Congressman Allan West Slams CAIR Propagandist

Allah West shows to the CAIR apologist, where the Quran asks Muslims to attack Americans.

Refusal to Name the Enemy

On September 11, 2001, extremists hijacked four American airliners, crashing them into New York City's World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. The tragedy resulted in 3,000 Americans dying.

---

Does the above paragraph sound strange, deliberately vague, misleading (i.e., "politically correct") -- like a misrepresentation of what actually happened on that fateful Tuesday morning? If so, then for the last nine years, America -- from presidents and other politicians to Pentagon officials -- has been engaged in an exercise of obfuscation and verbal gymnastics. And, of course, the leftist establishment media (aka the "mainstream media") have willingly gone along with the above deception. Now consider the politically incorrect truth:

On September 11, 2001, nineteen Islamist terrorists from the Middle East -- fifteen from Saudi Arabia -- hijacked four American airliners, crashing them into New York City's World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. This atrocity resulted in 3,000 innocent Americans being deliberately murdered. Many Muslims wildly erupted in joy in Arab and other Muslim countries, carrying pictures of Osama bin Laden, whose terrorist group, al-Qaeda, took credit for the attacks.

To any person with a modicum of intelligence and reasoning skill, the italicizing and boldfacing of certain words, phrases, and sentences are not needed to realize just how different the narrative -- and truth -- sound from each other. For most Americans, the latter paragraph explains concisely what happened on that horrible day, but due to political correctness, such explicit statements have hardly been written or uttered. Indeed, to speak or write of anything with the words "Islam," "Muslim," or "Middle Eastern" in the same sentence with the word "terrorism" was -- and still is -- verboten. Sad to say, the muzzling of the truth comes not only from liberals and Democrats, but from some conservatives and Republicans as well.

Tragically, the cue for the Orwellian doublespeak came from none other than President George W. Bush himself. Just six days after the most deadly attacks ever on American soil, Mr. Bush appeared on September 17, 2001 -- flanked by members of the "moderate" Muslim group CAIR -- at the Washington Islamic Center, where he boldly proclaimed for the first (but certainly not the last) time that Islam is a "religion of peace." President Bush had already been vilified and excoriated by the media and the Muslim world when he borrowed a word from General Eisenhower's speech to his troops on the eve of D-Day. The unforgivable word, and therefore the unforgivable sin, on the part of the president? He used the word "crusade." The fact that General Eisenhower had used the word in regard to the war against Nazi Germany had no effect on Bush's critics. "Islamophiliacs" came out of the woodwork to condemn Bush's "insensitivity." How, pondered these "experts" on Islam, could he use such a word when it had such negative connotations in the Muslim world?

A humbled Bush never again uttered the word, and except for one or two occasions, never uttered the terms "Islamic" (or "Islamist") and "terrorism" in the same sentence. When he did use the former term, he was immediately slapped down by CAIR and other Muslim groups. Anyone referring to "Islamist terrorism" was immediately labeled an "Islamophobe" and "racist," which raises the question: How can one be a racist in regard to a religion that encompasses all different races and nationalities? Even in the heart of the Middle East, there are very light-skinned Arab (and non-Arab) Muslims with fair hair and light eyes. However, labeling one a "racist" is enough to put most people on the defensive, or worse, to silence them.

As time passed, President Bush gave annual Ramadan dinners, ignorantly befriended Muslim organizations which fronted for terrorist groups, and continued to heap praise on "the religion of peace." The continuing obfuscation of the Islamist terror attacks was not limited to the White House. Intelligence organizations, the military establishment, and, of course, the media joined in on the chorus. When America, in response to the attacks, invaded Afghanistan, and then Iraq, soldiers were given sensitivity training courses on how to deal with Muslim men and women, as well as on the culture and religion of the area. It seemed that every official entity of the government went out of its way to show that this was not a war against Islam (or even "radical" Islam), but a war against "terror," "terrorists," and "terrorism." It came to such a revolting and humiliating point that one began to wonder if some country named "Terror" existed, with its citizenry called "Terrorists."

As many people have pointed out, terrorism is not an ideology, but a tactic. However, "radical Islam" -- or the more recent term being used, "Islamism" -- is an ideology. It probably would be best-left to Muslim theologians and experts on Islamic jurisprudence to define just what the distinctions are between "moderate Islam" and "radical Islam." (It is highly doubtful that Charles Martel convened a council of non-Muslims before the Battle of Tours in 732 A.D. to debate "moderate" vs. "radical" Islam while engaged in a war with a Muslim army on the verge of conquering France.)

Nevertheless, can one imagine during World War II if the American government and military had never used the term "Nazism" or "kamikaze" to describe the enemy? It is unthinkable. Indeed, at present, it is unforgivable that American officialdom has covered up who our present-day enemy is, what it stands for, and what its ultimate goals are.

Now that the United States has a different president in power -- one apparently obsessed with "repairing" relations with the Muslim world and apologizing for perceived American injustices to Muslims -- the term "terrorist" has been all but abolished from the government lexicon. The deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security, John Brennan, in a May 19^th speech before the Center of International and Strategic Studies, stated that the concept of "jihad" was a "legitimate tenet of Islam" and that the term should not be used to define America's enemies, as that would be "counterproductive." While Brennan's asinine remarks could be waved off, he is indeed correct that jihad is a "legitimate tenet of Islam."...but not in the way that he and other apologists perceive it. Whenever political and religious figures in the Islamic world have used the term, it has always meant "holy war" against the "infidel." Does anyone in his or her right mind truly believe that when terror groups such as al-Qaeda, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas invoke the term, they are referring to anything but war?

The sad facts remain. America has refused to call out the enemy for what it truly is: a murderous ideology based on religion and religious texts that seeks to dominate the world by any and all means. One can call it "Islamism" or "radical Islam," but facts do not change. While America blithely refuses to face the truth, handcuffs its military with "rules of engagement" that could have been written by the Taliban themselves, and courts a fifth column that has already infiltrated and penetrated our government and other institutions, her enemy freely, openly, and proudly acknowledges that this is a war between religions and civilizations that will ultimately end with a worldwide Islamic caliphate.

Will it take another 9/11-type attack, resulting in thousands more Americans dead in the streets of New York, Washington, or elsewhere, before America finally awakes from its slumber and admits to whom and what we are up against? If not, then perhaps we should withdraw our troops from the Middle East and begin taking lessons in Arabic and Islam.

---

This article first appeared in American Thinker.

Michigan Muslim leader: Crime scene photos of slain imam raise questions about FBI’s actions

This undated file photo provided by Muslim Alliance of North America shows Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah, imam of the Masjid Al-Haqq mosque in Detroit. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS/Muslim Alliance of North America, Ron Foster Sharif

DETROIT - A Muslim civil rights group released crime scene photos Wednesday of the body of a mosque leader shot 20 times during an FBI raid - images the group's director says suggest the imam likely had to defend himself against a vicious dog attack before he was killed.

FBI agents were trying to arrest Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah on a variety of federal charges during a raid in October on a warehouse in Dearborn, a Detroit suburb. The FBI said Abdullah resisted arrest and fired a gun, prompting agents to fire on him. An FBI dog was killed during the raid.

Dawud Walid, who heads the Council on American-Islamic Relations' Michigan chapter, said three of the five photos his group released Wednesday show Abdullah sustained facial wounds he believes were from the dog. He said the large wounds were located on various parts of Abdullah's head, indicating they were inflicted while he was struggling.

"It appears to be obvious that the dog wasn't scraping on him or chewing on him when he was dead," said Walid, whose group is conducting its own investigation and sent the autopsy report and all 75 crime scene photos to an outside expert for review.

"We don't know if he had a weapon or not, but most people, if they're being mauled by a dog and they have a (gun), they're not going to think about whether they're going to be shot," Walid said. "Their imminent threat would be the dog."

Local and federal authorities are still investigating and have said little about what transpired the night of the raid.

An FBI spokeswoman, Sandra Berchtold, said Wednesday that the bureau would not be commenting until those investigations are completed. And Dearborn police Chief Ronald Haddad said in February that his department's investigation would take several more weeks. City spokeswoman Mary Laundroche said Wednesday that Haddad was on vacation and that she would try to reach someone else who could comment for the department.

Walid said CAIR was denied its request for any warehouse video surveillance footage of the clash and the results of the examination of the dog's body. He said CAIR has sent the crime scene photos and autopsy report to noted Pennsylvania pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht for review. The former Allegheny County medical examiner has conducted high-profile autopsies of Elvis Presley and slain child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey.

In February, Wayne County's chief medical examiner, Dr. Carl Schmidt, released the autopsy report and said there was no distinct pattern to the facial wounds. He said he didn't know if they were dog bites.

Abdullah, who was also known as Christopher Thomas, was the imam of a small mosque in Detroit that served mostly black Muslims. The raid stemmed from an FBI investigation of Abdullah and 11 associates for various crimes, chief among them conspiracy to sell stolen goods. Abdullah's associates were arrested without incident.

The bureau accused Abdullah of spreading a radical anti-government ideology that called for an Islamic state within the U.S. His family and supporters deny those allegations and say the shooting of Abdullah was an act of brutality aimed at a black Muslim. The government was not considering terrorism-related charges against any of those tied to the case.

In addition to the police investigation, the shooting is being examined by the FBI's Inspection Division, which will send its findings to the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

Walid said members of Michigan's various Muslim communities have raised concerns about what they regard as preferential treatment for the dog, which was airlifted for medical care and given a memorial service. Wherever he speaks, Walid said, "there's at least one person who said they treated a man like a dog and a dog like a man."

"Technically, that dog may have been a law enforcement officer, but that dog wasn't a human being who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States," Walid said. "It really has offended a lot of people's sensibilities."

CAIR’s Dangerous Game of Chicken

Even when it does something right, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) finds a way to turn it into a confrontation with federal law enforcement.

Since helping connect the families of five young Muslim men missing from the D.C.-area to law enforcement, the group has postured itself as an asset in the fight against extremism. CAIR's Executive Director Nihad Awad even described the "disturbing" farewell video the group's ringleader, Ramy Zamzam, left behind.

It "made references to the ongoing conflict in the world, and that young Muslims have to do something," Awad told reporters in December.

Somehow, Awad believes the good deed of advising relatives to go to the FBI gives him the power to demand that the five suspected terrorists be brought back to the United States and set free with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. If that doesn't happen, he has said repeatedly, there could be consequences.

As Awad said:

"Charging them and throwing them in jail is not the solution….The government has to show some appreciation for the actions of the parents and the community. That will encourage other families to come forward."

This is lunacy, as any review of the case shows.

The five young men, Zamzam, Umar Farooq, Waqar Khan, Amin Yemer, and Ahmad Mimmi, all lived within blocks of one another in Alexandria, Virginia. Last year, they contacted a Taliban recruiter via YouTube and exchanged communications in a draft email folder in a Yahoo account. After months of watching radical videos on the Internet, the men left Washington on November 28, leaving behind a videotape for relatives that showed scenes of American casualties and a speech by one of them talking about the need to defend Muslims.

Although their parents apparently did not know where their children had gone, they contacted the authorities to report them missing. By all accounts, they have continued to cooperate. As much as they deserve praise for these actions, it is important to remember that this is something that any parent would do upon learning of their kids' disappearance.

While the parents were trying to work with authorities to locate their children, the Zamzam Five were attempting to gain terrorist training in Pakistan.

Authorities say that the men traveled to Hyderabad, Pakistan. There, they were denied entry into militant training camps operated by Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e Tayyiba, both designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. They were eventually arrested on December 8, at the family home of Khalid Farooq Chaudhry, the father of one of the men.

After months of investigation, in both the United States and Pakistan, on March 17, the men were formally charged in a Pakistani anti-terrorism court in Sargodha. Among the charged offenses are conspiracy to commit terrorism in Pakistan and plotting attacks against a friendly country, both of which could result in life sentences. The men have pled not guilty and the expected six-month trial is set to begin on March 31.

Although U.S. authorities have not yet said whether they intend to seek extradition of the men to stand trial here, it remains a possibility that they may one day face other charges in America. Should they return to the United States, CAIR would like to see them set free. Such a step would be an extraordinary departure from both established principles and common sense.

While it axiomatic that federal prosecutors have broad discretion to decide what charges to bring, when to bring them, and where to bring them, it is highly unlikely that anybody in the Justice Department would find the cooperation of parents in locating their missing children to be a compelling enough justification to forego prosecution of suspected terrorists. Rather, the cooperation of family members should be given the same weight as it is normally given in criminal investigations—a mitigating factor to be considered during the sentencing phase of a trial. In at least two high-profile cases of domestic terrorism, the Justice Department took just that step.

From 1978 to 1995, Ted Kaczynski sent 16 bombs to targets including universities and airlines, killing three and injuring 23. After an FBI investigation spanning nearly two decades, the "Unabomber" wasn't caught until his brother tipped off authorities. Despite the cooperation of a family member, a federal grand jury indicted Kaczynski in April 1996 on 10 counts of illegally transporting, mailing, and using bombs. Although the Unabomber eventually pled guilty in exchange for a sentence of life in prison, his brother David was in negotiations with federal prosecutors to ensure that his cooperation would be considered as a mitigating factor as sentencing.

Similarly, Stephen John Jordi, a religious fundamentalist who was accused of plotting to fire bomb abortion clinics, churches, and gay bars, was turned in to authorities by relatives. Rather than demand that he not be prosecuted, his family spoke at Jordi's sentencing hearing, and he received the guidelines-minimum of five years.

CAIR is either willfully ignorant of these precedents or believes that this case is special. Yet Awad repeated his argument for leniency this week, hinting at trouble down the road if their expectations are not met:

"I think the outcome of this trial will determine how parents in the future will interact with the government."

Think about that. You find a farewell video from your son, who disappeared days ago. You have reason to believe he is in league with people bent on violence. What options do you, as a parent, have? Either go to the authorities in the hope they can find your child before it is too late, or roll the dice and hope the kid changes his mind and makes his way home.

Awad seems to be saying parents may opt to gamble on their children's lives. At the least, he suggests their cooperation is contingent upon a quid-pro-quo.

This takes CAIR's repeated exhortations to not cooperate with law enforcement authorities to a new extreme.

The suggestion that the only reasonable response to the cooperation of family members is a "get out of jail free" card is preposterous. Even if that were true, however, it's certainly a dangerous game of chicken in which CAIR suggests engaging.

If the Zamzam Five ever make it back to the United States, the crimes of which they have been suspected are simply too serious to be brushed under the carpet. They offered support to terrorist groups and conspired to kill American troops. According to authorities in Pakistan, police recovered maps of nuclear power plants and air force bases, the intended targets of the men. Even the group's alleged leader, Ramy Zamzam, has not denied their ultimate objective: "we are not terrorists…we are jihadists, and jihad is not terrorism."

The cooperation of their parents should be taken into account as a mitigating factor when they are brought to justice, but in no way should it immunize the men from prosecution.

Speech Shows CAIR's Empty Commitment to Fighting Radicalism

Take a Los Angeles-based director of a national Islamist organization and put him before about 50 people on a Montana university campus, and you'd hopefully get an enlightening and candid talk about his faith, his organization and the struggle against radicals.

Instead, Hussam Ayloush, Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Los Angeles chapter, brought the heavy spin during two sessions on the topic of "Islam in America" last week at Montana State University.

The daylong conference, hosted by the Muslim Student Association and the University's Diversity Awareness Office, was designed to provide an overview of the basic principles of Islam. Rather than discuss the tenets of the faith, or point out where the vast majority of Muslims reject the interpretations of extremists, Ayloush's presentation misstated several key facts about the Islamic community's genuine struggle with terror.

While speaking on Muslims' views of terrorism, Ayloush claimed:

"The reality is, I don't know, I cannot think of one Muslim scholar that I know of, that I have ever heard of, who has actually condoned terrorism. I can come up with a list of actually every head of Islamic department, Islamic religious authority, in every Muslim country in the world that has actually strongly condemned unequivocally 9/11 attacks, the terrorism attacks, the beheadings that we watched in Iraq. There is no debate actually within the Muslim world. There is no scholar that says otherwise."

This is misleading at best. It ignores statements made by the prominent Muslim Brotherhood theologian, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has endorsed suicide bombings, including condoning the killing of American troops in Iraq. Leading Shiite scholar and Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, and Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, the top Egyptian cleric of Al­ Azhar University, have both issued calls of support for "martyrdom operations."

In April of 2001 Qaradawi also told the Qatari newspaper Al Raya suicide bombings "are not suicide operations." Instead, he said:

"these are heroic martyrdom operations, and the heroes who carry them out don't embark on this action out of hopelessness and despair but are driven by an overwhelming desire to cast terror and fear into the hearts of the oppressors."

Qaradawi reaffirmed his support for suicide bombings just weeks ago on BBC Arabic saying that he "supported martyrdom operations" and that Palestinians are "forced to turn themselves into human bombs, in order to defend their land, their honor, and their homeland."

Ayloush can't plead ignorance here. He cited Qaradawi's views on zakat [alms giving] during a 2002 CAIR Fundraiser and even appeared with the Muslim leader side-by-side in a photo on CAIR-California's webpage in 2001.

The California CAIR representative also ignored endorsements of terrorism from other high-level Islamic scholars, such as Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi, who in a 2003 post on an Islam Online forum, wrote that "we are allowed to kill every Israeli until they stop this mass killing and paganism. It is only then that we can stop our attacks on the Israeli civilians…" [emphasis added]

Curiously, Ayloush chose not to address allegations surrounding his own organization, CAIR, for supporting the terrorist organization Hamas, a suspicion which now appears to be the focus of a federal grand jury investigation.

He misled his Montana State audience a second time when he described al Qaeda's popular support:

"Al Qaeda does not exist openly in any Muslim country. They have to hide in some caves in Afghanistan because there is no country that will take them. Because they cannot operate. They are not popular. What people confuse is there is popularity in the grievances they take up."

It may be true that al Qaeda does not operate "openly," a reality that has as much to do with the long reach of American Predator strikes as anything else. Ayloush's statement, however, minimized surprisingly deep support and power in some countries.

In Somalia, the Islamist terror group al-Shabaab recently pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda. Al-Shabaab controls wide plots of land in the southern part of Somalia. In Yemen and Pakistan, militants and civilians who remain sympathetic to the al Qaeda ambitions provide shelter for the group.

According to a recent Pew poll, 51 percent of those polled in the Palestinian territories said that they have "confidence in Osama bin Laden." In Indonesia, home to the world's largest Muslim population, 24% of the population said that they had confidence in the Al Qaeda leader.

A 2007 Pew study of Muslim-American attitudes found that 7 percent of U.S. Muslims between the ages of 18-29 said that they have a "favorable" view of al Qaeda. Among the relatively large, young American Muslim population, that translates to tens of thousands of American youth who have some sympathy to Aa Qaeda. The title of the survey's finding here is "Young Muslims: More Observant, More Radical."

After five college students disappeared in December and turned up in Pakistan hoping to join the jihad against American troops, Ayloush's bosses at CAIR national announced a recognition that they need to acknowledge and confront radicalism in their own community and "deal with it effectively." Pretending it doesn't exist, or that it lacks support, as Ayloush did before an interfaith audience, challenges the depth of that commitment.

CAIR Targets Washington State Prisons via Volunteer Program

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) chapter in Washington State is seeking religious Muslim volunteers to work with state prison inmates. That has veteran corrections official Patrick Dunleavy concerned that the program could result in the radicalization of prisoners and create security problems.

It's not the presence of Muslim volunteers, but the track record of the people and organization involved.

Syed Arsalan Bukhari, executive director of the Washington CAIR chapter, issued an Internet call last week saying that "Muslim volunteers" are "direly needed in the 20 or so state institutions across our state to lead study/discussion/halaqah sessions for inmates, lead prayers and just generally insure that inmates are receiving the services they need."

CAIR's ties to Hamas and its chronic support for alleged terrorists and their financiers might give corrections officials pause about the wisdom of such a relationship with the organization. Those ties appear to be the focus of a federal grand jury investigation in Washington, D.C. Bukhari's own statements might add to that concern:

• In December 2009, the Seattle Weekly reported that Bukhari was discouraging Seattle-area Muslims from cooperating with the FBI's efforts to investigate Al-Shabaab terrorist recruitment. "There's nothing to gain from talking to law enforcement," he said. "I can't emphasize enough…you have the right to remain silent, so use it."

• In May 2009, Bukhari objected to a racial awareness program produced by the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, claiming the group has "an anti-Muslim agenda." Bukhari and CAIR said the Wiesenthal Center should be disqualified from training Seattle police because of the organization's role in producing "Ever Again," a film on anti-Semitism and European Jihadists.

• At a CAIR-Washington January 24, 2009 banquet, Bukhari refused to condemn terrorism:

"How many of you are asked, 'why don't you condemn, I won't use the 'T' word. I call it 'political violence.' I assure you that every Muslim organization has condemned 'political violence.'"

• In May 2008, Bukhari and other CAIR officials met with the chief of the Port of Seattle to express their concerns about a course entitled "The Threat of Islamic Jihadists to the World," conducted by Security Solutions International. They complained that the course, which claimed to be based on "Israeli experience" fighting terrorism, would "promote stereotypes and religious and ethnic profiling."

Such statements set off alarm bells with Dunleavy, who spent 26 years working in New York State's Department of Correctional Services. In that role, he witnessed first-hand the radicalization of inmates. Radical Islamists like Warith Deen Umar were placed in charge of hiring prison imams, and terrorists like Rashid Baz and El Sayyid Nosair were given privileged positions as Muslim religious leaders. Dunleavy, who served as Deputy Inspector General of the New York State Department of Corrections, was part of a special investigation called Operation Hades that monitored radical Islamist recruitment inside prisons.

Dunleavy (who now lives in Washington State) said he has two major problems with the regulations instituted by the Washington Department of Corrections: As written they contain inadequate vetting procedures for volunteers and insufficient security safeguards, and the role of CAIR in the state program.

In New York, corrections officials have been fighting a difficult uphill battle to maintain security and prevent radicalization of Muslim inmates for close to 30 years. Essential to this effort are limits on the ability of volunteers to interact with inmates, he said.

As a result, volunteers are barred from being on an inmate's visitor list and may not correspond with an offender. They are also prohibited from accepting telephone calls from inmates or allowing a released offender to live in their homes. But the Washington State regulations, Dunleavy pointed out, expressly permit volunteers to engage in these activities.

These restrictions (which apply to correctional officers in Washington and virtually every state) are necessary "for the protection of the volunteer, the inmate and the facility," Dunleavy told the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

"Inmates are always looking for a way around the rules," he added. If an inmate is able to say, "Take a letter for me; make a phone call for me" and a sympathetic volunteer complies, "that raises significant security problems." A volunteer could easily find himself or herself "bringing a package to an inmate not knowing if there are drugs, guns or other contraband in there."

The FBI has cut off communication and cooperation with CAIR that doesn't involve a criminal investigation amid mounting concern about the organization's roots in a Hamas terror-support network. The decision to end contacts with CAIR was quietly made during the summer of 2008 as federal prosecutors prepared to retry the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, an Islamic charity whose senior officials were convicted of providing money to Hamas and sentenced to long prison terms.

CAIR and its recently retired chairman emeritus, Omar Ahmad, were named unindicted co-conspirators in the HLF case. Both Ahmad and CAIR's current executive director, Nihad Awad, were revealed as having been active participants in Hamas-related meetings in the United States. But Washington State prison officials have given no indication thus far that CAIR's questionable record will disqualify it from sending volunteers into state prisons.

When asked, a spokesman reacted dismissively to Dunleavy's concerns and expressed surprise over questions about CAIR's role in recruiting. "We're not going to check whether somebody is a member of an Islamist group," said Chad Lewis, a spokesman for the state Department of Corrections (DOC). "We're not going to check whether somebody is a member of Hamas or Hizballah…or Al Qaeda," he said. Corrections officials are much more worried about gang violence, he added.

It's not clear what background checks Washington officials will run on the prospective volunteers. Former New York Police Department Deputy Chief John Cutter said that Washington State's regulations allow "applicants with a past felony or gross misdemeanor conviction" to participate in the prison volunteer program and allow former convicts to participate so long as they had been out of prison for a year.

"So they are saying that if you killed someone or committed another violent crime two years ago" you are eligible to participate, said Cutter, who worked closely with New York corrections officials in their efforts to stop Islamist radicalization. A better approach would be to say "if you have any history of violence, you cannot participate in the volunteer program."

Dunleavy noted that in 2004, the Justice Department's Inspector General issued a report urging the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to take steps to bolster its defenses against Islamist radicalism. The report recommended that the BOP take steps to examine "religious volunteers' doctrinal beliefs to screen out anyone who poses a threat to security" and ensure that volunteers do not endorse violence "or support terrorism or other anti-U.S. activities." New York and many other states responded by strengthening their rules to bar religious extremists from prison volunteer programs. The Washington State regulations, by contrast, appear to "negate" efforts to keep radicals out, he said.

Cutter, who formerly ran NYPD's criminal intelligence section, believes DOC officials misunderstand the main danger posed by Islamist radicals volunteering in prisons: that they will use their access to radicalize inmates.

To some extent prison officials welcome the presence of radical Islamist organizations because "they keep a great deal of control of their people" when they're behind bars, he said. Muslim radicals usually don't want violence in prisons because "they understand the larger picture. This is a place to build something." The violent Islamist, Cutter said, "has a longer-term goal - recruiting a new generation of radicals."

Define Terrorism Supporter

There are many people who are conducting outstanding counterterrorism work. HINT: It is not your major news networks and their teleprompter investigative journalists. The best of the best is Steve Emerson.

We all do our best to provide factual information based upon what many of us have worked on for decades. Many of us were trained by our government. I do not consider myself to be an “expert,” but believe I have the background to educate citizens, law enforcement, and our elected officials on terrorism issues related to radical Islamic-based organizations. I have written numerous articles, conducted radio and television interviews, and it has become almost a prerequisite that not only I, but any counterterrorism speaker, must qualify my remarks with, “Of course not all Muslims are bad.” Why does this statement continually have to be made?

During the Korean War, did speakers have to make a preliminary statement that not all North Koreans were bad? Did they have to say during WWI and WWII that not all Germans werre bad, or that not all Japanese were bad? What about the Cold War with Russia? Did we have to start every interview or article with, “Well, not all Russians are bad”?

Of course we didn’t. There are two possible explanations for this:

1. Media personnel and others with an ounce of sense from the left were intelligent enough in the early to mid-1900s to understand the intent of a debate without having to repeat same mantra each and every time.

2. People on the left and right both had basic common sense.

For the time period prior to September 11, 2001, I believe the answer is number “2” above. People had enough common sense to realize a person should not have to always make such a qualifying statement that not all Japanese were bad people who happened to have an atom bomb dropped on them, killing millions. We were at war and we understood war was essentially between “elites” in one country fighting the “elites” in another, and both sides were powerful enough to form large military forces to do the fighting. The people caught in wars are always innocent. Does anyone know of a child who was ripped apart or burnt to death by the atom bomb who was not innocent?

So it is time for Americans and all innocent people who are caught in the middle of the war against Islamic terrorist-based groups to begin understanding why you feel an obligation to repeatedly say, “Well, I know there are good Muslim people.” It is time to stop playing into the hands of Islamic terrorists and their supporters. Just as when Mrs. Clinton visited the Middle East she felt she had an obligation to cover her head, Islamic terrorist-based groups are “conditioning” us to do what they desire. They say you must wear a headdress while in the Middle East and we comply. They say we must allow “Muslim prayer rooms” in a school, office, or airport and we comply. They say we can’t search Muslim females going through security, or a Muslim female can cover her face for a driver’s license and we comply. They tell us our security methods are too stringent on the Muslim people and our law enforcement officers comply and do not enter a mosque unless it has been approved by Congress. They tell us to ignore obvious signs that a United States mid-level officer wanted to kill Christians and Jews, and whose allegiance to the Almighty Allah meant that he would even kill children before he would serve his country and pledge his total allegiance to his country, president, and fellow officers. CAIR, many Imams, and numerous Islamic scholars have fought for years to tell you that the terrorist ideology of the likes of Maj. Hasan (Islamic terrorist and murderer) is protected. We complied and innocent people died at Fort Hood. This Christmas, these men and women’s families will not have them home. Who is protecting the other millions of innocent men, women, and children worldwide? What about here in America?

I am speaking to families now. Are you betting the life of your son or daughter that our government is protecting them from Islamic terrorist groups? Are you relying on the vast majority of elected officials that they have the interests of your children first? What about our law enforcement and military? Do you feel they are trained to fight Islamic terrorist groups when our administration will not even allow them to use the term “Islamic terrorist?” Fellow Americans, our politicians and most media organizations are leading you to a false sense of security. It seems our government will back the rights of an Islamic terrorist supporter such as CAIR, ISNA, MSA, or MANA, to name a few, before they will protect the rights of your innocent child.

Recently, I listened to one of CAIR’s terrorist supporting friends, a man who calls himself Shaykh Khalid Yasin. He is now living in Britain because the British people have been conditioned by Islamic terrorist groups to prosecute Christians for hate speech. Yasin and his cronies know they are safe in Britain.

One may well ask what Shaykh Yasin has said that could be used to show he supports Islamic terrorists. During my travels north, south, east and west within our country, I have amassed almost 5,000 lectures, books, manuals, and DVDs that are being distributed all across our country. They are filled with hate and violence – yet our politicians and media seemed surprised when attacks similar to Maj. Hasan’s are carried out. They ask why. I ask, why are they asking?

Shaykh Yasin is a friend of Siraj Wahhaj, Wahhaj is a friend of CAIR, and CAIR is a friend of Congressman Keith Ellison and dozens more. I encourage all to listen to 90-plus minute talk titled “From the Root to the Fruit.” In it, Yasin discusses the Muslim youth’s role in the future of the Islamic Ummah. Yasin very clearly informs young children that even a Muslim who has committed the most atrocious and violent act against young children (as in pedophiles), rapists, mass murderers, al Qaeda members, and yes, even people like Maj. Hasan from Fort Hood, are better people than even the best Christian or Jew.

What lesson is this to American Christians and Jews? Regardless of whether you currently “cuddle up” to CAIR, shake hands with Siraj Wahhaj, or laugh with the Imams from Dar al Hijrah, they are teaching their children to hate you and if the time comes, to kill you.

I will end this article by pleasing the PC gods. “There are good Muslim people in America.” I will also say that these good Muslim people need to stop supporting CAIR, Siraj Wahhaj, Yusef Estes, Bilal Phillips, and demand that their Imams remove materials by convicted terrorists from their mosques and Islamic Centers. It is difficult for most Americans to believe a person is sincere about Islam being a religion of peace if millions of Muslims are allowing their leaders to distribute material filled with hate, calling for America and Israel’s destruction, and who are allowing the Wahhajs and Yasins to openly advocate violence and support Osama Bin Laden more than they would the leaders of the country in which they reside.

For the Muslims who do not study their own religion and do not believe their Islamic leaders may be advocating violence, I respectfully ask you to contact me at davegaubatz@gmail.com. I will respectfully provide you the titles of books, DVDs, other materials, and violent/convicted terrorists your center supports. These good Muslims, Christians, and Jews should work together to close down CAIR, ISNA, MSA, and MANA. Good Muslims know what the leaders of these organizations truly advocate. Be like the brave Rifqa Bary: stand up and be heard. Otherwise, people do not know if you support terrorist groups or if you support America.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dave Gaubatz spent 20 years as an active duty USAF (Special Agent/OSI), 3.5 years as a civilian 1811 Federal Agent, trained by the U.S. State Department in Arabic, and was the first U.S. Federal Agent to enter Iraq in 2003. He is also a counterterrorism counterintelligence officer. He is co-author of the book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America. His website is here, and he can be reached at davegaubatz@gmail.com.

Burka Barbies and Prayer Rooms

Islam is a total civilization which includes politics, war, a “legal code” (Sharia) and a religion. Its purpose is to exert control over the totality of the adherent’s life, every aspect of existence is subservient to the demands of Islam. Submission is a key concept in Islam. Adherents of this ideology (of which religion is but a part) must submit to the commands of Allah and the commands and example of Mohammed, Allah’s prophet. Allah is found in the Koran, the commands and example of Mohammed are found in the Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and the Hadith (The “Way of Mohammed”; words and deeds of Mohammed as reported by contemporaries). Mohammed’s words and deeds are called “Sunna”, everything that Mohammed did or said is the “right” thing to do – it doesn’t matter what it was (what we non-Muslims would consider good or bad) it’s all “good”. This is the moral code of Islam – follow the example of Mohammed and the commands of Allah.

The word “Islam” means “submission”; an adherent of the ideology of Islam is “one who submits”. There are many concerns that the West has with Islam most recently violent jihad against non-Muslims by a US Army officer, a devout Muslim. The concept of “submission” is always at the forefront of our relations with Islam both here at home and abroad. Islam requires that everyone, even non-Muslims, submit to Islam and Sharia law.

“Fighting in Allah’s Cause” (jihad) is mentioned almost 150 times in the Koran. This is the process by which adherents of this ideology make the unbelievers submit to Islam. Jihad is a requirement for every adherent, there is no option or “out” or excuse; everyone must participate, this is the command of Allah and Mohammed.

Islam believes that non-belief in Allah and Mohammed is a horrible sin worse even than murder. The mission of Islam is to “cleanse the world” of unbelief and bring the entire world under Islamic control, under Islamic religion and Sharia law. In countries that are not Islamic this process of eliminating the unbelief in the society is done in stages (see Modern Day Trojan Horse: Al-Hijra, The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration, Accepting Freedom or Imposing Islam?). Constant pressure for concessions and legitimization upon the host society by Islam and its dhimmi apologists is part of this process.

Most recently pressure is being exerted by CAIR on the school department of Lewiston, Maine. It does not matter that almost a month ago several United States Congressmen and women called for an investigation of CAIR;

Reps. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), Paul Broun (R-Ga.) and Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), citing the book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America, called for the House sergeant at arms to investigate whether CAIR had been successful in placing interns on key panels. The lawmakers are specifically focused on the House Homeland Security Committee, Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee.

It does not matter that CAIR is now under a cloud of suspicion for various questionable activities and associations – what matters is that the pressure continues; so it does. That is the mission, after all.

A national Muslim civil rights organization (CAIR) has filed a formal request with the Lewiston School Department to allow a middle school student to pray on school property. The group also wants Lewiston to modify existing policy and provide “constitutionally protected religious accommodation,” such as a designated prayer room. (SunJournal)

It is not clear as to the nature of the “religious accommodation” that the school department of Lewiston is required to deliver, according to CAIR. There is however the matter of the United States Constitution and juristic precedent that requires the separation of church and state. We take this aspect of our political and cultural lives very seriously in the United States, remember?

We asked Mr. David Gaubatz co-author of the recent explosive and disturbing book about CAIR, Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America to comment about the current situation in Maine:

CAIR (Muslim Brotherhood acting as “CAIR”) and their supporters are calling for prayer time/areas in schools simply to implement various aspects of Sharia law (Islamic law) in America. Silent prayers by Muslims is allowed in Islam when they are away from a mosque. During my visits to over 200 Islamic Centers only about 10 -25% of the Muslims even attend Friday prayers as they are obligated to do. Men only; Women, according to most Islamic scholars are not allowed to visit the mosques without their fathers/husbands permission. This implementation of prayer at school is a gradual process of Sharia and once implemented will be difficult to undo.

CAIR’s four “requests” are to allow prayer, modify school policy, institute training and protect Aden from retaliation. The 2nd “request” requires that “the school department institute diversity training for school staff.” Why would such “training” be required, because the school department did not submit to CAIR’s demands? What kind of “diversity training” would the staff be forced to take? What would the purpose of such “training” be? Would the school personnel be allowed to choose the kinds of “diversity training” they will be forced to receive, or will only CAIR-sponsored “training” be acceptable? Will “diversity training” that presents a balanced view of Islam and CAIR, including jihad and the doctrine of Islam be presented to the victims of the Lewiston school department? The answers are all too obvious to warrant any discussion. (Source: SunJournal)

Mr. Gaubatz added the following regarding CAIR and its purposes:

CAIR does not represent the Muslim people. They have approximately 5100 members across the U.S. There are an estimated 1.5 to 8 million Muslims in America. 5100 is hardly a representation. The Muslim Brotherhood represent such terrorist groups as Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah to name a few. CAIR will use tactics such as extortion, intimidation, threats, and lawsuits to achieve their goals. School officials and elected officials who allow a terrorist sponsor to guide our innocent children should resign. I ask Americans to go to their public libraries. CAIR supports a convicted terrorist (Ali Al Timmimi) and with the funding from Saudi Arabia puts Timmimi materials in our public libraries. The book which appears innocent from the cover is actually a deceptive tool used by the Muslim Brotherhood. Americans need only review the backgrounds of the editors and authors of this book (An Illustrated Guide to Islam). Major Hasan from Ft. Hood studied from the same Islamic scholars listed in this book.

There is no requirement for any US school department to provide “prayer rooms” for Muslim students, Jewish students or Christian students, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Bhuddists, etc. The separation of church and state is well established in American political and legal tradition; demands by any pressure group should not be allowed to overturn this important American tradition, which is a foundation of our democracy. Parents who want their students to receive a particular religious or doctrinal training must take them to private schools or teach them at home. They must accommodate the schools, not the other way ‘round.

The purpose of demanding accommodation from the school department of Lewiston, Maine is to make the kafir (non-believer) government and culture submit to Islam and Sharia law. Accommodation to Islam should be opposed by every American who loves freedom and justice. We ought not to have tolerance for intolerance and ideologies of submission and brutality. Our tolerance for intolerance is a fundamental mistake with 9/11 and Fort Hood being the most egregious examples of the extreme danger that such tolerance creates for non-Muslims.

Our tolerance for intolerance is widespread, and pervasive. This ridiculous “idiot compassion” and political correctness is a front for multiculturalism; we will not say when something is entirely wrong and objectionable for fear of “hurting somebody’s feelings” this is the “touchy-feely” 80s and 90s pop culture found its way into our intellectual and spiritual life; utterly corrupting them. Political correctness must be rooted out and destroyed. Those who defend political correctness and multiculturalism should be shamed and called out for the ignorant enemies of truth and scholarship that they are.

An auction will soon be held at Sotheby’s auction house for… Save the Children (!!) in which burka clad Barbie dolls will be sold. The manufacturer of “barbie dolls”, Mattel, is supporting this “effort.”

There is a serious problem here: the burka is a symbol of the subjugation of women. It is not something that civil society anywhere in the West should tolerate or allow, and young girls should never be taught by any stupid company (Mattel) or doll designer or ideological propagandist that being forced to cover one’s self from head to toe because Mohammed said so is “OK”.

This is a small matter but symptomatic of our cultural and societal denial of Islam and its ideology of submission and control. Nothing could be more anathema to American societal or political culture than the subjugation of women and the relegation of them to 2nd class citizenship and worse. We do have equality of the sexes in the West, Islam does not. The burka is the symbol of the degraded position of women in Islam – trouble is, Islam wants all women on the planet to wear the burka; not going to happen.

The Sharia law code that adherents of Islam say that they want for themselves and for everybody else – that they must have – allows parents to kill their children and their children’s children. It also allows Muslims to kill non-Muslims (see: Major Hasan, Fort Hood; see: 9/11, etc.) The burka is the clothing of slavery and submission. It should be banned in the United States and across the civilized countries of Europe. The burka is a symbol of an oppressive system of brutality and control that all should oppose.

When do we say STOP? When do we say that we do not want our females covered from head to toe – or any female to be forced to wear such a degrading thing; when do we say that our culture and politics and history are valuable and worthy of protecting and say NO to those who want to deconstruct and supplant the same?

When do we say that we will not submit to Islam or any other totalitarian system of submission and oppression? When do we enforce our laws and say that Sharia law is forever banned on these shores and that those who adhere to an ideology of conquest and intolerance and barbarism cannot come here? When is enough, enough?

A burka-clad Barbie doll is a small matter; it is just more pressure on our culture from Islam and the dhimmis who defend it yet know nothing of it. The matter of Lewiston and the pressures that they now face are another matter entirely.

Please consider calling the Lewiston Public Schools and offer your support. You can ask for Principal Maureen Lachappelle or Lewiston Superintendent Leon Levesque. Tell them that they are not alone and that they don’t have to cave to pressure groups just because they are being pressured; there is much more at stake than “diversity training” and “prayer rooms”.

Web: http://www.lewistonpublicschools.org/~lewiston_School_%20Dept./
Lewiston Schools: Phone: 207-795-4100
You can also contact Mattel, here: http://corporate.mattel.com/contact-us/default.aspx .You can tell them how ignorant they are, and why; and that you won’t be buying any more Barbie dolls because American children who live in freedom don’t wear burkas, nor should anybody else.