Make the backlash real 8

The Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) conspired with the Holy Land Foundation to fund Hamas, the death-cult terrorist organization that the Palestinians in Gaza have elected to govern them. As a result CAIR has been named a co-conspirator with the Holy Land Foundation which was found guilty of the crime, but CAIR remains “unindicted”. [Why?] It pretends to be the protector of American Muslims aganst a totally imaginary campaign of persecution which it dubs “Islamophobia”.

In fact, CAIR is a menacing organization dedicated to imposing oppressive sharia law on all Americans.

This is from American Thinker:

On June 5, 2012, a radical Islamic organization, CAIR-Florida, sent out a mass mailing with this message:

“CAIR Florida has been receiving an increase in complaints by law abiding American Muslims inappropriately targeted by law enforcement for questioning. This is a direct result of Islamophobic training CAIR has discovered many law enforcement officers in Florida are receiving. Join us this Saturday for an important program to learn how to protect yourself, your family, and your community against harassment by law enforcement or discrimination by businesses.”

Without verifiable proof of such “discrimination by businesses,” “Islamophobic training” or “inappropriate targeting by law enforcement”, this email appears to be a blatant slander of the tolerant American society and its legal system. The extensive influx of Muslim immigrants in recent years is the best evidence that they are treated better in the U.S.A. than in their own countries of origin.

So what motivates CAIR to besmirch their host country and stir discontent? The answer lies in the old playbook developed by the radical Left and now passed on to the new radical players: calculated fear mongering. Such messages are designed to keep American Muslims misinformed, scared, and running for CAIR’s protective cover.

In this example, CAIR was promoting its own so-called “Civil Liberties” Conference titled “Know Your Rights,” with the apparent purpose of encouraging Muslim immigrants to disobey American laws, resist law enforcement efforts, and game the system with frivolous lawsuits against local businesses and government agencies that result in more political power and personal enrichment – all under the aegis of CAIR.

The email included this flyer:

… CAIR’s faith-based protection racket is now working its way to replace all other means of social interaction for Muslim immigrants, aiming to become the only game in town for all American Muslims.  By the rules of this game, in exchange for “protection,” they dare not assimilate and integrate into the larger society, accept American traditions and values, and – most importantly – dare not leave Islam.

The framework for such games has been inadvertently established by the fallacious multiculturalist doctrine.  …

Omar M. Ahmad, founder of CAIR, once said: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant… The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.” It is apparent that CAIR’s goal is not so much to contribute to the American society, but rather to replace our constitutional republic with an oppressive Islamic theocracy.  Their efforts to set up the groundwork for this have been so far successful.

Freedom-loving Americans who oppose premeditated destruction of their cultural and political integrity are being silenced with lawsuits and the myth of “Islamophobia.” Their opponents have learned how to take advantage of democratic liberties, such as the right to free speech, free expression, free press, free assembly, freedom of religion, and equal protection before the law.  But in a society the Islamists are planning for us, there will be no place for any of these individual freedoms, as evidenced by the Sharia-based totalitarian systems currently being implemented in the Middle East by the international Islamist alliance known as the Muslim Brotherhood.

All world cultures, Western and Muslim alike, share the same moral conviction, which is commonly reflected in their laws: those who show contempt for human life by committing remorseless, premeditated murder justly forfeit the right to their own life.

No. That is not true. Islam does not share the moral convictions of the West. It does not forbid its followers to murder, it only fobids them to murder fellow Muslims [eg. Koran 48:29]. And even that prohibition is honored more in the breach than the observance. Every single day Muslims are killed by other Muslims, in large numbers.

By this moral and legal standard, shouldn’t remorseless radical groups that profess contempt for our individual freedoms and actively promote their demise, forfeit their own right to enjoy these very individual freedoms? Shouldn’t their premeditated efforts to destroy the rule of law make them ineligible to be protected by these very laws? …

They should. But CAIR is favored, assisted, sustained, encouraged by the Obama administration:

The White House has recently admitted to having hundreds of behind-the-scenes meetings with CAIR …

When Eric Holder’s DOJ routinely steps in as muscle for CAIR’s ongoing litigation jihad; when Muslim employees are instigated to bring about unreasonable lawsuits against their employers; when American Muslims feel overwhelmed or bullied into silence by radical groups that claim to “represent” them, good and honest Americans must say “enough is enough” and, in the absence of government protection of their interests, resort to individual action and seek effective alternatives.

The Florida chapter of Stop Islamization of America has done just that. Calling CAIR-Florida’s flyer “offensive to our law enforcement officers and to Florida business owners,” they have created this counter flyer:

The advance of Islam must be resisted. Powerful, well-funded Islamic organizations can be frustrated. Stopping the creep takes organization, determination, thought, planning, tireless work, and much courage.

We at the American HQ of TAC are proud to announce that our British editor, Sam Westrop, wearing one or two of his several political activist hats, has chalked up a victory by all these means in London.

Two victories, in fact, as this press release reveals:

A report published by Stand For Peace exposing the extremist views and backgrounds of several foreign speakers invited to preach at a large conference in London has forced the cancellation of the event.

Organised by the Al-Muntada Trust, the ‘Month of Mercy’ was due to be held on 8th July at the Grand Connaught Rooms, but following numerous complaints and discussion with the police, the venue has stated that the conference will not go ahead.

Al-Muntada has an extensive history of hosting some of the UK’s worst hate preachers over many years. The views of the proposed speakers at the conference included justifying suicide bombings, glorifying jihad, promoting venomous homophobia, questioning criticism of female genital mutilation, spreading antisemitism, and encouraging reprehensible bigotry against Shia Muslims.

The report was compiled with research assistance from the Institute for Middle Eastern Democracy, which monitors anti-democratic and illiberal forces abroad. It was then discussed with MPs, the Home Office and security services, and was published on the Stand for Peace website.

Concerns were initially dismissed by the venue hosting the event, with one senior member of management stating that the conference “didn’t bother me at all”. But after several anti-extremist blogs and websites picked up on the report, hundreds of people complained directly to the venue and lobbied their MPs, resulting in the cancellation. The venue cited “the safety and security” concerns when they cancelled the event, saying that they had engaged in “careful consideration and liaison with the local police force”.

Sam Westrop, Associate Director of the Institute for Middle Eastern Democracy, said:

“The cancellation represents a victory for fair minded people of all faiths. By giving out the relevant information about extremist speakers, Stand for Peace was able to demystify the event’s purpose. Many people are intimidated by such events taking place around them, and lack the tools to investigate the true nature of what will be preached at them. By simply referring to public statements speakers have made in the past, members of the public were able to point out the worrying agenda that the event seemed to be pursuing. We commend the Connaught Rooms for changing their mind in the face of public concern.”

The Grand Connought Rooms cancellation follows a recent and similar warning about the activities of the Palestinian Forum in Britain (PFB). The PFB planned a ‘cultural’ event in Manchester, featuring speakers who have supported terrorism, including Azzam Tamimi and Saudi hate preacher Mohammed Al-Shareef. After StandforPeace and other campaigning organisations disseminated background information provided by the Institute, the hosting venue forced the PFB to cancel the speakers.

Notes for editors:

Stand For Peace is one of the UK’s leading anti-extremism organisations. It closely monitors and analyses extremist activity across the UK, thanks to its network of informers, and its expert researchers and analysts.

The Institute for Middle Eastern Democracy is a London-based think-tank which promotes better understanding of democratic and anti-democratic forces in the Middle East.

If it can be done there, it can be done here. It is being done here – in Florida, for instance. All it takes is organization, determination, thought, planning, tireless work, and much courage.

  • Chimini

    CAIR should also have the reverse of this in Saudi Arabia where one could be arrested for owning a LITERARY book called the bible.

    /sarcasm

  • The speakers merely moved to the Waterlily, a mozlem-owned hall in East London  where they continued to spout hate.

    • Jillian Becker

      Thank you for this, Ishtar Mordechai.

      At least they are not visible to the public while spewing their hate inside a hall. 

      By the way: Sam Westrop has now resigned from the staff of The Atheist Conservative. But we continue to follow and admire the splendid work he is doing in Britain.   

  • Liz

    It’s so encouraging to see this backlash gain momentum.  Three cheers for SIOA and for Sam Westrop!

  • GTChristie

    It is interesting that in many cases an administration can leverage its extant legal powers to do by regulation what Congress will not do through
    legislation, which might give us some leverage in the CAIR situation too, effectively banning them without indicting them. Indeed this “circumvention” tactic lately has been embraced by Mr. Obama in other contexts which may be instructive:
     
    “… Branding its unilateral efforts “We Can’t Wait,” a slogan that aides said Mr. Obama coined … the White House has rolled out dozens of new policies — on creating jobs for veterans, preventing drug shortages, raising fuel economy standards, curbing domestic violence and more.
    Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”

    — Irving Kristol:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/us/politics/shift-on-executive-powers-let-obama-bypass-congress.html

    George W. Bush was criticized by Obama for doing much the same, for example by handling Guantanamo-incarcerated terrorists under procedures for military tribunals rather than international protocols for POWs on one hand and civil prosecution on the other.

    Obviously neither party holds a patent on this technique and it is, in fact, completely constitutional and legal, as long as the powers of regulation have been granted by law to the bureaucrats, who need only justify their particular choices by pointing to the appropriate legislation that established their jurisdiction and  granted them discretion on whatever issue is at hand. The latitude allowed to bureaucrats in these circumstances is, in fact, the principal reason individuals run (and parties support them) for President: to gain control of the wide-ranging discretions already empowered by law. Vae victis. (“Woe to the vanquished.”)

    Obviously our current administration consorting with CAIR is an example of this technique in action. Apparently there is no actual law against negotiating with terrorists, much less asking for their opinions. It is, after all, simply an administrative decision to “engage” them in dialog.

    But the sword cuts also in the opposite direction. It is quite possible, constitutionally and under current mandates, to administer the blood right out of the snake without legislating it out. In particular, I point to the precedent set by the State Department’s process of classifying nations as “state sponsors of terrorism,” organizations as terrorist entities, and/or individuals as terrorists. The declaration of such a status — ie, inclusion on the relevant list — is enough to trigger sanctions and enforcement of specific laws already on the books, but inclusion itself is purely an administrative function requiring no special mandate to enforce — and no prosecution or trial to prove the validity of inclusion on the list.

    This is not an extra-legal dimension of the executive’s powers; in fact it is completely within the law and the constitution, well-precedented and thoroughly well-used by every agency apparatchik right down to the local dogcatcher. Given such power, it would not be difficult to administratively “outlaw” CAIR — that is, to indict them without trial by including them on some appropriate list and let nature take its course. It may be as simple as shunning them (ignore them to death), or it may be as elaborate as qualifying them sufficiently and approriately to justify freezing their assets, etc.

    On this argument, then, it should be clear that any tolerance for CAIR to undermine American democracy is a crisis of political (and practical) will to oppose it, and not a powerlessness to do so.
    -gc

    • Jillian Becker

      Thank you for this, GTChristie. It is interesting information. 

      But presidents can abuse executive powers. Obama does.  

      See this article: 

      http://www.goerie.com/article/20120628/OPINION09/306289992/Krauthammer%3A-Obama-uses-'naked-lawlessness

      The government is not looking for ways to defeat the Islamic enemy. Obama refuses to recognize that Islam as such is waging war on America, or, if he does, sides emotionally with the enemy. He is positively encouraging Islamic jihad, in particular by cozying up to the Muslim Brotherhood.  

      The only remedy is a regime change. But what if Obama wins re-election in November?

      • Then I consider moving to Australia, because the tipping point will have been reached, and the omnipotent idiocracy will be well on it’s way.;-S

        • BTW how about that unemployment rate Dropping below “8.0” percent for the first time in 43 Months… down to 7.8. Democrats will see no coincidence in this or the disrepancy between 114,000 jobs added (according to employment roles) vs. 870,000 newly employed (according to a household “survey”) liberals will have no problem swallowing that because miracles and amazing coincidences happen all the time in politics.