'The Dog That Did Not Bark' : Government surveillance and jihad

The National-Security Right Goes Silent
On the NSA, the dog will not bark.
By Andrew C. McCarthyhttp://www.nationalreview.com/article/351128/national-security-right-goes-silent-andrew-c-mccarthy

ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

The jihad rages on, but the War on Terror is over.

There is no longer a national-security consensus — no longer the political support for wartime defense measures, much less offensive combat operations. While the enemy continues to fight, our will to break the enemy’s will has vanished. After a contentious week, that much is clear. The controversy swirling around shadowy intelligence programs hasn’t gotten to the bottom of those programs, but it tells us everything we need to know about . . . us.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s dog that did not bark is a metaphor worn out by journalists. This week, though, the lack of a bark was loud and clear: The bark of the national-security Right defending the wartime powers of the presidency. For a variety of reasons, many of the protagonists have developed amnesia about how we came to have the programs now provoking all the cavil: the debates over the PATRIOT Act and FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act).

After a series of attacks through the Nineties, the 9/11 atrocities destroyed the World Trade Center, struck the Pentagon, and killed nearly 3,000 Americans. In the savage clarity, our nation finally realized that what I’ve called “kinetic Islam” — a combination of militant jihadists and their sharia-supremacist enablers — was at war with the United States. The PATRIOT Act was a product of our vigorous and persuasive contention, on the national-security right, that the challenge was an enemy force, not a criminal-justice problem. That challenge demanded a national war-footing, not judicial due process.

It was precisely this contention, moreover, that beat back the Left’s effort to intrude the judiciary into the collection of foreign intelligence — constitutionally, a paradigm executive function — when FISA was overhauled in 2008.

In fits and starts over the years, progressives and libertarians have aligned against the war, for different reasons. Hardwired to find American fault in every dispute, the Left is sympathetic to Islamic supremacism’s indictment against the United States, if not its barbaric methods. Libertarians have been wary because war inexorably enhances the power of the state at the expense of liberty — Big Government is more to be feared than the jihad.

That this fear is overstated does not mean it is frivolous. It is real, and has been stoked to a fare-thee-well by the “War on Terror.” The label itself betrays our cravenness. Unwilling to name the enemy for fear of giving offense, the government framed the challenge not as an aggressor but as an aggressive tactic. It encouraged Americans to go on with their lives as normal (lest “the terrorists win”).

Necessarily, this ensured that the public would notice the war only in the government’s defense measures against the tactic. These were thus certain to become more onerous; after all, that was how politicians too timid to say “Islam” or “jihad” proved they were tough on . . . er . . . “violent extremism.” But these defense measures, erosions of liberty and privacy, could be abided only as long as the public felt profoundly threatened. That feeling would certainly not last, no matter how long we had troops on faraway battlefields, if the public was not (a) invested in victory over our enemies; (b) persuaded that being molested at the airport and similar indignities had something to do with achieving victory; and (c) convinced that the lack of similar-scale attacks in the years after 9/11 was due to the defense measures.

The most compelling claim against the war effort, argued jointly by progressives and libertarians, was that there was no conceivable conclusion to a war of this nature. Wars against traditional enemies end when the enemy — usually, a nation-state — surrenders or strikes a treaty. But how can a war against a tactic end?

Consequently, the argument went, the War on Terror would go on indefinitely, and with it the metastasizing security state. This argument is now muted on the Left. Bush-deranged progressives turn out to be quite comfortable with a security state as long as one of their own is running it. But for libertarians, the argument has grown ever more heated.

Nothing, not even war, happens in a vacuum. Over the last six years, as libertarian angst churned over surveillance, detention, military commissions, and drone attacks, the progressive-lite GOP establishment gave way to hardcore Obama statism. As a result, libertarians, quite appropriately, have become a hugely influential opposition faction. They are a big part of the Tea Party’s energy, and the Tea Party is the dynamo of the Right. Increasingly, as the Right’s ne plus ultra has become stopping Big Government’s advance, conservatives and Republicans have been more willing to overlook libertarian objections to adhesive security measures — sometimes, even to see a good deal of sense in them.

[CONTINUE READING ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE] 

US Governments Double-Dealing over Jihadist Groups

Patrick Poole—counterterrorism analyst, investigator, and writer—recently posted a comprehensive exposé of the failed Muslim outreach programs of three presidential administrations.

Poole’s exposé begins with this introduction:

Why has the U.S. government called certain Islamic groups supporters of terror in federal court, and then turned around and called these same organizations “moderates” and embraced them as outreach partners? In a number of cases from the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, the leaders of these organizations (some of whom are now in federal prison) were under active investigation at the same time they were meeting with senior U.S. leaders at the White House and the Capitol and helping develop U.S. policy. Now these same Islamic organizations and leaders have openly encouraged a purge of counterterrorism training that have effectively blinded law enforcement, homeland security, and intelligence agencies to active terror threats as seen in the inaction of the FBI concerning the Boston bombing suspects and other terror cases. This study poses serious questions as to the efficacy and even security concerns about U.S. government outreach to Islamic groups, which often turn out to be Islamist militants, enemies of Islamic moderation, and even supporters of terrorism.

As Poole demonstrates, this faulty outreach program was a bi-partisan effort spanning 20 years, two Democratic presidents and one Republican.

We are studying Poole’s exposé and strongly encourage you to do so as well. It’s eye-opening, to say the least.

You can read it here.

When there are Muslims like Tawfik Hamid, Zuhdi Jasser, and Manda Ervin speaking out against sharia law, jihad, and the Muslim Brotherhood, it is unconscionable that so many of our political and law enforcement leaders continue to cozy up to Muslim Brotherhood front organizations and their leaders.

Fort Hood Islamic Terrorist continues to receive US Army pay, despite having killed or injured 45

Awaiting Trial, Maj. Nidal Hasan Paid $278,000
By SCOTT FRIEDMAN
NBCDFW.com
updated 5/20/2013 11:16:42 PM ET
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51947575
The Department of Defense confirms to NBC 5 Investigates that accused Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan has now been paid more than $278,000 since the Nov. 5, 2009 shooting that left 13 dead 32 injured. The Army said under the Military Code of Justice, Hasan’s salary cannot be suspended unless he is proven guilty.

If Hasan had been a civilian defense department employee, NBC 5 Investigates has learned, the Army could have suspended his pay after just seven days.

Personnel rules for most civilian government workers allow for "indefinite suspensions" in cases "when the agency has reasonable cause to believe that the employee has committed a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed."

Meanwhile, more than three years later soldiers wounded in the mass shooting are fighting to receive the same pay and medical benefits given to those wounded in combat.

Retired Army Spc. Logan Burnett, a reservist who, in 2009, was soon to be deployed to Iraq, was shot three times when a gunman opened fire inside the Army Deployment Center.

“I honestly thought I was going to die in that building,” said Burnett. “Just blood everywhere and then the thought of -- that's my blood everywhere.”

Burnett nearly died. He's had more than a dozen surgeries since the shooting, and says post-traumatic stress still keeps him up at night.

Burnett is now fighting a new battle; only this one is against the U.S. Army.

The Army has not classified the wounds of the Ft. Hood victims as “combat related” and declines to label the shooting a “terrorist attack”,

The “combat related” designation is an important one, for without it Burnett and other shooting victims are not given combat-related pay, they are not eligible for Purple Heart retirement or medical benefits given to other soldiers wounded either at war or during the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon.

As a result, Burnett, his wife Torey, and the families of other Fort Hood victims miss out on thousands of dollars of potential benefits and pay every year.

To Burnett the shooting felt like combat.

“You take three rounds and lose five good friends and watch seven other people get killed in front of you. Do you have another term that we can classify that as?” asked Burnett.

The Army has categorized the shooting as a case of “workplace violence.”

“Sickens me. Absolutely sickens me. Workplace violence? I don't even know if I have the words to say,” said Burnett.

"They don't need to be treated like this. They don't need to sit and fight every day for this benefit or that,” said Torey Burnett.

As that fight continues, Burnett was stunned to see a letter detailing the more $278,000 Hasan has been paid since his arrest. NBC 5 Investigates received the letter from the Department of Defense in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

"There have been times when my wife and I cannot afford groceries. We cannot afford gas in our car,” Burnett said. “Literally, times where we ate Ramen noodles for weeks on end. This [that Hasan is still earning a paycheck] makes me sick to my stomach,” said Burnett.

Burnett isn’t alone in his outrage.

“We're giving the defendant in this case every benefit of the doubt. But yet we're not giving the benefits to the victims,” said Rep. Thomas Rooney (R) Florida Rooney, a former prosecutor at Fort Hood, recently signed a bi-partisan letter urging defense secretary Chuck Hagel to "...reclassify the victims' deaths and injuries as 'combat related'..."

The letter said the current situation has "...resulted in an embarrassing lack of care and treatment for the victims and their families."

“What happened here is not a case of workplace violence. What happened here was an attack on our military by a terrorist element specifically targeting our military, which just so happened to be in the United States of America,” said Rooney.

[Continue reading full article here]

Obama's Government promotes Radical Islam as being the true "Moderates"

U.S. Gov't: Radical Muslims Approved, Moderates Shunned
Counterterrorism trainers are told that U.S. Brotherhood groups' are not tied to terrorism. Yet the federal gov't has proved they are.
By Ryan Maurohttp://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/us-govt-radical-muslims-approved-moderates-shunned

Hassan Shibly, Nihad Awad, Zair Shakir, Kifah Mustafa and Siraj Wahhaj (clock-wise from left). All are radical Islamists who have been associated with CAIR.

Shockingly, the advisory committee that likely influenced these guidelines includes numerous individuals affiliated with the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

The document says it is a list of “tips for federal, state and local government and law enforcement officials organizing CVE [Countering Violent Extremism], cultural awareness, counter-radicalization, or counterterrorism training.” It was produced by the Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in cooperation with the National Counterterrorism Center.

The DHS suggestions in the document include:

"Don’t use training premised on theories with little or no evidence to support them. Examples (from the report “Manufacturing the Muslim Menace”) of unsubstantiated theories include:

a. Many mainstream Muslim organizations have terrorist ties.

b. Mainstream Muslim organizations are fronts for Islamic political organizations whose true desire is to establish Sharia law in America. Muslim Americans are using democratic processes, like litigation and free speech, to subvert democracy and install Sharia law."

The “Manufacturing the Muslim Menace” report cited depicts concerns about the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood as the fabrications of anti-Muslim bigots. Moreover, it defends the Brotherhood, saying it is a moderate group that wouldn’t use front groups in America.

The Federal Government Itself Provides Evidence to the Contrary

In reality, solid evidence exists to the contrary – evidence ironically from the federal government’s own determinations as well as documents from the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood itself including a 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood explanatory memorandum that explicitly states: “[O]ur work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”

The Brotherhood memorandum lists “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” The list includes “mainstream” Muslim-American groups—the very same groups which appear to have influenced these very same Department of Homeland Security guidelines (see below).

Specifically, the federal government designated the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) as unindicted co-conspirators in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for financing Hamas. Federal prosecutors labeled these three mainstream groups as U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entities in 2007. In 2009, the designations were upheld by District Court Judge Solis because of “ample” evidence linking them to Hamas.

The Clarion Project has broken numerous stories about other Islamist groups doing exactly what the DHS dismisses in the current training document as “unsubstantiated theories.”

For example, a Pennsylvania-based group, Sankore Institute of Islamic-African Studies International (SIIASI), tells Muslims to engage in "litigation jihad" to advance Sharia law in America.

A California-based group, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), which issues authoritative fatwas, or religious declarations, said in a 2007 Arabic paper presented at one of its conferences it recommends that Muslims become judges and use deception to implement sharia law to the best of their ability. To call their rulings unsettling would be a gross understatement.

These are important facts but the DHS guidelines would leave law enforcement personnel ignorant of them.

[CONTINUE READING FULL ARTICLE HERE] 

Flawed White House Guidelines on Terror Training

Jihad experts decry White House terror training guidelines
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/jihad-experts-decry-white-house-terror-training-guidelines/#ixzz2Tw0RrW9D
2:19 AM 05/20/2013

Neil Munro
White House Correspondent
Experts on Islam and terrorism are decrying the Department of Homeland Security’s recently revealed anti-terrorism training guidelines, which pressure cops to ignore Islamic beliefs when investigating terror crimes.

The Boston bombings demonstrated the impact of such training, Andrew McCarthy, a former New York prosecutor, told The Daily Caller.

“The Boston Marathon was bombed by a jihadist who had been investigated by the FBI … [and was confirmed in 2011 to be] an Islamist, which would have been hard not to do since he does not appear to have made any secret of it,” said McCarthy, who persuaded a New York jury in 1995 to convict “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel-Rahman for his use of Islamic teaching to spur jihad attacks, including the 1993 attack against the Twin Towers.

But before the bombing, “the FBI closed its file [on Tamerlan Tsarnaev] because it found this did not constitute ‘derogatory information,’” McCarthy said.

McCarthy and other security experts, and even members of the American Islamic community, indicate that a culture of excessive concern for the sensibilities of Muslims supremacists is preventing law enforcement agencies from pursuing jihadists.

The 2011 guidelines unveiled Thursday by The Daily Caller are part of this pattern of deferring to Islamist chauvinism. (Related: Homeland Security guidelines advise deference to pro-Shariah Muslim supremacists)

Under the federal guidelines, “agents are admonished to discount the possibility that an Islamist’s constitutionally protected abhorrence of the United States might possibly lead to violence,” McCarthy told TheDC.

Even if FBI officials had learned about Tsarnaev’s 2012 trip to a part of southern Russia that is embroiled in a jihadi war, they would not have restarted their 2011 investigation, a government official told the Washington Post in April.

“The FBI investigation into the individual in question had been closed six months prior to his departure from the United States and more than a year before his return. …Since there was no derogatory information, there was no reason to suggest that additional action was warranted,” the official said in April.

On his six-month trip, starting in January 2012, Tsarnaev visited several militant Islamic leaders and mosques in Dagestan, where jihadis are fighting the Russian government, according to several U.S. and Russian media sources.

“The fiasco regarding Boston is a prime example” of how bad training degrades security, said Robert Spencer, an authority on Islamic doctrine who is heavily criticized by Islamic groups in the United States. He noted that even though FBI agents had interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the FBI was unable to identify Tsarnaev in crowd photographs taken before and after the bomb strike.

After the attack, FBI officials also did not ask the main mosque in Boston for help in identifying the suspects, said Nichole Mossalam, a spokeswoman for the Islamic Society of Boston.

“We were the ones who reached out to them … on Friday” once the picture were released, Mossalam told TheDC.

Because of the guidelines, it would be “a ‘profiling’ scandal to show the pictures at the mosque just because it was a bombing with … no other evidence of connection to Muslims,” he said.

The guidelines, titled “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Training Do’s and Don’ts,” don’t merely promote respect for free expression but actively promote extremist views by telling officials to sideline experts who “venture too deep into the weeds of [Islamic] religious doctrines and history. … [T]hese topics are not necessary in order to understand the [Muslim] community.”

The DHS also actively discourages engagement with moderate Muslims. “Don’t use trainers … who are self-professed ‘Muslim reformers’ … [or who] equate radical thought [or] religious expressions … with criminal activity,” say the training guidelines.

The guidelines also advise cops, “Don’t use a trainer or training that has received repeated external negative feedback … don’t use training that treats the American Muslim community as a problem rather than as a partner … don’t use training that relies on fear [for example, by citing convictions that show] mainstream Muslim organizations have terrorist ties.”

The training guidelines go so far as to urge federal officials to rely on a political report by the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC), a Los Angeles, California-based Islamic advocacy group with extensive ties to jihadists and Islamist groups, including the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood.

[CONTINUE READING THE FULL ARTICLE HERE]

The flaw in American Policy under the Obama Administration

Last year Act for America put out a series of emails describing the purge of any references to radical Islam in federal government counter-terrorism materials.

This didn’t happen by accident. It’s the result of a conscious and deliberate policy decision at the highest levels of the Obama administration.

Please view the short video below, put out by our friends at EMET.

We now know that Russian authorities wire tapped a phone call between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his mother, in which they discussed “jihad.” This phone call was part of the reason the Russians alerted the FBI about Tsarnaev.

Had John Brennan, now our CIA director, listened in on this phone call, he almost certainly would have dismissed any concerns about Tsarnaev.

Why? Because Brennan has stated publicly he believes the notion that “jihad” is connected to terrorism is false. Brennan believes “jihad” is a “holy tenet” of Islam, because he claims it refers only to personal improvement.

Or what our friend Dr. Walid Phares calls “Islamic yoga.”

This administration refuses to acknowledge any jihadist ideology behind Islamic terrorism. The short video below is a must-see in this regard.

We can only speculate what might have happened when the FBI investigated Tamerlan Tsarnaev if our counterterrorism strategy included identifying jihadist ideology as a prime motivator of jihadist attacks.

But since the FBI can’t consider jihadist ideology when it does such investigations, it’s no wonder it dropped its investigation of Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

Boston Terror Suspects attended Mosque with Radical Ties

Mosque that Boston suspects attended has radical ties

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/23/boston-mosque-radicals/2101411/

Oren Dorell, USA TODAY 6:06 a.m. EDT April 24, 2013

Terror suspects, fugitives and radical speakers have passed through the Cambridge mosque that the Tsarnaev brothers are known to have visited.

  (Photo: Shakil Adil, AP)

Story Highlights

Cambridge mosque was founded in 1982 by students at MIT, Harvard and other Boston-area schools. Affiliated with Muslim American Society, which federal prosecutors call an "overt arm" of Muslim Brotherhood. More than half of the $15.5 million used to found the Boston mosque came from Saudi sources

BOSTON — The mosque attended by the two brothers accused in the Boston Marathon double bombing has been associated with other terrorism suspects, has invited radical speakers to a sister mosque in Boston and is affiliated with a Muslim group that critics say nurses grievances that can lead to extremism.

Several people who attended the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge, Mass., have been investigated for Islamic terrorism, including a conviction of the mosque's first president, Abdulrahman Alamoudi, in connection with an assassination plot against a Saudi prince.

Its sister mosque in Boston, known as the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, has invited guests who have defended terrorism suspects. A former trustee appears in a series of videos in which he advocates treating gays as criminals, says husbands should sometimes beat their wives and calls on Allah (God) to kill Zionists and Jews, according to Americans for Peace and Tolerance, an interfaith group that has investigated the mosques.

The head of the group is among critics who say the two mosques teach a brand of Islamic thought that encourages grievances against the West, distrust of law enforcement and opposition to Western forms of government, dress and social values.

"We don't know where these boys were radicalized, but this mosque has a curriculum that radicalizes people. Other people have been radicalized there," said the head of the group, Charles Jacobs.

Yusufi Vali, executive director at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, insists his mosque does not spread radical ideology and cannot be blamed for the acts of a few worshipers.

"If there were really any worry about us being extreme," Vali said, U.S. law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and Departments of Justice and Homeland Security would not partner with the Muslim American Society and the Boston mosque in conducting monthly meetings that have been ongoing for four years, he said, in an apparent reference to U.S. government outreach programs in the Muslim community.

The Cambridge and Boston mosques, separated by the Charles River, are owned by the same entity but managed individually. The imam of the Cambridge mosque, Sheik Basyouny Nehela, is on the board of directors of the Boston mosque.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, attended the Cambridge mosque for services and are accused of setting two bombs that killed three people and injured at least 264 others at the April 15 Boston Marathon.

The FBI has not indicated that either mosque was involved in any criminal activity, but mosque attendees and officials have been implicated in terrorist activity:

• Alamoudi, who signed the articles of incorporation as the Cambridge mosque's president, was sentenced to 23 years in federal court in Alexandria, Va., in 2004 for his role as a facilitator in what federal prosecutors called a Libyan assassination plot against then-crown prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Abdullah is now the Saudi king.


Aafia Siddiqui is shown after her graduation from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Photo: AP)

• Aafia Siddiqui, who occasionally prayed at the Cambridge mosque, was arrested in Afghanistan in 2008 while in possession of cyanide canisters and plans for a chemical attack in New York City. She tried to grab a rifle while in detention and shot at military officers and FBI agents, for which she was convicted in New York in 2010 and is serving an 86-year sentence.


The 2009 booking photo of Tarek Mehanna, of Sudbury, Mass. (Photo: Sudbury Police Department via AP)

• Tarek Mehanna, who worshiped at the Cambridge mosque, was sentenced in 2012 to 17 years in prison for conspiring to aid al-Qaeda. Mehanna had traveled to Yemen to seek terrorist training and plotted to use automatic weapons to shoot up a mall in the Boston suburbs, federal investigators in Boston alleged.

• Ahmad Abousamra, the son of a former vice president of the Muslim American Society Boston Abdul-Badi Abousamra, was identified by the FBI as Mehanna's co-conspirator. He fled to Syria and is wanted by the FBI on charges of providing support to terrorists and conspiracy to kill Americans in a foreign country.

• Jamal Badawi of Canada, a former trustee of the Islamic Society of Boston Trust, which owns both mosques, was named as a non-indicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terrorism trial in Texas over the funneling of money to Hamas, which is the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.

What both mosques have in common is an affiliation with the Muslim American Society, an organization founded in 1993 that describes itself as an American Islamic revival movement. It has also been described by federal prosecutors in court as the "overt arm" of the Muslim Brotherhood, which calls for Islamic law and is the parent organization of Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist group.

Critics say the Muslim American Society promotes a fraught relationship with the United States, expressed in part by the pattern discussed by Americans for Progress and Tolerance in which adherents are made to feel cut off from their home country and to identify with a global Islamist political community rather than with America.

Zhudi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said the radical teachings often follow a theme of recitation of grievances that Islam has with the West, advocacy against U.S. foreign policy and terrorism prosecutions, and efforts "to evangelize Islam in order to improve Western society that is secularized," he says.

Jasser, a veteran of the U.S. Navy and author of the 2012 book A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot Fights to Save His Faith, says the teachings make some followers feel "like their national identity is completely absent and hollow, and that vacuum can be filled by (radical) Islamic ideology, which is supremacist and looks upon the West as evil."

The Cambridge mosque was founded in 1982 by students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard and several other Boston-area schools, according to a profile by the Pluralism Project at Harvard University. Its members founded the sister mosque in Boston in 2009.

The leadership of the two mosques is intertwined, and the ideology they teach is the same, Jacobs said. Ilya Feoktistov, director of research at Americans for Peace and Tolerance, said much of the money to create the Boston mosque came not from local Muslims but from foreign sources.

More than half of the $15.5 million used to found the Boston mosque came from Saudi sources, Feoktistov said, who cites financial documents that Jacobs' group obtained when the mosque sued it for defamation. The lawsuit was later dropped.

Vali said that the vast majority of total donors were in the United States and that "no donations were accepted if the donor wanted to have any decision-making influence (even if benign)."

Vali characterized Americans for Peace and Tolerance and its founder, Jacobs, as anti-Muslim activists who spread "lies and half-truths in order to attack and marginalize much of the local Muslim community and many of its institutions."

"It's the new McCarthyism in full swing," he said.

Sheik Basyouny Nehela, the imam of the Cambridge mosque, which is located across the Charles River from Boston, is on the board of directors for the Muslim American Society of Boston, which runs the Boston mosque. The Tsarnaevs attended the Cambridge mosque.

A statement issued by the Cambridge mosque said the Tsarnaev brothers were "occasional visitors." The mosque's office manager, Nichole Mossalam, said neither brother expressed radical views. "They never exhibited any violent sentiments or behaviors. Otherwise, they would have been reported," Mossalam said.

The Cambridge mosque said Tsarnaev, 26, who died Thursday night in a shootout with police, "disagreed with the moderate American-Islamic theology" of the mosque. Tsarnaev challenged an imam who said in his sermon that it was appropriate to celebrate U.S. national holidays and was told to stop such outbursts, the mosque said in a statement.

Talal Eid, a Muslim chaplain at Brandeis University, said focusing on individual radicals that prayed in a building is unfair.

"In 2011, the two brothers were right under the nose of the FBI and they didn't find anything," Eid said, who never met the Tsarnaevs. "How do you want me as an imam to know enough to tell them they are not welcome here? How can I figure out those people have that kind of criminal intent?"

The Muslim American Society says on its website that it is independent of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, early Brotherhood literature is considered "the foundational texts for the intellectual component for Islamic work in America," the website states.

Jacobs says claims of moderate Islam do not square with the mosque's classic jihadi texts in its library and its hosting of radical speakers.

Jacobs said Ahmed Mansour, his co-director at Americans for Peace and Tolerance, found writings by Syed Qutb, the former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and other jihadi texts at the Cambridge mosque's library when Mansour went there in 2003. Qutb pioneered the radical violent ideology espoused by al-Qaeda.

Yusuf al Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader who espouses radical views in videos collected by Jacobs' group, was listed as a trustee on the Cambridge mosque's IRS filings until 2000, and on the mosque's website until 2003, when he addressed congregants via recorded video message to raise money for the Boston mosque, according to a screenshot of the announcement that Feoktistov provided.

Vali said Qaradawi was listed as an honorary trustee years ago only because his scholarship and high esteem in Muslim circles would help with fundraising.

Yasir Qadhi, who lectured at the Boston mosque in April 2009, has advocated replacing U.S. democracy with Islamic rule and called Christians "filthy" polytheists whose "life and prosperity … holds no value in the state of Jihad," according to a video obtained by Jacobs' group.

Vali said Qadhi was a guest of a non-profit organization that was renting space at the Boston mosque and has changed his views since that video was made.

Jacobs and others say it is not only renters who express sympathetic views for terrorists. Leaders of the Boston and Cambridge mosques, and invited guests, have advocated on behalf of convicted terrorists, urging followers to seek their release or lenient sentences.

Imam Abdullah Faaruuq, sometimes a spokesman for the Boston mosque, used Siddiqui's case to speak against the USA Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism law passed under the George W. Bush administration. "After they're done with (Siddiqui), they are going to come to your door if they feel like it," he said, according to a video obtained by Americans for Peace and Tolerance.

Anwar Kazmi, a member of the Cambridge mosque's board of trustees, called for leniency for Mehanna and Siddiqui at a Boston rally in February 2012, in a video posted to YouTube. He characterized Siddiqui's 86-year sentence as excessive.

In an interview with USA TODAY, Kazmi insisted that the Cambridge mosque is moderate and condemns the marathon bombings. On Monday, the mosque e-mailed members to caution them that the FBI may question them and that they may want to seek representation.

"This kind of violence, terrorism, it's just completely contrary to the spirit of Islam," Kasmi said. "The words in the Quran say if anybody kills even a single human being without just cause, it's as if you've killed all of humanity." 

Islamic Fundamentalism is an Evil in Your Midst.

Jihad Will Not Be Wished Away
But willful blindness remains the order of the day.
By Andrew C. McCarthy

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/346145/jihad-will-not-be-wished-away

ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

‘Outlook: Islam.” So reads the personal webpage of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who ravaged Boston this week, along with his now-deceased brother and fellow jihadist, Tamerlan — namesake of a 14th-century Muslim warrior whose campaigns through Asia Minor are legendary for their brutalization of non-Muslims.

Brutalizing our own non-Muslim country has been the principal objective of jihadists for the last 20 years. This week marks a new and chilling chapter: the introduction on our shores of the tactics the self-styled mujahideen have used to great, gory effect for the past decade in Afghanistan and Iraq.

At a point in the race timed to achieve maximum carnage, the Tsarnaev brothers bombed the Boston Marathon with improvised explosive devices. IEDs are small but potent homemade bombs — crude explosives and unforgiving shrapnel encased in easily portable pressure cookers. The bombs are simple to make. They won’t kill thousands or even hundreds of people like hijacked planes or heavy chemical explosives will. But that’s not the objective. The goal is to instill terror into the flow of everyday life. IEDs are made for “soft” targets. They are easily camouflaged amid the traffic, the everyday debris, and the eight-year-old boys frolicking as they wait for Dad to cross the finish line.

Willful blindness remains the order of the day, as it has since the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. It is freely conceded that, when the identities and thus the motivation of the Marathon terrorists were not known, it would have been irresponsible to dismiss any radical ideology as, potentially, the instigator. But in our politically correct, up-is-down culture, to suggest “Outlook: Islam” was unthinkable. So the most likely scenario — namely, that jihadists who have been at war with us for two decades had, yet again, attacked innocent civilians — became the least likely scenario in the minds of media pundits. Instead, they brazenly prayed (to Gaia, I’m sure) for white conservative culprits with Tea Party hats and Rush 24/7 subscriptions. As our Kevin D. Williamson quipped, the “literal Caucasians” they got were not quite what they had in mind.

To listen to the commentary was to assume that the jihad’s nimble post-9/11 shift from heavy bombs and airliner missiles to IEDs had never happened. Prior to 2009, much agitprop was made over the thousands of American troops killed and maimed by IEDs in Iraq — they signified, the Left told us, that George Bush had brought al-Qaeda to previously jihad-free Baghdad. So did IEDs at the Marathon mean the same jihad had now come to Boston? Perish the thought. Surely the Marathon bombing was the work of either the right-wing extremists Janet Napolitano has been warning us about since 2009, or those notoriously violent Catholics and Evangelicals that today’s Army equates with Hamas and Hezbollah.

But no: It was in fact the jihad that stubbornly refuses to be wished away. It will have to be defeated. It was never a molehill we were exaggerating into Mohammed’s mountain. After 1,400 years of aggression, we can safely say it is not anytime soon going to evolve into the ballyhooed “internal struggle for personal betterment” — not for the tens of millions of Muslims for whom Islamic supremacism is, quite simply, Islam.

So will we be roused to meet the challenge? Doesn’t seem like it. On Friday morning, the damning and utterly predictable details began pouring in the second the jihadists were identified — “Outlook: Islam”; a YouTube playlist called “Terrorists” that included the ditty, “I will dedicate my life to jihad”; a wife who abruptly converted to Islam and began dressing in what a neighbor called “the Islamic style”; an apparent reverence for the notorious sharia jurist Sheikh Feiz Mohammed. Yet the media commentary, even if it grudgingly mentions these things, internalizes none of them. “How shocking it is,” we’ve repeatedly heard, “that the brothers Tsarnaev want to mass-murder Americans. After all, they’re Chechen Muslims, and the Chechens’ beef is with the Russians, not us.”

Good grief. It is the Uighurs all over again. You’ll recall the Uighurs — they were a group of Turkic-speaking jihadists from the Xinjiang region of China, detained at Guantanamo Bay because they trained in Afghanistan with an al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist organization (the East Turkistan Islamic Movement). At least some of them fought against American forces. Nevertheless, we released them. Stroking its bloated chin, our government rationalized that they could not be enemy combatants because they weren’t our enemies — their beef was really with China, right? After all, Islam is a Religion of Peace and we’re very nice people, so why should we assume they might have a problem with us?

We are in a war driven by ideology. “Violent extremism,” which is the label the government and the commentariat prefer to put on our enemies, is not an ideology — it is the brutality that radical ideologies yield. Our enemies’ ideology is Islamic supremacism. To challenge and defeat an ideological movement, you have to understand and confront their vision of the world. Imposing your own assumptions and biases will not do. Islamic supremacists do not see a world of Westphalian nation-states. They do not distinguish between Russia and America the way they distinguish between Muslims and non-Muslims. Their ideology frames matters as Dar al-Islam versus Dar al-Harb: the realm of Islam in a fight to the death against the realm of war — which is everyone and everyplace else.

The fact that you think this is nuts, or that I’m nuts for saying it out loud, has nothing to do with whether they believe it. They do — and they don’t care, even a little, what you think.

You do not defeat an ideology by hoping it will change or disappear. You have to challenge it, to make it defend its baleful tenets in the light of day. You cannot protect yourself from its violent outbursts absent understanding its teaching, reluctantly accepting that its teaching will inevitably lead some Muslims to strike out savagely, and committing to a pro-active, intelligence-based counterterrorism strategy — one that scraps political correctness and ferrets out the jihadists before they strike.

Asked about his “outlook,” Dzhokhar Tsarnaev offered a pregnant response, “Islam,” that raises more questions than it answers. There are all kinds of Islam, including the supremacist kind that is far more widely held than we’re comfortable acknowledging. Until we get beyond that discomfort, until we are prepared to ask, “What Islam?” — and until we are prepared to treat Islamic supremacism as the pariah it should be — Boston’s hellish week will remain our recurring nightmare.

Dallas CAIR leader proclaims: “We are above the law of the land”

WND EXCLUSIVE

'WE ARE ABOVE THE LAW OF THE LAND'

Muslim leader's stunning claim at Texas rally for Islam

by JOHN GRIFFING

Muslims living in America should not be bound by U.S. law, according to a leader of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who delivered the controversial message to a crowd at a Muslim rally in Austin, Texas.

“If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” said Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch.

The rally in Austin was part of a nationwide effort to hold “Muslim Capitol Day” events.

According to the event website, Muslims from around Texas went to the capitol to “promote civic and political activism throughout the wider Muslim community.”

The organizers said one major issue discussed “was the recent House and Senate bill proposals involving the implementation of ‘anti-Shariah’ legislation, where the First Amendment rights and freedoms of Muslims would ultimately be hindered.”

Critics argue Shariah prohibits other faiths from free exercise of religion when enforced, giving freedom only to Muslims.

Carroll’s statement was similar to a statement allegedly made by CAIR co-founder and former chairman Omar M. Ahmad. He was paraphrased by a reporter saying, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant” and the Quran “should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

Carroll began joking about the widespread concern about Shariah, the religious code that governs Muslim civil and political life.

“We tried to downplay Shariah, because we didn’t want to give the other side any excitement for being here,” he said.

He dismissed critics who express concern about Shariah, calling them “anti-foreign.”

“When you even say the word Shariah, people get nervous. We are not advocating for Shariah. We are not trying to make Shariah the law of the land,” he said.

Carroll claimed Muslims only want the “right to practice our faith.”

But he also said, “If you understand Shariah, the foundation of our faith … how we treat our neighbor, how we treat our parents … how we participate in society, all of that is part of Shariah.”

Carroll is on record defending Hamas, classified by the U.S. as a terrorist group.

“I think you can only blame Hamas for so long. It takes two to tango. And I think, you know, that what we’ve heard for a number of years is this terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, was not just Hamas,” he’s said.

At CAIR’s Dallas banquet in 2007, Carroll denied the Quran is the source of terrorism.

“Look at the true cause of the terrorism. It’s not somebody is reading a book, reading a Quran, and then go out and say, ‘Well, the Quran told me to blow this up. I’m gonna blow it up.’ The cause, the root cause of terrorism is oppression. The root cause of terrorism is oppression.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/we-are-above-the-law-of-the-land/#7QLzhvWduD4lHW6I.99

FREE SPEECH Resolution

Visit our News page Freedom of Speech Day Free Speech Resolution September 25, 2013, is the 224th anniversary of the passage of the Bill  of Rights by Congress. On that day, ACT! for America is going to remind America and the world  that free speech is something we cherish and will defend. We’ve declared September 25, 2013, to be “Freedom of Speech Day.”  It’s part of our “Americans United to Defend Free Speech” campaign. YOU can be part of “Freedom of Speech Day” by hosting a “Freedom of  Speech Day” event that day. To find out how you can be part of this  historic event click on the image below.  When a poll finds that six in ten Muslims in America believe criticism   of Islam should be banned…  …when American Muslim leaders pressure our Department of Justice  to find a way to criminalize speech critical of Islam… …when our State Department is assisting the Organization of Islamic   Cooperation (OIC) in its goal to criminalize free speech… …We need to stand up NOW and wake up America!!! Please also sign our open letter to Congress and the 50 state legislatures,  urging them to introduce and pass resolutions opposing implementation  of UN Resolution 16/18.  The OIC’s goal is to use UN Resolution 16/18 to pressure countries to   criminalize speech deemed “offensive” to Islam. (See this article in  the Saudi Gazette.)  Ten days ago legislation we supported in South Dakota, the Free  Speech Defense Act, was signed into law. As you can see, we’re making progress!! Now is the time to ACT! Let’s send a loud and clear message to our  friends and neighbors, to elected officials, and to Muslim organizations   intent on destroying our freedom of speech, that we will not stand by  and let this happen!  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Make sure you receive all of your messages from ACT for America. Add actforamerica@donationnet.net to your address book as an approved email sender. If you found this message in your "Bulk" or "Spam" folder, please click the "Not Spam" button to notify your provider that these are emails you want to receive. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACT for America P.O. Box 12765 Pensacola, FL 32591 www.actforamerica.org ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam.

Shariah Law in American Courts?

Did you know that in the past several years there have been over 50 court cases in America where sharia law was applied?

Most Americans don’t know this—including those in politics, the media and academia.

Consider the words of Muzammil Siddiqi, Chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America, exhorting his followers to be politically active:

We must not forget that Allah’s rules must be established  in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.  (Pakistan Link, 10/18/1996)

Or the words of CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad:
	Islam isn’t in America to be equal to  any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur’an should be the highest  authority in America. (San Ramon Valley Herald, 7/4/1998)

Wouldn’t you agree that we should take Muslim leaders like Siddiqi and Ahmad at their word? That we should take this threat seriously?

Islamic concept of 'Free Speech' according to Harris Zafar

Free speech according to Islam
Or, when free speech—isn’t
     The column below, written by Harris Zafar and recently published in The Washington Post, defines “free speech” in a way that can only be described as classic doublespeak. 
     Zafar’s premise reminds us of a column written by Sheikh Ali Gomaa, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, which appeared in The Wall Street Journal on October 8, 2009. Gomaa wrote:

We have upheld the right of freedom of conscience, and the freedom of expression, within the bounds of common decency… We are committed to human liberty within the bounds of Islamic law. [emphasis added]

Who defines what is “common decency?” Sharia law, of course. For example, “common decency” does not include the right to criticize Islam.

     The Organization of Islamic Cooperation is fighting, with the help of our State Department, to get UN Resolution 16/18 passed. This resolution calls on nations to prohibit speech about religion that incites people to violence. 
     Once again, we see who claims authority to define what speech should be protected and what speech prohibited. This is stealth jihad at its stealthiest.
     Please read Zafar’s column below, and see if you can spot the doublespeak and the questions about who and what define what is acceptable and permitted speech.    

Here’s an example to get you started: “…it [Islam] promotes free speech when our intention is to serve a good purpose…” “Good purposes” in sharia law include “fighting in the cause of Allah” (jihad) against anyone who opposes Islam, but do not include questioning anything Muhammad said.

---

Making Islamic sense of free speech
By Harris Zafar http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/making-islamic-sense-of-free-speech/2013/01/14/95fc0b5a-5ec0-11e2-90a0-73c8343c6d61_blog.html 
     While many celebrated the winter holidays, news broke of the arrest in Saudi Arabia of liberal writer Turki Al Hamad for allegedly insulting Islam on Twitter. We also heard of another Saudi activist, Raif Badawi, who was arrested in June and will now continue with his trial, accused of apostasy for ridiculing Saudi Arabia’s religious police and making other comments that officials found insulting. These incidents have re-ignited the age old debate about the use of freedom of speech, especially with regards to Islam.      The difference between Islam’s view on free speech and the view promoted by free speech advocates these days is the intention and ultimate goal each seeks to promote. Whereas many secularists champion individual privileges, Islam promotes the principle of uniting mankind and cultivating love and understanding among people. Both endorse freedom for people to express themselves, but Islam promotes unity, whereas modern-day free speech advocates promote individualism. 
     Let me explain. 
     The ultimate goal of Islam is to unite mankind under a single banner of peace. The Koran– Islam’s holy scripture – says God created everyone in unity, but our own man-made differences has compromised our unity (2:214). In order to unite mankind, Islam instructs to only use speech to be truthful, do good to others, and be fair and respectful. It attempts to pre-empt frictions by prescribing rules of conduct which guarantee for all people not only freedom of speech but also fairness, absolute justice, and the right of disagreement. 
     The Koran instructs people to speak the truth (33:71), to speak in a manner that is best (17:54), to speak to others kindly (2:84) and to refrain from inappropriate speech (4:149). With Islam’s guidance to purify our intentions, it promotes free speech when our intention is to serve a good purpose, promote peace, bring people closer to God and unite mankind. If, however, our intentions are to insult others or promote disorder or division, we should refrain. 
     The most vocal proponents of freedom of speech, however, call us towards a different path, where people can say anything and everything on their mind. With no restraint on speech at all, every form of provocation would exist, thereby cultivating confrontation and antagonism. They insist this freedom entitles them the legal privilege to insult others. This is neither democracy nor freedom of speech. It fosters animosity, resentment and disorder. 
     Rather than focusing on privileges, Islam focuses on the principle to avoid speech that causes separation and conflict. Our words should have a positive impact on people’s lives, promote truth and promote justice. We agree with former U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower, who once said: “A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.” Treating speech as supreme at the expense of world peace and harmony is an incredibly flawed concept. No matter how important the cause of free speech, it still pales in comparison to the cause of world peace and unity. 
     Opponents of Islam claim it denies freedom of speech and censors those who insult Islam. This is factually incorrect. Islam does not prescribe any worldly punishment for unseemly speech. So people who insult should not be persecuted. Islam grants everyone the right to express disagreements with others. After all, the Prophet Muhammad called differences of opinion a blessing in society and never sought to censor or threaten those who verbally attacked him. 
     [Editor’s note: Zafar is either ignorant of accepted Islamic history, including authoritative Islamic sources, or he is practicing taqiyya (deception.) Muhammad dealt harshly with those who dared to mock or criticize him, including ordering their assassination.] 
     According to the Koran, disbelievers called him “a mad man,” “a victim of deception,” a “fabricator” and treated him as a liar. Some claimed he was taught by another person instead of receiving revelations from God. They called the Koran “confused dreams” and “mere stories of the past” and even tore it into pieces. 
     Through this all, he courageously endured all verbal assaults. Rather than calling for any punishment, the Koran instructs us to “overlook their annoying talk” and “bear patiently what they say.” The lesson here for all Muslims is that we are not to be afraid of insults. Rather, we must have the same courage as our Prophet to face such insults in the eye and respond with forbearance and calm, righteous speech. Muslims must learn how their faith instructs them to respond when they are verbally attacked. No riots; no violence. We respond to speech with speech, but our speech is to be better and more dignified. 
     So while antagonists and enemies of peace create slanderous videos, cartoons or advertisements – like the “Innocence of Muslims” film, Pamela Geller’s new ignorant NYC subway ads and Charlie Hebdo’s cartoon about Prophet Muhammad – let us not fall for their claim that an individual’s privilege to say whatever they want is more important than the higher principle of uniting people and saving this planet from a path of animosity, hatred and destruction. Rather than falsely accusing Islam of censorship, let us understand the beauty of giving higher consideration to mankind over our own personal privileges. And let us listen to the wisdom of the Khalifa of Islam, His Holiness Mirza Masroor Ahmad, who said: “Let it not be that in the name of freedom of speech the peace of the entire world be destroyed.” 
Harris Zafar is National Spokesperson for Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA - among the eldest Muslim organizations in America - and a frequently lecturer about Islam throughout the country.

The Exposing of CAIR

The Washington Examiner story below (highlights added) reports the latest blow to CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Massive fraud, cover-up by CAIR exposed in federal lawsuit
http://www.examiner.com/article/massive-fraud-cover-up-by-cair-exposed-federal-lawsuit?cid=db_articles
BY: CHRISTOPHER COLLINS

Nihad Awad, CAIR Executive Director
November 26, 2012

Last Friday, the Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. and the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) said that they filed a devastating legal brief supported by hundreds of pages of evidence, asking a federal judge to find the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) liable to five of its former clients for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In a release to the media today, AFLC stated:

“The legal brief demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that CAIR is a criminal organization that deceptively holds itself out to the public as the nation's largest Muslim-American civil rights organization."

"The brief and supporting evidence were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in two companion cases, Saiyed v. CAIR and Lopez v. CAIR, in which David Yerushalmi is lead counsel. The brief and supporting evidence overwhelmingly demonstrate that CAIR was involved in a massive criminal fraud and cover-up that injured numerous client-victims who had looked to CAIR for legal assistance, yet the CAIR "attorney" allegedly handling their cases was in fact not an attorney.”

Yerushalmi, who is also Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented, "The evidence has long suggested that CAIR is an organization set up by the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas to further its aims of stealth Jihad in the United States," referring to the fact that CAIR was named by the federal government as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial.

"According to the facts that are carefully laid out in our legal brief and fully supported by the record evidence," Yerushalmi explained, "CAIR has engaged in a massive criminal fraud in which numerous CAIR clients have been victimized, and because of the CAIR cover-up many still don't realize it. The fact that CAIR has victimized Muslims and non-Muslims alike demonstrate that it is only looking out for itself and its ongoing efforts to bilk donors out of millions of dollars of charitable donations thinking they are supporting a legitimate organization."

AFLC went on to say that five former clients of CAIR filed the two lawsuits in federal court alleging common law and statutory fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against CAIR. These two lawsuits followed an earlier lawsuit which had also alleged that CAIR's fraudulent conduct amounted to racketeering, a federal RICO crime. In that case, the court dismissed the RICO counts, concluding that CAIR's conduct as alleged was fraudulent but not a technical violation of RICO. The two civil lawsuits were filed by Yerushalmi on January 6, 2010, and because they arise out of the same facts, the cases were consolidated.

AFLC stated, “The supporting evidence, which was compiled after more than a year and a half of contentious discovery that involved numerous document requests, motions to compel the production of documents that CAIR was concealing, and multiple depositions of high-ranking CAIR officials, shows that Morris Days, the "Resident Attorney" and "Civil Rights Manager" at the now defunct CAIR-MD/VA chapter in Herndon, Virginia, was in fact not an attorney and that he failed to provide legal services for clients who came to CAIR for legal representation.

The evidence also shows that CAIR knew of this fraud and purposefully conspired with Days to keep the CAIR clients from discovering that their legal matters were being mishandled or not handled at all. While Yerushalmi and AFLC represent the five plaintiffs in these two lawsuits, three of whom are Muslim Americans, according to CAIR's internal documents; there were many more victims of the CAIR fraud scheme.”

“As set forth in the court filings, CAIR knew or should have known that Days was not a lawyer when it hired him. But, like many organizations accused of wrongdoing, things got worse when CAIR officials were confronted with clear evidence of Days' fraudulent conduct. Rather than come clean and attempt to rectify past wrongs, CAIR conspired with Days to conceal and further the fraud. To this end, CAIR officials purposefully concealed the truth about Days from the clients, law enforcement, and the media. When CAIR did receive calls from irate clients about Days' failure to provide competent legal services, CAIR fraudulently deceived them about Days' relationship with CAIR, suggesting that he was never actually employed by CAIR.”

Robert Muise, co-counsel in the lawsuit and Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented, "The overwhelming evidence marshaled in this case will finally put to rest the myth fabricated by CAIR's PR machine and perpetrated by a complicit media that this is a legitimate Muslim-American civil rights organization.”

“This lawsuit strips away CAIR's veil of legitimacy."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its sister organization, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), have been controversial over the years and recently were systematically involved in the 2012 presidential elections in getting American Muslims out to vote for President Obama in the swing states of Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Those states election results became controversial due to voter irregularities and allegations of voter fraud in favor of President Obama.