Council on American-Islamic Relations

Democrats have complained about waterboarding for quite some time, saying that it’s torture and violates the Geneva Conventions. After reading this Washington Post article, it’s apparent now that they’re talking out of both sides of their mouth:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

“The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,” said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Ms. Pelosi, among others, has some explaining to do. John McCain’s stance is sincere because he’s been subjected to torture while he was a POW. Ms. Pelosi, it appears, had a ‘Come to Jesus’ moment well after she sanctioned waterboarding. Perhaps the best explanation for her change of heart isn’t that she had a ‘Come To Jesus Moment’ but rather had a ‘Come to MoveOn Moment’.

Whatever motivated her to change positions, a question remains unanswered: Why the change? It won’t be sufficient to give an evasive answer, either. Specifics are needed as to why the change of heart, if that’s what really happened.

Here’s the most telling quote in the article:

“In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic,” said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. “But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, ‘We don’t care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.’”

Think of how revealing that answer is. The first instincts after 9/11 was to do whatever it took to “protect the American people.” It wasn’t until groups like CAIR and the ACLU took exception that Democrats objected. What does that tell you about Democrats’ ability to prevent terrorist attacks? It tells me that they aren’t using everything that’s available. It says that they’re more worried about a terrorist’s civil rights than about protecting US citizens. That’s unacceptable.

Democrats rely on interest groups like CAIR and the ACLU for financing their campaigns. These organizations are doing everything possible to hamstring our intelligence-gathering capabilities. That’s a scary thought when you consider the fact that we’re fighting against ruthless, nimble foe that’s perfectly willing to wear us down over a long period of time.

We can’t afford to let Democrats, who are that influenced by people who don’t take national security seriously, have the White House levers of control. The thought is downright scary.

Technorati Tags: CIA, Waterboarding, Interrogation, ACLU, Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, CAIR, White House, Democrats, National Security, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Americans Against Hate Chairman Joe Kaufman has issued a press release stating that a former governmental relations intern for the California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations has made some rather incendiary remarks in a blog post. Here’s the opening paragraphs of Kaufman’s press release:

In her piece, entitled, ‘Ahmadinejad Visits Columbia,’ speaking about the President of Iran’s call for the destruction of Israel, she wrote, “Wiping other countries off the map? Apartheid Israel is not a country, it was created by wiping Palestine off the map; isn’t all fair in love and war?” She then remarked, “Do we really have the right to be upset at Ahmadinejad for talking about wiping an apartheid ‘state’ off the map?”

Later, Billoo took umbrage with a City Councilman who said that Ahmadinejad had American blood on his hands. She wrote, “Iran has the blood of [sic] Ameircan soldiers on his hands? Way to pass the buck! The blood of those soldiers is squarely on the hands of Bush and Co.! Excuse the Iraqis for attempting to defend themselves in the midst of an illegal war!”

Ms. Billoo’s denials notwithstanding, there is American blood on Iran’s hands. Is she justifying Iran’s supplying Sadr’s militias with explosively formed projectiles (EFP’s)? If she is, then she’s implying that it’s ok for Iran to interfere in another country’s war. It’s one thing to say that Iran has the right to defend itself if another country attacked it. It’s quite another to say that Iran has a right to interfere in another sovereign nation’s internal affairs.

Furthermore, notice the gambit she uses in saying “Excuse the Iraqis for attempting to defend themselves…” Sadr’s militias used Iranian-built EFP’s to kill Iraqi and MNF-I troops in direct disobedience of Maliki’s government. How dare a bunch of renegades take the law into their own hands.

That isn’t all she said in that post:

How dare Condee pass judgment while we are spending billions of dollars on a regular basis to ensure Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and countless other countries stay off the map.

Excuse me? Why is Ms. Billoo complaining about the the US military destroying the oppressive regimes of the Taliban and Saddam? Would she prefer seeing these regimes still in power? As for Palestine staying off the map, that’s their choice. President Bush laid out a roadmap to help create two sovereign nations, Israel and Palestine.

According to President Bush’s plan, that won’t happen until each side meets certain benchmarks. Thus far, Hamas won’t even start working on its responsibilities. Thus, they’ve made their choice to not have their sovereign nation.

Technorati Tags: Hamas, CAIR, Taliban, Saddam, Zahra Billoo, Palestine

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

AAH Chairman Joe Kaufman has issued a press release condemning the Civil Rights Coordinator of CAIR-Los Angeles (CAIR-California), Affad Shaikh, for calling “Senator Joe Lieberman, Vice President Dick Cheney, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, former head of the CIA James Woolsey, Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation, Lt. General Thomas McInerney, and Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity and Sheppard Smith as ‘Extremist Right Wing Nut cases.’”

I’d never heard of Affad Shaikh before this morning but I don’t think he’ll be used as a spokesman for CAIR again anytime soon, especially if this is the quality of his work product. First of all, using the term “extremist right wing nut cases” isn’t the way to win friends and influence people. Secondly, calling Joe Lieberman, Sheppard Smith, Bill O’Reilly and Jim Woolsey extremist right wing nut cases is wildly inaccurate. I couldn’t tell you how O’Reilly or Sheppard Smith vote. I know that Joe Lieberman isn’t an extremist right wing nut case because he’s still part of the Democratic Party.

I strongly recommend that you read the entire press release.

Technorati Tags: CAIR, Tolerance, Joe Lieberman, Bill O’Reilly, Shepard Smith, Neil Cavuto, Jim Woolsey, Sean Hannity, John Bolton

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

That’s the unmistakable message of this Washington Times article by Audrey Hudson.

Republican presidential hopeful Rudolph W. Giuliani yesterday endorsed a provision to protect citizens from being sued for reporting potential terrorism-related activity and criticized congressional Democrats for blocking the legislation.

“Congressional Democrats are once again showing they just don’t get the terrorists’ war on us, by attempting to strip important protections for those who report suspected terrorists on airlines,” said Mr. Giuliani, who was mayor of New York City during the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Rep. Stephen Pearce, (R-NM), initially wrote the bill protecting the John Doe passengers immediately after CAIR filed a lawsuit against US Airways, MAC and John Doe passengers on behalf of the imams.

“Peter King is doing the right thing by putting our national security first and political correctness run amok second,” said Mr. Giuliani, who also criticized Democratic presidential candidates for failing to acknowledge “Islamic terrorism” in public debates, including Monday night’s YouTube gathering. “The terrorists are at war with us, whether or not Democrats in Washington and on the campaign trail choose to acknowledge it. And we must stay on offense to prevail,” Mr. Giuliani said.

Predictably, CAIR’s Parvez Ahmed is denying Islam’s ties with terrorism:

This perception is greatly assisted by a veritable cottage industry of neo-experts pontificating with great certainty about the cause-effect relationship between Islam and terrorism. Such mischaracterization is at odds with the reality that Islam unequivocally condemns terrorism and advocates the preservation of life, honor and dignity of all human life as a supreme endeavor. Thus, terrorism even when carried out in the name or defense of Islam cannot be called jihad but is rather an unholy war. Robert Pape in his seminal work Dying to Win contends that military occupation, not religious ideology, is the primary enabler of terrorism.

That is pure nonsense. It isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. Consider the fact that it’s written by a man with extensive connections with Hamas. That alone disqualifies the editorial. The truth is that CAIR is expert at spinning things. They don’t know the meaning of the word truth.

Thanks Rudy for standing up for good legislation.

Technorati Tags: Rudy Giuliani, Peter King, Stephen Pearce, CAIR, Hamas, Terrorism

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

After Keith Ellison’s outlandish statement at the Atheists for Human Rights event, Ellison felt the need to spin his side of the story. This editorial in this morning’s Strib didn’t help him. Here’s the section that exposes Ellison’s naivete on the War for Western Civilization:

If the president had embraced the good will of the post 9/11 world to marshal an international effort to eliminate the terrorist cells responsible for this heinous act, we wouldn’t be mired in a five-year war. We could have effectively eliminated Al-Qaida instead of creating a virtual recruiting station for them in Iraq. As it is, we may need years to shake off the taint of Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, FISA violations, Patriot Act encroachments and other Bush administration failures.

Let’s start with his statement that “We could have effectively eliminated Al-Qaida…” There isn’t an American alive who isn’t for eliminating al-Qa’ida. There are people, like Keith Ellison, who haven’t grasped the reality that al-Qa’ida isn’t the only terrorist group out there and Afghanistan wasn’t the only swamp that needed draining.

The reality is that we need a comprehensive strategy to win the War for Western Civilization. The Democrats’ stated strategy for winning that war is finishing the job in Afghanistan, kill al-Qa’ida and use endless diplomacy to bring Iran and Syria over to our side. I don’t think that that’s the type of comprehensive strategy that will yield victory in the greatest challenge of our lifetime. (continue reading post »)

Sunday evening, I read this Strib article about Keith Ellison speaking “to a gathering of atheists.” Here’s a quote worth noting:

On comparing Sept. 11 to the burning of the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany: “It’s almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I’m not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that’s how they put you in the nut-ball box, dismiss you.”

Later Sunday night, I watched a replay of Sean Hannity’s interview Imam Abdul Alim Musa. Imam Musa made some outrageous statements during the interview, which was taped on Feb. 18, 2007. Follow this link if you want to read the entire transcript. (I highly recommend it because you’ll see Imam Abdul Alim Musa’s radicalism.) Here’s what Imam Musa said that caught my attention:

HANNITY: I already know what you say. You believe George Bush. You think George Bush knew about 9/11 ahead of time.

MUSA: Well, I said he was like Hitler and Hitler burned the Reichstag in Germany in 1933 to give him the fuhership, to also take the rights of the German people, right? To go do away with due process of law.

The similarity of Ellison’s quote to Imam Musa’s quote is stunning. Here’s another exchange between Hannity and Imam Musa that I want you to remember:

HANNITY: Is bin Laden misconstrued in the American public? Is he misunderstood? Do you like bin Laden? Do you like him?

MUSA: If he is a Muslim he is definitely misconstrued. Definitely misconstrued.

HANNITY: So bin Laden is not responsible for 9/11?

MUSA: Of course not. (continue reading post »)

This week, we learned that Keith Ellison and Jim McDermott became co-sponsors of the impeachment bill written by Dennis Kucinich, H.R. 333.

Let’s take a look at the co-sponsors of the impeachment bill:

US Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) made a speech on the House Floor, “The Vice President Should Resign or Face Impeachment,” announcing his plans to support the bill. US Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) also joined yesterday.

The other total supporters include original sponsor, US Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), plus US Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Janice Schakowsky (D-IL), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Albert Wynn (D-MD), so far.

Here’s Keith Ellison’s take on the impeachment bill:

“They certainly deserve to be impeached [but]…the fact is that if we filed for impeachment now given everything that’s already happened, based on what we know so far, it would consume the news cycle to the point where that’s all we’d be dealing with and talking about. I’m a little concerned that it might overshadow other things we have to do. I’m a little concerned about that, given the situation. But do they deserve it? Hell yeah,” Ellison told BallerStatus.com in an interview published two weeks ago.

Mr. Ellison is a fine person to talk about impeachment. Michael Brodkorb of Minnesota Democrats Exposed reported last fall that Kathleen Anderson, then the district director of former DFL Rep. Martin Sabo, endorsed Tammy Lee, the Independence Party candidate for MN-5, saying that Ellison was a scofflaw:

The primary responsibility of any elected official is to make the laws. At the very least, our lawmakers should set a good example by obeying those laws. Is that asking too much? Apparently so, when it comes to Mr. Ellison. Time and again, he has demonstrated a scofflaw attitude.

What is a scofflaw? The dictionary says “a contemptuous law violator.” In fairness, contemptuous may be too strong a word to describe Mr. Ellison’s behavior. I can not know with certainty Ellison’s motivations. To be kind, perhaps he is simply disorganized when it comes to these matters. Nonetheless, he has repeatedly, and very recently, violated the laws the rest of us routinely obey.

Jim Moran, who’s made some rather anti-semitic comments in the past, will be officially listed as a co-sponsor eventually, too. Here’s a sample of Moran’s anti-semitism: (continue reading post »)

This video is proof of that:

I personally agree with everything that Cal Thomas said in that video. It’s time that more average citizens learned what Cal Thomas and others already know: that Islamic radicals have told us plainly what they want to do, that they’ll use any tool at their avail and that they’ll jump on anything said about any Muslim terrorist as ‘proof’ of America’s Islamophobic ways.

Today, when we celebrate the birth of this great nation, let us ever be aware of the threats to our liberty.

Technorati Tags: Cal Thomas, America, First +Amendment, Liberty, CAIR, Islamic Extremism, Islamophobia, Islamofascism

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

The best thing I can say about Frank Gaffney’s Washington Times op-ed is that it’s spot on. Here’s what I’m talking about:

Still more worrying are persistent reports the Bush administration will not content itself with merely dignifying and legitimating Islamist individuals, organizations and institutions associated with and in the service of Saudi Wahhabis and their counterparts in a classic totalitarian good-cop/bad-cop routine, the Muslim Brotherhood. The administration is evidently intent on embracing the Brotherhood itself.

The ostensible reason for doing so is that the Brotherhood has eschewed violence and is content to obtain power through elections. Evidently, the imposition of a fascistic legal code called Shariah via balloting and/or the steady accretion of concessions made in the name of religious tolerance is supposed to be different from, and preferable to, that achieved via terror and mayhem. In the end, though, it amounts to the same thing: a world without freedom, a world without America.

If we are to prevent further terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans and their government must stop blurring the distinction between Muslims who are determined to bring about, one way or another, our demise as freedom-enjoying people, and Muslims who are fully committed to preserving the liberties secured for us 231 years ago tomorrow and subsequently preserved at great cost in lives and treasure. Otherwise, we will find our own footprints on the path to the next act of Islamofascist terror.

Patrick Poole’s FrontPageMag article about the Project is must reading if we are to understand the different tactics and methods used in Islamists’ attempts to build a caliphate. Here’s the key section of Mr. Poole’s article:

What makes The Project so different from the standard “Death of America! Death to Israel!” and “Establish the global caliphate!” Islamist rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the “cultural invasion” of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism, The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood “master plan”. As can be seen in a number of examples throughout Europe – including the political recognition of parallel Islamist government organizations in Sweden, the recent “cartoon” jihad in Denmark, the Parisian car-burning intifada last November, and the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London – the plan outlined in The Project has been overwhelmingly successful.

Rather than focusing on terrorism as the sole method of group action, as is the case with Al-Qaeda, in perfect postmodern fashion the use of terror falls into a multiplicity of options available to progressively infiltrate, confront, and eventually establish Islamic domination over the West. The following tactics and techniques are among the many recommendations made in The Project:

• Networking and coordinating actions between likeminded Islamist organizations;
• Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation”;
• Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s collective goals;
• Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn’t conflict with shari’a law;
• Avoiding social conflicts with Westerners locally, nationally or globally, that might damage the long-term ability to expand the Islamist powerbase in the West or provoke a lash back against Muslims;
• Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers;
• Conducting surveillance, obtaining data, and establishing collection and data storage capabilities;
• Putting into place a watchdog system for monitoring Western media to warn Muslims of “international plots fomented against them”;
• Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements;
• Developing a comprehensive 100-year plan to advance Islamist ideology throughout the world;
• Balancing international objectives with local flexibility;
• Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations dedicated to Islamist ideals so that contact with the movement for Muslims in the West is constant;
• Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions;
• Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into service of Islam;
• Drafting Islamic constitutions, laws and policies for eventual implementation;
• Avoiding conflict within the Islamist movements on all levels, including the development of processes for conflict resolution;
• Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals;
• Creating autonomous “security forces” to protect Muslims in the West;
• Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”;
• Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support;
• Making the Palestinian cause a global wedge issue for Muslims;
• Adopting the total liberation of Palestine from Israel and the creation of an Islamic state as a keystone in the plan for global Islamic domination;
• Instigating a constant campaign to incite hatred by Muslims against Jews and rejecting any discussions of conciliation or coexistence with them;
• Actively creating jihad terror cells within Palestine;
• Linking the terrorist activities in Palestine with the global terror movement;
• Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world;

In reading The Project, it should be kept in mind that it was drafted in 1982 when current tensions and terrorist activities in the Middle East were still very nascent. In many respects, The Project is extremely prescient for outlining the bulk of Islamist action, whether by “moderate” Islamist organizations or outright terror groups, over the past two decades.

Applying the principles of the Project to Mr. Gaffney’s op-ed, it’s easy to see the validity of Gaffney’s argument. (continue reading post »)

Earlier this morning, I posted about David Keene’s ‘transformation’ into a CAIR mouthpiece on Islamophobia. There’s more to the story. Much more. According to this post by Christine at Vigilant Freedom, David Keene of the ACU “appointed Suhail Khan to the ACU board.” That’s why I started digging. What I found out about Suhail Khan is troubling to say the least. First I found a bio of his father, a man named Mahboob Khan. Here’s what that bio on Mahboob Khan says:

Dr. Mahboob Khan passed away on April 16, 1999, in Sunnyvale, California. Dr. Khan was born on March 31, 1939, in Madras, India. He was the second child of seven born to Zainab Khatoon and Khader Khan. He was the first of his family to complete his high school diploma, and likewise the first to complete his BS degree from Madras University. He immigrated to Boulder, Colorado, in 1966 to complete his masters and doctorate in solid state physics. He married Malika Begum, also of Madras, India in 1968 and in 1969 they had their first son, Suhail Khan. As a student, Dr. Khan helped establish the Muslim Students Association (MSA) which subsequently became the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). He was the Vice President of MSA, the West Zone Representative, and served on the Majlis Ash-Shura for ISNA.

Here’s what Frank Gaffney wrote about Mahboob Khan in his FrontPageMag article on Suhail Khan and the ACU:

Suhail Khan’s father was the late Mahboob Khan, a PhD in solid-state physics. His biography claims that he helped establish the Muslim Student Association (MSA) while a student in Boulder (presumably, this refers to the MSA chapter at the university as the parent organization was established in 1963). The MSA is present on scores of American campuses and serves to recruit, proselytize and indoctrinate on behalf of Saudi-backed Islamists.[1] It is pro-Hamas; the MSA at UC Irvine even demanded that its members be allowed to wear Hamas armbands at graduation; and openly sympathizes with terrorists. Dr. Khan held the post of MSA vice president and Western Zone representative.

The elder Khan also served as member of Majlis ash-Shura (the governing council) of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which was created by the Muslim Student Association (MSA) in 1977 to promote the Islamist agenda among Muslims and the general population. Another MSA arm is the North American Islamic Trust, the Saudis’ vehicle for providing the financing of, by some estimates, as many as 80% of the mosques in America. That financing, and the control arising from holding title for the mosques’ real estate, affords the Saudis and their proxies the ability to determine: who will serve as imams in their American mosques; what materials are distributed to the congregations[2] and taught in the madrassas (mosque schools)[3]; to what purpose are the members’ obligatory tithes applied; which congregants will be eligible to make the haj pilgrimage to Mecca; etc.

It’s fair to say that there’s a few discrepancies between the two bios, though I don’t consider the discrepancies to be major discrepancies. (continue reading post »)