestinians under Israeli "occupation" explains why many are willing to do it.

'I'm going to do it through education'

Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes – whose nomination by President Bush to the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace was fiercely opposed by CAIR – has cited Ahmad's 1998 remarks frequently as one piece of evidence showing CAIR is not the mainstream group it claims to be.

Pipes calls it a "major statement," especially when put in the context of undisputed comments by CAIR spokesman Hooper, who indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune he wants to see the U.S. become a Muslim country.

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," Hooper told the paper. "But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

Ahmad's alleged comments "fit a pattern" and show a "disposition," according to Pipes.

"Given that the reporter contemporaneously wrote this, and given that she stands by what she wrote, I'm inclined to believe it," he said.

Pipes pointed out he says this despite having been in a similar situation himself.

"But I've been able to show, in context, this is out of character, this is not how I talk," Pipes said. "If he can plausibly show this is at odds with views elsewhere, with employees and members, then I would be inclined to accept it. But it doesn't, it fits, and I do not accept it."

Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islam and director of Jihad Watch, believes such declarations of Muslims' role in America should be taken very seriously.

"It's the same goal as Osama bin Laden has, to Islamize the U.S.," said Spencer, also a frequent target of criticism from CAIR. "Even though Omar Ahmad is not pushing that in the same way, the fact that it is the same goal is something that hasn't been adequately appreciated by law enforcement and government officials.

The Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, from which CAIR is derived, Spencer said, "have affirmed the traditional Islamic notion that the law of Islam must be ultimately imposed by Muslims."

An immediate response, he offered, would be for the U.S. government to stop all contact with CAIR, such as "sensitivity training," and "stop treating CAIR as if it were a moderate group."

Recipients of CAIR's cultural training include Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and the military. In June, a senior Department of Homeland Security official from Washington guided CAIR officials on a behind-the-scenes tour of Customs screening operations at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in response to CAIR complaints that Muslim travelers were being unfairly delayed as they entered the U.S. from abroad.

CAIR also has regular meetings with the Justice Department and FBI, prompting complaints from case agents, who say the bureau rarely can make a move in the Muslim community without first consulting with CAIR, which sits on its advisory board.



CAIR: Civil rights advocates or radical Islamists?
Muslim lobby group has troubling record of terror arrests

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, says its aim is "to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding."

Maybe so, but federal prosecutors have also named the group an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a plot to fund the terrorist group Hamas, several of CAIR's leaders have been convicted on terror charges since 9/11, and one of its founders has reportedly declared that America should be governed by Islamic sharia law.

Adding to the controversy over the high-profile lobby group, CAIR is now being sued by radio talk show host Michael Savage over CAIR's attacks on him and what he says constitute illegal use of his broadcasts.

The lawsuit alleges CAIR is a "political vehicle of international terrorism" that seeks to do "material harm to those voices who speak against the violent agenda of CAIR's clients." Filed in U.S. District Court in California, the suit seeks damages equal to the ongoing donations from CAIR supporters "who expect CAIR to act in this manner in exchange for continuing financial support" as well as "actual damages according to proof."

The focal point of the lawsuit is a series of audio clips CAIR has been using in its promotions and fundraisings.

Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for CAIR, told WND the group would not comment on the action until the document had been reviewed.

Although the news media generally have portrayed CAIR as a legitimate civil rights group, the organization has had a hard time maintaining its squeaky clean image.

FBI agents arrest CAIR Texas founder Ghassan Elashi and brothers in 2002.

For instance, as WND has reported, Ghassan Elashi, a board member of CAIR's Texas chapter, was convicted in 2005 of channeling funds to a high-ranking official of Hamas – which the U.S. government officially designates a terrorist organization.

As WND reported in October 2006, Elashi was sentenced to nearly seven years in prison for financial ties to a high-ranking Hamas terrorist and for making illegal computer exports to countries that back terrorism.

Other CAIR figures convicted since 9-11 are Randall Todd "Ismail" Royer, a former communications specialist and civil rights coordinator, and Bassem Khafagi, former director of community relations.

Royer was sentenced to 20 years in prison on charges he trained in Virginia for holy war against the United States and sent several members to Pakistan to join Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Kashmiri terrorist group with reported ties to al-Qaida.

In a plea bargain, Royer claimed he never intended to hurt anyone but admitted he organized the holy warriors after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S.

After his arrest, Royer sought legal counsel from Hamas lawyer Stanley Cohen, who said after 9-11 he would consider serving as a defense lawyer for Osama bin Laden if the al-Qaida leader were captured.

Khafagi was arrested in January 2003 while serving with CAIR and convicted on fraud and terrorism charges.

Current CAIR leaders also have made statements in support of Hamas and the domination of the U.S. by Islam.

As WorldNetDaily reported, CAIR's chairman of the board, Omar Ahmad, was cited by a California newspaper in 1998 declaring the Quran should be America's highest authority.

He also was reported to have said Islam is not in America to be equal to any other religion but to be dominant.

Just this past June, CAIR itself was named, along with two other prominent U.S. Islamic groups, as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a plot to fund Hamas. Federal prosecutors also cited the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust as participants in a plot with five officials of the defunct Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.

CAIR is a spinoff of the defunct Islamic Association for Palestine, launched by Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook and former university professor Sami al-Arian, who pleaded guilty last year to conspiracy to provide services to Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Last March, the House Republican Conference urged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to cancel an event hosted on Capitol Hill by CAIR, calling the group "terrorist apologists."

And the group's regular meetings with the Justice Department and FBI have prompted complaints from case agents, who say the bureau rarely can make a move in the Muslim community without first consulting with CAIR, which sits on its advisory board.

CAIR has even conducted "sensitivity" and cultural training with federal agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement and with the military. In June of last year, a senior Department of Homeland Security official from Washington guided CAIR officials on a behind-the-scenes tour of Customs screening operations at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in response to CAIR complaints that Muslim travelers were being unfairly delayed as they entered the U.S. from abroad.

Last year, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., withdrew an award she gave to a local CAIR official, saying she was concerned about some statements by CAIR leaders.

Savage's lawsuit follows a CAIR campaign to influence advertisers to abandon the popular talker's program. CAIR's recent announcement said OfficeMax, a leading office products retailer, had joined "a growing list of companies" withdrawing advertising from Savage's program because of his opinions regarding Islam.

That prompted the group ACT for America to launch an alert suggesting people call OfficeMax to encourage the company to reverse its decision.

"Call the OfficeMax office headquarters … and when you get an operator, in a polite but firm manner, tell the operator you have heard about the company's decision to stop advertising on the Michael Savage program because of the pressure from CAIR. Tell them you will no longer shop at OfficeMax until OfficeMax reverses this ill-advised decision," the advisory said.

"If CAIR can succeed in this effort to silence Michael Savage, consider the chilling effect this will have on every talk radio host in America," wrote American Congress for Truth founder Brigitte Gabriel in the alert.


Feds name CAIR in plot to fund Hamas
Prominent U.S. Islamic group designated 'unindicted co-conspirator'
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

FBI agents arrest CAIR Texas founder Ghassan Elashi and brothers in 2002.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which brands itself as a mainstream promoter of civil rights, has been named with two other prominent U.S. Islamic groups as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a plot to fund the terrorist group Hamas.

Federal prosecutors also cited the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust as participants in a plot with five officials of the defunct Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, who go on trial July 16 in Dallas, the New York Sun reported.

CAIR is a spinoff of the defunct Islamic Association for Palestine, launched by Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook and former university professor Sami al-Arian, who pleaded guilty last year to conspiracy to provide services to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Several CAIR staffers have been convicted on terrorism-related charges, and CAIR founder Omar Ahmad allegedly told a group of Muslims they are in America not to assimilate but to help assert Islam's rule over the country.

The officials on trial in Dallas include Ghassan Elashi, who founded CAIR's Texas chapter. The Holy Land Foundation also gave $5,000 in seed money to set up CAIR's Washington office, according to congressional testimony by counter-terrorism researcher Steven Emerson.

As WND reported in October, Elashi already has been sentenced to nearly seven years in prison for financial ties to a high-ranking Hamas terrorist and for making illegal computer exports to countries that back terrorism.

The other officials on trial in Dallas are Shukri Abu-Baker, Mohammad El-Mezain, Mufid Abdulqader and Abdulraham Odeh.

The court filing listed the three Islamic groups among about 300 individuals or entities named as co-conspirators, the Sun reported. While few details were given, the prosecutors described CAIR as a present or past member of "the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee and/or its organizations."

The Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, has spawned many of the leading terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, with its aim to restore the Muslim Caliphate and establish Islamic rule over the world.

The Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust were listed as "entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood."

Prosecutors apply the designation "unindicted co-conspirator" because they believe the person or entity was part of the conspiracy. It allows prosecution witnesses to testify of statements the alleged conspirators made outside of court, which normally is forbidden as hearsay.

The secretary-general of the Islamic Society of North America, Muneer Fareed, expressed surprise to the New York paper at being named in the case and said he was not aware of any connection between his group and the foundation.

The Sun said spokesmen for CAIR did not respond to requests for comment, and efforts to contact the North American Islamic Trust were unsuccessful.

In March, the House Republican Conference urged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to cancel an event hosted on Capitol Hill by CAIR, calling the group "terrorist apologists."

The group's regular meetings with the Justice Department and FBI have prompted complaints from case agents, who say the bureau rarely can make a move in the Muslim community without first consulting with CAIR, which sits on its advisory board.

CAIR has conducted "sensitivity" and cultural training with federal agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement and with the military. In June, a senior Department of Homeland Security official from Washington guided CAIR officials on a behind-the-scenes tour of Customs screening operations at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in response to CAIR complaints that Muslim travelers were being unfairly delayed as they entered the U.S. from abroad.

Last year, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., withdrew an award she gave to a local CAIR official, saying she was concerned about some statements by CAIR leaders.

CAIR says its aim is "to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding."


Savage lawsuit calls CAIR 'vehicle of international terrorism'
Accuses group of seeking 'harm to those who speak against violent agenda'
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58970

Trend-setting radio talk show host Michael Savage has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and has accused the organization of being a "political vehicle of international terrorism" that seeks to do "material harm to those voices who speak against the violent agenda of CAIR's clients."

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in California, seeks damages equal to the ongoing donations from CAIR supporters "who expect CAIR to act in this manner in exchange for continuing financial support" as well as "actual damages according to proof."

A spokesman for Savage indicated the top-rated talk show host would have no further comment, saying the text of the lawsuit itself would answer questions.

The focal point of the lawsuit is a series of audio clips CAIR has been using in its promotions and fundraising efforts.

Those comments from Savage's show include his criticisms of Islam and Muslims, including:

"I'm not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I'm not getting' on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear any more about Islam. I don't wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I'm sick of you."
But the lawsuit maintains such comments, taken in context, are Savage's verbal expression of the feelings of many Americans.

"The audience of 'The Savage Nation' expects this type of from-the-heart outrage and when it is directed at a murderer such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his ilk, the piece is far more understandable and far more American mainstream. While the strength of the outrage is remarkable and a hallmark of 'The Savage Nation,' the sentiment is shared by a huge number of Americans," the lawsuit said.

"The copyright material properly viewed is a scream of outrage on behalf of the American public against beheadings, hangings of homosexuals, mutilation of women, the torture of rape victims and the thought that CAIR and other groups are trying to import these atrocities into American life," the lawsuit said.

However, it claimed CAIR has misappropriated the copyright material and reconfigured it in order to generate funds for its operations, despite being warned that its use was a copyright infringement.

Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for CAIR, told WND the group would not comment on the action until the document had been reviewed.

The lawsuit, filed by celebrity attorney Daniel Horowitz, also named as defendants "Does 1-100."

"'The Savage Nation' is unique among so-called 'Talk Radio' in that it combines serious intellectual analysis with dramatic and emotional soul baring that the show advertises as 'Psychological Nudity'. This performance aspect of the show is critical in that it conveys an emotional power and a fundamental honesty to the programming that is meaningful to the listening audience," the lawsuit said.

"There are segments of the show that are as lyrical and as emotionally powerful as live theater, poetry, rap music or other genres where a performer combines social commentary with powerful performance. In fact the start of show always begins with the admonishment: 'Warning: This show contains adult language, adult content, psychological nudity. Listener discretion is advised," the document continued.

Thus, the lawsuit maintains, when people hear Savage's comments they understand "they are hearing radio that is as cutting, raw, emotional and fundamentally honest as any programming that has ever existed on the airwaves."

Another statement targeted by CAIR, and subject of the lawsuit, was: "What sane nation that worships the U.S. Constitution, which is the greatest document of freedom ever written, would bring in people who worship a book that tells them the exact opposite? Make no mistake about it, the Quran is not a document of freedom. The Quran is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave."
CAIR, however "expropriated" Savage's comments, including those from the Oct. 29, 2007, show and used them "for fund-raising purposes" and "in a manner designed to cause harm to the value of the copyright material in the long and short term," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit further accuses CAIR, "which is self anointed as the representative of the civil rights of Muslim Americans," of being "a political organization that advocates a specific political agenda."

"The CAIR misappropriation [of the talk show excerpts] was done for political purposes unrelated to civil rights … [but instead] to raise funds for CAIR so that it could self perpetuate and continue to the (sic) disseminate of propaganda on behalf of foreign interests that are opposed to the continued existence of the United States of America as a free nation."

The "repackaged" material suggests a hatred for Islam, but in fact, the lawsuit said, "Michael Savage has presented various views and various perspectives. The purpose of his show (among other purposes) is to present uncensored, genuine points of view that force listeners to both think and feel in ways that normal polite discourse may not allow," said the lawsuit.

"Just as all religions are free to practice in the United States, Michael Savage is free to exercise his beliefs without having someone in the opposition steal his property and convert it for their own use. The violation of the copyright and the desecration of that copyright material is a violation of the freedoms of Michael Savage to express his views," said the action.

"Michael Savage's right to speech is protected by both the First Amendment and in Savage’s view is also biblically required. “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. The lion hath roared, who will not fear? the Lord God hath spoken, who can but prophesy?” (Amos 3:7-8). It is essence of freedom that voices can be raised strongly and without fear of illegal retaliation," the claim continued.

"CAIR attempted to silence Michael Savage by stealing his work, misrepresenting it and then seeking to have advertisers drop his show. This is a violation of Michael Savage’s rights to speech and to his religious beliefs," the action said.

The lawsuit noted CAIR was founded in 1994 by Ibrahim Hooper, Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad, "all of whom had close ties to the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was established by senior Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook."

And the action noted the FBI has concluded the IAP is "a Hamas front … (that is) controlled by Hamas, it brings Hamas leaders to the U.S., it does propaganda for Hamas."

The action seeks a jury trial, plus "general and special damages" for the actions that were "wanton, willful and malicious."


Islamic attacks on Savage target advertisers
Talk show trend-setter continues highlighting Muslim agenda
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Michael Savage, whose program originates in San Francisco even though the city's board of supervisors condemned his opinions, apparently is remaining largely unaffected by a campaign to put pressure on his advertisers.

And Savage, author of "The Savage Nation" and several other books, now is getting some support in his face-off with the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

As WND reported, the founder of CAIR, the leading Islamic lobby group, reportedly told a group of Muslims in California they are in America not to assimilate but to help assert Islam's rule over the country. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper also has said, in a newspaper interview, he hopes to see an Islamic government over the U.S. some day, brought about not by violence but through "education."

That organization recently issued an announcement that OfficeMax, a leading office products retailer, had joined "a growing list of companies" withdrawing advertising from Savage's program because of his opinions regarding Islam.

Now, the group ACT for America has launched an alert suggesting people call OfficeMax to encourage the company to reverse the decision.

The organization, an issues advocacy group seeking to organize and mobilize grassroots citizen action in promoting America's national security and defense of its democratic values against radical Islam, said in its announcement the voice of grassroots America "is much, much larger than CAIR's."

"Call the OfficeMax office headquarters … and when you get an operator, in a polite but firm manner, tell the operator you have heard about the company's decision to stop advertising on the Michael Savage program because of the pressure from CAIR. Tell them you will no longer shop at OfficeMax until OfficeMax reverses this ill-advised decision," the advisory said.

ACT for America said it also would be launching campaigns targeting other companies that have "caved in" to CAIR.

"If CAIR can succeed in this effort to silence Michael Savage, consider the chilling effect this will have on every talk radio host in America," wrote Brigitte Gabriel in the alert.

CAIR, which pursues such an aggressive campaign it has prompted the organization of Anti-Cair-Net, has criticized Savage for expressing his opinions about Islam, and Muslims.

However, his website this week featured headlines, "Muslim Terrorists using burqas; cross-dressing a favorite trick," and "Muslims burn library, shoot police in Paris; press buries true nature of criminals."

Just weeks earlier, Savage came under attack in San Francisco. The board of supervisors there condemned him for "hate speech."

It was the board's second attempt at a resolution to condemn Savage for his criticism of illegal aliens in the U.S.

In August, a single vote by a member whose grandfather emigrated from China seven decades ago halted a similar resolution in its tracks. A single vote by a San Francisco Board of Supervisors member whose grandfather emigrated from China seven decades ago has halted in its tracks a proposal to condemn as "hate speech" radio personality Michael Savage's criticism of illegal aliens in the United States.

The vote tonight was 9-1, with third generation San Franciscan Ed Jew turning in the veto vote, after getting up and affirming Savage's First Amendment right to express his opinion.

"For the record, I do not agree with comments allegedly made by Mr. Savage, but the First Amendment gives him the right to make those comments," Jew said.
 
The previous vote was 9-1, with third generation San Franciscan Ed Jew turning in the veto vote, after getting up and affirming Savage's First Amendment right to express his opinion.

Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval had introduced the resolution in August to condemn the radio talker. After the vote, he called for the tally to be rescinded and the proposal sent to committee, which essentially is a polite way of letting the issue die.

"For the record, I do not agree with comments allegedly made by Mr. Savage, but the First Amendment gives him the right to make those comments," Jew said.

"This is a dry run against free speech in America by the Islamists and the illegal aliens who are now becoming one and the same," said Savage in August. "It's the same organizational structure. … I am the target of this dry run. They want to see how far they can get in silencing a voice of freedom in the United States of America. They want to see which, if any, governmental agencies will stop them."

"Guess what they learned so far?" he continued. "That not only will no governmental agency stop them in their attempts to kill free speech, they will aid them in their attempts to kill free speech. We have lost our freedoms already.

"Lady Liberty has been hog tied. She is being raped by the illegal aliens. She is being raped by the landlords who are using the illegal aliens. Lady Liberty is there in bindings screaming for us to release her," he said.

One of the nation's top civil rights attorneys offered his assistance to Savage in suing Sandoval. Daniel A. Horowitz of Oakland, Calif., wrote to Savage after Sandoval introduced his resolution.

"You have a strong federal civil rights action that you can file against Supervisor Sandoval and the city of San Francisco," he advised. "You have a constitutional right to state your political opinions and no city official has the right to lie about what you said or to call for a mob to come to your door to threaten you and to try to have you fired."

Horowitz said the Civil Rights Act of 1871, designed to tame the terror of the Ku Klux Klan, can be used as the basis for a federal civil rights action against the official and the city.

Horowitz wrote: "The Klansman in your case is wearing a suit and not a white robe. He is doing his dirty work under the hood of his elected position instead of under the coward's hood of the Klan."

The call for action against Savage came at the same time city supervisors were considering using taxpayer dollars to pay for immigrants' green cards and citizenship.

Sandoval was reacting to Savage's July 5 broadcast, when the talker commented on a group of students who had announced they were fasting in support of changes in immigration policy.

"I would say, let them fast until they starve to death," quipped Savage, "then that solves the problem."

Michael Savage, on his show tonight, said he wants people to urge authorities to arrest illegal immigrants, because he is being targeted in a "dry run" to see how far illegal aliens can go in silencing free speech.

"This is a dry run against free speech in America by the Islamists and the illegal aliens who are now becoming one and the same," he said. "It's the same organizational structure. … I am the target of this dry run. They want to see how far they can get in silencing a voice of freedom in the United States of America. They want to see which, if any, governmental agencies will stop them."

"Guess what they learned so far?" he continued. "That not only will no governmental agency stop them in their attempts to kill free speech, they will aid them in their attempts to kill free speech. We have lost our freedoms already.

"Lady Liberty has been hog tied. She is being raped by the illegal aliens. She is being raped by the landlords who are using the illegal aliens. Lady Liberty is there in bindings screaming for us to release her," he said.

Savage noted another protest is scheduled tomorrow by illegal aliens.

"I would hope that my own government would be interested enough to go out to the station tomorrow, logically assuming that most of them are here illegally – after all this was illegal aliens protesting today, stirred up and fomented in a mob action by a supervisor who supports Hugo Chavez, an enemy of America," he said.

"You don't have to be a Sherlock to put two and two together. They're enemies of the state, they're enemies of the people and they're enemies of me. But they're here illegally ... they're criminals," he said.

Horowitz wrote: "This Sandoval fellow accused you of using 'defamatory language ... against immigrants.' Of course, this statement by Sandoval is slander. I have listened to your show. You are very complimentary of immigrants. In fact, you frequently mention that your parents were immigrants. The slander by Sandoval arises because he claims that your opposition to illegal entry into this country is somehow a stand against Hispanics. That is like saying that every Border Patrol agent and every Congress person is anti-immigrant because they don't condone illegal border crossing."

"I will back you, Michael, and file this lawsuit if you wish," concluded Horowitz.

Top attorney backs Savage against San Fran official
Government slams radio talk-show host for his stand against illegal immigration
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

One of the nation's top civil rights attorneys has offered his assistance in suing a San Francisco city supervisor who attacked nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Michael Savage for his tough stance against illegal immigration.

Daniel A. Horowitz of Oakland, Calif., wrote to Savage after Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval introduced a resolution condemning the radio talker urging him to sue the official, whom he compared to Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin and Hugo Chavez in the way he attempted to silence political speech by rallying the mob.

"You have a strong federal civil rights action that you can file against Supervisor Sandoval and the city of San Francisco," he advised. "You have a constitutional right to state your political opinions and no city official has the right to lie about what you said or to call for a mob to come to your door to threaten you and to try to have you fired."

Horowitz said the Civil Rights Act of 1871, designed to tame the terror of the Ku Klux Klan, can be used as the basis for a federal civil rights action against the official and the city.

"You are protected by this civil rights act because you are the victim of the same type of mob terror that (the) Klan used to inflict," wrote Horowitz. "This terror is being organized against you simply because people do not like what you say. Translated into legal language, you are being attacked by a type of terrorist because you have exercised your First Amendment rights."

Horowitz wrote: "The Klansman in your case is wearing a suit and not a white robe. He is doing his dirty work under the hood of his elected position instead of under the coward's hood of the Klan."

The call for action against Savage came at the same time city supervisors were considering using taxpayer dollars to pay for immigrants' green cards and citizenship.

Sandoval's resolution condemns Savage for "defamatory language ... against immigrants." The resolution was in response to Savage's July 5 broadcast, when the talker commented on a group of students who had announced they were fasting in support of changes in immigration policy.

"I would say, let them fast until they starve to death," quipped Savage, "then that solves the problem."

Sandoval's resolution calls Savage's comments "symbolic of hatred and racism."

"I really for the life of me cannot understand why there is not more media outrage to what Michael Savage said," Sandoval said. He plans to hold a press conference on the steps of City Hall Tuesday just before the entire Board of Supervisors votes on his resolution against Savage.

"The intolerant and racist comments of Michael Savage demand a strong condemnation," Sandoval insisted.

In response, Horowitz wrote: "This Sandoval fellow accused you of using 'defamatory language ... against immigrants.' Of course, this statement by Sandoval is slander. I have listened to your show. You are very complimentary of immigrants. In fact, you frequently mention that your parents were immigrants. The slander by Sandoval arises because he claims that your opposition to illegal entry into this country is somehow a stand against Hispanics. That is like saying that every Border Patrol agent and every Congress person is anti-immigrant because they don't condone illegal border crossing."

"I will back you, Michael, and file this lawsuit if you wish," concluded Horowitz.


Hillary, Boxer look to 'fix' talk radio
Sen. James Inhofe says Democrat colleagues want to take legislative action
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Senate colleague Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., want to "fix" talk radio because of its conservative influence on America, according to Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.

Appearing on John Ziegler's evening show on KFI 640 AM radio in Los Angeles, Inhofe reported hearing Clinton and Boxer discussing plans for a "legislative fix" and confronting them about it.

Inhofe told Ziegler he'd been walking to a vote "with two liberal gals" who were outraged over something a conservative radio talk show host had said, according to the Breitbart.tv recording.

"They said we've got to do something about this. These are nothing but far right-wing extremists. We've got to have a balance. There's got to be a legislative fix for this," Inhofe said.

"As we got off the elevator, I said, you gals don't understand. This is market driven, and there's no market for your liberal tripe," Inhofe said.

Inhofe told Ziegler that such complaints about the opinions expressed by talk show hosts is "common chatter" in Washington.

Ziegler asked if the two were talking about shutting talk radio down, and Inhofe said, "They just want to influence it."

The conversation had begun with the Oklahoma senator saying that opinion in the nation is influenced by the conservative leaders in the industry and he related the conversation where he'd been present.

Initially he didn't identify the Democrats.

"Was that Boxer and Feinstein?" Ziegler asked.

"You're halfway there," Inhofe said. "The other one's running for president."

"So it was Boxer and Hillary?" Ziegler said, who were complaining about talk radio.

"Oh yeah … this is common chatter," the Oklahoma senator said.

"So Boxer and Hillary were conspiring to end talk radio?" Ziegler asked.

"Not end talk radio. They just want to influence it," Inhofe said.

A WND message left with Clinton's Washington office requesting a comment was not returned. But on an ABC blog both offices issued denials.

"Senator Boxer told me that either her friend Senator Inhofe needs new glasses or he needs to have his hearing checked, because that conversation never happened," says Natalie Ravitz, the communications director for Boxer," wrote Jake Tapper on Political Punch.

"Jim Inhofe is wrong," said Philippe Reines, Clinton's press secretary. "This supposed conversation never happened – not in his presence or anywhere else."

Inhofe later clarified that the conversation wasn't recent, but happened almost three years ago.

"I’ve been telling this story for three years and told this story 100 times," he told FOXNews.com. "I have it memorized ... I tell it the same way every time because it gets a very good reaction."


The San Francisco government's proposed resolution condemning Savage is just the latest in a major, multifaceted – and largely unreported – effort both in and out of government to transform American talk radio. The entire campaign, complete with details of battles against Rush Limbaugh, Savage and other top talkers, is revealed in-depth in the current edition of WND's monthly Whistleblower magazine, titled THE WAR ON TALK RADIO." (www.wnd.com)


THE WAR ON TALK RADIO
As talkers prove their influence on public policy, the sharp knives come out

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Though most Americans aren't yet aware of it, talk radio – from Rush Limbaugh to the local talker in small-town America – is under major attack, reports the August issue of WND's acclaimed Whistleblower magazine, titled "THE WAR ON TALK RADIO."

And no wonder: Last month radio talkers presided over a minor American revolution when they urged millions of citizens to successfully oppose the immigration/amnesty bill that the president and both political parties had been pushing relentlessly. It went down in flames – a devastating blow to the political establishment.

Now it's revenge time. If radio talkers, in conjunction with the Internet, can mobilize Americans to oppose the political elite with regard to immigration, what kind of effect might they have on voters during the critically important November 2008 presidential election just around the corner? The fact is, powerful forces in and out of politics feel extremely threatened by this one part of the mass media that overwhelmingly champions traditional American values.

In short: They want talk radio crippled before it does any more "damage."

Ironically, virtually the entire "Old Media," including the broadcast networks, major daily newspapers, newsmagazines and wire services like the Associated Press, represent views far to the left of Middle America, as every study for the past three decades has proven conclusively. It is only talk radio and the Internet – the "New Media" – that provide any balance and fairness to what has until recently been a leftist media monopoly.

As the incendiary August issue of Whistleblower magazine proves, "THE WAR ON TALK RADIO" is rapidly heating up, and involves many different types of attacks. Some are already well under way, some waiting in the wings, some out in the open, some behind the scenes. All are intended to throttle talk radio.

Some of the attacks are congressional, such as the controversial "Fairness Doctrine" which would legally require that views expressed on a radio talk show be "balanced" with opposing views – a surefire formula for destroying talk radio, critics contend. But beyond the "Fairness Doctrine," which was defeated – for the time being – a few weeks ago, Sen. John Kerry has gone so far as to call for bringing back the equal-time provisions. That would mandate not just "fairness" in broadcasts – by forcibly requiring that "conservative" views be balanced with "liberal" views – but actual minute-for-minute, second-by-second measurements of what is said on the public airwaves.

Some of the attacks on talk radio are quiet and technical – like proposals to force minority ownership on radio stations in an effort to get a more left-leaning worldview on the air. That would be accomplished by: 1) limiting how many radio stations one company can own, 2) shortening broadcast license terms, 3) requiring radio broadcasters to regularly show they are operating in the "public interest," and 4) believe it or not, imposing a fee on broadcasters who fail to meet these "public interest obligations" with the funding to go to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting!

Other attacks are more public and sensational – like the efforts of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton against talk show hosts. After successfully leading the charge against talker Don Imus for using a watered-down version of the coarse language that permeates today's black music industry, Sharpton said: "It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves." Talk radio executives are convinced Jackson and Sharpton are sharpening their knives to go after more talk hosts for "abuse of the airwaves."

Still other attacks are based on charges of "bigotry and hate speech." Currently, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, John Gibson and Michael Smerconish have all been declared to be under scrutiny for their on-air "hate speech."

Highlights of this issue include:
"Al-Qaida and the Fairness Doctrine" by Joseph Farah

"The real fight over talk radio is yet to come" by James L. Gattuso, who shows that radio censors have many other weapons beyond Fairness Doctrine

"Congress and the Un-Fairness Doctrine," in which James Gattuso reveals how historically both political parties have used the pretense of "fairness" to ruthlessly thwart their opposition

"The day 'New Media' was born" by Joseph Farah, who reveals that it was the forward thinking of none other than Ronald Reagan who facilitated the explosion of talk radio

"Democrats hope to 'hush Rush,'" examining why Sen. Diane Feinstein says she's "looking at" bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, complaining that talk radio is "overwhelmingly one way"

"Claim: Hillary, Boxer look to 'fix' talk radio," in which Sen. James Inhofe says his Democrat colleagues want to take legislative action

"Voinovich self-destructs on Hannity," a stunning account of how the senator hung up on the talk-host after showing himself to be clueless on the Fairness Doctrine and on the "amnesty" bill

"The Imus lynch party" by Pat Buchanan, showing what's really behind the attacks by Sharpton and Jackson

"'It's not just Imus,' warn talk-radio headhunters," a chilling survey of attacks on top talkers like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage for alleged "hate speech"

"CAIR'S war on talk radio" by Michelle Malkin, showing how the controversial Islamic group is pushing for the 'Al Jazeera-fication of America's airwaves'

"3 sneak attacks coming against talk radio," detailing the methods for regulating the airwaves most favored by anti-talk-radio activists

"Air America recovering after bankruptcy woes," profiling how the left-leaning radio network is doing since it filed for Chapter 11 protection last year

"Making talk radio fair and balanced" – a view from "progressive" pundit Bill Press defending the "Fairness Doctrine" and saying the real problems is that conservatives fear competition

"Why can't liberal talk radio succeed?" by Hal Lindsey, who insightfully points out that although some leftist hosts may be funny, their opinions aren't convincing

"Introducing the Broadcaster Freedom Act" by U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, explaining his bill designed to protect talk radio, and proclaiming that "There is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine"

Rush Limbaugh: Regulate the 'Drive-By Media'" by Joe Kovacs, who reports that America's No. 1 radio talker suggests that, rather than impose a "Fairness Doctrine," perhaps a "Truth Doctrine" should be imposed to control all news outlets other than talk radio!

"God, man and talk radio" by veteran talker Bob Just, on the rise and fall of the secular media monopoly
"America is short on leadership right now," said WND founder and CEO Joseph Farah. "Radio talk show hosts, who every day belt out the truth that no one else in the broadcast world dares to speak, are the closest thing today's Americans have to real leadership. Eliminate talk radio and America goes down the tubes. That fact makes this an extremely important issue of Whistleblower – to read and to share with others.

In addition, while the offer lasts, when you subscribe, renew or give a gift Whistleblower subscription for one year we'll also send you, FREE (including shipping), an autographed, hardcover copy of the New York Times bestseller, "The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada." Written by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., co-author of "Unfit for Command" which became a No. 1 New York Times best-seller and a decisive influence in the 2004 election, "The Late Great USA" exposes the multifaceted plan to turn the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a North American version of the European Union.

Subscribe, renew or give a gift subscription for two years and you'll save even more money – plus we'll send you, FREE, the acclaimed, in-depth 2-DVD exposé of America's money system, "The Money Masters: How Banks Create the World's Money." This three-and-a-half-hour, fast-paced historical documentary throws back the veil of deceit hiding the origins and operations of the corrupt banking elite that clandestinely controls America far more than most people realize. In today's climate of financial turmoil and uncertainty, information in "The Money Masters" is more important than ever.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56827)


Democrats hope to hush Rush
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is "looking at" bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, a controversial policy designed to ensure equal time for all political viewpoints on radio, but criticized by many as resulting in the opposite result.

When asked by Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" if she would revive the measure, said, "Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way."

Wallace pointed out, "But the argument would be it's the marketplace, and if liberals want to put on their own talk radio, they can put it on. At this point, they don't seem to be able to find much of a market."

Feinstein responded: "Well, apparently, there have been problems. It is growing. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people."

The Democrat said talk radio tends to be one-sided.

"It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information."

Among the targets of leftist Democrats is conservative champion Rush Limbaugh, the most-listened to host in the history of talk radio, who has railed against in the Fairness Doctrine for years.

On one of his programs in January, Limbaugh said the push for the measure was solely because liberals were unsuccessful in getting Americans to agree with them.

They can't get coverage, they can't draw an audience; they can't draw an audience in the commercial field, at any rate. So what do they do? They attempt to silence the opposition, and this is an assault on the First Amendment, disguised under that word "fairness."
The application of the Fairness Doctrine worked this way. It basically made it so difficult for local radio stations to put on controversial programming that they put none on. So what you're going to get if they do reinstate this is highlighted programming such as the favorite holiday recipes for Christmastime, sewage problems for the next decade in your local community, and other such things. The application of the Fairness Doctrine would be very, very tough to police.

The point of it was to balance opinions and to be fair, and if one point of view was expressed, the other had to be expressed well, otherwise no opinion could be expressed. There was also a provision that personal attacks, people victimized by those would have a chance to reply and respond and so forth.

Also appearing with Wallace was Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who heated up the airwaves last week by stating, "Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem."

On today's program, Lott said, "I've been defended by talk radio many times and I will support their right to tell their side of the story, right, left or the middle, forever.

I don't think this Fairness Doctrine that would try to require that there be X amount on both sides is fair. So you know, it's caused quite a stir, but, you know, it goes with the territory."

WND reported Friday that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Senate colleague Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., want to "fix" talk radio because of its conservative influence on America, according to Sen. James Inhofe.


Voinovich self-destructs on Hannity
Senator hangs up on host over 'amnesty' grilling
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56414

WASHINGTON – Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, misunderstood the results of a vote on an amendment to the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill being debated in the upper house today.
He also is apparently unfamiliar with efforts to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters operating on the public airwaves.

But it was nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Sean Hannity's persistent grilling about the senator's intentions on key cloture votes leading to a showdown on what is characterized as an "amnesty" bill that caused Voinovich to melt down before millions of listeners today.

The normally low-profile Republican hung up on the No. 2 talk host in the country.

The key sticking point in the conversation was Hannity's question as to whether the senator had done a cost analysis on the bill. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, estimates the bill would cost the American taxpayers $2.5 trillion.

Voinovich said he didn't believe the cost would be that high because a third of those eligible for a path to citizenship would never take it.

"How do you know that?" Hannity asked. "Where does that figure come from?"

Voinovich did not provide any supporting evidence for his contention and admitted he had read neither the bill itself or the Heritage Foundation analysis.

The senator complained that some of his constituents have attempted to "intimidate" him by saying they would oppose his re-election if he voted for the bill.

"You do not intimidate George Voinovich," he said. "During my 40 years in this business, I have always looked at the pros and cons of each piece of legislation and made a determination. If people don't like my decision, they can express their will during the next election."

When Hannity began making the case against the "amnesty" bill, Voinovich interrupted, asking: "Are you happy with the current legislation? Our current laws stink!"

"No one is enforcing those laws, senator," said Hannity. "That's the problem. It's been five and half years since 9/11, and the border is still not secure."

When Hannity returned to the issue of cost analysis, Voinovich cut the conversation short.

"I don't really think there is any point talking to you further," said Voinovich. "You are just looking for someone to agree with you. I'm disappointed in you."

The conversation began with a question from Hannity about whether the senator supported the Fairness Doctrine, currently a hot topic among Voinovich's colleagues.

"Fairness Doctrine – I'm all for it, whatever it is," he said. "I think everyone should be open to show the other side. That's what you do every night on Fox. That's great!"

When Hannity reminded Voinovich that the Fairness Doctrine would establish government regulatory bureaucracies to enforce this balance, Voinovich quickly retreated.

Voinovich also asserted efforts in the Senate earlier in the day were successful at amending the immigration bill to require illegal aliens to return to their nation of origin before getting on a path for a green card. When Hannity pointed out the measure failed in a 53-45 vote, Voinovich seemed stunned.

"He doesn't even know what the Fairness Doctrine is," exclaimed Hannity. "He doesn't even know the outcome of a vote in the Senate today. And he gets mad at me when I try to explain it to him!"

WND was not able to get through to Voinovich's Senate office, which was continually busy.


Talk show host Neal Boortz tells a Muslim caller Islam is a "cult," not a religion. The caller began: "Sir, I'm calling because of some statements you've been making in the past week about the religion of Islam and … "

Boortz interrupted: It's a cult, it's not even a religion. … "

After a long list of crimes perpetrated all over the world in the name of Islam, the talk host told the caller, "You don't have a word of condemnation in you until the non-Islamic world rises up and starts to make it clear that we are fed up with your damned religion. We've had it up to here.

"And somebody, like I said yesterday, somebody needs to grab the Muslim world by the shirt collar, backhand it a good one, knock it into the damn corner and say straighten up or we're gonna eradicate you beetles from the face of the Earth. … "


Jackie Mason calls Islam 'murderous' religion
U.S. group monitoring talk radio files FCC complaint, demands apology

Comedian Jackie Mason raised the ire of a controversial Islamic lobby group by calling "the whole Muslim religion" a "murderous organization" that teaches "hate, terrorism and murder."

The remarks came when Mason hosted the Jim Bohannon Show, syndicated nationally by the Westwood One radio network. Mason was elaborating on a comment by his co-author, New York lawyer Raoul Felder, who said Islam "is a religion of hate, this is a religion of murder."

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, filed a complaint with the FCC and wants Westwood One to apologize.

Mason, according to CAIR, amplified on Felder's "bigotry."

"This is amazing information that almost nobody is aware of ... everyone thinks that it's a legitimate religion that preaches love and brotherhood," said Mason. "The truth of the matter is [that terrorists] are reflecting the religion and following the religion."

They are "following the orders of the religion directly from the Quran ... in plain English, the whole Muslim religion is preaching and teaching hate, terrorism and murder, and nobody knows it, and its about time they found out about it, " Mason said.

"The Quran ... is 50 versions of hate, venom, hostility, and murder ... dedicated to terrorism," he added. " ... I don't know how we can call it a religion in the traditional sense. It should be called a murderous organization that's out to kill people."

In a letter to Westwood One, CAIR demanded a public apology to the Muslim community and "an opportunity to refute Mason's Islamophobic smears."

The letter stated: "It is this type of hate-filled propaganda that was used by the Nazis as justification for their persecution of the Jewish community in Germany."

Earlier this year, CAIR announced a campaign "to counter anti-Islamic hate on talk radio," called Hate Hurts America."

CAIR says its campaign is "based on the premise that the increasing attacks on Islam by talk-show hosts harm the United States by creating a downward spiral of interfaith mistrust and hostility."

The campaign includes "step-by-step instructions on how to monitor local and syndicated radio programs, report anti-Muslim hate, file FCC complaints, and contact advertisers to register their concerns."

As WorldNetDaily reported in December, CAIR demanded an apology from legendary radio broadcaster Paul Harvey for saying Islam is a religion that "encourages killing."

A week later, a fill-in host referred to the comment, saying Harvey had received letters from several Muslim friends who "reminded all of us that Islam is a religion of peace, that terrorists do not represent Islam."

WND reported in November radio counselor Dr. Laura Schlessinger refused to apologize as demanded by CAIR, which accused her of launching an "anti-Muslim tirade" on her program.

CAIR took offense to Schlessinger's response to a mother who asked whether her 16-year-old daughter should take part in a Catholic high school class's field trip to a local mosque. The visit was part of a "moral themes" class that aimed to help students learn how "Muslims are treated" in the United States.

Schlessinger told the mother she should tell the teacher "you are willing to go to the mosque only if it is one that has done its best to rout out terrorists in its midst."

CAIR said Schlessinger "crossed the line from legitimate commentary on terrorism to Islamophobic bigotry."

Schlessinger said, in response, "It's absurd that anyone would even imagine that I was expressing disdain for everyone who is a Muslim or who is an Arab. That's even stupid. If anybody has listened to me for any period of time, that's absurd."

CAIR said in 2002 it asked Schlessinger to clarify her claim there is a "Muslim plan" to take over the world, accusing her hostility toward Islam.

However, CAIR itself has helped cast doubt on Muslim groups that purport to be mainstream promoters of peace and tolerance.

CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association For Palestine, or IAF, identified as a "front group" for the terrorist organization Hamas, according to two former heads of the FBI's counterterrorism section.

In April, a member of CAIR's national staff, Randall Todd "Ismail" Royer, pleaded guilty for conspiring to train on American soil for a "violent jihad." Another CAIR figure, Bassem Khafagi, was arrested in 2003 while serving as the group's director of community relations.

CAIR's leaders also have provided evidence for claims Muslims have a plan for domination.

As WorldNetDaily reported, CAIR's chairman of the board, Omar Ahmad, was cited by a California newspaper in 1998 declaring the Quran should be America's highest authority.

He also was reported to have said Islam is not in America to be equal to any other religion but to be dominant.

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he wants to see the United States become a Muslim country.

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," Hooper told the paper. "But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

In addition, CAIR has sought to convey the impression Muslims are under siege in America. A report released last year, titled "Guilt by Association," blasted the Bush administration for government policies that unfairly single out Muslim individuals and organizations" – a charge denied by the Justice Department.

CAIR claimed when compared to the year preceding Sept. 11, its 2002 report on bias or hate-related incidents against Muslims showed a 64 percent increase.

Justice Department spokesman Jorge Martinez told WorldNetDaily, on the contrary, he saw a vastly improving situation in "backlash" incidents since a "spike" in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
---

U.S. Muslims silent on Hamas chief's terror
CAIR condemns killing of 'most prominent Palestinian Islamic figure'

A U.S. Islamic lobby group with ties to Hamas strongly condemned Israel's killing of Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin without mentioning the cleric's affiliation or his responsibility for countless terrorist attacks against Israel, which were part of his stated objective to destroy the Jewish nation.
In its statement, the Council on American-Islamic Relations referred to Yassin only as a "wheelchair-bound Palestinian Muslim religious leader" and a "67-year-old quadriplegic" who was the "most prominent Palestinian Islamic figure."

Yassin, killed by a helicopter gunship Monday, was regarded by Israeli authorities as their Osama bin Laden.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian newspaper Al-Hayat al-Jadida reported 10 babies born after the assassination were given the sheik's name by their families, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute.

The Palestinian Authority has declared three days of mourning for Yassin.

"Israel's extra-judicial killing of an Islamic religious leader can only serve to perpetuate the cycle of violence throughout the region," CAIR said. "The international community must now take concrete steps to help protect the Palestinian people against such wanton Israeli violence."

CAIR called on the U.S. to cut the flow of funds to Israel and repudiate Israel's policies by canceling Ariel Sharon's upcoming visit to Washington.

"Bland administration statements urging 'restraint by all parties' will only be viewed internationally as tacit approval of Israel's actions and will undermine our moral and legal basis for the war on terrorism," CAIR said.

CAIR claims to be a civil-rights group that represents mainstream Muslims in the U.S., but the group is a spin-off of the Islamic Association For Palestine, labeled a "front group" for Hamas by two former heads of the FBI's counterterrorism section.

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad was the Islamic Association For Palestine's public-relations adviser.

At a university forum in 1994, Awad declared, "I am in support of the Hamas movement."

In its 1988 covenant, Hamas declared war on the Jews, declaring in the preamble: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

Under Yassin, Hamas killed 377 Israelis in at least 425 terrorist attacks during the past three and a half years of the Palestinian Authority's current Intifada, or uprising.

Among the suicide operations carried out by Hamas were the March 27, 2002, attack in Netanya that killed 29 people celebrating Passover; the 22, mostly teens, killed at a Tel Aviv discotheque June 1, 2001; and the 15 killed at a Sbarro's pizza restaurant in Jerusalem, Aug. 9, 2001.

Most recently, two suicide bombers infiltrated the Israeli port of Ashdod March 14 and killed 10 people in an attack designed to kill hundreds. Israeli officials believe if the terrorists had been able to get closer to the tons of bromide, fuel and ammonia stored at the port, they could have released a deadly "dirty bomb" cloud.

In Israel, two opinion polls found the majority of Israelis support the assassination of Yassin, the Jerusalem Post reported.

A poll by the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot said 60 percent favored the action while 32 percent said it was wrong.

The newspaper Maariv's poll showed 61 percent in favor and 21 percent opposed.


University fires 'terror professor'
USF sacks Sami al-Arian after arrest for conspiracy, racketeering
By Diana Lynne

The University of South Florida has fired a tenured professor jailed last week for allegedly running an international terrorist organization.
"We have determined that the University of South Florida must sever all ties to Sami al-Arian once and for all," USF President Judy Genshaft announced at a press conference. "Today, the provost has issued a letter to terminate Dr. al-Arian's employment immediately."

As WorldNetDaily reported, computer science professor Sami al-Arian was arrested by federal agents last Thursday.

USF Professor Sami al-Arian arrested for supporting terrorists

A federal indictment accuses al-Arian of serving as the North American point man and treasurer of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a group designated by the State Department as an international terrorist organization.

The 50-count indictment also charges al-Arian, two other former and current instructors at USF and five other individuals of operating a criminal racketeering enterprise that provided funding and organization for the global terror ring responsible for the deaths of 100 people in and around Israel, including two Americans.

In addition to criminal racketeering, al-Arian and the seven others are charged with conspiracy to kill and maim people abroad; conspiracy to provide material support to the terrorist group; extortion; perjury; mail and wire fraud; obstruction of justice; and attempting to procure citizenship or naturalization unlawfully to help terrorists.

If convicted, the men could face life in prison.

Al-Arian and the seven alleged co-conspirators are described as having set up a terror cell at USF.

In the 1980s, al-Arian founded a religious charity, the Islamic Concern Project, that federal authorities now say has been funneling money and providing organizational support to Islamic Jihad since 1984.

In conjunction with his brother-in-law, Mazen al-Najjar, al-Arian also founded the World and Islam Studies Enterprises, or WISE, a now-defunct Islamic think tank at USF.

Federal agents raided the think tank, the charity and al-Arian's home and office at USF in 1995. They seized tapes from the late 1980s and early 1990s in which al-Arian proclaims "Death to Israel" and "Let us damn America," in Arabic.

Al-Najjar was arrested in November 2001 on suspicion of ties to terrorists and was deported last August.

Amid the federal investigation into his suspected association with terrorist organizations, USF suspended al-Arian with pay in December 2001 and banned him from the campus.

The university maintains the accusations against al-Arian and the media attention hurt the school's fund-raising efforts and threats raised concerns over student safety.

"Dr. al-Arian has repeatedly abused his position at the university. He has misused the university's name, reputation, resources and personnel," Genshaft told reporters this morning. "No longer will he be able to hide behind the shield of academic freedom."

An assistant at the office of al-Arian's civil attorney Robert McKee told WorldNetDaily he had just received the documents from USF. He plans to go over them with al-Arian later today and is withholding comment in the meantime.

Federal agents also arrested another USF professor, 42-year-old Sameeh Hammoudeh.

Also indicted but still at large overseas, is former USF instructor Ramadan Abdullah Shallah. He served as the executive director of al-Arian's charity and recently became the head of the worldwide Islamic Jihad. Shallah lives in Damascus, Syria.

USF is not actively taking steps to terminate Hammoudeh. A spokesperson told WorldNetDaily that because he is an adjunct professor who gets paid on an hourly basis, his incarceration sufficiently ends his association with the university.

When asked what would happen if Hammoudeh were to be released on bail, the spokesperson could not say whether he would be allowed to teach again.

WorldNetDaily reports U.S. Magistrate Mark Pizzo issued a continuance yesterday after al-Arian's lawyers said they weren't prepared to make a case before the judge to have their client released on bond. The judge ordered al-Arian to stay in federal custody until March 24.

In a statement released by his family, the Kuwait-born al-Arian claimed he was being persecuted and declared he would go on a hunger strike: ''I'm crucified today because of who I am, a famous Palestinian, an Arab and Muslim, an outspoken advocate for Palestinian rights.''

''I am a prisoner because of the hysteria engulfing the country in the aftermath of the 9-11 tragedy and because there are very powerful political groups which are thirsty for my blood,'' al-Arian wrote in the statement obtained by the Miami Herald. "I am not the enemy, but the forces of exclusion and intolerance are. I have declared a hunger strike to protest this unjust persecution of me because of my beliefs and opinions.''

The American Association of University Professors has supported al-Arian, calling his plight a major civil rights issue.

As WorldNetDaily reported, an Islamic school in Tampa has removed al-Arian from its board of trustees. Some analysts believe the professor's role at the academy raises disturbing questions about the use of mosques and schools in America by terrorist sympathizers as fronts or bases of operation for terrorist groups and their activities.
---

Should Muslim Quran be USA's top authority?
Paper stands by story citing 'mainstream' leader pushing for Islamic America
By Art Moore

A former newspaper reporter says she stands by her story claiming the chairman of a leading Muslim lobby group declared the Quran should be America's highest authority.
In a press release accusing WorldNetDaily of "demonizing Muslims," the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, denied its chairman of the board, Omar Ahmad, made the statement and said it is seeking a retraction from the newspaper that published the story July 4, 1998.

However, Steve Waterhouse, editor of The Argus in Fremont, Calif., since 1997, told WND his paper has not been contacted by CAIR. The article also was run in a sister publication, the San Ramon Valley Herald. The paper's city editor, Dave Boitano, said he would have known if CAIR had sought a retraction.

The reporter who covered the event, Lisa Gardiner, told WND she remembers the strong statement by Ahmad, who was one of several speakers at a session titled, "How Should We As Muslims Live in America?" at an Islamic conference in Fremont.

Gardiner, regarded as a reliable reporter, is now a legislative aide for California Democratic Assemblyman John Dutra. She said the statement in question is her paraphrase but insisted it is accurate and will not retract the story.

Her article also paraphrases Ahmad saying, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant."

WND Editor Joseph Farah referred to Omar's remarks – which have been cited by other critics of CAIR – in a column last week on the Muslim group's campaign to derail President Bush's nomination of Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes to the U.S. Institute of Peace.

In its press release, CAIR said Farah's most recent articles "smeared" the Muslim group with numerous "falsehoods and distortions" in an attempt to support Pipes' "controversial" nomination. The group claims WND stories "prompted" readers to write "hate-filled" messages to CAIR, and that some are being examined by the Justice Department.

Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer responded yesterday to a question by WND's White House correspondent about CAIR's opposition to Pipes.

"The nomination continues to stand," Fleischer said.

Living in America

Ahmad's remarks have been cited by CAIR critics in the context of charges the group is tied to a radical element of Islam rather than the mainstream it claims to represent.

Its press release says: "CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, is a mainstream organization that regularly works with national law enforcement authorities, elected officials and other civil liberties and minority groups.

A copy of Gardiner's original article, provided by Waterhouse, said in part:

Omar M. Ahmad, chairman of the board of the Council on American-Islamic relations, spoke before a packed crowd at the Flamingo Palace banquet hall on Peralta Boulevard, urging Muslims not to shirk their duty of sharing the Islamic faith with those who are "on the wrong side."
Muslim institutions, schools and economic power should be strengthened in America, he said. Those who stay in America should be "open to society without melting (into it)," keeping mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam, he said.

"If you choose to live here (in America) ... you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam," he said.

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant, he said. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth, he said.

When asked whether CAIR had contacted the newspaper for a retraction as indicated by its press release, national spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told WND, "[Ahmad] never made the statement, and we have sought a retraction."

Pressed several times to specify whether CAIR already has contacted the newspaper, he repeated the statement then finally said someone from CAIR's California affiliate made the contact.

When confronted with the fact that the newspaper's editors say CAIR has not contacted them and the reporter stands by the story, he ended the call with, "If you are going to use distortions, I can't stop you; it's a free country. Have a nice day."

Hooper called back, however, and said he wanted to change his statement to say, "We will seek a retraction, and we have spoken to the reporter about it in the past."

Justice probe?

Although WND did not solicit or encourage the virulent e-mails, CAIR's press release ties them to the newssite, and Hooper told WND the Justice Department is "looking into it."

A Justice spokesman, Drew Wade, said the department does not confirm or deny the existence of ongoing investigations.

But Paul Bresson of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who looked at CAIR's examples of the e-mails when WND forwarded him the press release, said the FBI thoroughly examines the merits of each case, and he could not immediately judge whether they rose to the level of a threat worthy of investigation. He added, however, if they essentially amounted to just epithets, a probe would be unlikely.

With just name-calling, "we would have a lot of work to do" to make a case out of it, he said.

So why is CAIR so upset with WorldNetDaily?

"CAIR's leadership," said Farah, "has an Islamic totalitarian mindset just like their funders in Saudi Arabia and their friends in the Hamas terrorist group. They dish it out pretty well, but they can't take any criticism – not even e-mails! You should see the hate mail I get from CAIR's members. It would make your hair stand on end."

Farah added: "These extremists like to try to intimidate people, but they can't stand up like men and take it. Now they are running to the Justice Department for help. Fortunately for us, we don't have Shariah law in this country; we live free under the U.S. Constitution."

Motivated to promote unity

Gardiner explained the newspaper's coverage of Ahmad's 1998 speech – well before Sept. 11, 2001 – was partly motivated by the "need to know more about the diversity of religions in California and the world."

"That was something we worked for, and the newspaper was covering many Muslims in the community," she said.

She considered her personal interaction with the Muslim leaders "extremely positive" and enriching.

"I think it would be unfortunate if this [controversy] ultimately ended up creating more hostility and misunderstanding," she said.


Americans charged in 'holy-war' plot
Accused of conspiring to train on U.S. soil for battle overseas

Nine Americans were among 11 men charged today with conspiring to train on U.S. soil for a "violent jihad" overseas.
According to an indictment issued by the federal government, the men belong to the Islamic militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, or "Army of the Righteous," which seeks to drive India out of the disputed Kashmir province, Fox News reported.

"These indictments are a stark reminder that terrorist organizations of various allegiances are active in the United States and these groups exploit America's freedom as a weapon to recruit and position themselves on our shores, in our society," U.S. Attorney Paul J. McNulty told reporters.

The Islamic group is on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations. India, which is in a conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir, accuses the group of launching suicide attacks against officials and civilians in the province.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, said McNulty, "Virginia jihad network members were told that it was time to engage in violent jihad."

One suspect, Ahmed Abu-Ali, is being held in Saudi Arabia by officials probing the May 12 bombings in Riyadh that killed nine attackers and 25 other people.

In preparation for its jihad, the group trained from early 2000 through last May in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs of Washington and in St. Louis, Mo., the indictment said. It also trained in small-unit military tactics near Fredericksburg, Va., using AK-47 assault rifles and other firearms, Fox News reported.

The FBI said on its website the defendants also were harboring various documents, including a copy of the "Terrorist Handbook," featuring information on the manufacturing of explosives and related weaponry.

In the group's combat simulations in northern Virginia, it also used toys to fire paintballs, according to the Washington Post.

The report said members of the group attended lectures given by a Muslim scholar whose home was searched along with the suspects by U.S. authorities looking for evidence of militant or terrorist activities.


Muslims try to bar terror expert
University appearance draws ire of Islamic community
By Art Moore

SEATTLE – Who is the enemy in the war on terrorism? Seattle-area Muslims fought hard to block the appearance this week of a leading terror expert whose answer to that question, some believe, strikes too close to home.
Former Harvard professor Daniel Pipes, who has been in high demand by the mainstream media since Sept. 11, says he experienced unprecedented opposition prior to his lecture at the University of Washington Wednesday night.

Calling Pipes a "rabid Muslim/Arab-hater," Jeff Siddiqui of the American Muslims of Puget Sound distributed a letter expressing "profound shock" that Pipes had been invited and urging organizers to cancel the event, sponsored by the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle and the university's school of international studies.

Pipes, who speaks Arabic, has a Ph.D. in history from Harvard and served in the U.S. Departments of State and Defense. The author of 10 books, he was director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute and currently heads a Philadelphia-based think tank, the Middle East Forum.

"Indeed, it is not unlike having a Nazi speak about the security of the U.S.A., or a KKK member speak about crime," Siddiqui wrote to event organizer Edward Alexander, an English professor at the university.

The Muslim leader suggested that if Alexander did not cancel the speech he should at least send out a letter of contrition for inviting Pipes and allow a 10-minute response by a Muslim.

"I am sure there will be many items from his speech that will need correction because truth and accuracy are not his strong points where Islam, Arabs or Muslims are concerned," Siddiqui wrote.

Police escort

On Wednesday a crowd that included many Muslims and Jews, crammed into the lecture hall after having their bags inspected, leaving hundreds outside unable to enter. Pipes was escorted into the auditorium by police, who were notified in advance of possible trouble, along with the U.S. Department of Justice.

"I can't think of any precedent, my own or anyone else's, where the attempt to suppress freedom of speech by militant Islam in the United States has been quite so blatant," Pipes told WorldNetDaily prior to the event.

In his response to Siddiqui, Alexander said: "I hope you won't be shocked to learn that I can't comply with your request that I cancel Mr. Pipes' lecture or that I express public contrition for arranging it or that I allow you or one of your acolytes to preside as grand inquisitor and judge of his remarks.

"Apparently you are not aware of the age-old conventions regarding public lectures (and free speech) in this part of the country," Alexander said. "There is no requirement that a lecture touching on radical Islam must be 'answered' by an Islamic radical, any more than a lecturer on fundamentalist Christianity must submit to a harangue at the end of his talk by a Christian fundamentalist."

Pipes' address, "The War on Terror and Militant Islam," drew loud applause at several points during which he called on the U.S. to make its Middle East policy consistent with its stated principles in the war on terrorism. Pipes said afterward he had never before been interrupted by applause in a speech.

"We should be grateful to the Israelis, that they are willing to deal with their local terrorists," he said to a thunderous ovation.

Already a number of Muslims had walked out in disgust. At the mention of Yasser Arafat's name, a man at the back yelled, "He is my hero!"

Another got up in the middle of the lecture, angrily spewing invectives at Pipes and exiting with, "You are a racist."

Pipes received another ovation when he stated that the U.S. should tell the Saudis, the country of 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers, "either you are with us or against us."

In a reference to the interruptions by Muslims, Pipes said the suppressive tactics of militant Islam of which he spoke were at work even as he spoke.

Militants and traditionalists

Outside the hall before the lecture, Humza Chaudhry, president of the school's Muslim Student Association, handed out literature denouncing Pipes and called him a liar and a bigot.

Chaudhry told WorldNetDaily he supported Pipes' right to speak but questioned the judgment of those who invited him.

"He is very careful to make the (distinction) between what he calls traditional Islam and militant Islam; the problem is that a majority of (Muslims) fit into his category of radicals," Chaudhry said. "What he constitutes as radicals are people who follow the traditional Islamic faith, and what he would like to see is Muslims who have a compromised version of their faith, which is compromised to the state of Israel."

Pipes insisted that he does not hate Islam or Muslims. Moderate Muslims are the biggest victims of militant Islam, he pointed out, referring to countries such as Algeria where thousands have died in a militant insurgency. There is a battle over the soul of Islam, he maintains, between moderates and militants.

In his introduction of the speech, Alexander noted that Pipes' warnings last May about the dangers of al-Qaida to the U.S. – several months before Sept. 11 – were reviled as racist by some Muslims. Columbia University professor Edward Said scoffed at "highly exaggerated racial stereotyping" that talked of hijacking jetliners and blowing up buildings.

Siddiqui charged in his letter that "Daniel Pipes has in the past, suggested getting rid of Muslims in America, he has declared that Muslims and Islam are incompatible with the 'civilized west.' He has on many occasions, warned America of the 'Islamic threat' and suggested that Muslims should be stopped from coming to this country.

"If he goes any further he will be in the same company as Hitler when he told Mussolini the Jews were like 'TB baccillii (sic)' and must be eradicated."

Much of the campaign in Seattle against him was "purely fabricated," Pipes said. "It just puts words in my mouth that are completely anathema, throwing Muslims out of the country, and things like that. Total fabrication."

Several Muslims who attended the event referred to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington, D.C., lobby group, as a source of information on Pipes. The group, which casts itself as a promoter of civil rights, has published condemnation of Pipes on its website, referring to him as an "Islamophobic pundit."

Pipes told WorldNetDaily that CAIR and related groups have tried to discourage forums for his ideas from inviting him or following through with an invitation.

"They shadow me all the time," Pipes said. "I'm happy to report, so far as I know, I have not been disinvited, so it's not worked. But, nonetheless, it tends to intimidate and shut down the free discussion of Islam, militant Islam and Muslims. If they don't like it, they don't want it discussed."

Pipes claims his critics are not interested in discourse.

"They do not discuss the issues I discuss," he said. "They take things out of context. Most of the time they take one quote of mine from 1990 in a National Review article where I was characterizing the European view of immigrant Muslims. Admittedly it wasn't as clear as it should have been, but I wasn't writing with the expectation of being misquoted."

Moderate Islam

Pipes says CAIR, which has had representatives invited to the White House, is one of the groups in this country that defines itself as moderate but instead practices and associates with a militant brand of Islam.

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad once worked for the Islamic Association of Palestine, considered by U.S. intelligence officials to be a front group for Hamas operating in the United States. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper denies any connection between CAIR and IAP. Nevertheless, CAIR defended the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development – a U.S.-based group accused of channeling funds to Hamas – when President Bush decided to freeze its assets. CAIR charged that the move could give the impression that "there has been a shift from a war on terrorism to an attack on Islam."

While Pipes stresses that the vast majority of Muslims are not militant, during the question and answer time after his Wednesday speech he said 80 percent of mosques, websites and organizations in the United States are dominated by militant Islam. The 13 Muslim chaplains in the U.S. military all have been "handpicked by militant Islamic groups," he said.

Moderate Muslims are silenced by militants at this "radicalized moment," according to Pipes. Those Muslims who are against militant Islam are "weak, fractured and hapless," he said.

The goal of the U.S. government should be to help moderate Muslims "modernize Islam" and thereby weaken the militants.

Amin Odeh, who represents a local group called Voices of Palestine, told WorldNetDaily after the speech that "it wasn't as bad as I expected."

"At least he made it clear that he wasn't against Islam," said Odeh, who left the Middle East 11 years ago but still has family in the Palestinian territories. "He made a clear difference between Islam and militant Muslims. But it wasn't positive. We are in a time of crisis and we shouldn't be scaring people. He was encouraging this theme of let's go get them. Even though he was focusing on militant Muslims … this didn't give us any hope. It was just scaring people; the same thing that Bush is doing, the same thing Sharon is doing to his people, so that any measure they take will be justified."

Odeh, who holds public debates and lectures at schools, said the group was launched after the second Intifada began last fall, "to educate people about the facts, because we believe the media is biased."


CAIR distributes Quran banned as anti-Semitic
Version offered for free as goodwill response to Newsweek fiasco
By Art Moore

In an attempt to quell the rancor resulting from Newsweek's retracted Quran-desecration story, a controversial U.S. Muslim lobby group is giving away free copies of Islam's revered book.

The particular edition, however, "The Meaning of the Holy Quran," previously was banned by the Los Angeles school district because commentary notes accompanying the text were regarded as anti-Semitic.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has included the edition in the Islamic book-package it offers libraries nationwide and now is giving it away to help "improve America's image" through a program called "Explore the Quran."

"We want to turn a negative image into a positive one," said CAIR's Florida director, Altaf Ali, at a news conference in Cooper City, Fla, announcing the project. "America's image is taking a beating, and it's affecting us all, of different faiths."

WorldNetDaily contacted Ali at his Florida office, but he refused to be interviewed for the story.

CAIR's library project, begun in September 2002, was funded in part by a $500,000 donation from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. In 2001, bin Talal's $10 million donation to New York City was rejected by then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani after the prince suggested U.S. policies in the Middle East contributed to the Sept. 11 attacks.

The Saudi-funded CAIR is a spin-off of a group described by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a "front group" for the terrorist group Hamas in the U.S. Several CAIR leaders have been convicted on terror-related charges.

A Florida-based group, Americans Against Hate, drew attention to CAIR's distribution project, noting the book's commentary and index makes it clear the Quran's references to "apes" and "pigs" are descriptions of Jews.

Khaleel Mohammed, an assistant professor of religious studies at San Diego State University, says the Saudi-approved edition was first published by Abdullah Yusuf Ali in 1934 at "a time both of growing Arab animosity toward Zionism and in a milieu that condoned anti-Semitism."

Ali, according to the professor, constructed it as a "polemic against Jews."

Until recently, he said, it's been the most popular version among Muslims. Yet, despite revisions over the years, Mohammed added, the footnoted commentary about Jews "remained so egregious" that in April 2002 the Los Angeles school district banned its use at local schools.

Goodwill gesture

According to the Los Angeles Times, about 300 copies of "The Meaning of the Holy Quran" were donated in December 2001 to the Los Angeles Unified School District by a local Muslim foundation as a goodwill gesture in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Jim Konantz, director of information technology for the district, said the usual review process was skipped for an unknown reason, and he received a complaint from a history teacher.

"It's not an issue of whether the Quran should be available in the library," Konantz told the Times in a February 2002 story. "It's like any other research volume. But these interpretations are certainly in question."

Ali's rendering of Surah (Chapter) 2:65 of the Quran, which reads like most English versions, says: "And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed. In the matter of the Sabbath; we said to them: 'Be ye apes, despised and rejected."

In his corresponding note, Ali says: "There must have been a Jewish tradition about a whole fishing community in a seaside town, which persisted in breaking the Sabbath and were turned into apes."

Under the heading "Jews" in the book's index, is a reference to Surah 5:60, which says: " ... Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some he transformed into apes and swine ... ."

In the index under "Jews" also are these phrases: "cursed," "enmity of," "greedy of life," "slew prophets," "took usury," "unbelief and blasphemy of" and "work iniquity."

Extreme or mainstream?

Scholars point out that Muslims believe the Quran was dictated word-for-word by Allah in the Arabic language, so any rendering in other languages is imperfect and can be seen only as an interpretation.

But author and researcher Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, says that while Ali's notes are particularly anti-Semitic, his rendering of the Quranic text largely is no different than any other version.

"It's an indication that what we think of as extreme in Islam is not really extreme but mainstream," he told WND. "You won't find a translation that doesn't have Jews being turned into apes and pigs."

Some Muslim scholars say the text refers only to particular groups of Jews, such as those breaking the Sabbath, and is not meant to apply to Jews today.

But Spencer says the global, mainstream understanding regards this as a current, universal reference to Jews.

The Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI, includes in its archives many translated writings and texts of sermons by prominent Muslims leaders who make such references.

For example, the highest-ranking cleric in the Sunni Muslim world, Al-Azhar Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, called the Jews "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs" in a weekly sermon in April 2002.

In a TV program broadcast on Iqraa, the Saudi-Egyptian satellite channel, a 3-year-old "real Muslim girl" was interviewed about Jews. Asked whether she liked Jews, she answered, "no." Asked why, she replied Jews were "apes and pigs."

"Who said this?" the moderator asked. The girl answered, "Our God." "Where did He say this?" "In the Quran."

At the end of the interview, the obviously pleased moderator said: "No [parents] could wish for Allah to give them a more believing girl than she. ... May Allah bless her, her father and mother. The next generation of children must be true Muslims. We must educate them now while they are children, so that they will be true Muslims."

Spencer said many in the United States are unaware that this kind of rhetoric is common in the Muslim world.

"I think that maybe this is a chance for Americans to become aware of just how the text of the Quran itself plays a role in the creation of jihad terror," he said.

It's also a chance, he continued, "for Muslims who claim to be moderate to face that honestly and develop a genuine, non-literal understanding of the text that is convincing to their fellow Muslims and propagate it aggressively."


Muslims try to quash Bush nominee
Washington Post backs radical group's opposition to Daniel Pipes
By Art Moore

A controversial Islamic lobby group that casts itself as a mainstream voice for American Muslims is fiercely opposing President Bush's nomination of a leading Middle East scholar to the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace.
The Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, charges that Daniel Pipes, director of a Philadelphia-based think tank, the Middle East Forum, is an "Islamophobe" whose views "have been instrumental in widening the divide between faiths and cultures."

Daniel Pipes

Prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Pipes, who speaks Arabic and has a Ph.D. from Harvard, was castigated by Muslims as a racist for insisting militant Islam is a serious threat to U.S. security. Since then, he has been in regular demand as a pundit on television news programs, often explaining the distinction he makes between militant Islam and Islam in general.

Like CAIR, however, many U.S. Muslim activist groups insist he unfairly paints Muslims in broad strokes, and on Sunday the Washington Post supported that assertion in an editorial condemning the nomination as "sort of a cruel joke."

The Post objected to Pipes' argument that since only Muslims are vulnerable to becoming militant Muslims or "Islamists," therefore Muslims should be given more scrutiny by U.S. security than others.

The paper said the Bush administration "has gone to particular pains to calm the nerves of U.S. Muslims, who are ever anxious that they are being singularly scrutinized. As long as there is an operational Justice Department actively investigating terrorism, this outreach campaign will never work perfectly. But the Pipes nomination is salt in the wound."

Pipes argues, however, that while the problem is radicalized "Islamists," and not mainstream Muslims, "one must look at Muslims to find Islamists."

He believes Muslim government employees in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps "need to be watched for connections to terrorism" and "mosques require a scrutiny beyond that applied to churches and temples."

"To find Islamists, you would naturally look at the population they are most likely to come out of, and that is Muslims," he told WorldNetDaily. "That is the difficult dimension of this."

Pipes said he could not comment on the Peace Institute nomination since it is a pending Senate matter. CAIR has refused to speak with WorldNetDaily because of content it regards as anti-Muslim. Pipes has written columns for WND.

If approved by the Senate, Pipes would become one of 15 board members of the U.S. Institute of Peace, established by Congress in 1984 as a think tank to promote "the prevention, management and resolution of international conflicts." The panel, which meets six times a year, can have no more than eight voting members of the same political party.

Pipes, the author of 11 books, including "Militant Islam Reaches America", served in the U.S. Departments of State and Defense and directed the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia.

'Bigoted views'

In a letter urging President Bush to rescind the nomination, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad said Pipes' "bigoted views have been instrumental in widening the divide between faiths and cultures."

Nihad Awad

"Unfortunately, no credible Muslim leader in the United States or around the world could cooperate with an organization in which Pipes has a decision-making role," he said.

However, a report by Pakistan Today last week contended "many moderate American Muslims, frustrated by and angry at the extremist policies of militant Islamist organizations in the U.S. and their efforts to portray themselves as the sole voice of Islam, have welcomed the nomination of Daniel Pipes."

Among the supporters, the report named Tashbih Sayyed, president of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance, and Islamic scholar Khalid Duran, the target of a death edict in 2001 after CAIR attacked him for his book.

CAIR was featured in the U.S. State Department's Madison Avenue-style campaign to win the "hearts and minds" of Muslims around the world, and President Bush invited Awad to the White House shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. But the Muslim critics maintain CAIR and similar groups are conduits for radical Islam, including Saudi Arabia, which promotes its strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islam in the U.S. through prison recruitment, military chaplains, Muslim student organizations and underwriting as many as 80 percent of America's mosques.

Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz al Saud gave $500,000 for CAIR's program to put pro-Islam books and tapes in 17,000 American libraries.

That gift came just a few days after CAIR issued a press release, stating: "In all its actions and statements, CAIR seeks to reflect the mainstream beliefs and views of the Muslim community in North America ... . We do not support directly or indirectly, or receive support from, any overseas group or government."

U.S. Muslim leader W. D. Muhammad has noted that when Saudi Arabia makes such gifts it requires that the receiver "prefer our school of thought."

CAIR's Awad attended a symposium in Riyadh in March 2002 that featured a session "devoted to Saudi Arabia's efforts to promote dialogue between civilizations through the establishment of cultural and Islamic centers in different countries around the world, " according to the website of the Saudi embassy in Washington.

In January, the group's community affairs director, Bassem K. Khafagi, was arrested by federal agents in connection with a probe of the Islamic Assembly of North America, an organization suspected of aiding Saudi sheiks tied to Osama bin Laden.

'Utopian movement'

Critics charge that the result of "civil-rights" lobby efforts by CAIR and similar groups is watered-down immigration laws, security procedures and intelligence. But Pipes – who says CAIR has sent out "nearly a hundred tirades impugning my reputation since July 1999" – sees a much more pernicious aim.

"In short," he says, "CAIR represents not the great civilization of Islam, but a radical utopian movement originating in the Middle East that seeks to impose its ways on the United States. Americans should consider themselves warned: A new danger exists in their midst."

CAIR chairman Omar M. Ahmad said at a public meeting in July 1998, according to the San Ramon Valley Herald, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant."

The Quran, Ahmad said, "should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he wants the United States to become a Muslim country.

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," Hooper told the Star Tribune. "But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

Founded in 1994, CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association for Palestine, identified as a "front group" for the terrorist group Hamas, according to Steve Pomerantz, former chief of the FBI's counterterrorism section.

Another ex-FBI counterterrorism chief, Oliver "Buck" Revell, has called the Islamic Association For Palestine – both Awad's and Hooper's former employer – "a front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants."

CAIR advisory board member Siraj Wahhaj was named by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White on Feb. 2, 1995, as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators in the attempt to blow up New York City monuments," including the World Trade Center in 1993.

CAIR called the conviction of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, including Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, "a travesty of justice."

Wahhaj, who invited Rahman to speak at his mosque and testified on his behalf during the trial, has called for the U.S. government to be replaced with a Muslim caliphate.

In 1994, CAIR coordinated a series of meetings for Bassam Alamoush, a Jordanian Islamic militant who has called killing Jews a "good deed."

The Journal of Counterterrorism and Security International said Alamoush delivered the following public address in the Spring of 1998: "Somebody approached me at the mosque and asked me, 'If I see a Jew in the street should I kill him?'"

After pausing a moment with a dumbfounded face, the Journal said, Alamoush answered the question to a laughing crowd: "Don't ask me. After you kill him come and tell me. What do you want from me, a fatwa? Really, a good deed does not require one."

Later in the speech Alamoush interrupted his presentation to say: "Good news – there has been a suicide operation in Jerusalem."

Defense of violence

CAIR – which devotes a section on its website to the question, "Who is Daniel Pipes?" – has focused since Sept. 11, 2001, on responding to what it perceives as a rising tide of negative stereotypes about Muslims.

The group released a report last May, based on complaints solicited by its website, suggesting there had been a major upsurge in anti-Muslim discrimination in the U.S. since Sept. 11. Only 1 percent of the 1,500 complaints had to do with the threat of violence, however.

In February, CAIR launched a year-long series of full-page New York Times ads that cover issues such as terrorism. One ad calls terrorism "a tactic employed by deluded individuals" and emphasizes "it is not condoned by Islam or any other religion."

But along with statements by CAIR leaders, Pipes sees numerous examples of the group's defense of Islamist violence, including:

Picketing the Dallas Morning News for revealing the Hamas infrastructure in Texas.

Launching a campaign against the Tampa Tribune for uncovering the Islamic Jihad network in that city.

Criticizing the Journal of the American Medical Association for investigating the medical condition of victims of terrorism, and the children's magazine, The Weekly Reader's Current Events, for publishing material on international terrorism.

Denouncing the Atlantic Monthly for publishing an article on Islamist violence in Sudan

Denouncing a Senate Subcommittee for holding a hearing on "Foreign Terrorists in America: Five Years After the World Trade Center Bombing."
Pipes notes that CAIR also attacked the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles for portraying the late Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini as a Hitler-like enemy of Jews, and criticized Reader's Digest for documenting the repression of Christians in several Muslim countries.

CAIR called on the Catholic Church to investigate noted priest Richard John Neuhaus, editor of the journal First Things, when he condemned contemporary Islam's "resentments and suspicions, alternating with low-grade jihad in the form of the persecution of Christians, international terrorism, and dreams of driving Israel into the sea."

Supporters of CAIR sent Neuhaus an avalanche of abusive mail accusing him of being "obviously mentally ill" and "doing the work of Adolf Hitler."

Talking points

Other Washington, D.C.-based groups opposing Pipes' nomination include the Muslim American Society, which issued an e-mail dispatch yesterday titled "Anti-Muslim Bigot to Appear on C-SPAN."

It urges supporters to call in to the network's "Washington Journal" program at 9 a.m. Eastern time today "to challenge Pipes on his racist, anti-Muslim views."

Among the e-mail's suggested "talking points" was the assertion "if Congress confirms Pipes' nomination, [it] will send the message that anti-Muslim bigotry is acceptable."


What Every American Needs to Know About the Qur'an (book) 
By William J. Federer
http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=23&ITEM_ID=2035
 
You will be fascinated by this fast-paced, objective history of the world from a perspective you have never imagined. Current events will come into focus in the back drop of 1,400 years of inconceivable yet true events and conflicts. Thousands of books, documents and articles have been researched over several years in preparation for this book.

In 2006, Keith Ellison became the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress. He swore in on a Qur'an. Most Americans know little about the Qur'an, who wrote it and how it spread. Mohammed, who had 15 wives, fought in scores of raids and battles, even cutting off the heads of 700 Jews. Within one hundred years of his death, his followers conquered North Africa, the Holy Land, Persia, Spain - from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean. Read how Sultan Mehmet II conquered the 1000 year old Byzantine capital of Constantinople - How Jefferson sent Marines to capture the Muslim Barbary pirate port of Tripoli - Woodrow Wilson tried to save millions of Armenian Christians killed in Turkey. You will not be the same after you have learned what every American needs to know about the Qur'an.


Savage Sues Muslim Group
Monday, December 3, 2007 1:25 PM

Nationally syndicated radio host Michael Savage has filed a lawsuit against CAIR, the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations, charging that the Muslim group has misused copyright material from his show.

The group, which identifies itself as the nation's leading watchdog group protecting the rights of Muslims, has used clips of Savage's radio show to raise funds and to get supporters to demand Savage's sponsors cease advertising on his “Savage Nation” broadcasts.

Savage’s show which originates in San Francisco, California reaches over eight million listeners per week, according to the lawsuit. The suit adds that his Web site MichaelSavage.com receives 2.3 million page views per month.

In the suit he alleges that instead of being what it claims to be — a civil rights organization — it is actually a political organization “designed to advance a political agenda that is directly opposed to the existence of a free society that includes respect and dignity for all people and all religions.

“The copyright infringement herein is part of this plan. CAIR’s fundamental purpose is to be a lobbyist for foreign interests,” an allegation that the lawsuit backs up with numerous examples of CAIR’s activities.

In a Nov. 1, 2007 statement CAIR, which described itself as “A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group” urged “radio listeners of all faiths to contact companies that advertise on Michael Savage's nationally-syndicated radio program to express their concerns about the host's recent anti-Muslim tirade.

CAIR charged that Savage “screamed attacks on Muslims, Islam, and the Quran, Islam's revealed text, during his Oct. 29, 2007, program,” and claimed that an unspecified number of concerned listeners contacted the group CAIR about Savage's alleged attacks on Islam.”

CAIR cited what it called “Savage's shouted anti-Muslim attacks,” using copyrighted material from that show: "I'm not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I'm not getting on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear anymore about Islam. I don't wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I'm sick of you."

"What kind of religion is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don't tell me I need re-education. They need deportation. I don't need re-education. Deportation, not re-education. You can take C-A-I-R and throw 'em out of my country. I'd raise the American flag and I'd get out my trumpet if you did it. Without due process. You can take your due process and shove it."

"What sane nation that worships the U.S. Constitution, which is the greatest document of freedom ever written, would bring in people who worship a book that tells them the exact opposite. Make no mistake about it, the Quran is not a document of freedom. The Quran is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave."

It further used Savage's material by including a link to an audio of what it called “these and other bigoted statements by Savage,” and advised readers to click on the URL http://www.cair.com/audio/savage_102907.asp.

The lawsuit further alleges that “CAIR repackaged the content of Michael Savage’s show and manipulated that stolen content so that it could be used by CAIR to raise funds. Little or none of the money raised went to alleged “civil rights” activities.”

The lawsuit’s allegations conclude that “the theft of Michael Savage’s copyrighted material and the destruction of the proper context of that material is yet another tactic to silence critics of CAIR. CAIR was specifically and by name attacked by Michael Savage in his October 29, 2007 statement but CAIR did not contest the truth of Savage’s attack on CAIR but instead sought to steal and sully his copyrighted work.

The suit, and CAIR’s alleged copyright violation should be of concern to all engaged in producing creative material, Savage tells NewsMax.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke 1729 – 1797
(http://www.savage-productions.com/Savage_CAIR_Donate.html)



Why Is CAIR Suing Anti-CAIR?
by Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com
April 6, 2004

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, Inc. filed suit against Andrew Whitehead, one of the founders of Anti-CAIR (or ACAIR), in the Virginia Beach Circuit Court on March 31, 2004.

(The motion for judgment closely resembles an earlier "cease and desist" letter from CAIR to Whitehead.)

The lawsuit alleges that CAIR is the victim of "libelous defamation" because of five Anti-CAIR statements in particular (the quotes that follow are exactly as presented in the motion):

"Let there be no doubt that CAIR is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists, and that CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of Sharia law in America."

CAIR is an "organization founded by Hamas supporters which seeks to overthrow Constitutional government in the United States and replace it with an Islamist theocracy using our own Constitution as protection."

"ACAIR reminds our readers that CAIR was started by Hamas members and is supported by terrorist supporting individuals, groups and countries."

"Why oppose CAIR? CAIR has proven links to, and was founded by, Islamic terrorists. CAIR is not in the United States to promote the civil rights of Muslims. CAIR is here to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States and convert our country into an Islamic theocracy along the lines of Iran. In addition, CAIR has managed, through the adroit manipulation of the popular media, to present itself as the ‘moderate' face of Islam in the United States. CAIR succeeded to the point that the majority of its members are not aware that CAIR actively supports terrorists and terrorist supporting groups and nations. In addition, CAIR receives direct funding from Islamic terrorists supporting countries."

"CAIR is a fundamentalist organization dedicated to the overthrow of the United States Constitution and the installation of an Islamic theocracy in America."

These statements, CAIR claims, "are false, and were false when made." Further, Anti-CAIR made them "with knowledge of their falsity." The statements are libelous because "they impute the commission of a criminal offense." They allegedly caused injury to CAIR's "standing and reputation throughout the United States and elsewhere."

In compensation, CAIR seeks $1 million in compensatory damages, $350,000 in punitive damages, plus its legal fees and interest as of April 16, 2004.

Comments: (1) This case is of personal interest because CAIR has repeatedly attacked me and Anti-CAIR has often come to my defense. It is of wider interest because CAIR is a sizeable organization based in North America; for more information on it group, see my 2002 article, an extensive bibliography, and a lively discussion forum here.

(2) I have cited Anti-CAIR before in my writings about the arrest on terrorism charges of a former CAIR employee, and I found its reporting accurate on this subject.

(3) To the best of my knowledge, this is CAIR's first law suit against a critic. The closest to this until now was a personal law suit by an employee of CAIR, Hussam Ayloush, not by the organization itself. (As Anti-CAIR itself has reported, the suit was dismissed.)

(4) CAIR, which is quick to announce its own activities to the world has been curiously silent about this law suit.

Questions: I wonder why CAIR would bring a defamation suit. (1) It opens CAIR, usually a highly secretive organization, to the discovery process. For Andrew Whitehead to defend himself in court, in other words, he is entitled to ask for the production of documents relating to such matters as CAIR's founding, funding, mission, and goals, then to grill persons associated with CAIR.

(2) CAIR presumably has no knowledge of Andrew Whitehead's financial resources; for all it knows, it is suing someone without means for about $1.5 million.

(3) Anti-CAIR until now has been a well-kept secret. The website ranking service at alexa.com puts www.Anti-CAIR-net.org at 1.5 millionth most viewed. CAIR's website, in contrast, is at 150,000th. This libel lawsuit will likely help Anti-CAIR in terms of website visitors, subscribers to its e-mail service, news coverage, and funding.

Did CAIR – a tactically clever organization – make an error here – perhaps Anti-CAIR's constant criticisms caused it to react emotionally? Or has it made a calculating move too subtle for outsiders to discern? Answers should be forthcoming in the months ahead

__________

April 6, 2004 update: An article in today's Virginian-Pilot contains a few new pieces of information.

When it comes to money, Andrew Whitehead, a retired Navy enlisted man and college student, says "I haven't got any."
Whitehead reports that Anti-CAIR has about five members. But Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR's spokesman, seems to have better intel than Whitehead; he told the newspaper about Anti-CAIR, "It's just one guy."
Hooper added that while Whitehead is not CAIR's only critic, "he is one of the most egregious."
Also of interest is the fact that today's "American Muslim News Briefs," CAIR's more-or-less daily e-mail service containing newspaper clippings and CAIR press releases, sent out today at 6 p.m. EDT, contains not a word about its filing a law suit against Whitehead, the Virginian-Pilot news story, or the above article.

Apr. 30, 2004 update: Represented by the powerhouse law firm of Greenberg Traurig, Whitehead today filed his reply to the CAIR law suit and for good measure he countersued on grounds of an Anti-SLAPP suit, a common law civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intimidation and harassment motivated by religious and ethnic animosity, and defamation and slander. Whitehead asks the court to dismiss CAIR's suit, then award him $1 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages, plus costs, expenses and reasonable attorney's fees. Whitehead's documentation about CAIR is impressive and worth a read. Again, CAIR's publicity machine has made no mention of this quite interesting news concerning itself.

June 20, 2005 update: CAIR reduced the number of alleged libelous statements to just two (the first two quoted above) in its amended motion, dated today.

July 28, 2005 update: Sharon Chadha and I discuss this reduction in charges in an article published today, "CAIR Founded by ‘Islamic Terrorists'?"

Mar. 23, 2006 update: Whitehead reports on his website that his "CAIR lawsuit is over, and has been dismissed, as the parties have reached a mutually agreeable settlement." He adds that "The policies and procedures of Anti-CAIR (ACAIR) have not changed in any way as a result of the CAIR lawsuit settlement."


http://www.anti-cair-net.org/
In Defense of the Constitution

Let there be no doubt that the Council on American-Islamic Relations is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists, and that CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of Sharia Law in America.

CAIR has proven links to, and was founded by, Islamic Terrorists. CAIR actively supports terrorists and terrorist-supporting groups and nations.

- Read Here  -
The Legal Details From Court Documents Of CAIR's Failed Lawsuit Against Anti-CAIR

U.S. Senator Richard Durbin:  "[CAIR is] unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect"

U.S. Senator Charles Schumer:  "we know [CAIR] has ties to terrorism, intimate links with Hamas"

Statements From Sept. 2003 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Technology and Homeland Security

*U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer:  "To praise [CAIR] because they haven't been indicted is like somebody saying, 'I'm not a crook'"

Sen. Boxer discussing her decision to rescind award given to CAIR Official (see website for link)

*U.S. Rep. Bill Shuster:    "Time and again [CAIR] has shown itself to be nothing more than an apologist for groups bent on the destruction of Israel and Islamic domination over the West"

Since its founding in 1994, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and its employees have combined, conspired, and agreed with third parties, including, but not limited to, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”), the Global Relief Foundation (“GRF”), and foreign nationals hostile to the interests of the United States, to provide material support to known terrorist organizations, to advance the Hamas agenda, and to propagate radical Islam. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, and certain of its officers, directors, and employees, have acted in support of, and in furtherance of, this conspiracy.
(From "Response" To CAIR)

-- Points to Ponder --
CAIR Employees And Officials Support Terror

Senior CAIR employee Randall Todd Royer, a/k/a “Ismail” Royer, pled guilty and was sentenced to twenty years in prison for participating in a network of militant jihadists centered in Northern Virginia.  He admitted to aiding and abetting three persons
who sought training in a terrorist camp in Pakistan for the purpose of waging jihad against American troops in Afghanistan.  Royer’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed with CAIR

CAIR's Director of Community Relations, Bassem Khafagi , was arrested by the United States due to his ties with a terror-financing front group.  Khafagi pled guilty to charges of visa and bank fraud, and agreed to be deported to Egypt. Khafagi’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed by CAIR.

On December 18, 2002, Ghassan Elashi, founding board member of CAIR-Texas, a founder of the Holy Land Foundation, and a brother-in-law of Musa Abu Marzook , was arrested by the United States and charged with, among other things, making false statements on export declarations, dealing in the property of a designated terrorist organization, conspiracy and money laundering.  Ghassan Elashi committed his crimes while working at CAIR, and was found Guilty.

CAIR Board Member Imam Siraj Wahaj, an un-indicted co-conspirator in the first World Trade Center bombing, has called for replacing the American government with an Islamic caliphate, and warned that America will crumble unless it accepts Islam.

Rabih Haddad served as a CAIR Fundraiser.  Haddad was co-founder of the Global Relief Foundation (“GRF”).  GRF was designated by the US Treasury Department for financing the Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations and its assets were frozen by the US Government on December 14, 2001.

Consistent with Hamas ideology, CAIR has served as a conduit for the distribution of materials and funds from foreign nationals to groups and institutions within the United States for the purpose of promoting radical Islam and Hamas ideology, and attacked Islamic clerics and scholars who reject radical Islam and the Hamas agenda. 


Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.
By MANSOOR IJAZ

President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.

Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.

The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.

Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a New York-based investment company.


The Pope's Call to Commitment Against Radical Islam
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 2:12 PM
By: Paul M. Weyrich

The leader of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI, was in Washington and New York this past week. While Pope John Paul II, his predecessor, was known as  a media figure, a sort of religious rock star, this Pope somehow touches people  in a remarkable way.

The crowds who turned out for the motorcades, the public Masses, the reception on the south lawn of the White House and so on exceeded expectations. In fact, Father Jonathan Morris, who does religious commentary for the Fox News channel from Rome, said the crowds on Wednesday through Sunday far exceed those which turned out for the late John Paul II.

One nun said, “This Pope is perfect. He makes us feel proud to be Catholic again.”

The Roman pontiff celebrated his 81st birthday while in Washington. Some church  leaders worry that he will be a short-term Pope. Many of these same leaders assumed that he would just be an interim Pope who would take few new initiatives. That has not turned out to be the case.

Among other major acts, Pope Benedict XVI has revived the traditional Mass, which has caused an uproar in some Catholic circles.

The Pope also has spoken out against radical Islam, proclaiming that no God can  compel man to kill in his name. Again, Pope John Paul II was reluctant to take on Islam, which the Pope contends is a distortion of the historical religion.

His views have not silenced Muslim clerics. Yunis al-Astal, in a fiery sermon delivered on Hamas’ Al-Aqsa TV, claims that Islam will conquer Rome just as the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople. He predicted that Rome will become an advance post for Islamic conquests.

He says these conquests would spread through Europe whereupon Islam will turn to the two Americas. He said Eastern Europe might be the most difficult to conquer.

“Allah has chosen you for himself and for his religion,” al-Astal was reported by Fox News, “so you will serve as the engine pulling this nation to the phase of succession, security and consolidation of power, and even to conquests through da’wa and military conquests of the entire world.”

Al-Astal, also as reported by Fox News, last June preached that it the duty of Palestinian women to martyr themselves by becoming homicide bombers. “The most exalted form  of jihad is fighting for sake of Allah, which means sacrificing one’s soul by fighting the enemies head on, even if it leads to martyrdom.” He called Jews the brothers of apes and pigs “who should taste the bitterness of death.”

So this Pope, who without success has tried to rekindle the spark of the Church  in Western Europe, has turned to the United States as a religious ally.

If radical Islam is serious, and there is every indication it is, then regardless of denominations it is essential that people of all faiths need to join with the holy father to confront those who kill in the name of God. As Pope Benedict said, “God is love,” and thus is not compatible with hate either toward Jews or Christians.

Who prevails in this conflict will depend on who is more deeply committed. Indeed that was what the Pope’s mission to the United States was all about. 


Rising Euro-Muslim Tensions
By Tony Blankley
April 23, 2008

Perhaps the greatest secular gift to the world by Judeo-Christian civilization is its seminal concept of the individual, which it raises above the tribe or the collective. In Genesis, we are told that man is made in the image of God. Deuteronomy tells us that "each human by his own sin is to be judged" and "do not punish children for the sins of their fathers." And of course, the biblical life and teachings of Jesus reflect the deep importance of the individual. Thus was planted in the soil of the West our uniquely heightened respect for the individual.

It is impossible to imagine Western civilization -- and particularly America -- without the existence in our culture of the instinctive respect for the individual to offset the more general human instinct to be subordinated in the tribe or the group.

Conversely, there is no more dangerous incubus inserted into a Western nation than hostility or indifference to the inherent value and rights of the individual.

But radicalized Islam places little value on the individual, while holding up for supreme value the interests of the group, particularly their view of the group called Islam. And it is this aggressive, assertive insistence by radicalized Muslims in the West to subordinate our inherent rights to their collective demands that slowly and more or less quietly is forcing Westerners to take sides in the radicals' demands. The resolution of this developing conflict -- if not managed by the elites in Western countries on behalf of indigenous Western rights -- inevitably will result in unnecessary violence.

A recent example of such intimidation was reported in The Washington Times Monday: Muneer Fareed, head of the Islamic Society of North America, is "demanding" that Sen. John McCain stop using the word "Islamic" to describe terrorists who are radical Islamists. He insists that McCain (and all others) just call Islamic terrorists "criminals." "That is more acceptable to the Muslim community," Fareed said. McCain, being as tough as nails, has said he has no intention of submitting to Fareed's demand and will continue to use "Islamic" to describe Islamic terrorists. But it will be interesting to see what the two Democratic candidates for president choose to do about this demand.

Meanwhile, in Canada, Mark Steyn awaits trial before the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal for the crime of committing hate speech by writing a book and a magazine article that warned against the dangers of Islam overwhelming Europe (No. 1 best-seller in Canada; New York Times best-seller in the United States).

These charges were precipitated by demands for Steyn's prosecution by a band of students, who publicly marched to announce their demands. They claimed that as Muslims, they should have the chance to offer a rebuttal when people like Steyn talk about issues that relate directly to Muslims. "When people feel insulted, they should have recourse," Khaled Mouammar, president of the Canadian Arab Federation, said. Amazingly, the culturally feeble, intimidated Canadian officials promptly filed the criminal charges.

Similarly, a few months ago, the increasing British Muslim demands for Shariah law were answered in the positive by the archbishop of Canterbury. If the British government ever succumbs to that outrageous demand, not only will Muslim women lose their individual rights but also, pursuant to honor killing, principals could be murdered legally by their fathers, husbands or brothers. Already, non-Muslim British are being banned from public swimming pools during time reserved for Muslims. (No other group can reserve such times.)

Forty years ago last weekend, British classicist and politician Enoch Powell warned that if immigrants bringing alien values and customs into Britain are allowed to continue their immigration, a sense of alarm and resentment would develop in the indigenous British population. He was ejected from British politics for giving that warning.

But this week, the BBC published a poll taken precisely to measure public attitudes 40 years after Powell's famous warning (and after 40 years of the British ruling class ignoring the growing danger). Seventy percent think there is high tension between the races; 63 percent expect those tensions to result in violence between the races in Britain; and 60 percent think there are too many "immigrants" in Britain.

In a similar poll taken for the Davos World Economic Forum, stunning numbers of Europeans fear a "threat" from Muslims with whom they "interact": 79 percent of Danes, 67 percent of Italians, 68 percent of Spaniards, 65 percent of Swedes and 59 percent of Belgians.

In my book "The West's Last Chance," published in 2005, I warned that the European people would not be passive in the face of their culture being undercut. Unlike others who wrote on the subject, I did not think Europeans would fail to defend their nations and their cultures. I warned that broad European street violence could be avoided only if their governments took the threat seriously.

These disturbing polls from BBC and Davos should constitute another undeniable warning to the gutless, defeatist European leaders. Take action to protect your people and their cherished Western values, or the people will take matters into their own hands. And for us in America, impending European unrest should be seen as a cautionary tale.


What Muslims Really Think
By Dinesh D'Souza
Monday, April 28, 2008

While on the debating circuit pounding atheists--a pastime I am really getting to enjoy--I have just started reading Dalia Mogahed and John Esposito's Who Speaks for Islam: What a Billion Muslims Really Think. It's one of the first books to put some real data behind a much-disputed question.

For several years now liberal and conservative pundits have been pontificating about the Muslim world, usually without a shred of data. I was amused last year to cross swords with some of my fellow conservatives like Scott Johnson and Victor Davis Hanson. These ideologues seem of the opinion that the average Muslim is a crazed polygamist who is ready to blow himself up. No surprise: this is supposedly what Muslims all learn in the school where they read nothing but the Koran! Only pundits who have no exposure to Muslim countries, Muslim history and Muslim people can go on like this.

For such gurus, Islam itself is the problem and nothing short of an Islamic Reformation headed by ex-Muslims like Hirsi Ali will show the Muslim world where it has gone wrong over the past five centuries. I admire Ali and sympathize with her hardships, but how likely is it that Muslims will follow a woman who the author of a book titled Infidel? In Christianity, the Reformation was led by a devout Martin Luther and not by skeptics and freethinkers like Hume or Voltaire.

Practical difficulties aside, we often forget the simple fact that Islam has been around for 1300 years and Islamic terrorism has been around for a few decades. Yes, one can find isolated instances in Islamic history of fanatical groups like the Assassins, but these are hardly typical of the Islamic regimes that have ruled for centuries. The intelligent questions to ask are, “What is it about Islam today that has made it an incubator of radicalism and terrorism?” And second, “What do most Muslims really think about the West?”

Fortunately there is an increasing body of reliable data on Muslim beliefs. One source is the World Values Survey, which has the benefit of tracking opinions over a period of decades. Another is the Gallup surveys which are now under the aegis of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, a group headed by Mogahed. Esposito is one of the most respected American authorities on Islam. I am only getting into their book, but here I offer my own hypothesis, and then I'm going to find out if their data vindicate it.

The problem for Muslims is not Christianity or Judaism. In fact, Islam sees itself as incorporating both in much the same way that Christianity sees itself as incorporating Judaism. Moses and Christ are considered prophets in Islam. If you read the propaganda of the radical Muslims, they almost never condemn the West for being a Christian society. They typically describe the West as an atheist and immoral society. Bin Laden has called America “the leading power of the pagans and unbelievers.”

The problem for most Muslims is Western liberalism. But here we must distinguish between two kinds of liberalism. There is the classical liberalism of the American founding. Call this Liberalism 1. This liberalism is reflected in such principles as the right to vote, to assemble freely, to debate issues, to trade with others, to practice one’s religion, political and religious toleration, and so on.

Then there is the modern liberalism of the 1960s. Call this Liberalism 2. This liberalism is defined by such tenets as the right to blaspheme, the complete exclusion of religious symbols from the public square, the right of teenage boys and girls to receive sex education and contraceptives, the right to abortion, prostitution as a worker's right, pornography as a protected form of expression, gay rights and gay marriage, and so on. It is this second type of liberalism that seems to drive the social agenda of today's Democratic Party. For example, Hillary Clinton chaired a presidential task force during the 1990s that promoted prostitution as an international right for workers.

Now we are in a better position to understand Islamic attitudes regarding the West. The vast majority of Muslims worldwide embrace Liberalism 1 while rejecting Liberalism 2. They are generally comfortable with classical liberalism while abhorring the tenets of modern liberalism. And by equating America with such things as blasphemy, pornography, prostitution and homosexuality, the radical Muslims appeal to ordinary Muslims to join their cause in a battle against the Great Satan. This is what I have argued in my recent book The Enemy at Home. The book is just out in paperback, with an Afterward responding to my critics on the right and the left. I always try and learn from my critics, and I’m also interested to see how my thesis stands up in light of Mogahed and Esposito's data.

Of course today's liberals will chafe at the idea that their values are producing a powerful "blowback" from the House of Islam. That's why we need good empirical work like this book. Let us find out what Muslims really think, and then let us look at the propaganda of the radical Muslims to see how they rally traditional Muslims to their side. Who cares if liberals don't like to admit what is going on? People are entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts.

Bestselling author Dinesh D'Souza's new book What's So Great About Christianity has just been released. His book The Enemy at Home will be published in paperback in February.


Left Threatens Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week
We are mounting the barricades once again! This week marks our second Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week with events planned on over 105 college campuses across the country. 

Islamo Fascism Awareness Week is an effort to bring the truth into the suffocating ideological bias of our universities. It comes as no surprise that the radical left is organizing to stop our speakers. This is what happened last fall when they shut down my speech at Emory, threatened former Muslim Nonie Darwish at Berkeley, and disrupted several of our speakers.

They want to kill this event because they knew know that awareness about Islamo Fascism means the end of their political monopoly on campus and the beginning of a student movement that honors and supports our country. Because of this threat, we are once again forced to pay for extra security to ensure our speakers’ safety. And today, I'm asking for your financial help today to offset this extra cost to the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Please follow this link today to make a donation of $35, $50, $100, $250, $500 or more.

Our campus coordinators - brave young men and women willing to go up against the radical left to get the truth to their fellow students - are working night and day against incredible odds to make the Week a success. And unless, the radical, pro-jihad groups succeed in silencing us, by the end of the week over 40 speakers such as Nonie Darwish, Robert Spencer and Frank Gaffney will have appeared on campuses across the country- from UC Berkeley to Columbia; from Ohio State and Michigan.

But the opposition is building, both in its intensity and its potential for violence. (I have been forced to provide bodyguards for all our speakers and the campus police have been on high alert at every school where they have appeared). The entire political left, from the Revolutionary Communist Party to the Young Democrats, is up in arms against us. The violent hardcore left is urged on in its rhetoric of violence with a wink and a nod by the "moderate" left.

I write you now to ask you to support the brave students who have invited us to bring the oxygen of truth to their campuses. This must be a permanent campaign to help these young people continue the awareness campaign; to organize on more campuses; to make sure that the left does not silence what some are already calling one of the most important public information campaigns of our era.

 Every dollar you pledge will help us to keep building awareness about the Islamo fascists who hope to disarm our country and see it defeated in the War on Terror. This is our chance to strike back at them and to build a movement that will deny them an intellectual haven on America's college campuses.

We must continue the battle against Islamo Fascism as it tries to weaken American from within, and we can't do it without your help. Please give whatever you can afford today.

My sincere thanks,

David Horowitz
President & Founder

P.S. Our speakers are under even more threat than we anticipated. In addition to the funds we need to continue the campaign, we need your immediate financial help to hire additional security for the ongoing events of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. I will be hugely grateful for anything you can give. It is important the people threatening those who speak out against Islamo-Fascism are sent the message that we will not be stopped!

Cicero on the Enemy Within
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
"For the traitor appears not a traitor – he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear."
– Marcus Tullius Cicero 42 B.C


Study questions US strategy against al-Qaida
By BARRY SCHWEID
Associated Press
July 29, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States can defeat al-Qaida if it relies less on force and more on policing and intelligence to root out the terror group's leaders, a new study contends.

"Keep in mind that terrorist groups are not eradicated overnight," said the study by the federally funded Rand research center, an organization that counsels the Pentagon.

Its report said that the use of military force by the United States or other countries should be reserved for quelling large, well-armed and well-organized insurgencies, and that American officials should stop using the term "war on terror" and replace it with "counterterrorism."

"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests there is no battlefield solution to terrorism," said Seth Jones, the lead author of the study and a Rand political scientist.

"The United States has the necessary instruments to defeat al-Qaida, it just needs to shift its strategy," Jones said.

Nearly every ally, including Britain and Australia, has stopped using "war on terror" to describe strategy against the group headed by Osama bin Laden and considered responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 suicide attacks at the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon.

Based on an analysis of 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, the report concluded that a transition to the political process is the most common way such groups end. But the process, found in 43 percent cases examined, is unlikely with al-Qaida, which has a broad, sweeping agenda, the report said.

The second most common way that terrorist groups end, seen in about 40 percent of the cases, is through police and intelligence services apprehending or killing key leaders, Jones said. Police are particularly effective because their permanent presence in cities helps them gather information, he said.

By contrast, the report said, military force was effective in only 7 percent of the cases.

Jones, in an interview, said, "Even where we found some success against al-Qaida, in Pakistan and Iraq, the military played a background or surrogate role. The bulk of the action was taken by intelligence, police and, in some cases, local forces."

"We are not saying the military should not play a role," he said. "But unless you are talking about large insurgencies, military force should not be the tip of the spear."

Among the report's conclusions:

- Religious terrorist groups take longer to eliminate than other groups but none has achieved victory in the 38 years covered by the study.

- Terrorist groups from upper-income countries are more likely to be left-wing or nationalist, and much less likely to be motivated by religion.

- Large groups of more than 10,000 have been victorious more than 25 percent of the time, while victory is rare for groups with 1,000 or fewer members.

The report described al-Qaida as a "strong and competent organization," both before and after 9-11. Its goals, the report said, are uniting Muslims to fight the United States and its allies, overthrowing regimes in the Middle East friendly to the West and establishing a pan-Islamic state, or caliphate.


Bush Should Strip Sanctuary Cities Of Federal Funds
By Michael Reagan
July 25, 2008

Three good men are dead thanks largely to San Francisco's outrageous sanctuary-city policy, which forbids city authorities from notifying federal immigration authorities when they arrest illegal aliens for crimes they commit, and it's time for President Bush to crack down on all the cities in the United States that follow this absurd policy.

On June 22, Anthony Bologna and his sons Michael and Matthew were shot to death by Edwin Ramos, 21, after a brief traffic incident when Anthony Bologna allegedly briefly blocked Ramos' car from making a left turn, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Ramos, an alleged member of the vicious the Mara Salvatrucha gang, known as MS-13, should never have been around to kill the three men, and wouldn't have been -- were not for the city's sanctuary-city policy. Ramos, an illegal immigrant, was found guilty of committing two felonies when he was 17 -- involving a gang-related assault of a Municipal Railway passenger and the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman -- yet was never surrendered by the city's juvenile justice authorities to federal officials for possible deportation as required by federal law.

Ramos was taken to juvenile hall on charges of assault and participating in a street gang, and was later convicted in juvenile court and put in a shelter. Under federal law, he should have been referred to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) but the Juvenile Probation Department's policy for dealing with offenders stipulated that "probation officers shall not discriminate in any fashion against minors based on their immigration status."

On April 2, 2004, Ramos was released to the custody of his mother, despite the fact that he had already been flagged by federal authorities as an illegal immigrant. He was still considered a ward of the court and was on probation. Just four days later, records show, he committed another crime at 19th and Mission streets, two blocks from the site of the attack on the Muni passenger. He was released after city prosecutors declined to charge him in connection with an arrest in March on suspicion of weapons and gang violations.

There is a dispute revolving around the question of whether ICE was ever notified of the Ramos arrest, but the fact remains that for the last 10 years the city's juvenile justice authorities have followed a policy of not turning over illegal-immigrant felons to the federal government, basing the practice on San Francisco's sanctuary-city status and state law barring local officials from surrendering them for deportation.

After a storm of protest following the slayings of the Bologna family men, San Francisco's ultra-liberal Mayor Gavin Newsom belatedly rescinded that policy earlier this month following a report in the Chronicle that the city had flown a number of youths out of the country on its own, in possible violation of federal law, and then housed some in unlocked group homes from which they quickly escaped. His action came too late to save the lives of the Bologna men.

Those are the facts in this shocking case. They illustrate the lethal effects this idiotic and dangerous sanctuary-city policy can have on the safety of innocent Americans.

Sanctuary-city policies defy guidelines from the 9/11 Commission Report, which called on state and local authorities to help federal agencies crack down on illegal immigration. "There is a growing role for state and local law enforcement agencies [for the enforcement of immigration law]," the report stated. "They need more training and work with federal agencies so that they can cooperate more effectively with those federal authorities in identifying terrorist suspects."

Instead, a host of cities across the United States classify themselves as havens for illegal aliens, despite the fact that such policies result in creating safe havens for illegal aliens who are criminals and potential terrorists. They allow criminal aliens to avoid deportation because they prevent local police from reporting them to ICE.

President Bush should issue an executive order denying any federal funds to those cities which either officially or unofficially provide sanctuaries enabling illegal aliens who commit crimes to escape deportation. They need to learn there is a price to be paid for exposing their citizens to criminal activities by aliens here illegally.


Some Jews Ain't So Smart
Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Jews, according to both anti-Semites and philo-Semites, are smart folks. Anti-Semites claim that Jews are highly intelligent -- and therefore threaten the world via conspiratorial monetary and political control. Philo-Semites point out that Jews have provided a vastly disproportionate number of Nobel Prize winners, as well as various leading scientists, philosophers, writers and artists.

Virtually everyone agrees, then, that Jews are intelligent. And yet for all of our intelligence (I am an Orthodox Jew), large groups of American Jews lack the most basic instinct for self-preservation; they lack the understanding to protect Jews by acting to protect Israel.

The non-religious Jewish community demonstrates particular blindness. Most non-religious Jews, who see no special value in Jewish identity, distract themselves with "social justice" policies -- policies like abortion-on-demand and gay marriage -- that directly contravene traditional Jewish values. Meanwhile, they ignore existential threats to Jews worldwide -- threats they cannot escape with protestations that they aren't practicing Jews, or that their Judaism only goes as far as the occasional bagel. For many non-religious Jews, political liberalism trumps both Jewish values and Jewish existence.

How else to explain the disastrous series of events last week in New York? The United Jewish Appeal Federation of New York scheduled an anti-Iran rally highlighting the blatant Jew-hatred of visiting Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Federation invited both Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin (R-AK). Palin accepted. So, at first, did Clinton -- but when she learned that she would be appearing on the same stage as Palin, she backed out.

At that point, the organizers of the rally made a terrible decision: They disinvited Palin. Politico.com reported that the decision was made after Democrats complained that they did not want the rally turned into a partisan event.

This is the height of idiocy. In the possibility of a nuclear Iran, Jews face the gravest menace since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. They must mobilize every ally, unearth every friend, in order to create a groundswell of support for a military strike against Iran by Israel -- the only true solution to Iranian nuclear ambition. And yet they turned away Sarah Palin -- perhaps the future vice president of the United States, and at the moment, the most popular female politician in the United States -- because they feared offending Democrats.

Only a baseline allegiance to the Democratic Party -- only a deep-rooted leftist partisanship -- can explain such behavior. Any rational group, seeking to draw attention to the Iranian situation, would leap at the opportunity to host Palin, who routinely draws tens of thousands of fans.

More than that, any rational group would recognize that if high-ranking Democrats withdraw from anti-Iran rallies simply to avoid being seen in public with high-ranking Republicans, then perhaps Democrats aren't the friends of Israel they purport to be. Any rational group would be suspicious that Hillary Clinton is more concerned with Sarah Palin than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Any rational group would use their anti-Iran rally as a forum for candidates, allowing those with the most pro-Israel message to capitalize politically.

Instead, the organizers disinvited Palin. In doing so, they demonstrated a political bias unworthy of a pro-Israel organization. More than that: In rejecting Palin, they demonstrated loyalty to Democrats over loyalty to Jewish causes. That became especially clear when the text of Palin's un-given speech was released. "We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator's intentions and to call for action to thwart him," the speech reads. "He must be stopped. The world must awake to the threat this man poses to all of us. Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust ever took place. He dreams of being an agent in a 'Final Solution' -- the elimination of the Jewish people. He has called Israel a 'stinking corpse' that is 'on its way to annihilation.' … Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Period. And in a single voice, we must be loud enough for the whole world to hear: Stop Iran!"

This is strong stuff. And it is stuff that the rally organizers abandoned when they kowtowed to Democrats rather than recognizing that support for Israel must be a non-partisan issue. It was foolish. It was dangerous. And most of all, it was dishonorable.


Are Terrorists Courageous?
By Mary Grabar
18 Aug 2004

I did not realize that my long-standing disagreement with Bill Maher - over whether or not the 9/11 terrorists displayed courage -- was due to "groupthink," or the "current outbreak of droidlike conformity." But according to Barbara Ehrenreich, in an editorial titled "You thinking what I'm thinking? You better be" (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution 7/18/04), my zombie-like state can be traced to "the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, when groupthink became the official substitute for patriotism, and we began to run out of surfaces for affixing American flags. Bill Maher lost his job for pointing out that, whatever else they were, the Sept. 11 terrorists weren't cowards. . . ."

I did, I admit, affix the small flag given to me by my bank teller to my car window, as well as one to my mailbox, and in other ways displayed my patriotism.

I did, along with the masses, gape with horror at scenes on television. I took their side and disagreed with the messages coming over the e-mail list in the English Department where I toiled away at teaching freshmen and finishing my dissertation about where blame was to be laid.

I did later, on my own, read Aristotle. Though he is verboten in the classroom and in the media, I admit to seeking clarification on the current debate, which is a question and conclusion that goes like this:

"Who is to say that a person who commits suicide in pursuit of his beliefs while killing thousands is not as brave as the enlisted service man who fights in a war for his country?" Both are fighting for their ideals with the risk of death. The implication is that Middle Eastern terrorists and American soldiers are on the same moral plain when it comes to the issue of bravery. After all, it's their definition of bravery and furthermore an act of self-sacrifice in the face of the oppressor, which as we all know, is the evil West.

Those not as highly trained in this particular form of argumentation might have responded that it is no act of courage to kill thousands of people if you do not value your own life. Suicide, since at least the advent of Christianity, has been seen as an act of cowardice, an avoidance of pain and the challenges presented by God. Courage is something you have when you want to live and when you fight an enemy that has the capacity to kill you first. Those people working in those towers were not armed.

And this is what Aristotle would say today. In the Nichomachean Ethics he distinguishes between what is rash and what is brave. He demonstrates that though both may appear to be similar, what sets bravery apart is its foundation in reason; brave acts are performed for "the sake of the fine." Pseudo-bravery is aligned with attributes of animals who attack because they have been wounded or frightened and act on impulse. Under such a false definition of bravery would fall hungry asses who keep on eating even if they are beaten and adulterers who "do many daring actions because of lust."

Aristotle concludes that

"the brave person will find death and wounds painful, and suffer them unwillingly, but he will endure them because that is fine or because failure is shameful. Indeed, the truer it is that he has every virtue and the happier he is, the more pain he will feel at the prospect of death. For this sort of person, more than anyone, finds it worthwhile to be alive, and knows he is being deprived of the greatest goods, and this is painful. But he is not less brave for all that; presumably, indeed, he is all the braver, because he chooses what is fine in war at the cost of all these goods."

The soldier does not want to die. He wants to see his children grow up; he wants to enjoy all the benefits of freedom that we take for granted. He does not go to battle with the intention of dying. In fact, he tries to stay alive while accomplishing his objective.

This is a far cry from the egomaniac who firmly believes that death can only bring him benefits and glory and with this aim hurtles through the air with innocents along with him to his objective. On a smaller scale we could use the analogy of the mentally ill person who drives his car onto the sidewalk because he believes the voices that tell him such an act would assure him an end to the pain that he is experiencing on this earth. Usually we do not call such people brave. We lock them up in institutions.

Unfortunately, Aristotle's discussion of bravery is rarely, if ever, mentioned in the institutions where opinions are disseminated. Should we be thinking what Ehrenreich is thinking? If she and her colleagues in the classrooms would continue in their campaign to abolish Aristotle and the other dead white men, then, yes.


Islamo Fascism Awareness Week: Stop the Jihad on Campus
Date: Oct 10, 2008 7:22 AM
David Horowitz, President & Founder

We are just days away from one of the Center's most important and potentially dangerous projects:  Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week III, October 13-17.

The Freedom Center will coordinate with students on more than 100 campuses to hold this event. Our battle cry:  "Stop the Jihad on Campus."

I'm writing you today because your support is vital to help these pro-freedom students make their voices heard, without leftist censorship, and free of intimidation and violence.  To ensure the success of this nationwide event, we must raise $125,500 by the October 13 deadline.

Will you use any of the links within this letter to make an emergency contribution right now of $25, $35, $50, $100, $500 or even $1,000 and ensure these students are not silenced as they protest and exercise their freedom of speech?

Your contribution will help ensure the events are safe for both our invited speakers and student activists.  Security is a major concern.  Many speakers, including myself and the students on our side, have been threatened with violence.

So your contribution will be going, in large part, to fund extra security for our speakers during the week.  Frankly, many school administrations don't care about our safety and provide only the bare-bones of security.

We are feverishly raising funds, not only for security, but also for the travel expenses for speakers who have agreed to stand shoulder to shoulder with these students who desperately need to hear their expertise on radical Islam.  Among the speakers are Robert Spencer, Nonie Darwish, Ann Coulter, Rick Santorum, Dick Morris, Daniel Pipes and Michael Ledeen.  I am honored to stand with our students, too.

This will be a milestone in the Freedom Center's tireless work to expose radical Islamic front groups and their leftist sympathizers who have hijacked political debate at the university level.

Students who love America are protesting and demanding their voices be heard.  You can be proud of these young people.  I know I am.  They are standing up in defense of American values and the principle of liberty.  Their message is loud and clear:

•   Calling for the destruction of Israel will no longer be tolerated.
•   Celebrating suicide bombings of civilians and American soldiers is repugnant.
•   Endorsing so-called "honor killings" of girls and women is immoral.
•   Universities SHOULD NOT BE funding pro-Jihadist student groups!

As with previous protests, we are focusing efforts on 35 "lead" campuses -- schools sure to attract media attention.  These include Columbia, Dartmouth, DePaul, Duke, George Mason, George Washington, Harvard, Ohio State, Penn State, Stanford, Temple, UC Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara, UNC-Chapel Hill, University of Central Florida, University of Virginia and Wisconsin-Madison University.

It is going to be a mammoth undertaking.  This is why I am hoping I can count on you now for an emergency gift.  Our students and speakers must be ready to hit the ground running when Islamo-Fascism Week III opens on October 13.

Think about what is at stake.  While America, Israel and the Western World are locked in a life-and-death struggle with radical Islam, a soft Jihad is being waged on American college campuses.  The Muslim Brotherhood has amassed a shadowy network of radicalized Islamic groups like the Muslim Students Association (MSA), Council on American Islamic Relations and the so-called Students for Justice in Palestine.

And they have a big presence on college campuses.  Worse, they also receive significant funding from unwitting student governments and university administrations.  This adds fuel to the fire, helping them spread their message of hate.

Here is a good example for you.  During May 2008, the Muslim Student Union at UC Irvine requested and received $6,500 for their "Palestine Awareness" program.  It sounds innocent enough.  The problem is their program openly calls for the destruction of the Jewish State.  It boggles the mind.  Outrages like this happen with disturbing regularity and it is aided and abetted by the academic left.

Thankfully a growing number of young, patriotic college students are taking a stand against this danger.  "Stop the Jihad on Campus" will bring media attention and public scrutiny to these shadowy Jihadist groups.  Young people are saying no to Jihad.

We need to come to the aid of these pro-freedom students as they press their student governments to cut all funding from groups like the MSA.  But it won't be easy.

Promotional materials, videos, posters, petition drives -- all of this costs money.  And most of all, we have to ensure our students and speakers are safe from harm.

Help me help these students have their say.  You and I can be proud of their efforts.  Support them and commit to an emergency gift today.  Thank you.

David
P.S.  We only have a few weeks left to make final preparations for the nationwide "Stop the Jihad on Campus."   Please help with an urgently needed contribution today.


Iranian Leaders Pushing for Preemptive Strike on Israel
Iran-Backed Group Justifies Today's Jerusalem Terror Attack

http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH/b.672631/apps/s/content.asp?ct=6242013

Iran continues to train and arm terrorist groups that specifically target Israel
http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH/b.2060919/k.753D/Iran_Leading_State_Sponsor_of_Terror.htm

In addition to saying they want Israel “wiped off the map,” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other senior officials continuously state that they seek Israel’s elimination
http://www.jcpa.org/text/ahmadinejad2-words.pdf


 
 
  Site Map