But it isn’t “Islamophobia” when they really ARE trying to kill you

Posted: August 2, 2011 | Author: barenakedislam

Terrorist Front Group CAIR demands that the ACLU stop the FBI from using anti-Islam books and trainers to teach agents about our muslim enemies.

Better to use lies and propaganda put out by CAIR, an offshoot of the terrorist supporting Muslim Brotherhood.

Posted on 3 Aug 11 by BNI

Herman Cain Apologizes … to the Muslim Brotherhood

If Cain opposes Sharia-based governance, then he picked the wrong group to reach out to.

by Ryan Mauro

 

 

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain has been under fire for saying communities should be able to stop the construction of mosques. So he apologized, following a visit to a mosque led by Imam Mohamed Magid, the president of Muslim Brotherhood branch the Islamic Society of North America.

On Wednesday, Cain took a tour of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society of Sterling, Virginia. ADAMS Board Member Robert Marro said:

I think that the meeting today has changed his mind 100 percent. From the tenor of the conversation, I can’t see him repeating such things. … [The apology was] as close to a heartfelt and sincere apology that I’ve seen from any politician anywhere.

A statement from Cain following the meeting read:

While I stand by my opposition to the interference of Sharia law into the American legal system … I am truly sorry for any comments that may have betrayed my commitment to the U.S. Constitution and the freedom of religion guaranteed by it. Muslims, like all Americans, have the right to practice their faith freely and peacefully.

If Cain opposes Sharia-based governance, then he picked the wrong group to reach out to.

As noted above, Mohamed Magid is also president of the Islamic Society of America (ISNA). The group says it “rejects all acts of terrorism, including those perpetrated by Hamas, Hizbullah and any other group that claims Islam as their inspiration.” However, ISNA was listed as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Holy Land Foundation trial. The HLF had been found guilty of being a front for Hamas set up by the Muslim Brotherhood.

ISNA, likewise, is listed in the Muslim Brotherhood’s own documents as one of its fronts.

ISNA has fought a losing battle to have this label removed. In July 2009, a judge ruled that the government had “ample evidence” connecting ISNA to the Holy Land Foundation, Hamas, and the Islamic Association of Palestine, another Brotherhood front shut down for financing terrorism. For example, HLF received checks to the “Palestinian mujahideen,” a reference to Hamas’ military wing, from ISNA accounts. As far back as the 1980s, an FBI document was warning:

[ISNA events] provided opportunities for the extreme fundamentalist Muslims to meet with their supporters.

ADAMS itself is not free of terror ties. In March 2002, ADAMS had its offices raided as part of a terrorism investigation.

Magid previously served as an advisor to the Sterling Charitable Gift Fund, which also had its offices raided.

On October 15, 2004, Magid accused elements of the Bush administration of being “intent on dismantling Muslim organizations and bringing them down.” Magid and other ADAMS officials have relationships with a wide array of Islamic entities that have been targeted in terrorism investigations.

The former president of ISNA from 1997 to 2000, Muzammil Siddiqi, supports the Sharia-based governance Cain declared his opposition to. In October 2008, he proclaimed at a rally:

America has to learn that because if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come.

In 2001, he said:

Once more people accept Islam, insha’allah, this will lead to the implementation of Sharia in all areas.

In another speech, Siddiqi saluted the “Intifada movement in Palestine.” He continued:

We shall be celebrating insh’allah the coming of Jersualem and the whole land of Palestine insh’allah and the establishment of the Islamic State throughout the area.

Siddiqi remains on the governing board of ISNA.

ISNA events promote extremist literature and host radical speakers such as Siraj Wahhaj, Zaid Shakir and Imam Warith Deen Umar, the New York prison chaplain who was fired for celebrating the 9/11 hijackers as “martyrs” to inmates. In 2008, ADAMS held a fundraiser where Luqman Abdullah spoke. Abdullah led a group called “Ummah” that sought to establish Sharia-governed enclaves within the United States. He was killed on October 28, 2009, after he opened fire on the FBI agents trying to arrest him. The federal affidavit said he called “on his followers to an offensive jihad, rather than a defense jihad. He regularly preaches anti-government and anti-law enforcement rhetoric.” (Unsurprisingly, ISNA’s fellow Brotherhood affiliate, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, denounced the FBI.)

To be fair to Herman Cain, he is just one on a long list of officials who have embraced ISNA and other Brotherhood fronts. On March 6, Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough spoke at ADAMS and specifically praised Imam Magid and ISNA. He said that he, “along with my White House colleagues — have benefited from the advice of many of your organizations through our Office of Public Engagement.”

ADAMS was so impressed with Cain that they are willing to let him give an apolitical “brief sermon” as a Baptist preacher. If he agrees, it will be a stunning development to have one of the most vocally anti-Islamist candidates help legitimize a Brotherhood front tied to Hamas.

If Herman Cain wants to be the darling of the anti-Islamist voters in the Republican primary, he has shot himself in the foot.

Posted on 31 Jul 11 by Pajamas Media

Hijabi’s legal jihad nets $20K from Abercrombie & Fitch

Posted on July 22, 2011 by creeping

via Jury awards $20,000 in Muslim woman’s employment lawsuit

A federal jury awarded $20,000 in compensatory damages Wednesday to a Tulsa woman who was not hired to work at a local Abercrombie Kids store because she wears a headscarf, but jurors opted not to award her any punitive damages.

$20K takes the distress away…

U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell turned down the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s request for an injunction against the company.

Still, Samantha Elauf, 20, said she was “very excited” by the outcome and that she is glad she made her situation public.

The EEOC sued Abercrombie & Fitch on Elauf’s behalf in September 2009, alleging that the company practiced religious discrimination when it chose not to hire her to work at an Abercrombie Kids store at Woodland Hills Mall in June 2008.

She had worn a hijab – or religiously mandated headscarf – to her job interview.

Frizzell ruled last month that the company failed to establish that granting Elauf an exception to its “Look Policy” would have caused it undue hardship.

Because the judge had already found Abercrombie liable, the only issue before the jury was what – if any – damages should be awarded.

EEOC regional attorney Barbara Seely told the jury during her closing argument that Elauf – who was born in the United States – had never been discriminated against before, hasn’t gotten over how she was treated, and will always remember it.

Elauf had testified Tuesday that she felt insulted and disrespected after she discovered that she was not hired because of the scarf.

Seely told the jury that the company wanted its sales associates – or models, as Abercrombie calls them – to look like “cookie-cutter kids.”

Abercrombie attorney Mark Knueve said during his closing argument that diversity is very important to the company and that the organization doesn’t discriminate.

He did say, though, that the company considers its Look Policy a central part of its success, comparing it to Coca-Cola’s secret formula.

Part of the policy prohibits head wear, although the jury heard about several exceptions that had been made during the past few years.

Knueve told the jurors that Elauf should not receive damages, noting that she gained other employment within a few days of not being hired to work at Abercrombie Kids.

While the jury was engaged in what turned out to be more than four hours of deliberations, Frizzell heard testimony and arguments about whether he should issue an injunction against Abercrombie.

Such an injunction would have required the company to notify applicants who wear headscarves to interviews that they may request to be allowed to wear one as a religious accommodation and to provide training to its retail store managers that such notifications must be made.

The injunction also would have required the company to train managers about the company’s obligation to provide religious accommodation to applicants and employees and how to recognize when an applicant might need such an accommodation.

Frizzell noted that Abercrombie has changed its interview procedure so that applicants are now told that the company does not permit its models to sport headwear on the job and are asked if they have any questions about that policy.

Elauf testified Tuesday that she did not ask during her interview for any sort of accommodation that would have allowed her to wear a scarf while on the job, saying she didn’t know it was necessary to bring up the topic.

The EEOC, not Elauf, is the plaintiff in the case, but Seely told the court at a pretrial hearing that any damages would go to Elauf and not to the agency. Frizzell told the jury Wednesday that Elauf has no legal fees to pay connected to the case.

Compensatory damages were sought for the emotional distress Elauf endured because of the discrimination, Seely told the jury.

Knueve did not give a definitive answer when asked whether Abercrombie intends to appeal.

Barring a successful appeal by the company, Elauf plans to save the $20,000 and apply it toward the costs of opening her own clothing store someday, she said.

When asked how it will compare to Abercrombie, a smiling Elauf said, “It’ll be better.”

Seely said Wednesday’s jury verdict was “icing on the cake” for the EEOC after previously winning on the liability issue.

“Samantha Elauf deserves every penny,” Seely said. “She is a courageous young woman who stuck with this case for three years in order to stand up for her rights and the rights of every Muslim woman to work wearing a headscarf.”

Obligatory and useless comment from terrorist-linked CAIR not printed here.

Posted on 22 Jul 11 by Creeping Shari’a

10 Failures of the US Government on the Domestic Islamist Threat

Center for Security Policy | Nov 12, 2010
By Patrick Poole

Albert Einstein once defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.” At the heart of the Team B II project is the belief that the Team A approach of our government to the Islamist threat, i.e. the received wisdom of the political, law enforcement, military and intelligence establishment, has proved to be a serial failure. In fact, we would be hard-pressed to find many instances in which the government Team A actually got it right. Rather than attempt to get it right, the establishment seems content to double-down on failure.

What follows are the most egregious and glaring failures of our national security agencies’ approach. This whitepaper compiles a representative sample of ten cases, but easily a hundred or more cases could be presented. These examples range chronologically from incidents that occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s, to events that have happened within the past few weeks prior to the publication of this paper. From the first Bush 41 Administration to the current Obama Administration, the degree of failure is non-partisan. These cases also cover the gamut of federal agencies and departments, along with a few examples on the state and local level, showing that no segment of our government holds a monopoly on failure on this issue. The problem is universal.

Each of these cases is rooted in a fundamental failure by those government officials responsible to identify the nature of the threat. At their root these examples demonstrate what Team B II author and former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has called “willful blindness.” For government officials who have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, however, their “willful blindness” is a breach of their professional duty to know, to understand and to respond.

It should also be noted that each of these cases has been brought to the public and elected officials’ attention before. In most cases, no action was taken despite public outcry. We hope that the winners of last week’s election will finally take responsibility for the nation’s security and take action against this threat of Shariah and Islamic terrorism.

Sources are provided so anyone– media, public, and policymaker– can understand the extent of the problem and investigate how our political, civic and religious leadership have allowed this threat to advance so far.

Posted on 10 Nov 10 by Center for Security Policy

Where the government (both federal and local) has failed here in America is by allowing Islam to advance throughout our borders, and allowing shari’a law to advance, like the Muslim Brotherhood has pledged in 1991 for America’s takeover. We have Dearborn, MI. as a highly shari’a compliant type American city, we have government officials that cater to the Muslim Brotherhood and it’s fronts, we have city officials that are Muslims and try to advocate shari’a in their cities (i.e L.A. County Sheriff Baca) or Muslim sympathizers (i.e. the city commissioners in Fort Collins, CO). Islam is taking over America because of the willful blinded eye that many people and government officials have. Islamic Muslim are working on building their Islamic Centers and their mega Mosques…Mosques, historically have been built by Islamic Muslims to proclaim “victory” over the “infidels” or “children of the Book or scriptures” in that area…and as a reminder to the defeated “infidels” that they are not worthy to even live, but the followers of the religion of peace have showed them mercy, so they must show respect…they show respect by being second class citizens and doing slave type work, if they weren’t actually slaves, and also by paying jizya tax, or protection tax.

We need to all protest…not violently, not by burning Qur’ans, not by vandalizing Mosques, but by prayer and fasting, and on a consistent basis, bombard your local governmental officials concerning the advancement of shari’a law and its threat and the the fact the the unindicted co-conspirators of the Holy Land Foundation of funding terrorist organizations trial (and found guilty) and the radical Islamic organization that is working on taking over America, (the Muslim Brotherhood) that they need to be stopped, and state officials need to press anti-shari’a law amendments into the state’s constitutions like Tennessee did.

retired Don

Freeing Al Qaeda?

Center for Security Policy | Jul 15, 2011
By Frank Gaffney, Jr

Just when you thought it was not possible for the Holder Justice Department to become any more hostile to the national and homeland security interests of the American people, along comes yet another travesty.  This one threatens both, as it apparently would involve turning loose in America a convicted terrorist known to be a top Muslim Brotherhood (MB or Ikhwan in Arabic) operative and al Qaeda financier: Abdurahman Alamoudi.

According to a short Associated Press report on July 8^th:

Federal prosecutors are asking a judge to cut the 23-year prison term being served by an American Muslim activist who admitted participation in a Libyan plot to assassinate King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

Alamoudi – who famously declared his support for Hamas and Hezbollah at a rally in Lafayette Square in October 2000 and was recognized by the Justice Department as a Muslim Brother – has been incarcerated with other top terrorists in the Supermax facility in Colorado.  As an American citizen, he would presumably be allowed to stay in this country upon his release.

Alamoudi at Large

Can it be precluded that, once he is freed, Alamoudi would take up again with those he did so much to help sponsor, foster and run as one of the leading Muslim Brothers in the country?  Lest we forget, as a driving force behind many of the myriad MB front organizations in the United States, he previously was deeply involved with the fulfillment of the Ikhwan‘s mission here as described in its 1991 strategic plan.

That plan, which was found by the FBI in 2004 when they discovered the secret archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in Annandale, Virginia, is entitled An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America. (It is reprinted in its entirety as Appendix 2 of Shariah: The Threat to America, ShariahtheThreat.com.) […go to page 285…] According to this memorandum, the Brotherhood’s mission in America is “a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within…by their [read, our] hands and the hands of the believers.”

This objective is, of course, identical to that of al Qaeda, the other jihadist enterprise for whom Alamoudi previously worked.  Who knows, if freed, could he rejoin its ranks, too?

At the very least, one has to assume that Abdurahman Alamoudi would be able to reconnect with the Muslim chaplains in the U.S. military and prison systems whom the Clinton administration allowed him to recruit, train and credential.  As no evident effort has been made to relieve his hand-picked folks from their clerical responsibilities ministering to such exceedingly sensitive populations, putting Alamoudi back in business – or at least back in touch – with them could intensify the grave security threat they might pose even now.

Why Would Alamoudi be Freed?

So what possible justification could the Holder Justice Department have for releasing such an individual just nine years into a twenty-three year sentence?  The AP story notes that, “The documents explaining why prosecutors want to cut Alamoudi’s sentence are under seal, but such reductions are allowed only when a defendant provides substantial assistance to the government.”

We can only speculate about what such “assistance” might be.  Could Alamoudi be telling the feds insights about his former paymaster, Qaddafi, that could be helpful in removing the latter from power?  As it is not entirely clear whether such an outcome is actually the goal of the United States, France or NATO in Libya at this point, it is hard to see that possible help as justification for running the serious risks associated with springing so dangerous an individual.

Perhaps, alternatively, Alamoudi might have spilled the beans about his friends in the Brotherhood’s vast North American infrastructure.  Did he provide further confirmation of the subversive role being played as part of what the Ikhwan calls its “civilization jihad” by, for example, organizations and members of: the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Students Association (MSA), the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), the Muslim Community Association (MCA), the Islamic Council of North America (ICNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Fiqh Council?

Such insights seem unlikely to have been valued by the Obama administration, though, since it continues to have extensive dealings with such groups and individuals associated with them.  If anything, such ties with MB fronts and operatives will be intensifying, now that Team Obama has decided formally to embrace the Muslim Brotherhood’s mother ship in Egypt.

Unfortunately, given this trend – to say nothing of the mindlessness of the Holder Justice Department when it comes to matters of national security – a more probable explanation for its willingness to give Alamoudi a get-out-of-jail-free pass is that the Obama administration is anxious to remove an irritant in relations with its friends in the Muslim Brotherhood and to demonstrate that a new day is dawning in those ties.

Alamoudi’s GOP Influence Operation

As it happens, in the aftermath of the Alamoudi announcement, one of his most successful pre-incarceration influence operations bore fresh fruit.  In 1998, Alamoudi personally provided seed money to enable libertarian anti-tax activist Grover Norquist to establish the Islamic Free Market Institute (better known as the Islamic Institute or II).  The Institute served the purpose of credentialing Muslim Brotherhood operatives like Khalid Saffuri, Alamoudi’s longtime deputy at the American Muslim Council (AMC), who became II’s founding executive director – as “conservatives” and enabling them to infiltrate the George W. Bush 2000 campaign and administration.

After the incarceration of his sponsor on terrorism charges, Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, has continued to promote Muslim Brotherhood personnel and agendas inside Republican circles.  For instance, just this week, at the July 13^th meeting of his so-called “Center-Right Coalition” in Washington, Norquist staged a denunciation of legislation now being debated in state legislatures across the country: the American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation.

MB Priority: Stopping American Laws from Governing in American Courts

The Muslim Brotherhood is outraged that three states have already enacted one version or another of the ALAC bill designed to preclude foreign laws (including, but not limited to, shariah) from being used in that state’s courts if doing so would deny constitutional rights or otherwise conflict with state public policy.  It has been introduced in some twenty others states and, to date, has passed in one house or another of four of them.

Such successes have been achieved by Americans all over the country because there simply is no good argument for opposing this affirmation of our civil liberties for all Americans – including American Muslim women and children whose rights are frequently being impinged upon by the application of shariah.  (See ShariahinAmericanCourts.com, a study of twenty-seven cases in twenty-three states where shariah was allowed to trump American laws.)

Last Wednesday, Norquist arranged for three speakers – self-described Jews or Christians – to promote the Muslim Brotherhood line that free practice of religion, including that of non-Muslims, would be denied were ALAC to be adopted.  Nothing could be farther from the truth, as the legislation itself makes clear (See Public Policy Alliance).  But it is instructive that the GOP influence operation Alamoudi spawned continues to serve his intended purpose: dividing and suborning conservatives in the best tradition of the stealth jihad at which he and his Brothers have long excelled.

Perhaps another venue in which we can expect to see Abdurahman Alamoudi should the Obama administration actually get away with freeing this al Qaeda terrorist will be as a featured speaker at Grover Norquist’s Wednesday meeting?

posted on 15 Jul 11 by Frank Gaffney, Jr