CAIR

Newt Gingrich: Ban Shariah in America [with VIDEO]

By Robert Spencer

Just before his stunning victory in the South Carolina primary, Newt Gingrich drew the ire of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the deceptive Islamic supremacist group that bamboozles many with its pose as a neutral civil rights organization.  Gingrich, fumed a CAIR spokesman, was "one of the nation's worst promoters of anti-Muslim bigotry."  How did Gingrich earn this dubious honor?  By telling the truth about Islamic law, and making clear his determination to resist it.

 

It all started last Tuesday, when Gingrich took a question about whether he would ever endorse a Muslim for President.  "It would depend,” Gingrich answered, “entirely on whether they would commit in public to give up Sharia,” the Islamic legal code that mandates stonings, amputations, and restrictions on the freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, and institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims.

"A truly modern person who happened to worship Allah would not be a threat,” Gingrich continued, but “a person who belonged to any kind of belief in Sharia, any effort to impose it on the rest of us, would be a mortal threat."   He even came out in favor of a federal law banning the use of Sharia in American courtrooms.

Gingrich also displayed an admirable grasp of the realities of Sharia, noting that the “rising Islamization of Turkey has been accompanied by a 1,400% increase in women being killed,” and pointing out other negative manifestations of Sharia:  “The application of Sharia in places like Iran … churches being burned in Nigeria and Egypt, and … the decline of Christians in Iraq from a million, 200 thousand, when the Americans arrived, to about 500,000 today.”

Gingrich concluded:  "I think the time has come for us to have an honest conversation about Islamic radicalism.  I don't think we should be intimidated by our political elites, and I don't think we should be intimidated by universities who have been accepting money from the Saudis and who, therefore, now have people who are apologists for the very people who want to kill us."

This isn’t the first time Gingrich has challenged politically correct pieties so directly, and spoken so forthrightly about the realities of Islamic law.  In August 2010, Gingrich made a point that our political elites of both the Left and the Right have still largely failed to grasp:  “This is not a war on terrorism.  Terrorism is an activity. This is a struggle with radical Islamists in both their militant and their stealth form. … One of the things I am going to suggest today is a federal law, which says no court anywhere in the United States under any circumstance is allowed to consider Sharia as a replacement for American law.”

In response to his statements last week, CAIR, which has several of its former officials imprisoned for various terror-related activities, thundered that Gingrich's “outdated political ideas look backward to a time when Catholics and Jews were vilified and their faiths called a threat."

There is just one problem with this:  Catholic and Jewish immigrants to the U.S. never had a political and social system that they considered superior to the American model.  Catholic and Jewish organizations were never working to undermine the American system in the manner of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is dedicated, in its own words, to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.”

Gingrich would be foolish to ignore that threat or bow to CAIR’s demands to ascribe concern about it to “bigotry.”  CAIR characterized Sharia as teaching “marital fidelity, generous charity and a thirst for knowledge," but left out the unpleasant bits.  Anyone who wants to see what Sharia is like can look to the states where it is implemented, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.  Western apologists for Sharia claim that it is so multiform that it has no particular character that anyone can point to.  In reality, wherever and whenever Sharia has been implemented, historically and today, it has looked pretty much the same, and has contained elements absolutely inimical to Western notions of freedom and human rights.

Newt Gingrich is one of the few major politicians to acknowledge that the problem America faces today from Islamic jihadists is not simply one of terrorism, but of a larger attempt to insinuate elements of Sharia into American society and to assert the principle that where Sharia and American law conflict, it is American law that must give way.  Gingrich is determined not to allow this principle to advance.  Bravo.

This article originally appear in Jihad Watch.

CAIR Muslim Brotherhood Affiliate

"From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists…the conspirators agreed to use deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists"

- Federal prosecutors in a court filing
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs SABRl BENKAHLA "

Tue, November 18, 2014 CAIR Protests Designation as Terrorist Group

CAIR's Executive Director and Founder Nihad Awad (L) and National Legislative Director Corey Saylor announcing the release of their agitprop report on

CAIR's Executive Director and Founder Nihad Awad (L) and National Legislative Director Corey Saylor announcing the release of their agitprop report on "Islamophobia," whose aim was to shut down discussion on Islamism.

by: 
Ryan Mauro

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muslim American Society (CAIR) and Islamic Relief Worldwide, the parent organization of Islamic Relief USA, are protesting the United Arab Emirates after the Muslim-majority country banned them alongside 80 other groups including the Muslim Brotherhood.

The United Arab Emirates banned the Muslim Brotherhood, as Egypt and Saudi Arabia have done, but went several steps further by listing Brotherhood entities in Europe and the U.S. In taking this step, the UAE made a conscious decision to expose these groups as Brotherhood affiliates.

In response, the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), a Muslim group opposed to Islamism, said the ban is counterproductive. The organization argues:

“Ideally, the UAE’s move would cause individuals associated with these groups and broader American society at large to see these organizations for what they really are: purveyors of Islamist apologetics and the malignancy of supremacism. Unfortunately, however, this list will do no such thing. Rather, it places CAIR in exactly the position they most enjoy: that of the victim.”

The AIFD says bans do not undermine the Islamist ideology, especially because governments like those in the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar “just want a single tribe to control the Islamist government rather than a populist movement.”

These are valid points worth considering, however, the Muslim Brotherhood qualifies as a terrorist organization. Hamas, the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, is officially branded a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department.

In America, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood set up a section called the Palestine Committee with the specific objective of financing Hamas. This was accomplished by the Holy Land Foundation, an entity of the Palestine Committee, until it was shut down. CAIR is another entity of the Palestine Committee according to the U.S. Justice Department.

These Brotherhood-linked groups are now responding to the press attention by asking the UAE for explanations. One group, the Muslim American Society (MAS), said it would try to get help from the U.S. government.

Another group banned by the UAE is the Muslim American Society (MAS). This organization was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America,” according to federal prosecutors in a 2008 court filing. The Clarion Project has documented MAS’ history of extremism, including its Brotherhood links and its leadership’s affection for Hamas.

MAS issued a press release says it is “shocked” and “perplexed” by the news and wants an official UAE explanation. It describes itself as a “religious community service organization” without a presence in the UAE.

MAS boasted earlier this year about its involvement with the U.S. government and interfaith groups. The MAS statement says, “We would also like to seek the help of our government to address this issue.”

The listed media contact for MAS is Oussama Jamal, the Secretary-General of a new Islamist political coalition consisting of at least seven radical groups. Jamal is also a senior official with the Hamas-tied Mosque Foundation, has questioned whether Arabs were involved in 9/11 and says the U.S. government’s counter-terrorism investigations are part of a “Zionist agenda.”

Jamal also endorsed a letter this year that protests the Islamic State terrorist group but endorses sharia law and its brutal hudud punishments and the rebuilding of a caliphate. Its language also exempts Hamas from its condemnation of terrorists.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) had a similar reaction and said the UAE’s action is “bizarre” and “shocking” and demanded that the UAE removed its name, as well as that of MAS and other “civil society” groups.

“There is absolutely no factual basis for the inclusion CAIR and other American and European civil rights and advocacy groups on this list. Like the rest of the mainstream institutions representing the American Muslim community, CAIR’s advocacy model is the antithesis of the narrative of violent extremists,” CAIR says.

CAIR then defends itself by mentioning that it endorsed the aforementioned letter against the Islamic State that supposedly proves it is moderate. However, the letter, as mentioned above, endorses sharia law and its brutal hudud punishments and the rebuilding of a caliphate. Its language also exempts Hamas from its condemnation of terrorists.

CAIR was labeled an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of another U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity named the Holy Land Foundation for financing Hamas. The Justice Department listed it as an entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee; a secret body established to support Hamas.

In a statement to the Clarion Project, Islamic Relief Worldwide said:

“On November 15, the United Arab Emirates designated over 80 groups as ‘terrorist organizations,’ including Islamic Relief. Islamic Relief is a purely humanitarian organization and categorically denies links with terrorism. We will be engaging with the UAE authorities to seek the removal of this wrongful decision.”

The Clarion Project has documented Islamic Relief USA’s history of extremist links. For example, Islamic Relief USA’s Director of Fund Development and Senior National Director, Azhar Azeez, is now the President of the Islamic Society of North America, a group that the U.S. Justice Department designated as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-financing trial along with CAIR.

The Justice Department also listed Azeez’s group as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. Azeez also signed the aforementioned letter that endorses sharia governance and the rebuilding of the Caliphate.

The Israeli government banned Islamic Relief Worldwide this summer due to alleged Hamas links. In 2006, Israel arrested and deported IRW’s Gaza project director for financing Hamas. The Israelis said he admitted to working with Hamas entities in the region.

At least three IRW offices have a working relationship with a Hamas affiliate in Turkey named the Humanitarian Relief Foundation, more commonly known by the acronym of IHH. There are very strong indications that Islamic Relief USA also does. IHH is banned as a terrorist organization in Israel, Germany and the Netherlands and a bi-partisan majority of the U.S. Congress wants to do the same.

Altogether, the Clarion Project has identified nine current or former senior Islamic Relief USA officials with links to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and/or the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. Several have expressed support for Hamas or Muslim Brotherhood leaders that support Hamas like former Egyptian President Morsi and Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi.

By labeling these American organizations such as CAIR, MAS and IRW as terrorists along with the Muslim Brotherhood, the UAE has thrown down the gauntlet. The UAE wants the world to know that the Brotherhood operates legally in the West through front groups.

The UAE had to know the backlash this move would cause. It decided it was worth it. That is a testament to how concerned the UAE is about the Muslim Brotherhood in America and Europe.

 

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio.

Sun, November 16, 2014 United Arab Emirates Bans CAIR as Terrorist Group

Ibrahim Hooper (L) CAIR's national communications director and spokesperson; Nihad Awad (R), founder and executive director of CAIR (Photo: © Reuters)

Ibrahim Hooper (L) CAIR's national communications director and spokesperson; Nihad Awad (R), founder and executive director of CAIR (Photo: © Reuters)

by: 
Ryan Mauro

The United Arab Emirates has joined Egypt and Saudi Arabia in listing the Muslim Brotherhood as a banned terrorist group with 81 other groups, including many Brotherhood affiliates. The list includes two U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entities and one British group with a branch in America: the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim American Society (MAS) and the U.K.-based Islamic Relief Worldwide, the parent organization of Islamic Relief USA.

CAIR was labeled an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity named the Holy Land Foundation for financing Hamas. The U.S. Justice Department also listed CAIR as an entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, a secret body established to support Hamas.

MAS was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America,” federal prosecutors said in a 2008 court filing. Abdurrahman Alamoudi, a convicted terrorism-financier and admitted member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, testified in 2012, “Everyone knows that MAS is the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Islamic Relief Worldwide/Islamic Relief USA has extensive Muslim Brotherhood links. Israel banned the group this summer for financing Hamas, and it is also known to work closely with a Hamas-linked group in Turkey.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been calling for a Gulf coalition against the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran since 2012. In March, the UAE pledged to work with Saudi Arabia after it branded the Brotherhood as a terrorist group, but the UAE did not officially do the same until now.

The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have put tremendous pressure on Qatar for its support of Islamist terrorists including the Muslim Brotherhood. The UAE teamed up with Egypt to bomb Islamist militias in Libya and to support secular military forces there. Most recently, the UAE carried our airstrikes on the Islamic State in Syria in coordination with the U.S.

The banning of these organizations brings significant risks. The Muslim Brotherhood, Iranian proxies and Al-Qaeda affiliates are powerful and can threaten the UAE in many ways. The Brotherhood’s lobbies in Europe and the U.S. will use their political influence to their advantage.

Previously, the U.S. State Department has infuriated the UAE by condemning its banning of Islamist terrorist entities. The Brotherhood’s allies in America have every reason to believe they can strain the U.S.-UAE relationship by characterizing CAIR, MAS and Islamic Relief as victims of political persecution.

Yet, the UAE has proven itself it to be a valuable ally in the fight against Islamist terrorism. The UAE views these three groups as part of the problem and the facts support that position.

The Muslim Brotherhood linkages and extremist records of these three groups are known. The difference between the U.S. and the UAE is that the former chooses to ignore them and the latter chooses to act on them.

Other groups banned by the UAE include:

  • Al-Qaeda and many of its affiliates, the Islamic State (ISIS), the Pakistani Taliban, the Haqqani Network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, Hezbollah, the Houthis of Yemen and Jabhat al-Nusra, a popular Al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria.
  • Many groups in Syria and Iranian-backed Shiite militias in Iraq like Iraqi Hezbollah, the Badr Organization, Asa’ib Ajl al-Haq. Also included is Al-Qaeda’s branch in Iran, reflecting the fact that Sunni and Shiite terrorists work together despite deep sectarian differences.
  • Major Muslim Brotherhood affiliates in the region and in Europe, such as the International Union of Muslim Scholars, the Cordoba Foundation in the U.K., the Muslim Association of Britain, the Union of Muslim Organizations of France and a group named the Union of Islamic Organizations of Europe, probably in reference to the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe.

 

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio.

CAIR, 20 Years of Terror

Submitted by Emily on Tue, 2014-11-11 11:53

URL: 
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joe-kaufman/cair-20-years-of-terror/?utm_source=FrontPage+Magazine&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4caac94d5a-Mailchimp_FrontPageMag&utm_term=0_57e32c1dad-4caac94d5a-156519349

Tue, November 4, 2014 Muslims Told to Follow Orders on Voting by D.C. Muslim Caucus

A ballot box in Los Angeles (Photo: © Reuters)

A ballot box in Los Angeles (Photo: © Reuters)

by: 
Ryan Mauro

The D.C. Muslim Caucus is getting negative press attention for telling Muslims they are required to vote as their leaders tell them to. A spokesperson justified the stance by referencing international Islamists.

A press release issued by the D.C. Muslim Caucus endorses a list of candidates in Washington, D.C. and instructs Muslims to vote against a ballot measure that would legalize small amounts of marijuana for non-medical use.

“According to Islamic tenets, Muslims participating in democratic elections are obligated to vote as a bloc based upon a consensus of the Muslim community,” the October 27 press release states.

The core message is that Muslims should not trust themselves to vote correctly and are required by their faith to reject political independence. It doesn’t matter how much you know and how much passion you have, the judgment of leaders like the D.C. Muslim Caucus is trustworthy and yours is not.

The D.C. Muslim Caucus’s at-large director Talib Karim displayed his Islamist orientation by referencing Islamists to the Washington Post when asked about his group’s position requiring Muslims to vote as a bloc.

First, Karim referenced a 2007 session of the Muslim World League, an international Islamist organization based in Saudi Arabia. It is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and its operations in the U.S. have come under investigation for terrorism financing.

As the Post pointed out, Karim mischaracterized the Muslim World League rulings. The document he supplied did not tell Muslims to vote as a single bloc as directed by their leadership.

The second document Karim gave to the Post was a 2006 article by a sharia judge in the United Kingdom named Haitham al-Haddad. He is an Islamist with a history of extremist rhetoric including anti-Semitism, anti-gay rhetoric, support for the execution of apostates, condemnations of democracy and anti-Americanism.

Al-Haddad tells Muslims to vote as their leaders tell them to. Further, he said, “It is upon the remainder of the Muslims therefore to accept and follow the decisions of these organizations.”

The D.C. Muslim Caucus has links to other Islamists.

Karim's Facebook page also features photos from an event at a mosque in Philadelphia where he excitedly talks about the crowd being inspired by radical clerics Imam Siraj Wahhaj and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

The Caucus’ website features a photo of Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), speaking at its 2014 Ramadan Iftar dinner. CAIR is a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity with Hamas linkages that endorsed sharia governance in September.

The event honored Washington, D.C. Mayor Vince Gray and also raised money for the Palestine Victims Fund of Islamic Relief USA (IRUSA), the U.S. branch of Islamic Relief Worldwide, another group with strong Muslim Brotherhood ties. The Israeli government says the group finances Hamas, a claim supported by its work with a Hamas-linked charity in Turkey.

The event page also lists the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), another U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity, as a sponsor.

A Facebook post by Kalim about a similar event honoring the D.C. mayor in August 2013 also lists CAIR, ISNA and IRUSA as sponsors.

The pictures of the event show former ISNA Secretary-General Sayyid Syeed present, who declared in 2006, “Our job is to change the constitution of America.” 

Syeed was the director of academic outreach for the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), another Brotherhood front, from 1984 to 1994. During that time, the FBI had an informant inside the Brotherhood warning that IIIT was working to infiltrate the U.S. government and universities.

Also featured in the photo is Saba Ahmed, who believes in anti-American 9/11 conspiracy theories, won't denounce sharia governance and shows solidarity with a Somali accused of planning to bomb a Christmas tree lighting event in Portland in 2010.

The D.C. Muslim Council claims to represent 20% of Muslim residents in the capital. That’s a frightening claim considering the Islamist sources of the group’s beliefs.

This political dogmatism is part of Islamist doctrine. A secret 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo, uncovered by the FBI, defines the Brotherhood’s “work in America as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” The memo explicitly states its desire to consolidate the Muslim-American community behind it by:

“Establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which…aims at unifying and directing Muslims’ efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is.”

The D.C. Muslim Caucus’ press release is part of Islamism’s condescending treatment of Muslims and its “with-us-or-against-us” stance towards Muslim critics.

When it comes to theology, Muslims are told to follow the sharia that is based upon the interpretations of medieval Islamic scholars and Islamist clerics. Reformation is equated with doubting Islam and, therefore, heresy.

When it comes to politics, some debate is permitted, but when decision time arrives, Islamists expect Muslims to follow their directives. Dissent is considered betrayal of the ummah (the global Islamic community) or, in the case of some Muslim critics, “Islamophobia,” sedition or even apostasy.

In his book A Battle for the Soul of Islam, Muslim anti-Islamist Dr. Zuhdi Jasser explains that Islamists view the concept of the ummah as a single nation-state, political party or military force.

Non-Islamists, on the other hand, see the ummah as a diverse religious community that doesn’t cause a dichotomy between citizenship and faith.

An example of this dichotomy in action is when a CAIR official said in June that the West is promoting nationalism among Muslims as part of a divide-and-conquer strategy.

Muslim activist Asra Romani writes:

“It’s critical that we ditch the concept of the ‘Ummah’ with a capital ‘U’ and recognize that we are an ‘ummah’ with a small ‘u,’ meaning our religious identity doesn’t have to supersede other loyalties and identities. This attempt to push an “Ummah” is the politics of ideologues of puritanical Islam who want to mollify dissent.”

Muslims should be offended at the arrogance of the D.C. Muslim Caucus and how they demand that Muslims vote according to their directives.

The Caucus and other Islamists are relying upon religious coercion, not political persuasion. It is fitting for a theocracy, not for a democracy like the U.S. that is based on equality and the belief that every voter should feel free to make up his or her own mind.

The press release is more than a cheap political tactic. At its root, it is supremacist and anti-democratic.

  

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio.

Mon, November 3, 2014 Congressional Candidates Receive Money from Islamists

Nihad Awad (r), executive director and founder of CAIR and Ibrahim Hooper (l), national communications director and spokesperson

Nihad Awad (r), executive director and founder of CAIR and Ibrahim Hooper (l), national communications director and spokesperson

by: 
Ryan Mauro

The Islamist Money in Politics project has identified 11 candidates -- two Republicans and nine Democrats -- who received campaign donations this year from Islamists.

The project concludes that prominent Islamists have given at least $700,000 to federal candidates over the past 15 years, including $85,451 to presidential campaigns.

The figures are probably only a shadow of the true numbers, as the first-of-its-kind project does not yet include state-level campaigns like governorships. It also does not include every Islamist or Islamist organization that has donated.

The compiled data is based on campaign contributions by senior officials with five groups. The five groups included in the database all have Islamist origins and are:

1. Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. CAIR was labeled by the Justice Department as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.

2. Muslim American Society (MAS), a group that federal prosecutors confirmed was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”

3. Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), led by the radical preacher Siraj Wahhaj and included an anti-American militant named Luqman Ameen Abdullah who was killed in a shootout with the FBI.

4. Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. ISNA was labeled by the Justice Department as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.

5. Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a group founded by Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members, but has taken a stance critical of the Brotherhood and Islamism in recent years.

The Republican candidate with the most Islamist financial support is Rep. Terri Lynn Land, who is running for a Senate seat in Michigan. She was given $2,576 from donors linked to CAIR and MPAC.

RealClearPolitics has Land behind Rep. Gary Peters by an average of 12% in the polls. However, Rep. Peters has also received $11,000 since 2008, with $1,000 coming in 2014 from a CAIR-tied source.

The second Republican is Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, who received $250 from a CAIR-linked donor. He is in a tight race with Independent Greg Orman, who is leading in the polls by only 0.7% on average.

The Democrat with the most Islamist backing is Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota (himself a practicing Muslim), who received $130,692 from sources linked to CAIR, MAS, MANA and ISNA. He is considered a lock for re-election.

Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana has received $33,911 since 2008, with $6,750 being donated this election cycle. He is considered a lock for re-election.

Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia has received $5,450 since 2008, with $2,000 coming in 2014. He is considered a lock for re-election.  Connolly’s opponent has released ads criticizing his support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

One ad has audio of Connolly opposing the overthrow of the Brotherhood in Egypt, describing locals concerned about the Islamic Saudi Academy as “bigots,” and arguing for U.S. financial aid to a Palestinian unity government that includes the Hamas terrorist group.

Connolly has even criticized President Obama for not supporting the Muslim Brotherhood enough, earning him the adoration of Muslim Brotherhood supporters.

Democratic nominee Bobbie McKenzie of Michigan has received $2,500 this year. The last poll recorded by RealClearPolitics has him behind his opponent by 12%.

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona has gotten $1,450 since 2012, with $400 arriving this cycle. She is considered a lock for re-election.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland received $1,000 this year through the Van Hollen Victory Fund. He was earlier given $250 in 2012. He is considered a lock for re-election.

Rep. Mike Honda of California has received $750 since 2012, including a $500 donation this year. The latest poll shows him locked in a tight race with Ro Khanna, leading only by 2%.

Mike Obermueller of Minnesota has received $600 since 2013, including a $250 donation this year. The most recent poll showed Obermueller behind by 22%.

Islamists also donated to four former candidates who lost their primaries:

  • Alfonso Hoffman Lopez of Virginia, who received $500.
  • Mayor Bill Euille of Virginia, who received $250. 
  • Valeria Ann Arkoosh of Pennsylvania who received $250.
  • Rep. Anesa Kajtazovic of Iowa who received $1,000 this year.

One notable donor in the database is Esam Omeish, who has donated $17,610 to Democratic and Libertarian candidates since 2005. This cycle, he gave $1,000 to Rep. Gerry Connolly.

Omeish is a board member of CAIR-National and president of MAS from 2004 to 2008. In 2000, he was videotaped praising Palestinians who believe “the jihad way is the way to liberate your land.” In 2004, he praised the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, as “our beloved.”

In 2010, Omeish “liked” a Facebook page for Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, who is the radical spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and is linked to Hamas. Omeish has also defended the Brotherhood and said, “We [MAS] still view them as a good ally.”

Another notable donor is former ICNA President Mohammad Yunus, who has donated $3,800 to the National Republican Congressional Committee and Rep. Carson, with the latter receiving $2,500 this year.

 

Presidential Campaigns

The Islamists in the database have also donated to presidential campaigns over the past 15 years, amounting to over $85,000.

President Barack Obama was easily the most favored candidate for Islamists in the 2012 general election, 2008 general election and 2008 Democratic primary.

Islamists directly donated $14,600 to Obama from 2004 to 2012. In addition, the Obama Victory Fund received from Islamists $39,700 in 2008 and $9,250 in 2011-2012. The total he has received is $63,550.

 

2012

President Obama received $9,250 from Islamists in the 2012 election cycle.

Republican nominee Mitt Romney was given $1,000 by a CAIR-linked source during the primary. Two of his rivals, Texas Governor Rick Perry and Rep. Ron Paul, received $500 and $1,200 from CAIR sources, respectively.

 

2008

Then-Senator Obama was given approximately $40,000 during the general election campaign.

During the Democratic primary, Obama received about $9,150 before winning the nomination on June 3, 2008, making him the candidate with the most Islamist financial backing.

The database shows both Senator Joe Biden and Senator Hillary Clinton receiving $2,000 during the primary from Islamists, although Biden received an additional $250 in 2002. However, Clinton reportedly received another $2,000 from three Islamist sources not included in the database.

During her Senate campaign in 2000, Clinton returned $50,000 in donations from Islamists. In addition, the Clinton Foundation has had organizational links to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and received millions from figures close to the governments Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Iran.

Former Democratic Vice-Presidential Nominee John Edwards received $1,750; Governor Bill Richardson received $1,000 and former Senator Mike Gravel received $250.

 

2004

The most favored presidential candidate by Islamist donors was Independent candidate Ralph Nader, who received $4,400.

During the general election, Democratic nominee John Kerry received $1,500, while President Bush did not receive any donations from the Islamists included in the database.

The most favored candidate during the Democratic primary was Lyndon LaRouche Jr., who got $1,050. He was followed by Congressman Dennis Kucinich with $1,250; Senators Bob Graham and Joe Lieberman with $1,000 and Senator John Kerry with $250.

 

2000

In the 2000 cycle, Republican nominee and eventual President George W. Bush was the favored candidate. The Clarion Project has chronicled the close relationship between American Islamists and the Bush campaign and administration.

The Bush campaign returned $1,000 from Abdurrahman Alamoudi, a secret U.S. Muslim Brotherhood member who was later convicted on terrorism-related charges. The Bush campaign received $3,000 from other Islamist sources in 1999-2000, including $1,000 from Nihad Awad, executive-director of CAIR.

By contrast, Vice President Al Gore received $1,000 from Larry Shaw, a CAIR board member.

 

Conclusion

As the Islamist Money in Politics project states, this is only the tip of the iceberg, but the main issue here isn’t necessarily dollar amounts. It’s influence.

A donation of a few hundred dollars won’t buy a candidate’s loyalty, but it may give an Islamist access to a candidate or a campaign’s inner circle of staff and advisors. The donation may indicate a current relationship to a candidate’s campaign or open the doors to a relationship that can influence policy.

When the FBI wiretapped a secret Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 (which included two founders of CAIR), Hamas operative Abdel Haleem al-Ashqar was recorded explaining, “Forming the public opinion or coming up with a policy to influence …the way the Americans deal with the Islamists, for instance. I believe that should be the goals of this stage.”

The donations tracked by this project show the ongoing pursuit of this objective.

 

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio.

Tue, October 21, 2014 Video: Father Helps ISIS Militants Stone Daughter as per Sharia

Islamic State militant standing next to the father of the woman about to be stoned.

Islamic State militant standing next to the father of the woman about to be stoned.

Islamic State militants in Syria stoned to death a young woman whom they had accused of committing adultery. The woman's father zealously took an active part in the stoning.

The stoning took place in the eastern part of the Hama province. A gruesome video of the execution was published by one of the Islamic State's media outlets (see video below).

The video shows the victim’s father standing next an Islamic State member while facing his daughter. Using a pleasant, gentle tone, the militant explains to the woman that she is being punished for the crime of adultery.

The Islamic State member then asks the father if he’s willing to forgive his daughter. The father refuses adamantly. Turning to his daughter he adds, “I’m not your father.”

As the stoning begins, the image is blurred by the Islamic State’s video editor, however the act of the stoning can still be seen.

Towards the end of the video, music -- added by the Islamic State’s editors – accompanies the scene of the father hurling, at point blank range, one stone after another at his daughter’s head.

Warning, very graphic, disturbing images

 

To learn more about the Islamic State and its brutal system of sharia-based governance see Clarion Project's Factsheet: The Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL) 

 

 

 

Syndicate content