End to 'loaded' Islamic terms welcomed

UPI.COM

Published: April 8, 2010 at 11:08 AM

WASHINGTON, April 8 (UPI) -- A Washington decision to strike terms linking the religion of Islam to extremism is a welcome departure to U.S. policy in the Middle East, advocates said.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) welcomed a decision from U.S. President Barack Obama to strike terms like "Islamic radicalism" from the National Security Strategy. The previous administration said "militant Islamic radicalism" is one of the greatest ideological challenges of the modern era.

Nihad Awad, the national executive director at CAIR, said the measure was a welcome step toward a respectful relationship with the Muslim community.

"We hope this positive change in language will lead to policies that will deal more effectively with important issues such as peace with justice in the Middle East and withdrawal of our nation's forces from Iraq and Afghanistan," he said.

(Whoa! "important issues", such as "justice" in the Middle East"!!  Well, the depends - are we talking about justice for the Muslim women, slaves, cattle to Islam, beaten for even looking at a man who is not a member of her family? Are we talking about changing all Arab nations into democracies? Are we talking about no more Muslims burning down churches in Gaza, Egypt, Somalia, etc. ... hmm!  Does Islam have a different dictionary than Webster's when we interpret the word "justice"? ... Bee Sting)

Influential clerics and other Muslim advocates have recommended avoiding words like "jihad" and other Islamic terms for fear of undermining the peaceful nature of the religion. Awad stressed that his organization has called for an end to "loaded" terminology that links Islam to terrorism "for a number of years."

"We welcome this change in language by the Obama administration as another step toward respectful and effective outreach to Muslims at home and abroad," he said.

Paleocon head-in-the-sand writer smears FDI event all over

JIHAD WATCH.COM

How interesting that the same "reporter," Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, who filed this biased and shoddy FoxNews report about my FDI event last Friday at CPAC has now written two broadsides against the event, both at antisemitic paleocon sites: Antiwar.com and The American Conservative. The three pieces are similar -- Kelley Beaucar Vlahos knows how to double-dip and triple-dip -- but since she is plastering the Internet with this nonsense, responses are in order.

First, from Fox:

"Everyone knows Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority," said Robert Spencer, sarcastically and to a great amount of applause and guffaws. Spencer, executive director of Jihad Watch and associate director of the Freedom Defense Initiative, which he recently founded with Atlas Shrugged blogger Pamela Geller, told his audience everyone believes that "like they believe in Santa Claus though no one has ever seen it."

Sloppiness Alert: Pamela Geller's blog is Atlas Shrugs, not Atlas Shrugged.

He declared that "conservative media leaders even parrot this line" that Islam is a peaceful religion at its core.

While holding up my statements as examples of some egregious falsehood -- something she does only implicitly in the Fox article but explicitly in her other iterations of it -- Kelley Beaucar Vlahos cannot and does not produce any mainstream sect of Islam or school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not teach the necessity to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers. But she probably isn't even aware that that's the case.

So defined the event, which repeated the group's message, that political correctness was preventing the American people -- elected officials and the government included -- from acknowledging -- in Geller's words -- that Islamists "have infiltrated at every level of society and all levels of government."

Re that infiltration, see here for information from two former government officials.

Spencer called recent complaints that full body scanners at airports violate the privacy and modesty of Muslim women according to Islamic law and attempts to accommodate them a "perversity," since Muslims "themselves made (scanners) necessary."...

Sloppiness Alert: I said "absurdity," not "perversity." But in any case, Kelley Beaucar Vlahos might be hard-pressed to explain why the full-body scanners are deemed necessary if it is not because of Islamic jihad terrorists like Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab, the Christmas day underwear bomber on Flight 253, whose attempted attack is precisely the reason why the full body scanners are being contemplated.

Others speakers included Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who is being investigated for hate speech in Austria for her critical seminars on Islam; Simon Weng, a former slave in Sudan; Anders Gravers, a Dane who wrote Stop the Islamization of Europe; and Lt. Col Allen West (Ret.), a candidate for congress in Florida.

Sloppiness Alert: Stop the Islamization of Europe is a group, not a book. Gravers did not "write" it, he is one of its leaders.

On to Antiwar.com:

[...] Even worse were the CPAC events this year in which the very loyalty of Americans was questioned and entire religions were deemed a threat to global security.

There is a worldwide movement waging war against the United States in the name of a religion, and with no significant opposition from those members of that religion who are not participating in that war. Yet if I point this out, I am "Orwellian":

If there was ever a manifestation of the radical impulses of these political events, it was the simply Orwellian experience of "Jihad: the Political Third Rail," presented by the Freedom Defense Initiative, the latest venture of jihad-hunters Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs) and Robert Spencer (Jihad Watch).

Attendees at this "unofficial" CPAC panel (yes, even among this crowd, Geller and friends are pretty radioactive) were forced to show picture identification at the door. Bodyguards roamed the capacity crowd, some of which donned lapel pins featuring crossed American and Israeli flags (meanwhile, new Muslim-American envoy Rashad Hussain should be put to a loyalty test to see if he is Muslim or American first, suggested one panelist)....

Radioactive? Sure. But because of moral and intellectual cowardice, and worse, among those doing the radiation tests.

Rashad Hussain defended a jihad terrorist, as he himself now admits having done. And Kelley Beaucar Vlahos actually likens this to supporting an American ally.

And does Kelley Beaucar Vlahos actually think that bodyguards and ID checks weren't necessary? Of course, her jihad-enabling and antisemitism are fashionable on campuses today, but if she really were an "American conservative" and ventured on to an American university campus without bodyguards today, she might suddenly be awakened to the need for them, emanating from the peace-loving Left and the jihadis whose peaceful religion she insists I was maligning.

Antiwar.com and its panel of apostates were duly dismissed from the outset of the "Third Rail" forum as an "outrageous" affront to the conservative ideas held at CPAC, just before Geller and Spencer went on to blame Islam for 9/11 and charged that Islamists "have infiltrated at every level of society and every level of government" in the United States. The Koran (which Rashad Hussain has supposedly memorized - the horror!) is to blame for global terrorism. If we do not act now, went the message, Shariah law will soon prevail in the U.S.

Yes, we're imagining all that. We're imagining all this also:

The Muslim Brotherhood "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions." -- Mohamed Akram, "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America," May 22, 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, U.S. vs. HLF, et al. P. 7 (21).

"We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don't lobby Congress or protest because we don't recognize Congress. The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it. . . . Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah." -- Muhammad Faheed, Muslim Students Association meeting, Queensborough Community College, 2003

"Let us damn America, let us damn Israel, let us damn them and their allies until death." -- former University of South Florida professor and Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian

"Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesized by our Prophet Muhammad. Today, Rome is the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital. . . . This capital of theirs will be an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas." -- Hamas MP and Islamic cleric Yunus al-Astal, 2008

"I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission." -- Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad Akef, 2004

"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." -- CAIR cofounder and longtime Board chairman Omar Ahmad, 1998 (denial noted and full story explained at link)

"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." -- CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, 1993

"If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate." -- prominent American Muslim leader Siraj Wahhaj, 2002

Back to Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, who prefers to pretend that we are making all that up:

Fortunately, many of us still consider standing up to the government for doing things like detaining people indefinitely without charge, or presuming suspects guilty until proven innocent, or trying to prevent the persecution of an entire population based on religious beliefs, to be "constitutional correctness," plain and simple.

Of course, no one is advocating the "persecution of an entire population based on religious beliefs," but by means of that dishonest little reductio Kelly Beaucar Vlahos hopes to bamboozle people into thinking that there is no violent or supremacist imperative in Islam, and that those who think there is a jihad against the U.S. are just imagining it. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Nidal Hasan, and so many others would beg to differ.

And finally, Kelley Beaucar Vlahos at The American Conservative, where her crying need for an attentive editor is especially in evidence:

[...] The Newsmax alert included a headline, "Pope Warns about Full Body Scanners." Indeed, Pope Benedict XVI told an audience of aerospace industry types this week that while he is aware of the terrorist threat that has prompted enhanced screening at airports, "the primary asset to be safeguarded and treasured is the person, in his or her integrity," and that plans to implement devices that present screeners with "virtually naked" images of individual travelers compromises that integrity. [...]

But at CPAC friday [sic!], at an "unofficial" panel sponsored by jihad-hunters Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs) and Robert Spencer (Jihad Watch), called "Jihad: the Political Third Rail," participants balked at these religious arguments against full body scanners -- particularly because those concerns had been raised earlier, not by Catholics, but by Muslims. According to a group of Islamic scholars who posted a statement online, the intrusive images taken by full body scanners fly in the face of Koranic teachings on modesty. The group, the Figh [sic! It's Fiqh] Council of North America (FCNA), issued a fatwah, or religious edict, preventing Muslims from going through such scanners at airports.

Of course, as it stands now, anyone can opt out of a full body scan by agreeing to a "pat down." But Spencer roundly mocked these Muslims, because as far as he was concerned, Islam was responsible for 9/11 and Muslims themselves "made (full body scanners) necessary." In fact, the entire thrust of the panel was that Islam is a violent religion, a plague in fact, that needed to be cured. So any idea that Muslims would consider their faith a reason to deny airport screening was rich. "Former Muslim" and speaker Wafa Sultan, cheered the full body scan, suggesting that it would be so repulsive to Muslims -- and thanks to the fatawa [sic! This is plural of "fatwa," but there was only one], inconvenient -- that they might stop trying to bombing airplanes....

Interestingly enough, you can add Jewish law to the fatwahs and papal declarations on full body scans...

There are two things I am taking away from this issue: one, the full body scans are creepy and intrusive and violate basic civil liberties of all individuals -- on a global scale. Secondly, the sneering tenor of Robert Spencer about Muslim women and their "modesty" cannot hide the fact that the three major religions of the world -- Christianity, Judaism and Islam -- all regard modesty a prevailing virtue and, especially in the conservative observances of all three, it cannot be compromised by either the individual or the state.

Politics and the people who practice them can be so crude and reactionary- but all three religions, and the people who practice them, have much more in common outside of those political prejudices than they would care to admit. All three could create a united front on the issue of full body scans, but because one side blames the other for the use of the screening in the first place, they will remain divided....

One wonders if Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is willfully missing the point. She did not bother to speak to me, of course, before compiling this triplicate report; if she had, she might have discovered that on February 11, a week before the FDI event, I wrote that "there may be plenty of reasons to oppose body scanners." I was not expressing scorn for the modesty of Muslim women, as Kelley Beaucar Vlahos suggests, but for the idea that Muslims should be exempt from these scanners when it was the actions of jihadis that made them necessary.

But if Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is as inattentive a listener as she is a speller and writer, it is perhaps understandable that this point escaped her.

Posted by Robert on February 23, 2010 11:20 AM

Newsweek says it'a a "conspiracy theory" that CAIR is trying to spread jihad

JIHAD WATCH.COM

Journalistic irresponsibility and bias example #281,328,616, from "Know Your Conspiracies" in Newsweek, February 12 (thanks to Daniel). Number Nine on this list of crackpot conspiracy theories comes this gem:

9. The Council on American-Islamic Relations is trying to infiltrate Capitol Hill and spread jihad.

Author Dave Gaubatz alleges that the mainstream group is both connected to Islamist terrorists and international jihad and is working to infiltrate the American government by placing interns on Capitol Hill.
Proponents: Dave Gaubatz, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), Joseph Farah.
Kernel of Truth? CAIR has tried to place interns on Capitol Hill, but as it points out, that's standard practice for advocacy groups of all types and allegiances. There's no proof of sinister motives or an effort to encourage international jihad.

Kernel of Truth? Kernel of Half-Truth is more like it. Newsweek does not see fit to mention that CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case -- so named by the Justice Department. It says nothing about how CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Also mentioned is the fact that several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror, and that CAIR's cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Honest Ibe Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements.

It's all just a conspiracy theory, you see, you greasy Islamophobes. So I guess CAIR is not an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding case. And that it has condemned Hamas and Hizballah as terror groups. And that none of its formal officials have been convicted of terror activities. We can relax and go back to sleep, because Newsweek says that everything is A-OK.

Comments on Jihad Watch:

djrz | February 19, 2010 4:32 PM | Reply

I saw this article and my JAW DROPPED.

Did this reporter even READ Gaubatz's book???

Does this reporter even KNOW how to check facts???

Amazing.

gravenimage | February 19, 2010 5:15 PM | Reply

Newsweek has long since jumped the shark, going way beyond even the soft-peddling of Jihad by much of the MSM.

This, from 2007, advises readers that Muslims are "one of America's greatest strengths":

http://www.newsweek.com/id/32868

Their only real problem is "Islamophobic" Americans.

Here, from 2009, is Newsweek telling those concerned about Eurabia that there is nothing to worry about:

"Why Fears Of A Muslim Takeover Are All Wrong"

http://www.newsweek.com/id/206230

Also from 2009 is Fareed Zakaria's infamous cover story, "Learning to Live With Radical Islam"

The article is subtitled: "We don't have to accept the stoning of criminals. But it's time to stop treating all Islamists as potential terrorists."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/187093

At this point, it's not just "living with Islam", but "living with radical Islam". Go back to sleep, you Islamophobes—everything is juuuuuust fine..

traeh | February 19, 2010 5:56 PM | Reply

What is an "unindicted" co-conspirator?

Here's a definition from Wikepedia -- maybe lawyers out there can comment.

An unindicted co-conspirator is a person or entity that is alleged in an indictment to have engaged in conspiracy, but who is not charged in the same indictment. Prosecutors choose to name persons as unindicted co-conspirators for a variety of reasons including grants of immunity, pragmatic considerations, and evidentiary concerns.

The United States Attorneys' Manual generally recommends against naming unindicted co-conspirators, although their use is not generally prohibited by law or policy.[1] Some commentators have raised due process concerns over the use of unindicted co-conspirators.[2] Although there have been few cases on the subject, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed these concerns in United States v. Briggs.[3]

The term unindicted co-conspirator was familiarized in 1974 when then president Richard Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in indictments stemming from the Watergate Investigation.

So it means the prosecutors are alleging that the co-conspirator was involved in the crime. But for one or another reason, a choice was made not to prosecute.

The definition leaves more questions than it answers

Isabellathecrusader | February 19, 2010 6:29 PM | Reply

With all the dirt on CAIR that Chris Gaubatz provided the FBI last year, there should be plenty to turn that un-indicted co-conspirator into an indicted one. ; )

Slamdunk | February 19, 2010 8:06 PM | Reply

With a Muslim editor/columnist since 2000, it is obligatory for NW to regularly sing "Islam means peace" lullabies to put the Infidels back to sleep, whenever there's a danger of their waking up. Seems to have worked well, so far

JumpingJehosaphat | February 19, 2010 8:25 PM | Reply

Does CAIR ever give it a rest.

http://www.christianadc.org/news-and-articles/464-mayors-christian-remarks-a-hate-crime

Kinana of Khaybar | February 19, 2010 8:42 PM | Reply

To say that something is a "conspiracy" implies there is some secrecy involved in whatever the group is planning. Yet CAIR's advocacy of sharia law in North America is a matter of public record. There is no conspiracy to this aspect of their activities. Their efforts to establish sharia in North America must, from an Islamic perspective, literally be regarded as "struggle" or jihad, since effort expended by Muslims for the cause of Islam is considered a righteous jihad. In addition, CAIR's propaganda campaign against public critics of Islam is itself evidence of their jihads of tongue and pen. (Why do they spend so much time going after Islam critics, while spending no time on reducing tendencies toward intolerant and militant views within Muslim communities in North America?). CAIR shares the goal of Al-Qaeda et al., which is to establish Islamic sharia law and rule. CAIR and Al-Qaeda are part of the same larger project.

.

.

.

RED ALERT – Fox News Abandons Patriotic Americans by Selling Out to Muslim Interests

Canada Free Press.com

O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity, Van Susteren, Judas is thy name. I’ll leave Rupert Murdoch for you, my readers, to name

By Jerry McConnell Tuesday, February 16, 2010

A recent column of mine alluded to a deal that Rupert Murdoch had concluded with one of the Princes in the Saudi Arabian Muslim leadership. At that time there were no details available, but since that time we have seen Fox News and its affiliates swarming with actions favorable to our worst enemy, Muslim law.

Old favorites on Fox that once preached good old fashioned American values and candidates such as O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity and others are now, according to a fresh blog from Neil Turner, Citizens for the Constitution on February 15, 2010, “in the enemy camp, and will be promoting ISLAM, a political system that is abhorrent to our Constitution, as it advocates the overthrow of our Government and our Sovereignty BY FORCE!”

Turner furnishes an article written by John Charlton, February 15, 2010, The Post & E-Mail onsocialismisnottheanswer.wordpress.com in which Charlton states that “…the former conservative news agency” has entered into a campaign against candidates in Georgia and Texas who have announced their candidacy for governor who “also question the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of U. S. President.” Namely, Georgia Gubernatorial Candidate Nathan Deal and Texas Gubernatorial Candidate Debra Medina.

Charlton went on to say that Fox “showed its true colors” by giving credence to a statement by an opponent of Nathan Deal who criticized Deal for pressing Obama to release his birth certificate. The opponent, Georgia state legislator Austin Scott, claimed Deal hindered working with the president by calling for “childish things like the president to show his birth certificate.”

I agree with Charlton that there is nothing “childish” about challenging Obama about his secrecy in not revealing a Constitutional requirement to confirm his qualification to hold that office. With all the uncertainty as to his legal right to run for the office and the mysterious actions taken by Obama to prevent public display of the original birth document along with just about every other document covering his life from child to adult, asking for verification is a stout showing of mature thinking as opposed to the charge of “childishness.”

Charlton finishes saying, “By this statement, FOX has made it absolutely clear to America that they will not tolerate anyone who will not work with Obama and be respectful to him”; as well as “American patriots need to start asking themselves what other so-called “conservative” sources of information have been bought out by the same forces, which want to keep Obama in power, for the sake of Islam.”

Another true patriot who offers opinions on NewsWithViews.com and other true conservative outlets including Canada Free Press, Dr. Laurie Roth on February 12, 2010 in the former, asked the question: “Who Is Influencing and Controlling Fox?

In her ‘get-right-to-the-heart-of-it’ style, Roth inquires of the reader, “did you know that the second largest owner of Fox, parent corporation Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp is Prince Ahwaleed binTalal of Saudi Arabia?” She claims that the Prince has been buying his anti-Semitic and Muslim way right into American life with $20 million gifts such as given to Georgetown and Harvard Universities for Islamic study departments.

Dr. Roth also states that the generous Prince gave $500,000 to CAIR the Council on American Islamic Relations but he also gave $27 million “to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers”, calling them “martyrs.”

She explains that the Prince is a rather close friend of Murdoch’s son James “who is known for his anti-Israel views and left wing radical environmental and global warming nonsense.”

These revelations may seem shocking to many of us, myself included, and a feeling of being betrayed somehow penetrates all of my senses and feelings. The entire Mainstream Media has abandoned all American patriots looking for assistance to prevent a socialist takeover of our country, but at least we thought we had Fox News Corp. on our side. Now sadly we find that they have deserted us.

All the more reason why we have got to start recruiting born and bred American patriots; cull the ranks of patriotic organizations and look for leaders to fight for our American ideals and get them elected to Congress. It’s our only hope to save our country from Islam rule and total socialism.

OK. We can’t trust Fox anymore so we have to look for online conservative voices that can be trusted to carry our message of freedom and right. When you do find a worthy candidate make it known to as many like-minded persons you can contact. This battle against evil and evil people is just beginning. Don’t give up. Keep fighting. We’re all we have left. And above all, tell them to be wary of sheiks in sheep’s clothing.

O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity, Van Susteren, Judas is thy name. I’ll leave Rupert Murdoch for you, my readers, to name.

Jerry McConnell Most recent columns

Jerry McConnell is a longtime resident of planet earth with one half century on the seacoast of NH. He is a community activist but promises not to run for President and he feeds ACORN’s to the squirrels. He can be emailed at lethrneck@comcast.net with complaints or the editor at letters@canadafreepress.com with favorables.

Sharia in Ohio: Persecution of Christians in Islamic America Target Brian Williams

ATLAS SHRUGS
PAMELIA GELLER

Last week I reported on CAIR's latest move to stop any converts out of Islam and any Christians who might try to help these desperate, brave victims.

Back on January 19th, Rifqa Bary was tricked into pleading guilty to the "unruly" charges against her in exchange for a dependency deal that the Bary parents and their CAIR-appointed attorney have Brian williams since reneged on, there have been new developments in the case.

The prosecutor, under pressure from powerful and influential CAIR, is pursuing charges against Brian Williams, the pastor and friend whom she contacted after she ran away.

The prosecution is seeking to indict Brian Williams on two charges -- contributing to the "unruliness" of a minor (eureka, now we understand why CAIR demanded a guilty plea in exchange for a meaningless deal with the kuffar) and a second charge of "interference with custody," which carries a sentence of six months to a year.

So now we understand the change in strategy.

Brian Williams is being urged by Rifqa's deal-making attorney, Stemberger-appointed attorney Kort Gotterdam, to plead guilty to a lesser charge. Gotterdam is following the direction of the lawyer who appointed him, John Stemberger, who also brokered broken deals for Rifqa.

The impending arrest of the courageous Brian Williams is proof of the incompetence of Rifqa Bary's legal team. The silence is deference and dhimmitude to Islam. If the crime of apostasy in Islam and the threat Rifqa was facing were exposed and heard in an American court of law, Brian Williams would not be pursued by the Franklin County prosecutor. Instead Rifqa's legal team is urging him to plead guilty to these outrageous charges at enormous personal expense. Who are they working for? CAIR?

Williams told me he would not plead this down. Williams told me he was not guilty or sorry he helped an apostate whose life was at danger. Williams said there is so much dirty back-door dealing in this case, to the detriment of the truth. And certain players are working on a payday.

What kind of nation, what kind of society are we living in where someone who helps a girl whose life is in danger is prosecuted for it? An islamic one. Not so fast, buster.

I think Williams ought to stay away from Rifqa's attorneys. They can bully a little girl, but not a young man. They are wrong. Williams should not plea it down. Why should Brian Williams have a record for helping Rifqa? Why should CAIR be able to use our judicial system to send a message to non-Muslims that they will be punished for helping a Christian?

Let Willliams ignore Gotterdam and Stemberger and get informed legal counsel that understands the motive behind the threat that so seriously endangers Rifqa's life.

UPDATE: Brian Williams explains the charges in the comment section here and here.

HOMELAND INSECURITY Federal judge rules against 'Muslim Mafia' CAIR decision seen as victory over plan to 'chill' free speech

WORLDNETDAILY.COM
Posted: February 15, 2010
1:04 am Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Defense attorney Daniel Horowitz

A federal judge has dismissed an attempt by the Council on American-Islamic Relations to re-file a lawsuit against Air Force special agent P. David Gaubatz and his son Chris, the father-and-son team that investigated and exposed the group's terrorist ties.

Defense lawyers are hailing the decision as a victory over CAIR's alleged plan to "chill" free speech critical of the organization through an avalanche of court cases and legal costs.

"We briefed, counter-briefed, we spent thousands of dollars on the case," said Daniel Horowitz, one of the three lawyers for the defense. "Only then did they file this new lawsuit, which would have effectively forced us to start all over."

"But the new lawsuit didn't have anything substantively new," Horowitz told WND. "And yet, that's their whole goal. They know they can't win the case, but they can chill the First Amendment by making it so expensive to speak against them that no one can challenge Saudi-funded CAIR. In the end, they can just keep getting more and more money from overseas and burn out opposition with lawsuits."

Get "Muslim Mafia," the book that exposed CAIR from the inside out, autographed, from WND's Superstore!

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, however, "denied as moot" CAIR's request to re-file the case. CAIR now has until March 1 to re-file "an appropriate motion for leave to amend."

"The judge looked at papers and said, 'Look, you don't have a right to do this; everything was fully briefed; you had your opportunity,'" Horowitz explained.

"In terms of the First Amendment, it's a powerful ruling," Horowitz continued, "because it recognizes that by chilling free speech, you undermine it, even if you lose the case in the end. CAIR was trying to exploit that to the max, and the judge said no

As WND reported, Chris Gaubatz served a six-month CAIR internship in 2008 posing as a young Muslim convert. During that time, he was told to shred certain documents

, which he instead retained, providing key evidence for the book "Muslim Mafia", published last fall by WND Books.

The newest legal action brought by CAIR, Horowitz claims, was simply another attempt at playing a name shell game. CAIR left the case almost completely intact but switched the name of the organization, a move Horowitz takes as a sign of potential victory in the original case.

CAIR's original lawsuit alleges Chris Gaubatz obtained access to CAIR property under false pretenses and removed the internal documents and made recordings of officials and employees "without any consent or authorization and in violation of his contractual, fiduciary and other legal obligations to CAIR."

The publisher of "Muslim Mafia," WND CEO Joseph Farah, however, asserted the CAIR material was legally obtained by Gaubatz, who had been asked by CAIR officials "to shred documents he believed might be criminal evidence … and involve matters of national security."

"On advice from counsel, he collected those documents and preserved them. None of the documents were 'stolen,'" Farah said.

Horowitz also argues that even if the case had any viability, it is moot because CAIR now has its documents back and CAIR's attorney has retracted his initial objections to a subpoena, served by the FBI, to turn over copies of the documents to a federal grand jury.

Furthermore, CAIR does not defend itself in the lawsuit against the book's claim that the self-described Muslim civil-rights group is a front in a conspiracy by the Egypt-based mother organization of leading worldwide terrorist groups, the Muslim Brotherhood, to pave the way for Saudi-style Islamic law in the U.S. Nor does the case explicitly list damages done to the organization by "Muslim Mafia," Horowitz argues.

Horowitz noted to WND that normally, if a party believes a book is deliberately false, it will sue for defamation.

"Truth is a defense," he said, "and we have always been willing to debate CAIR in a public forum or in the courts on these issues."

Horowitz said the First Amendment protects his clients from the charges CAIR makes in its complaint and subsequent filings.

But Horowitz also has argued CAIR has no claim because it does not legally exist. Horowitz explained that CAIR changed its name to the Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network almost immediately after it was named by the Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-finance case in U.S. history

"CAIR forms groups, dissolves them, takes credit for them or disclaims them as it sees fit," he told WND.

"In re-filing the newest lawsuit, CAIR pretty much admitted the old lawsuit is defective: CAIR doesn't exist, so they tried to file under a different name," Horowitz told WND. "By filing this amendment, they thought they could avoid explaining why they did something wrong, but the judge has said, 'No, you have to explain.'

"Now CAIR will have to either try to explain to the court why it used a fake name to start the case, and show it was honest mistake," Horowitz continued, "or they will have to try to argue that the new lawsuit is somehow different from the old lawsuit, which I don't think it is."

IMPORTANT NOTE: The CAIR legal attack on WND's author is far from over. WND needs your help in supporting the defense of "Muslim Mafia" co-author P. David Gaubatz, as well as his investigator son Chris, against CAIR's lawsuit. Already, the book's revelations have led to formal congressional demands for three different federal investigations of CAIR. In the meantime, however, someone has to defend these two courageous investigators who have, at great personal risk, revealed so much about this dangerous group. Although WND has procured the best First Amendment attorneys in the country for their defense, we can't do it without your help. Please donate to WND's Legal Defense Fund now.

Congressional Candidate L. Torgerson vs. CAIR Round 1

December 19, 2009

By admin

Even though the election is not until late next year, Congressional candidate Lynne Torgerson is already getting under the skin of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Mrs. Torgerson is a tough as nails criminal defense lawyer who will surely make CAIR complain until election day. It couldn’t happen to a nicer group.

CAIR MN’s Zikri denounces Torgerson’s “anti-Islamic” rhetoric
By Hart Van Denburg

Lynne Torgerson, who is running to unseat U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison in Minnesota’s fifth congressional district, is using anti-Islamic language to attack both her opponent and his faith, says Jessica Zikri, spokeswoman for the Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

At issue: Language on Torgerson’s Web site that says Islam “is advocating criminal behavior,” and that, “Keith Ellison simply is not a proper person to have in our federal government.”

“It’s obvious she’s attacking his religion,” Zikri says. “She’s attacking his religion to win votes. It exposes her ignorance, and it will be her undoing” in the fifth district, which encompasses Minneapolis and its large Muslim population. With that demographic, “how is being anti-Islamic a way to get votes?”

Torgerson has been taking heat after the Minnesota Independent recently published an interview with her, and politicos who know her views. In an interview with City Pages, Torgerson defended the language on her Web site, which says in part:

“What do I know of Islam? Well, I know of 911. Nineteen (19) men from Saudi Arabia, all Muslim, hi-jacked planes, and flew into the two (2) World Trade Towers murdering thousands of people, and tried to fly into our Pentagon, and some believe they also tried to fly an airplane into our White House. From this, what I perceive is Islam conducting an act of war against my country.”
And:

The Quran actually teaches Muslims to kill people not of their faith, which includes Christians and Jews, which are labeled infidels. (“Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.: (Sura 9:5)). This is advocating criminal behavior.

“I’m not aware of Christians doing anything like 9/11,” Torgerson says. But she insists she is not tarnishing an entire religion because of the heinous acts of a few terrorists. And she denies that she is attacking Ellison’s faith.

“People are free to worship whomever they want,” she says. “It’s because of his behavior, not because of his faith,” she says he’s calling Ellison “an inappropriate person to have in Congress.”

Torgerson tells us it is Ellison’s support of the Council on American-Islamic Relations she opposes. The group has been branded by its critics — mostly conservative activists, lawmakers and journalists — of being a terrorist front.

“I do want to protect freedom of religion and speech,” she says. “People are free to worship whomever they want. The question is, how do we address behavior? How do we balance that? How do we even talk about that?”

CAIR has defended itself against these kinds of attacks for years, as it advocates for better understanding and mutual respect among people of all faiths, and fighting for the civl rights of Muslims in the larger American — and non-Muslim — society. Its leaders were among the first to denounce the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and it condemns “religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism.”

Zikri says she doesn’t buy Torgerson’s defense, calling it a transparent attempt to draw attention away from the statements on her Web site, “which have everything to do with Islam and nothing to with CAIR.”

“They are “grossly anti-Islamic” Zikri says. “They expose her ignorance,” use the kind of language that leads to anti-Islamic hate, and need to be denounced by Minnesota’s political and religious leaders.

Rather than trying to inflame the emotions of citizens and voters, Zikir says Torgerson “ought to meet face to face with a Muslim, maybe with Ellison himself,” and try to forge some kind of personal connection in an effort to build bridges.

Link to Article

Right Zikir, because a Muslim would never lie about Islam, and when you speak of building bridges are you referring to something like this?

Omar Ahmad
Co-Founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations
President and CEO of Silicon Expert Technologies.
Former Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) Officer.

“Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam … Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the
only accepted religion on Earth.”