Obama’s Muslim Outreach Coordinate Meets With Muslim Radicals

Remember Mazen Asbahi, Baracks original Muslim Outreach Coordinator, he stepped down after it was discovered that he had ties to Muslim radicals. Now Obama’s new coordinator, Minha Husaini, has meet with radical Muslims. These are people that advocate terrorism, censorship, support Hamas, Hezbollah…

Guess who was one of the people in the meeting… Mazen Asbahi…

More Change You Can Believe In.

Barack Obama’s newly appointed Muslim outreach adviser is coming under fire for meeting with Islamic groups with extremist views, just two months after her predecessor resigned over links to a radical cleric.

Minha Husaini met with members of several Islamic organizations in Virginia on September 15 — including some that terrorism experts say have ties to Hamas and the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

Among the attendees were senior members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which was listed by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terror-related trial.

Several people connected to CAIR have been convicted of felonies — including on terrorism-related charges.

CAIR bills itself as the nation’s largest Muslim civil-rights advocacy group. As recently as last year, it advised the Transportation Security Administration on sensitivity training regarding Muslim air travelers. Nihad Awad, a CAIR co-founder and executive director, met with President Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. 

But critics say CAIR has a long history of masquerading as a moderate Islamic group. 

“These groups, even if they themselves are not active terrorist organizations, do subscribe to large amounts of the ideology that fuels the terrorism that we are being confronted with,” said Andrew McCarthy, former Assistant U.S. Attorney.

CAIR did not return repeated calls for comment.

Awad, who was at the September meeting with Husaini, recently attended a dinner with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Also present at the Sept. 15 meeting was Mahdi Bray, who has publicly announced his support for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Bray, the executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, raised his fist in the air during a rally in Washington in October 2000 to demonstrate his support for the terror groups.

Bray refused to comment on the recent gathering. “It was a closed meeting,” he told FOX News.

Johari Abdul Malik, imam of the Dar Al-Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church, Va., also participated in the meeting. During a conference in Chicago in 2001, he told attendees, “You can blow up bridges, but you cannot kill people who are innocent on their way to work.” In November 2004 he told followers, “You will see Islam move from being the second largest religion in America — to being the first religion in America.”

Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said the campaign would not have sent a representative to the meeting had it known the list of participants.

“This meeting was not organized by the campaign — our outreach staff attends many meetings in the course of each day and they accepted an invitation from community leaders to attend,” LaBolt told FOX News in a written statement.

The Obama campaign’s previous Muslim outreach advisor, Mazen Asbahi — who stepped down in August following reports he was linked to a radical imam — also attended the meeting.

In a brief telephone conversation, Asbahi refused to discuss why he was at the meeting or whom he was representing.

According to LaBolt, “[Asbahi] is not an employee of the campaign and does not speak on behalf of the campaign.”

Advertisements

Former Congressman Saljander Linked To IARA’s Funding Of Al Qaeda

Mark Deli Saljander, former Republican Michigan congressman and UN Delegate, longtime supporter of bridging the gap between Christians and Muslims, to be indicted for money laundering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice, dealing with investigations into funds ($130,000) sent by the Islamic American Relief Agency (IARA)  to known Taliban/Al Qaeda terrorist leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

Many are going to immediately dismiss this as he did not know they were sending money to the Taliban/Al Qaeda (Iraq too), and he was lobbying in order to help the poor in those countries… Bullshit, if he is going to lobby on their behalf or anyone elses, he should know where their money is going. As a lobbiest it is his job to know who he is doing it for

Interesting a congressman from Michigan supporting terrorists… Sounds familiar… Michigan is a hot bed of terrorist sympathizers… I wonder how much money flows from Michigan to terror organizations around the world…

I am betting the MO based IARA has ties to the Holy Land Foundation and CAIR…

WASHINGTON —  A former congressman and delegate to the United Nations was indicted Wednesday as part of a terrorist fundraising ring that allegedly sent more than $130,000 to an Al Qaeda and Taliban supporter who has threatened U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan.

The former Republican congressman from Michigan, Mark Deli Siljander, was charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about lobbying senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.

A 42-count indictment, unsealed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Mo., accuses the Islamic American Relief Agency of paying Siljander $50,000 for the lobbying — money that turned out to be stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Siljander, who served two terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, was appointed by President Reagan to serve as a U.S. delegate to the United Nations for one year in 1987.

His attorney in Kansas City, JR Hobbs, denies all the accusations made against Siljander.

“Mark Siljander vehemently denies the allegations in the Indictment and will enter a not guilty plea,” Hobbs said in an official statement.

“Mr. Siljander, a former Congressman, is internationally recognized for his good faith attempts to bridge the gap between Christian and Muslin communities worldwide. Mr. Siljander was never an officer of the Islamic American Relief Agency (IARA), nor was he ever involved in any alleged efforts by IARA to engage in any prohibited financial transactions with any U.S.-designated terrorist, including Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.”

Siljander’s attorneys also say he will turn himself in where the charges were filed in Kansas City, Mo. Siljander is currently in the Washington, D.C., area, and it is not known whether he will go to an FBI office and be escorted to Kansas City or if he will travel there on his own to turn himself in.

The charges are part of a long-running case against the charity, which was formerly based in Columbia, Mo., and was designated by the Treasury Department in 2004 as a suspected fundraiser for terrorists.

In the indictment, the government alleges that IARA employed a man who had served as a fundraising aide to Usama bin Laden.

The indictment charges IARA with sending approximately $130,000 to help Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whom the United States has designated as a global terrorist. The money, sent to bank accounts in Peshawar, Pakistan in 2003 and 2004, was masked as donations to an orphanage located in buildings that Hekmatyar owned.

Authorities described Hekmatyar as an Afghan mujahedeen leader who has participated in and supported terrorist acts by Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The Justice Department said Hekmatyar “has vowed to engage in a holy war against the United States and international troops in Afghanistan.”

The charges “paints a troubling picture of an American charity organization that engaged in transactions for the benefit of terrorists and conspired with a former United States congressman to convert stolen federal funds into payments for his advocacy,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein.

Siljander founded Washington-area consulting group Global Strategies, Inc. after leaving the government.

The indictment “paints a troubling picture of an American charity organization that engaged in transactions for the benefit of terrorists and conspired with a former United States congressman to convert stolen federal funds into payments for his advocacy,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein.

Siljander founded Washington-area consulting group Global Strategies, Inc. after leaving the government.

Fireworks Kids Might Get Off

The fireworks Kids, Ahmed Mohamed and Youssef Megahed , defense lawyer is arguing that the consentual search of their vehicle was a constitutional violation. First off, they consented to the search, therefore it is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Second and most importantly they are not US Citizens, therefore the Bill of Rights do not apply to them.

Now what the liberal media would like you to believe is that these two were profiled. Their being pulled over for speeding in a remote area near a military base in the middle of the night with Florida plates had nothing to do with it. They want you to believe that the story these two gave was a reasonable story, they were just driving along visiting beachs between Florida and North Carolina for giggles. They want you to believe that “police instincts” do not exist, that police do not have the ability to suspect when someone is lying to them. These instincts are usually based on body language and eye movement when answering questions.

The fact that explosives,  bullets, video of how to make bombs for Jihadists were found in the vehicle lends credibility to the officers suspicions.

Lastly, the liberal media would like you to believe that these two are innocent misunderstood kids who have good intentions… That is why CAIR has pretty much dropped their support of them…

TAMPA – One of two University of South Florida students accused of transporting explosives has asked the courts to throw out evidence against him, saying the search was racially motivated and illegal.

Students Ahmed Mohamed and Youssef Megahed were arrested Aug. 4 after deputies in South Carolina found explosive materials in their car trunk, authorities said. Both remain in federal custody awaiting trial.

In a court document filed Friday, Assistant Federal Public Defender James W. Smith, one of Megahed’s attorneys, wrote that the South Carolina deputy who pulled the students over used racial slurs, did not believe the reasonable stories they gave and searched their car without probable cause.

Megahed and Mohamed were stopped for speeding. While in Berkeley County, S.C., sheriff’s deputy Lamar Blakely radioed a dispatcher to look up Mohamed’s driver’s license and registration information and had a conversation with his partner, the court document states.

In that conversation, captured on videotape, Blakely tells his partner Mohamed and Megahed are “graduates of suicide bomber school” and members of the “Taliban,” according to the court filing. He also jokes that they have a copy of the Quran with them. At one point, the court document states, Blakely becomes concerned the remarks are being taped.

Even though the driver’s license and registration came back clean and neither man had an outstanding warrant, Blakely told his partner he was going to search the car, the document states.

According to the document, Blakely asked Mohamed why the two were in the area and Mohamed responded by saying they were driving from Tampa to North Carolina, visiting beaches along the way. That did not seem to satisfy Blakely, who began to question Megahed.

When he returned to Mohamed, he asked, “You don’t mind if I search the car, do you?” the document states.

After finding a box of ammunition, Blakely handcuffed the two men and searched the trunk. Authorities have said explosives were in the trunk. Mohamed has told investigators the devices were “sugar rockets,” or fireworks that would just travel a few feet in the air and smoke, according to court documents.

Megahed’s public defender wrote the car was not speeding and therefore was stopped illegally. Smith also wrote the deputy illegally detained the car for longer than it would have taken to write a citation.

In the document, Smith argues the deputy was on a “fishing expedition” and stopped the car on the deputy’s “hunch” that criminal activity was taking place. The hunch, Smith wrote, was based on Blakely’s “inappropriate stereotypes” and was a case of racial profiling.

Federal Public Defender Adam Allen, who also represents Megahed, said the motion he and Smith filed Friday “challenges the constitutionality of the stop and search of the vehicle.”

“My client’s constitutional rights were violated,” he said.

Ahmed Bedier, director of the Central Florida office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the deputy’s alleged remarks are “disturbing.” He also questioned why Mohammed’s car was searched.

“Law enforcement should follow the rules,” Bedier said. “When they don’t do their job the right way, they jeopardize their own investigation.”

Allen said he expects the court will schedule a hearing in which the South Carolina deputy will testify and then be cross-examined by the defense and the prosecution.

Pat Doherty, a criminal defense attorney not affiliated with the case, said he expects a debate over two areas when the hearing is held: that Mohammed was indeed speeding, and whether the two men consented to the search.

The prosecution’s argument will be that Mohammed and Megahed consented to the search, Doherty said.

“This is going to be interesting,” Doherty said.

Reporter Thomas W. Krause can be reached at (813) 259-7698 or tkrause@tampatrib.com.

Savage Lawsuit Going After CAIR As A Terrorist Entity

Wow, Michael Savage is going all out against CAIR. His suit has been amended to include charges that CAIR is a terrorist agency and not a Civil Rights Group.

Unlike our government who was afraid to charge CAIR in the Homeland Foundation trial in Texas, Savage is not afraid.

WASHINGTON – It’s no longer just a charge of copyright violation in the case of Michael Savage v. Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Now the radio talk star is going for the legal jugular in his battle with the group that bills itself as a Muslim civil rights organization.

The San Francisco-based talker has amended his lawsuit against CAIR for misusing audio clips of his show as part of a boycott campaign against his three-hour daily program to include charges the group “has consistently sought to silence opponents of violent terror through economic blackmail, frivolous but costly lawsuits, threats of lawsuits and abuses of the legal system.”

The amended lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California, also charges CAIR with using extortion, threats, abuse of the court system, and obtaining money via interstate commerce under false and fraudulent circumstances – calling it a “political vehicle of international terrorism” and even linking the group with support of al-Qaida.

The federal government recently named CAIR, based in Washington, D.C., as an unindicted co-conspirator in an alleged scheme to funnel $12 million to the terrorist group Hamas.

And as WND has reported, CAIR has been associated with a disturbing number of convicted terrorists or felons in terrorism probes, as well as suspected terrorists and active targets of terrorism investigations.

“Groups like CAIR have a proven record of senior officials being indicted and either imprisoned or deported from the United States,” said U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., co-founder of the House Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus.

Savage and celebrity civil rights attorney Daniel Horowitz are attempting to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to make the case that “CAIR and its co-conspirators have aided, abetted and materially sponsored al-Qaida and international terrorism.”

CAIR launched a campaign against “The Savage Nation,” as the program is called, using extended audio clips of the show to make the case that advertisers who supported the talker were actually endorsing “hate speech” against Muslims.

Savage turned the tables on the activist group by initially suing for copyright violation of the show’s material. This week the suit was expanded with some of the strongest allegations ever made against CAIR publicly.

Among the charges is that CAIR is “part of a deliberately complex and deliberately confusing array of related organizations” and that its “organizational structure is part of a scheme to hide the illegal activities of the group, funding, the transfer of funds and to complicate investigation of the group.”

Other highlights of the suit:

  • “CAIR is not a civil rights organization and it never has been. … CAIR was and is a political organization that advocates a specific political agenda on behalf of foreign interests.”
  • “The copyright infringement was done to raise funds for CAIR so that it could perpetuate and continue to perform its role in the RICO conspiracy set forth in Count Two and to disseminate propaganda on behalf of foreign interests that are opposed to the continued existence of the United States of America as a free nation.”
  • “CAIR would have to register as a foreign agent if their activities were not hidden under the false claim that they are a civil rights organization that enjoys tax-exempt status.”
  • “CAIR was tied to terror from the day it was formed. The group was incorporated on or about 1994 by Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad. Both men were officers of a terror organization known as the ‘Islamic Association of Palestine.'”
  • “CAIR’s parent group, IAP, was founded in or about 1982 by Musa Abu Marzook. Marzook was IAP’s ideological leader and controlling director from the date of its founding until shortly after his deportation from the United States in 1997. At all time relevant, Marzook was an operative of, and/or affiliated with, the ‘Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah,’ or ‘Hamas.’ Hamas is an international terrorist organization.”
  • In 1998, “CAIR demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as ‘the sworn enemy,’ asserting that this depiction [was] ‘offensive to Muslims.'”
  • In 1998, “CAIR denied bin Laden’s responsibility for the two al-Qaida bombings of American embassies in Africa. CAIR’s leader Ibrahim Hooper claimed the bombings resulted from ‘misunderstandings on both sides.'”
  • “On October 5, 2001, just weeks after 9/11, CAIR’s New York office sent a letter to The New York Times arguing that the paper had misidentified three of the hijackers and suggesting that the attacks may have been committed by people who were impersonating Arab Muslims.”
  • “CAIR further exploited 9/11 as it put on its website a picture of the World Trade Center in flames and below it a call for donations that was linked to the Holy Land Foundation website.” The Holy Land Foundation, the suit charges, is “a terror organization.”
  • “CAIR receives significant international funding. For example, in 1999 the Islamic Development Bank gave a $250,000 grant to CAIR to purchase land for a national headquarters. In 2002, the World Association for Muslim Youth, a Saudi government-funded organization, financed distributing books on Islam free of charge and an advertising campaign in American publications. This included a quarter page in USA Today each Friday, for a year, estimated to cost $1.04 million. In 2003, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal donated $500,000 to distribute the Koran and other books about Islam in the United States. In 2005, CAIR’s Washington branch received a donation of $1,366,466 from a Saudi Arabian named Adnan Bogary. In 2006, Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum, deputy ruler of Dubai and UAE minister of finance and industry, financed the building of a property in the U.S. to serve as an endowment for the organization. This gift is thought to generate income of approximately $3 million a year.”
  • “The role of CAIR and CAIR-Canada is to wage PSYOPS (psychological warfare) and disinformation activities on behalf of Wahabbi-based Islamic terrorists throughout North America. They are the intellectual ‘shock troops’ of Islamic terrorism.”
  • “The Council on American-Islamic Relations is a Muslim Brotherhood front organization. It works in the United States as a lobby against radio, television and print media journalists who dare to produce anything about Islam that is at variance with their fundamental agenda.”
  • “CAIR has links to both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Terrorism expert Steven Emerson has stated before Congress that CAIR is a front for Hamas.”

Savage’s case also cites another ongoing suit against CAIR filed by the estate of John P. O’Neill, the former head of security for the World Trade Center. It alleges a RICO conspiracy involving CAIR led to the 9/11 attack.

“Throughout this period,” the Savage suit alleges, “CAIR conspired to support terrorism and to obfuscate the roles of the various participants and conspirators in Radical Muslim Terrorism, and/or al-Qaida and/or the International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, which conspiracy culminated in the 9/11 attack.”

It continues: “The pattern of racketeering activity conducted by CAIR is separate from the existence of Radical Muslim Terrorism, and/or the al-Qaida, and/or the International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, but was a necessary component of the 9/11 attack. The RICO enterprise conducts terrorism all over the world; the racketeering activity conducted by CAIR funds that activity, which activity culminated in the 9/11 attack.”

CAIR has refused to comment on Savage’s suit to date. But it has claimed a host of companies have stopped advertising on Savage’s show as a result of its boycott campaign.

However, an investigation by WND shows some of those boycott victories are questionable. In one announcement claiming Universal Orlando Resorts “drops ‘Savage Nation’ ads,” CAIR stated: “Advertisers that have already stopped airing, or refuse to air commercials on ‘Savage Nation’ include AutoZone, Citrix, TrustedID, JCPenney, OfficeMax, Wal-Mart and AT&T.”

But AutoZone told WND the CAIR campaign had nothing to do with its advertising decision, and it had chosen not to advertise on any radio talk shows – of all parts of the spectrum – years before the CAIR effort.

CAIR officials declined to respond to WND queries about why it is listing companies as part of its boycott campaign that say they have not participated in the boycott.

Officials of Talk Radio Network, Savage’s syndicator, confirmed to WND that companies including AutoZone and JCPenney never advertise on such programs.

“We do not sponsor syndicated radio talk shows,” AutoZone spokesman Ray Pohlman told WND. “We have customers of all shapes and sizes and political persuasions. For us to sponsor [any radio talk shows] wouldn’t make any sense.”

But that policy is years old, and wasn’t changed at all by CAIR’s effort, he said.

“What I will tell you is the CAIR organization did, in fact, contact the marketing department [of AutoZone.] We responded with our full advertising policy which clearly states that we do not advertise on radio talk shows,” he told WND.

The announcement about Universal was made by the Hate Hurts America Community and Interfaith Coalition, of which CAIR is a prominent member.

It said Universal Orlando Resorts “has joined a growing list of advertisers that have stopped advertising or refuse to place their ads on Michael Savage’s ‘Savage Nation’ Radio program.”

The campaign also has triggered a lawsuit by Savage against CAIR over its alleged misappropriation of Savage’s radio broadcast material. In the lawsuit, Savage depicts CAIR as a “vehicle of international terrorism.”

CAIR says it is challenging Savage’s “hate speech,” and referenced Savage comments such as:

“I’m not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I’m not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I’m not getting’ on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don’t like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don’t wanna hear any more about Islam. I don’t wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I’m sick of you.”

The Savage suit says comments like that are taken out of context.

Another major company CAIR claims has joined the boycott of Michael Savage is JCPenney. But as with AutoZone, JCPenney officials told WND readers they were not making any special provision in their advertising policy that would make them part of a protest campaign, but officials did not respond directly to WND inquiries.

“JCPenney did not ‘pull’ advertising from the show. JCPenney has had a long standing policy about not advertising on any show that can be construed as controversial. An error in upholding this policy was made by a few local stations, and it has now been clarified,” the company told a WND reader.

“Wal-Mart does not sponsor or advertise on the Michael Savage show. We have asked radio networks to ensure that Wal-Mart ads do not run in programming that we deem controversial and are sending out content guidelines reminders to radio networks and stations,” said that company.

Savage’s lawsuit alleges copyright infringement by CAIR, which the lawsuit says seeks to do “material harm to those voices who speak against the violent agenda of CAIR’s clients.”

Filed in U.S. District Court in California, the suit seeks damages equal to the ongoing donations from CAIR supporters “who expect CAIR to act in this manner in exchange for continuing financial support” as well as “actual damages according to proof.”

A spokesman for Savage indicated the top-rated talk show host would have no further comment, saying the text of the lawsuit itself would answer questions.

The focal point of the lawsuit is a series of audio clips CAIR has been using in its promotions and fundraising efforts.

Those comments from Savage’s show include his criticisms of Islam and Muslims. The lawsuit maintains such comments, taken in context, are Savage’s verbal expression of the feelings of many Americans.

“The audience of ‘The Savage Nation’ expects this type of from-the-heart outrage and when it is directed at a murderer such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his ilk, the piece is far more understandable and far more American mainstream. While the strength of the outrage is remarkable and a hallmark of ‘The Savage Nation,’ the sentiment is shared by a huge number of Americans,” the lawsuit says.

Flying Imans, Political Jihad and Rose Colored Anal Looking Glass

A must read article, the intial though I had when I read the title was that it was just a piece about the backgrounds, but as I read the article, a more important theme arose, the deep seeded religious ideology being taught in the US my Muslim Clerics, who are against the US. It sounds like they are trying to establish a separate Islamic Nation Government within the US with the eventual plan to integrate, our government into theirs… They use our Constitution to hide behind when they are discovered, but then they use it to attack as well. The ACLU and CAIR have made sure of that…

This overlooking and using political correctness to absolve liberal demands for the destruction of our country, will lead to the ultimate demise of our freedoms and open the doorway to radical Islamic terrorist attacks within our borders.

Compound this with the stories that the liberal media does not want you to hear about CAIR, the Holy Land Foundation, Dearbornistans Islamic Jihad and Hebzollah ties, and it really illuminates the threat we face from within…

I suggest reading at least twice.

Exposing the “Flying Imams”

by M. Zuhdi Jasser
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2008

On November 20, 2006, airline officials in Minneapolis removed six imams from U.S. Airways flight 300 to Phoenix after their behavior raised the suspicion of fellow travelers.[1] The imams decried the incident as racist and evidence of discrimination. On March 12, 2007, they filed suit against the airline, airport, and fellow passengers. Some of the imams’ claims are exaggerated; many are false. In reality, the incident was a tactical move to support the imams’ claim to leadership over the American Muslim community. Indeed, the “flying imams” case, Ahmed Shqeirat et al. vs. U.S. Airways,[2] appears to mark just the latest front in the war between Islamists and mainstream, pluralistic American Muslims.

Background

The airport episode appeared pre-planned, the American equivalent of the manufactured Danish cartoon controversy, in which Danish Islamists, who hoped to benefit from polarization, exaggerated victimization and sought a pretext for crisis.[3] The six imams, five of whom hailed from the Phoenix area, were returning from a North American Imams Federation conference. Three drew attention to themselves when they conducted prayers at the departure gate rather than in the airport chapel or quietly in their seats. However, they drew no response. On the plane, however, they aroused passenger suspicion with loud Arabic conversations, requests for apparently unnecessary seat-belt extenders—which can be used as weapons—and a post-boarding seating switch. Other passengers expressed their worries to the crew, who had them removed. After this incident, Omar Shahin, president of the North American Imams Federation and a prominent Phoenix imam, told the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR, an Islamist advocacy group) and its attorneys, “Security at the airport isn’t our problem; it’s their problem.”[4]

On March 12, 2007, the imams, CAIR, and attorney Omar Mohammedi, a former president of CAIR’s New York chapter, filed suit not only against the airline and the Minneapolis Metropolitan Airports Commission but also against the anonymous “John Doe” passengers who alerted the crew to the imams’ suspicious behavior.

The involvement of CAIR, an organization that has received significant Saudi financing,[5] injected impressive machinery and resources into the case. Omar Shahin explained, “Since minute one of this incident, I contacted [CAIR communications director] Ibrahim Hooper and [CAIR executive director] Brother Nihad Awad, and we arranged everything … Everything’s being coordinated with CAIR.”[6] The group underwrote the cost of any litigation.[7]

CAIR used its national network of imams and press connections to draw attention to the case. Tactically, though, the decision to litigate against ordinary passengers was a misstep. It drew critical commentary from the mainstream press.[8] The Arizona Republic dubbed it “intimidation by lawsuit,”[9] and many individuals and organizations, including our own American Islamic Forum for Democracy, offered assistance to the passengers forced into court.[10] While Mohammedi amended his suit to target only John Does whom he deemed “racist” or who had made false accusations,[11] the discovery process would still require suspect passengers to retain counsel. Congress stepped in and, in late July, passed legislation protecting passengers from similar future lawsuits.[12] The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty then filed an amicus brief with the court on August 1, 2007, asking the court to remove the John Does from the suit and denouncing the imams’ “attempt to hijack the court as legal terrorism.”[13] Under this barrage of criticism, the imams dropped their lawsuit against the passengers on August 23, 2007,[14] although they are proceeding with the rest of their suit against the airline, its employees, and the Metropolitan Airports Commission.

My Experience with the Phoenix Imams

I have known three of the plaintiffs in the U.S. Airways suit for almost a decade. Soon after settling in Arizona in 1999, I became involved in the local Muslim community. Before moving to Scottsdale, I usually attended Friday congregational prayer services at the Islamic Community Center of Tempe, Arizona. Often, Ahmed Shqeirat, now the primary plaintiff, delivered sermons at the mosque where he has long been imam. I was struck by the political nature of his sermons. He repeatedly criticized both U.S. domestic and foreign policy and often exaggerated Muslim victimization. He advocated political unification of Muslims internationally and blamed the United States, Israel, and the West for perceived slights. He called for the political empowerment of Muslims in American society.

After hearing several sermons, I spoke and wrote to him to express my dismay at his emphasis of political over spiritual topics. He responded that “secularism is Godlessness” and asserted a right to “speak about political injustice.” The concept of purely spiritual Islam and creation of an intellectual environment welcoming to all Muslims regardless of political persuasion was anathema to him.

To give one example of his abuse of pulpit, during a Friday sermon in April 2004, he displayed an image, which CAIR had distributed, of an American soldier in Iraq with two young Iraqi boys. In the photo, the soldier held a sign saying, “Lcpl Boudreaux killed my dad, then he knocked up my sister.”[15] Shqeirat neither made any attempt to verify the image’s authenticity nor to determine, if real, whether it was representative. Nor, when he was asked, could he explain how such a display related to Islamic theology or spirituality. The goal of using faith identity to divide society highlights the incompatibility of Islamism with traditions of American culture and society.

I had similar concerns regarding the sermons of Marwan Saadeddin, another plaintiff, whose sermons I heard in the Phoenix Valley. Following the U.S. Air 300 incident, Saadeddin spun the incident to the media[16] and transformed it into a parable of victimization during a Friday sermon at a Phoenix Valley mosque. During the sermon, I heard him say, “I’d rather be dead than removed from an airplane in handcuffs.” Such is the political and fanatical ranting of one of Arizona’s leading imams. As is common among Islamist preachers, he substituted politics for theology and spirituality.

I also know Omar Shahin, another imam plaintiff. He resides in the Phoenix area and has been the head of the Valley Imam Council of Phoenix, the former imam of the Islamic Center of Tucson, a teacher with the Arizona Cultural Academy, and the imam of the Islamic Center of the East Valley. His hyperbole is typical of the Phoenix-area Islamists. He called the day of his eviction from the U.S. Air flight “the worst day of [his] life,”[17] a statement far more forceful than any he issued after the 9-11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the March 11, 2004 train bombings in Madrid, the July 7, 2005 London bus and Underground bombings, or in response to any Al-Qaeda video seeking to justify the murder of Americans and noncombatants in the name of religion. Indeed, he blamed the 9-11 attacks not on Muslim terrorists but on the CIA and FBI.[18]

There should also be concern regarding the involvement of some of the imams with Islamic charities shuttered because of their terror financing. Shahin was the Arizona representative of Kindhearts and the Holy Land Foundation, both of which the U.S. Treasury Department shut down because of their involvement with Hamas.[19] Saadeddin dismissed Hamas connections as any reason for concern, recently stating that, “Hamas has nothing to do with [the] United States. Talk about Al-Qaeda only, because this is where they hit America … [If] America consider[s] it—the foreign policy of America consider[s] Hamas—as a terrorist. That’s their business.”[20]

Rally and Counter-rally

Had the Islamist imams only apologized for terrorism, it would be bad enough. But they have also sought to undercut the efforts of local Muslims to advocate against and condemn publicly terrorism conducted in the name of Islam. On November 9, 2001, I published my first commentary, arguing that the vast core of American Muslims were loyal to the flag and U.S. Constitution and that radical spokesmen did not represent the core community.[21] This article led to the formation of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD).

In Phoenix in 2004, AIFD organized the first Muslim rally against terrorism.[22] We first engaged the Arizona Interfaith Movement, a statewide inclusive interfaith leadership organization, to support Muslims willing to take this stance. We then approached the Valley Imam Council, which represents nearly all of the local Phoenix mosques and their imams. At the time, Shahin chaired the council. We made it clear that the rally would be apolitical and that the only purpose was to make clear, unambiguous statements about Islamic morality and ethics, including unequivocal statements that there is never any justification for suicide, terrorism (the intentional targeting of noncombatants), and homicide bombing.

Rather than support such goals, Shahin, Shqeirat, and Saadeddin directed the Valley Council of Imams to withdraw support. They used their pulpits instead to criticize the rally and its organizers. Citing the Arab-Israeli conflict, they objected to the idea that terrorism is always forbidden. The local CAIR chapter also withdrew. Once the Valley Council of Imams pulled out, the Interfaith Movement also withdrew support for fear that the rally would not advance harmony.

AIFD proceeded alone. The April 25, 2004 “Standing with Muslims against Terrorism” rally was then held without the public support of any local imams or any of the known Islamist organizations. The rally was a success. Four hundred people attended, perhaps half of whom were Muslims.[23] All major local networks covered it. When the media asked local imams about their refusal to participate, they responded by criticizing the rally’s apolitical nature and said they would only attend rallies in which they could argue that U.S. foreign policy was a major cause of terrorism. They also objected to any linkage of Muslims with terrorism in the rally name.

Two weeks later, CAIR-Arizona held a counter “Muslim Americans for Human Rights and Dignity” rally in which they failed to condemn explicitly terrorism and terrorists by name. The rally drew only seventy-five people.[24] The failure of CAIR and the local imams to rally much support shows the falsehood of their claim to represent the mainstream Muslim community. Many Muslims recognize the problem posed by terrorists justifying their actions in Islam. To deny the association of Muslims with terrorism—as Islamist organizations like CAIR do—is counterproductive. The Islamist strategy of picking and choosing whom they identify as a Muslim depending on the situation is disingenuous. To deny that the Fort Dix terrorist attack plotters were not real Muslims, as CAIR-Arizona chairman (and U.S. Airways employee) Mohammed El-Sharkawy did, sidesteps the problem.[25] And to argue that only scholars can determine who is and who is not a true Muslim not only appropriates God’s duty[26] but also diminishes the egalitarian nature of traditional Islam that accepts no intermediaries between the individual and God.[27]

Imposing Leadership

Creating intermediaries in order to claim false mandate remains the root of the imams’ strategy. Organizations such as the National American Imams Federation and the Assembly of American Muslim Jurists exist to impose hierarchy and, from that self-appointed hierarchy, to establish the mandate to speak on behalf of the entire Muslim community. The Islamic Society of North America, an un-indicted coconspirator in the United States of America vs. Holy Land Foundation et al. terrorism financing trial,[28] formed a Leadership Development Center to train and indoctrinate imams.[29] On March 7, 2007, it announced a leadership certifying program for imams in conjunction with the National American Imams Federation.[30]

Establishing false leadership claims is also one reason why both CAIR and various Islamist imams attempt to partner with U.S. law enforcement. On CNN’s Paula Zahn Now, Shahin said, “If you go back to our background, I am personally the chairperson for the police advisory board. I did a presentation for the FBI agent in Phoenix. I did [a] presentation with CAIR-Arizona to Yuma Air Force Base for more than 600 Marines.”[31] For many imams, participation in such programs bestows or recognizes legitimacy. This is wrong on two counts, however. First, it again conflates policy work with religious legitimacy and, second, groups often exaggerate their partnerships. One Homeland Security official said, “It is not uncommon for that particular organization [CAIR] to issue a press release attempting to overstate their interaction with the department.”[32] Within the mosque, however, congregants rarely question self-appointed Islamist spokesmen about the basis of their authority or legitimacy to represent attendees. Their inflated associations outside the mosque feed their own efforts to legitimize control and tribalization. And government and media acceptance of claims of victimization stops many non-Muslims from questioning the ideological motivations behind the religious rhetoric that many of these groups employ.

For moderate, traditional Islam to reassert itself against well-funded Islamist organizations, though, it is necessary to examine how political ideology pollutes spirituality. CAIR’s involvement in the flying imam suit is problematic. Many Muslims have seen the call by Nihad Awad, executive director of CAIR’s national office, for Muslims to report their victimization to CAIR. “Reporting to an organization like CAIR is important, because it is empowering. It is empowering to the Muslims themselves who report; it is empowering to the organization, and it is important to the status of Muslims within the United States,” he told an audience at the All Dulles (Virginia) Area Muslim Society, urging them to inflate the Muslim component of the FBI’s annual hate crime statistics to compare better to figures on anti-Jewish violence.[33] In 2005, for example, the FBI catalogued 848 anti-Semitic hate crimes, 128 anti-Islamic hate crimes, and 115 anti-Christian hate crimes.[34] In essence, therefore, CAIR’s focus on victimization and minority politics is motivated by political Islam. The imams’ victimization routine creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that CAIR can use to bolster its own claims to be a civil rights organization. It would be as if firefighters committed arson in order to bolster their position inside a community. That CAIR seeks to create facts to justify its political and foreign policy positions also shows the rigidity of its top-down approach to the community it claims to represent.

The Struggle for American Islam

While the press may focus on the flying imams case, for American Muslims, the battle is broader. On one side are the imams represented by CAIR, the Islamic Society for North America, and the North American Imams Federation, all of which lean toward an Islamist view supporting greater interplay between religion and politics and the primacy of sectarian identity. On the other side are Muslims embracing Western secular democracy. The two are mutually exclusive in their interpretation of religious hierarchy, the interplay between theology and contemporary politics, individuality, and tolerance.

Responsibility for the victory of traditional, tolerant, and pluralistic interpretations of Islam lies with Muslims and Muslims alone. The intellectual marginalization of Islamists is the duty of Muslims who value the principles upon which the United States was built and now stands. This requires recognizing the primacy of the Constitution in political life, even if Muslims turn to the Qur’an in their spiritual life. Islamists, though, insist that regardless of temporal government, the Qur’an should be the central guiding document for legislation and interpretation. Islamists believe the Qur’an is the only source of law while non-Islamists believe it is just one source.

Perhaps this was the reason why the Prophet Muhammad and his companions sought to avoid creation of the same religious intermediary class that today CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, and the North American Imams Federation presume to fill.

Within the United States today, most Muslim organizations—CAIR, the North American Imams’ Federation, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, the Muslim Students’ Association, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Muslim American Society, the Islamic Circle of North America, and the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy—embrace the Islamist approach. Many imams affiliate themselves with these organizations, fundraise on their behalf, and parrot the political agenda of these organizations. The flying imams lawsuit is just one more example of the synergy between the North American Imams Federation and CAIR.

A few small organizations—the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, the American Islamic Congress, the Islamic Supreme Council of America, the Center for Eurasian Policy, and the Center for Islamic Pluralism—are moderate and support a separation between spirituality and temporal politics. They are underrepresented in terms of resources and organization. Still, it is this nascent anti-Islamist movement upon which the Muslim fight to embrace American pluralism and freedom depends. It is also essential for interfaith relations. Many Americans are hungry to hear from Muslims who are not apologists for terror, who are ready to lead the fight against militant Islamism, who respect the division between mosque and state, and who do not seek to use their religion as a vehicle to change the American political landscape.

The struggle of these two trends to define Islam in America will last generations. It will require development of a new Islamic ideology, one born from the founding ideology of the United States. This will require not only renewed ijtihad (interpretation) but also the confidence of American Muslims to overcome Islamist and radical Wahhabist attempts to label any effort to separate religion and government as bid‘a (illegitimate invention). While the transnational umma (Muslim community) might engage itself in issues regarding theology, charity, socialization, and worship, U.S. politics should be blind to faith. For any American citizen or resident, the concept of loyalty to umma should be subordinate to loyalty to state and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution.

Shari‘a (Islamic law) might guide Muslim individuals as they choose in their homes, but it should not be invoked in government. Faith will still inspire Muslim behavior and actions, as it does with followers of other religions, but it should not be articulated in government. The embrace and exposure of Islamist agendas will repel most Muslims. It is no surprise that despite its claims to represent American Muslims, CAIR’s membership has plummeted 90 percent since 9-11,[35] a claim it first refuted as a “hit piece” before confirming it in an amicus brief to the Dallas federal court hearing in the Holy Land Foundation case.[36] A recent Pew Research Center poll showed that a plurality of Muslims believes mosques should remain apolitical,[37] a finding which suggests the majority may oppose theocracy and Islamism. The finding is also significant when put in the context of the fact that many Muslims came to the United States from autocratic societies where the mosque was often the only haven for political speech. That so many now desire apolitical sermons suggests that they have come to understand and appreciate the freedoms of U.S. society.

A Manifesto to Defeat Islamism

In 1964, Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s leading theoretician, published Ma‘alim fi al-Tariq (Milestones) in which he laid out steps to achieve an Islamic state and defeat the West. He described a generational process to ensure the victory of Islamism over Western liberal society. Liberal and traditional Muslims have yet to wage an effective counter-jihad against their Islamist brethren. There does not yet exist a liberal Muslim intellectual work equivalent to Milestones to lay the groundwork to defeat Islamism and ensure the creation of integrationist, tolerant American Muslim institutions.

A starting point to counter the Qutb construct would be for Muslim leaders to acknowledge ten points:

  1. An Islamic narrative should not constrain universal human principles.
  2. Mosques should support the separation of church and state, even as they take stands on social or political issues.
  3. The affirmation of an egalitarian approach to faith beyond the constraints of simple tolerance. Tolerance implies superiority while pluralism implies equality.
  4. Recognition that if government enacts the literal laws of God rather than natural or human law, then government becomes God and abrogates religion and the personal nature of the relationship with God.
  5. Separation of mosque and state to include the abrogation of all blasphemy and apostasy laws.
  6. Empowerment of women’s liberation and advocacy for equality as is currently absent in many Muslim-majority, misogynistic cultures.
  7. Ijtihad negating the need for Muslims active in politics today to bring theology into the political debate. Nowhere in the Qur’an does God tell Muslims to mix politics and religion or instruct by what document governments should be guided.
  8. Creation of movements and organizations that are specifically opposed to such radical or terrorism-supporting groups as Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Jamaat al-Islamiya, and Al-Muhajiroun, to name a few, rather than simply being against undefined, generic notions of terrorism.
  9. Public identification without apologetics of leaders and governments of Muslim majority countries who are dictators and despots and are, as such, anti-liberty and anti-pluralism. Muslims enjoying freedom in the West have yet to create mass movements to liberate their motherlands from dictatorship and theocracy and to move these toward secular democracies founded on individual liberties for all based in natural law.
  10. Establishment of classical liberal Muslim institutions and think-tanks to articulate, disseminate, and educate concerning the above principles. The idea that individual liberty and freedom need not be mutually exclusive with Muslim theology must be taught to Muslim youth.

Countering Islamism and combating Islamist terrorism should be a greater public responsibility for the organized American Muslim community than the obsession with civil rights and victimization in which current Islamist organizations engage. Americans living in fear for their security are looking to moderate, traditional Muslims to lead this fight. The credibility of the Muslim community suffers because groups such as CAIR, ISNA, and the North American Imams Federation deny the interplay between Islamism and terrorism.

Non-Muslims also have a role. Both the U.S. government and mainstream media often give Islamists and their organizations exclusive voice to speak on behalf of American Muslims, which creates a cycle of apparent, if not real, empowerment. Seldom do they turn to non-Islamists and anti-Islamists who may represent far more American Muslims. The recent refusal of PBS to air the ABG Films, Inc. documentary Islam v. Islamists is a prime example of the manner in which media producers and executives shield Islamists from criticism.[38]

Conclusion

The imams and clerics who push for Islamist societies are none other than politicians who cloak themselves in religious jargon. It is naïve to treat these clerics as simple activists or consider their civil rights discourse at face value. Until moderate Muslims challenge their actions, terror networks and their ideologies will flourish. Freedom and liberty are prerequisites to bring an individual close to God through religious practice free from coercion. If some imams fear that individuals will lose faith without coercive direction, then they misunderstand both Islam and liberty.

As lawyers argue the merits of the flying imams’ case in a Minneapolis courtroom, a silver lining is apparent: Excessive litigation on their part has eroded support for Islamist organizations such as CAIR, ISNA, and the National American Imams Federation, both nationally and also within the Muslim community.[39] Their loss could be the moderates’ and liberals’ opportunity to create a new American Muslim narrative.

M. Zuhdi Jasser, a former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander, is chairman of the board of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (www.aifdemocracy.org).

CAIR Terrorist Cookie Cutter

CAIR is an automated terrorist making machine as pointed out by ACT, however not one government agency or intel agency has done anything to curb this rabid dog that is attacking America from inside…

CAIR has been implicated in the recent Holy Land Foundation case and ties to terrorist organizations have been uncovered by numerous agencies, yet noone does anything about it.

CAIR has attacked everyone that does not conform to the whims of the Muslim world.

CAIR has filed numerous lawsuits, blackmailed the American business and  and launched campaigns to unseat public figures, their most recent attacks against Michael Savage.

Comment by Jerry Gordon

When an FBI official states on record that CAIR has been a ‘turnstile for terrorists’ and when Congressional leaders like Rep. Sue Myrick, member of the House Counter-terrorism caucus states that CAIR officials have been “indicted, imprisoned and deported”, you wonder why CAIR gets a pass from Members of Congress and even the FBI, despite the Muslim Brotherhood Front being named a co-conspirator in the recent Dallas Federal Holy Land charity mistrial. CAIR is scrambling to get its named expunged off of that list. This WorldNetDaily article presents a veritable dossier of CAIR founders and former associates thus charged, convicted and in a number of instances, deported as well – 14 in number all told to date – based on forensic analysis of IRS Form 99 filings for chariitable front cover goups, Federal Election Commission indidvidual and group contribution records.

Probably amongst the most egregious of this sharia mad cabal of Muslim Brotherhood fanatics according to this WND dossier is convicted terror financier, Abdurahman Alamoudi.

Another CAIR director, he is serving 23 years in federal prison for plotting terrorism. Alamoudi, who was caught on tape complaining bin Laden hadn’t killed enough Americans in the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, was one of al-Qaida’s top fund-raisers in America, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.

But when CAI tried to throttle the first amendment rights of Michael Savage, talk radio host of San Francisco – based “Savage Nation” by conduting a boycott of his advertiserrs on this thir ranked nationally syndicated program, they got a surpise. Sabge sued them.

Witness these comments from the WND CAIR dossier piece:

CAIR denies supporting terrorism and continues to claim to be a “moderate” voice for Muslims in America. The group says its critics are the extremists, including radio personality Michael Savage, whom the group is now attacking with a boycott campaign. So far it has convinced Wal-Mart, OfficeMax, AT&T, JCPenney and other companies to stop advertising on Savage’s popular show.

In response, Savage last week filed a lawsuit against CAIR, accusing the organization of being a “political vehicle of international terrorism” that seeks to do “material harm to those voices who speak against the violent agenda of CAIR’s clients.”

Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for CAIR, told WND the group would not comment on Savage’s action until the document had been reviewed.

Read this WND dossier on CAIR and circulate it widely to Members of Congress and to the new Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Suggest to Mukasey that he might hold closed door discussions with FBI Director Mueller to cut out the dalliance with CAIR and isolate regional office contacts with thsi Muslim Brotherhood front. Bravo to Michael Savage for his tough push back on the CAIR boycott of advertiserrs on his talk radio progra by suing them. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, also, as the expression goes.

WorldNetDaily, November 4, 2007

‘Proven record of senior officials being indicted, imprisoned, deported from U.S.’

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

As the Council on American-Islamic Relations lobbies Congress to help strike its name from a list of co-conspirators in a federal terror case, WND has learned the Muslim group’s ties to terrorism and extremism are far more extensive than first believed.

Although CAIR is a nonprofit organization, it does not disclose complete directories of its staff or advisory boards, and even refuses to make its federal tax filings readily available to the public.

But a review of federal criminal court documents, past IRS 990 tax records and Federal Election Commission records detailing donor occupations, reveals that Washington-based CAIR has been associated with a disturbing number of convicted terrorists or felons in terrorism probes, as well as suspected terrorists and active targets of terrorism investigations.

“Their offices have been a turnstile for terrorists and their supporters,” said one FBI veteran familiar with recent and ongoing cases involving CAIR officials.

As previously reported, three CAIR officials have been linked to terrorism. But WND has learned that at least 11 other CAIR officials have been caught up in terror investigations, bringing the total to 14.

Congressional leaders say they are warning lawmakers and other Washington officials to disassociate from the group due to its growing terror ties.

“Groups like CAIR have a proven record of senior officials being indicted and either imprisoned or deported from the United States,” said U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., co-founder of the House Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus.

John Edwards, The President That CAIRed?

CAIR agent under the guise of being a civil rights activist was dispatched to Iowa to ask John Edwards what he would do for Muslims if elected President

One important note is that he says he represents American Muslims, then in the same sentence talks about Muslims that have to wait two to five years longer than other people to become citizens. Well first off, those that are not citizens are not American Muslims. They are not Americans. Period. No where in our constitution does it dictate any time frame for becoming an American Citizen…

Profiling is a useful tool. There are certain people that need to be profiled. It was Arab Muslims that attacked the World Trade Center BOTH times. It was Muslims that attacked England’s transportation system TWICE. It was Muslims that created mass riots in France TWICE…. It is Muslim Terrorists that commit suicide bombings on a regular basis around the world. It is Muslim Terrorists that have hijacked airplanes on a fairly regular basis over the past 40 years. The list goes on…

John, please define torture, that is the biggest question, not whether or not we condone torture, by what constitute torture. Until this is defined in clear terms then you are blowing smoke out of your ass.

Maybe the reason CAIR does not like Rudy or Mitt is because they are afraid that they will be indicted as a terrorist funder as they should be.

CAIRing for John Edwards

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) dispatched its Chicago office director Ahmed Rehab to the Heartland Presidential Forum in Des Moines, Iowa, on Saturday to ask Democratic candidate John Edwards “a question about American Muslims and the civil rights movement,” the group announced yesterday.

CAIR issued a transcript of the question and answer, which it said was accepted with frequent applause.

AHMED REHAB: Senator, my name is Ahmed Rehab from Chicago, Illinois. I’m from the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Chicago and the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.
REHAB: As a full-time civil rights activist, I receive hundreds of complaints from American Muslims regarding the sort of abuses, and prejudices, and discriminations that they face on a regular basis simply because of their name, physical appearance, or faith affiliation, whether it’s housing discrimination, or employment discrimination, or having to wait two to five years over the average time limit in order to obtain their citizenship.

Sadly, it seems that we’re facing a culture of fear-mongering that is replacing our collective constitutional vision for equal opportunity for all.

Senator, in the ’60s, Malcolm and Martin gave up their lives fighting for justice for all. The civil rights movement is not over. It’s not done yet. We’re still fighting.

Senator, fighting the civil rights movement is what I do on a daily basis, and we would like to know if you will fight with us, if elected president. Thank you.

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS: … We’ve got to stop this racial profiling that’s going on in the United States of America.

And we’ve got to change the entire atmosphere. Here’s what I’ll do as president: I will close Guantanamo, which I think is a national embarrassment.

We will have no more secret prisons, no more rendition, no more — and I use this word intentional — no more illegal spying on the American people by the president of the United States of America.

And then, finally, finally, it is so heartbreaking that we have a debate in America about what kind of torture is permissible. I have an answer to that: No torture is permissible in the United States of America. And those are all things that I would do as president.

CAIR does not appear to care much for Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, whom they have criticized in past press statements.

Last week CAIR demanded a meeting with Mr. Romney to discuss a statement he made about placing Muslims in his Cabinet. In October, CAIR demanded Mr. Giuliani fire a campaign adviser who is a vocal critic of CAIR.

Audrey Hudson, homeland security reporter, The Washington Times