Recently in Stealth Jihad Category

Here is an excellent report on Pamela Geller's address at CPAC: "The Uninvited -- Geller: Conservatives 'Acquiesce' to 'Islamic Supremacist' Groups," by Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart News, March 20 (thanks to CGW):

Editors' Note: In an effort to foster a more open and honest American dialog, Breitbart convened "The Uninvited" panel at CPAC 2013. This post is a part of a series continuing that dialog with the Breitbart News readers.

Anti-jihad activist Pamela Geller made a splash with her appearance at the special Breitbart breakout panel, "The Uninvited," at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

In true Breitbart fashion, Breitbart News--itself a sponsor of the 2013 CPAC--held its own panel and stocked it with some of those voices that had been prevented from officially speaking at the conservative event. Breitbart News sponsored "The Uninvited," a panel featuring topics, experts, and personalities that were absent from CPAC this year.

Of the many outspoken guests, Pamela Geller has a record of raising the hackles of the liberal media and even some on the right that are squeamish about her topics and her command of the facts. Geller didn't disappoint when it came time for her to speak on Saturday afternoon.

"Truth is the new hate speech," Geller proclaimed. She went on to warn the audience of a "stealth jihad" that was being waged against free speech right here in America; a war meant to silence any dissent against sharia law and radical Islam. Geller was incensed, noting that this stealth jihad is even being waged on behalf of radical Islam by the American right. She was sad to note that the right is too afraid to speak out for fear of being labeled Islamophobic.

This, Geller hinted, is one of the reasons she had been barred from being part of the CPAC schedule. She went on to criticize CPAC for silencing this subject, something she called a crime.

"And that you have a gathering of 12,000 people that come here to get educated, to get activated, and you are not educating or activating them in the greatest national threat that this country faces is a crime," Geller claimed. "And for Al Cardenas to tell the Washington Post that I am banned because of this subject matter is egregious."

Geller also reminded the audience that "Stealth Jihad" is the title of Robert Spencer's book.

Geller stirred a wave of post-CPAC controversy for saying that Suhail Khan is worse than Anwar al-Awlaki for having helped silence dissent both in America and at the CPAC conference.

"Now, am I saying that Suhail Khan is as bad as Awlaki? He's worse," Geller claimed. "He's worse because look what he's done to this conference, look at the influence that they have had on this conference."

After the conference, Geller noted on her blog that she was beset with criticism for saying that Kahn [sic] was worse than Awlaki.

Geller also discussed her various ad campaigns run on the New York subway system, on Chicago Buses, and in San Francisco.

The thrust of her address was that Americans are losing their right to free speech because too many are afraid to criticize radical Islam, sharia, and jihadism. We need to take that right back, she warned, or we will lose everything. "The antidote to bad speech," Geller said in summation, "is more speech," not less.

After the event was over, Geller was effusive about having been invited to speak at "The Uninvited."

"It was a terrific panel, covering a wide range of topics," Geller told Breitbart News.

"My topic being 'The War on Free Speech,' I was gratified that Breitbart News had the courage to invite me. The war on free speech, spearheaded by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and its allied Islamic supremacist groups in the U.S., is much more pervasive than most people realize," Geller said.

"One of its chief and least-noted manifestations is the willingness of conservatives, out of fear or ignorance or both, to acquiesce to the leftist/Islamic supremacist demonization and marginalization of voices of freedom," she said.

"Kudos to the Breitbart organization for not playing along, and allowing discussion of this all-important issue."

Read it all.

"There was no evidence that the chain set out to deceive customers." So why the $700,000 payout?

Pamela Geller asks: "So meat producers in the US who are selling unlabeled meat that is halal should be the target of a multi-million dollar lawsuit, no?"

And David Wood observes:"Some Dearborn Muslims may have been given non-halal chicken at McDonalds. It could have been worse, however. They could have been thrown in jail for answering questions, as we were at the 2010 Arab Festival. But apparently what happens to Christians doesn't matter in Dearborn."

"McDonald's settles Mich. suit over Islamic diet," by Jeff Karoub for the Associated Press, January 21 (thanks to all who sent this in):

DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) — McDonald's and one of its franchise owners agreed to pay $700,000 to members of the Muslim community to settle allegations a Detroit-area restaurant falsely advertised its food as being prepared according to Islamic dietary law.

McDonald's and Finley's Management Co. agreed Friday to the tentative settlement, with that money to be shared by Dearborn Heights resident Ahmed Ahmed, a Detroit health clinic, the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn and lawyers.

Ahmed's attorney, Kassem Dakhlallah, told The Associated Press on Monday that he's "thrilled" with the preliminary deal that's expected to be finalized March 1. McDonald's and Finley's Management deny any liability but say the settlement is in their best interests.

The lawsuit alleged that Ahmed bought a chicken sandwich in September 2011 at a Dearborn McDonald's but found it wasn't halal — meaning it didn't meet Islamic requirements for preparing food. Islam forbids consumption of pork, and God's name must be invoked before an animal providing meat for consumption is slaughtered.

Dakhlallah said there are only two McDonald's in the United States that sell halal products and both are in Dearborn, which has one of the nation's largest Arab and Muslim communities. Overall, the Detroit area is home to about 150,000 Muslims of many different ethnicities.

The locations advertise that they exclusively sell halal Chicken McNuggets and McChicken sandwiches and they have to get those products from an approved halal provider, Dakhlallah said. He said there was no evidence of problems on the production side, but he alleges that the Dearborn location on Ford Road sold non-halal products when it ran out of halal.

Dakhlallah said he was approached by Ahmed, and they conducted an investigation. A letter sent to McDonald's Corp. and Finley's Management by Dakhlallah's firm said Ahmed had "confirmed from a source familiar with the inventory" that the restaurant had sold non-halal food "on many occasions."

After they received no response to the letter, Dakhlallah said, they filed a lawsuit in Wayne County Circuit Court in November 2011 as part of a class action.

The AP left messages Monday afternoon for attorneys representing the corporation and the franchise.

In the settlement notice, Finley's Management said it "has a carefully designed system for preparing and serving halal such that halal chicken products are labeled, stored, refrigerated, and cooked in halal-only areas." The company added it trains its employees on preparing halal food and "requires strict adherence to the process."

He said although Ahmed believes McDonald's was negligent, there was no evidence that the chain set out to deceive customers....

Horrors! The reach of Islamophobic fearmongering is even greater than we thought! Now even Egyptian magazines are succumbing to its fiendish lure!

Those of us who have warned about Muslim Brotherhood influence and infiltration in Washington, and were smeared and vilified as "bigots" and "Islamophobes" by the Muslim Brotherhood's propaganda minions in the U.S., are vindicated yet again.

"Egyptian Magazine: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates Obama Administration," by John Rossomando for IPT, January 3 (thanks to David):

An Egyptian magazine claims that six American Islamist activists who work with the Obama administration are Muslim Brotherhood operatives who enjoy strong influence over U.S. policy.

The Dec. 22 story published in Egypt's Rose El-Youssef magazine (read an IPT translation here) suggests the six turned the White House "from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood."

The story is largely unsourced, but its publication is considered significant in raising the issue to Egyptian readers.

The six named people include: Arif Alikhan, assistant secretary of Homeland Security for policy development; Mohammed Elibiary, a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council; Rashad Hussain, the U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference; Salam al-Marayati, co-founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); Imam Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); and Eboo Patel, a member of President Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships.

All of these men -- Alikhan, Elibiary, Hussain, al-Marayati, Magid and Patel -- have appeared here at Jihad Watch numerous times, their apologias for jihad terror, Muslim Brotherhood ties, and Islamic supremacism abundantly documented. (Each of those links goes to a Jihad Watch search on their names; scroll past this present article in each group of search results to see earlier coverage of each man.)

Read all of the IPT report for details.

"In an interview, Eden said Malal, whose parents left Egypt when he was a toddler, is following the Sharia practice of throwing debtors in jail." That's a reasonable question that bears investigating. But instead, we get the usual cries of "bigotry" from Hamas-linked CAIR.

"Muslim N.J. judge accused of imposing Sharia law on Family Court," by Sergio Bichao for MyCentralJersey.com, November 16:

FLEMINGTON — The legal battle over alimony payments in New Jersey has turned into a clash of civilizations with an activist group accusing an Arab Muslim judge of imposing Sharia, or Islamic law, on Family Court cases.

Family Court Judge Hany Mawla first made headlines in 2010 when then-Gov. Jon Corzine made him the first Muslim-American appointed to the state Superior Court.

Mawla lately has drawn renewed attention for his rulings on alimony payments. In one case, which is being championed by advocates of alimony reform, Pennsylvania resident John Waldorf remains in Hunterdon County Jail after a month because he was unable to pay his ex-wife the $8,000 monthly payments Mawla ordered.

“It is obvious what Judge Mawla is doing is a ‘jihad’ against men in general and fathers specifically,” Bruce Eden, civil rights director of the state chapter of Dads Against Discrimination, said in a statement this week. “Therefore, as a fathers' rights group we intend to initiate a ‘crusade’ to remove this vermin from the bench.”

In an interview, Eden said Malal, whose parents left Egypt when he was a toddler, is following the Sharia practice of throwing debtors in jail.

“(His religion) is compounding the issue,” he said.

Mawla could not be reached for comment, but Gadeir Abbas, staff attorney for the [Hamas-linked] Council on American-Islamic Relations, called Eden’s statement “an anti-Muslim rant that relies on the same type of slanders that have been used in the past to attack Catholics and Jews.”

“I’m not comfortable mirroring Gov. Christie’s statement on anti-Muslim sentiment as ‘just crap,’ but I certainly share that sentiment,” he said, referring to comments Christie made last year defending his appointment of Indian-born Sohail Mohammed as the state’s second Muslim Superior Court judge.

“The guy is an American citizen!” Christie said at the time. “Sharia Law business is just crap (..) and I’m tried of dealing with the crazies.”...

Christie: bought and paid for, or just stupid?

"He added that even women wearing headscarves as a result of cancer treatment have been accompanied by bank security personnel 'so as not to discriminate' in the enforcement of the policy." So in other words, the rule applies to everyone, not just Muslims, and is a safety measure to guard against robberies. But Hamas-linked CAIR is pressing on toward final victory now, trying relentlessly to establish the principle that all American businesses and other institutions must accommodate Sharia, no matter what they must sacrifice to do so.

Aren't you glad Oklahoma's anti-Sharia law was struck down?

Andrea Eger of the Tulsa World, like all hopelessly clueless and/or compromised mainstream media "journalists," says that Hamas-linked CAIR is a "civil-liberties organization," without bothering to mention that the Council on American-Islamic
Relations is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements. Its California chapter distributed posters telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI.

"Bank discrimination against Muslims alleged over headwear policy," by Andrea Eger for the Tulsa World, November 8 (thanks to Twostellas):

A Muslim civil-liberties organization said a Tulsa bank discriminated against a woman by singling her out for wearing a religiously mandated head scarf, or hijab.

The Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, is calling on Tulsa's Valley National Bank to review its "inappropriate and discriminatory" policy that treats customers wearing religious head coverings differently from other patrons.

The organization says that on Oct. 9, a Muslim woman tried to enter the Valley National Bank branch at 4812 E. 81st St., in hopes that she could exchange foreign currency but was told she would not be able to enter unless accompanied by a bank employee because of their "no hats, no hoods, no sunglasses" policy.

"Singling out Muslim women or other people of faith who wear religiously mandated head coverings that do not hinder identification is inappropriate and discriminatory," said Adam Soltani, executive director of CAIR's Oklahoma chapter. "All customers should be treated equally regardless of their faith or religious practices."

The complainant, a woman from Kiefer, did not want her identity publicized, but Soltani told the Tulsa World that his organization first took her complaint directly to bank officials, "hoping they would acknowledge it was a mistake or offer an apology."

"We were actually shocked to find out their policy is separate but equal, going back to things that African-Americans and other people have experienced," he said. "They said, 'We do allow them in the bank but they must be escorted anywhere they go.'

"Their excuse was it's a security measure, but there are no reports ever in Oklahoma that I am aware of, of anyone in religious headwear robbing a bank," Soltani said.

"It may have happened elsewhere, but they are a local bank. It's not like they're a big national chain that may have had this happen in other places."

Soltani provided a copy of the written response from Valley National Bank President Brad Scrivner, and in it, Scrivner apologized to the woman first "for not feeling welcome in our bank" and then explained the reason for his bank's policy.

"Unfortunately, Valley has been robbed numerous times in the past and is a victim itself of crime. We have policy and procedures in place to thwart future robberies that endanger the lives of our employees and customers," Scrivner wrote to Soltani. "It is a sad truth that recently, in banks across the United States, criminals are using false religious headdresses for the sole purpose of hiding their identity."

He added that even women wearing headscarves as a result of cancer treatment have been accompanied by bank security personnel "so as not to discriminate" in the enforcement of the policy.

Contacted by the Tulsa World, Scrivner said his bank adopted the policy in 2006 at the recommendation of the Oklahoma Bankers Association.

"In the six years that this policy has been in place," he said, "Valley has not had a single complaint" until now.

CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil-liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to "enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding."

Whenever Islamic law and practice conflict with American law and practice, it is the latter that must give way, on pain of charges of "Islamophobia." Never mind that caps can conceal more than the top of one's head, and that the rule applied to everyone, no matter what kind of head covering he or she was wearing. Just cough up the $300,000 and shut up, dhimmi.

"Franklin man says rights violated, sues over Muslim cap," from the Associated Press, August 30 (thanks to Twostellas):

A Muslim man who once ran for Franklin alderman is suing a security company, claiming his religious rights were violated when its guards demanded he remove his cap before entering Nashville’s Juvenile Justice Center.

Rashid al-Qadir claims security guards violated his First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion by telling him he could not wear the small, brimless cap called a kufi. Al-Qadir says he offered to remove the kufi for inspection but then wanted to put it back on. The guards refused and demanded he leave the building. Al-Qadir says he left voluntarily because he was afraid of being arrested or hurt.

In a motion filed Tuesday, attorneys for G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. do not dispute al-Qadir’s account of the April 11, 2011, events. Instead, they argue the suit should be dismissed because al-Qadir cannot prove his claim that the guards were acting on behalf of the government. Greg Grisham, an attorney for the company formerly known as Wackenhut, said he could not comment further on the suit.

Al-Qadir initially asked the federal court for an emergency order that would allow him to enter the Juvenile Justice Center, where he was fighting a child custody dispute. Two weeks later, the juvenile courthouse adopted a policy allowing religious headwear to be worn in the building once it had been inspected.

In June of this year, al-Qadir amended his original complaint. He is seeking $300,000 in damages: $50,000 for embarrassment, humiliation and emotional distress and $250,000 in punitive damages “to punish and deter Defendant for its deliberate and reckless misconduct.”

'I'm an American'

“I’m an American. I was born in America, and I’m going to be treated like an American,” al-Qadir said in an interview. “I have a right to practice my religion freely as long as I’m not hurting anyone, and a kufi is not going to hurt anybody.”

Al-Qadir, who is from Franklin, said he has worn a kufi and a long robe as signs of his religious faith since he converted to Islam 30 years ago.

“It’s very important to me because it allows me to exercise what I believe, to be able to practice my religion freely,” he said.

Eric Rassbach, an attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said whether someone has a right to don religious clothing in places like courts could depend on the particular state they reside in and the building they enter. The U.S. Supreme Court held in 1990 that a neutral law that applied to everyone did not violate a plaintiff’s religious liberty. However, since that ruling, Congress and many state legislatures, including the Tennessee General Assembly, have adopted laws that give stronger protections to religious freedoms....

"At the scene, the officer's responsibility is to ensure there are no weapons or contraband It's for the safety of the officer." But that doesn't matter. When Islamic law and American law and practice conflict, it is always the latter that must give way, safety considerations be damned.

"Muslim asks HPD to revise frisking rules on headscarfs," by Safiya Ravat for the Houston Chronicle, August 19 (thanks to Ab):

A Muslim protester is calling for revision of the frisking process at the Houston Police Department after she said she was stripped of her religious headscarf during a recent arrest this month while rallying for janitor wages.

The incident highlights the varying policies local police agencies have regulating when religious head coverings are allowed during the arresting and booking process. It also shows the fine line law enforcement must straddle when trying to respect one's faith while ensuring that people who are arrested do no harm to themselves or others.

Ilana Alazzeh, 23, was arrested by HPD Aug. 1 while participating in a roadblock protest at a busy intersection in the Galleria area. She and two dozen other protesters sat in the middle of the intersection with arms interlocked.

Alazzeh, who has Israeli, Palestinian and Pakistani roots, was the only protester wearing a hijab - the headscarf - worn by female adherents of the Islamic faith while in the presence of men.

After their arrest for obstruction of traffic, HPD officers took the handcuffed protesters to the Police Department's gymnasium to ID and process them before incarceration.

"Initially they were very cordial," said Alazzeh, a communications specialist from Washington, D.C., who works for the Service Employees International Union.

She was called up to a table of officers for basic identification questions. One officer chatted with her about Ramadan, she said, and another asked about her headscarf.

A female officer at the table noted down in her file, "headscarf religious reasons," Alazzeh said. "She told me, 'I put that in there so you won't be bothered because of it.' "

Minutes later, Alazzeh was approached by a different female officer who began the frisking process and started unwrapping her headscarf in plain view of male officers and protesters.

"Whoa, whoa! This is my religious headscarf," she told the officer as she tried to back away. "Can't you just feel through it?" she asked.

"The officer said, 'No, if you want your religious headscarf, you shouldn't protest,' " Alazzeh said.

She said she pleaded with the officer, asking if a nun would be treated the same way, to which Alazzeh said the officer replied, "This is just procedure … I don't know what you have in there. You might be hiding a gun."

Not seen as stripping

HPD Lt. Patrick Dougherty said frisking is an integral part of the arresting process.

"At the scene, the officer's responsibility is to ensure there are no weapons or contraband," Dougherty said. "It's for the safety of the officer."

A general pat-down is conducted on the exterior of clothing, he said, but if an officer deems it necessary to remove an outer garment to ensure safety, that can be done.

"We don't consider removing an outer garment such as a coat or scarf to be stripping somebody," he said. "If we were stripping, it would have to be done in private by the same gender."

That's where the difference lies. Alazzeh considered the headscarf part of her necessary clothing.

"In many different religions and cultures, taking off the headscarf is equivalent to taking off my shirt in public," she explained.

Muslims are not the only ones who wear religious head coverings; nuns can be seen wearing hair veils, and male Sikhs often wear turbans.

"We do work with people on their unique religious issues," said Dougherty.

If a request was made, he said, a supervisor could have asked the officer to handle the situation differently, perhaps removing the headscarf in private to check for a weapon. "But there's no documentation that there was a request," he said.

Both the Harris County Sheriff's Office and the Sugar Land Police Department said removal of any type of religious head covering is not necessary during arrest.

"We require an exterior pat-down," said Sugar Land police spokesman Doug Adolf, "but that doesn't require removal of their clothing."...

While things are less rigid during arrest, incarceration is a much stricter matter, said Harris County Sheriff's Deputy Thomas Gilliland.

During incarceration, most jails - including HPD's and the Harris County jail - strictly prohibit items of clothing like scarves, turbans, habits and even shoelaces, to keep inmates from using them to commit suicide or hide contraband....

After her scarf was removed in the gym, Alazzeh said, it was tossed back on her head, then taken away again during incarceration. She used an extra shirt to cover her hair during her 12 hours in jail until her employer posted bail for her and other union protesters.

She is filing an internal affairs complaint against HPD.

"All of these horrible things that happen to people, are perpetuated by people who say they are just following orders," said Alazzeh. "When you're doing your job, there's a way to do things that's not infringing on people's rights and liberties and dignity."

"The Constitution tells me I can be Muslim, and I can wear the head scarf. Who is Disney to tell me I cannot?" A private company with a dress code that it is (at least so far) still free to implement. But the point of this case is to reinforce the principle that wherever Islamic law and American law and practice conflict, it is American law and practice that must give way.

"Muslim Employee Suing Disney Over Right to Wear Hijab," from KTLA, August 13 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

LOS ANGELES (KTLA) -- A Muslim woman who worked as a hostess at a Disneyland restaurant is suing Disney, claiming the company wouldn't let her appear in front of guests while wearing her headscarf.

It's a dispute that's been going on for about two years, but now the American Civil Liberties Union is getting involved.

It all started in August 2010 when Imane Boudlal, a Morocco-born U.S. citizen, worked at the Storyteller Cafe in Disney's Grand California Hotel.

Boudlal wears a headscarf, or hijab, but Disney said the garment didn't comply with its strict dress code.

Disney offered up a compromise hat for her to wear, but Boudlal said it made her look like a joke.

"The hat makes a joke of my religion and draws even more attention to me," Boudlal told KTLA at the time.

"It's unacceptable. They don't want me to look Muslim. They just don't want the head covering to look like a hijab."

And her point is that she wants to look Muslim. She wants to force Disney into featuring Muslims and showcasing the Muslim presence there. Disney doesn't want people to look like adherents of any particular religion -- they want people to get into the spirit of fun and fantasy that their games and rides and shows represent. But for Islam all must give way.

Boudlal had worked at the resort for two and a half years, but only realized she could wear her hijab to work after studying for her U.S. citizenship exam.

She became a citizen in June 2010, and decided to challenge the Disney dress code a couple months later, on August 15.

When she wore her headscarf to work, Boudlal says she was told to take it off, work in the back where customers couldn't see her or go home.

She chose to go home, but reported to work for the next two days and was told the same thing.

Boudlal subsequently filed a complaint against Disney with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission..

In a prepared statement, Disney spokeswoman Suzi Brown said the company "values diversity and has a long-standing policy against discrimination of any kind."

"Typically, somebody in an on-stage position like hers wouldn't wear something like that, that's not part of the costume," Brown said.

"We were trying to accommodate her with a backstage position that would allow her to work. We gave her a couple of different options and she chose not to take those."

But Boudlal maintains that wearing a headscarf is her constitutional right.

"My scarf doesn't do anything to harm Disney or the guests," she told KTLA.

"The Constitution tells me I can be Muslim, and I can wear the head scarf. Who is Disney to tell me I cannot?"

Norquistian Suhail Khan is the subject of a fawning softball interview in which he repeats the usual false charges against those who have questioned his numerous ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic supremacist groups. The interviewer asks him why people like me hate him -- watch the video above, in which I challenge him (again) to debate me, and tell me which one of us is the wild-eyed, frothing hater.

The interviewer also assumes that "core Islamic teachings are compatible with conservatism." Which "conservativism" -- the American variety or what the mainstream media calls "conservatism" in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran? Are stoning adulterers, amputating the hands of thieves, murdering apostates, and denying basic rights to women and non-Muslims among the "core Islamic teachings" that are "compatible with conservatism"?

"Profiles in Liberty: Suhail Khan of The American Conservative Union," by Matt Naugle for United Liberty, August 7:

MN: Is there such thing as a moderate Muslim? Since core Islamic teachings are compatible with conservatism, how should conservatives approach the issues of Islamic extremism and terrorism?

SK: I prefer the term “mainstream” to “moderate.” A follower of mainstream Islam is someone who believes in God, loves his or her family, their neighbor (regardless of their race, religion or ethnicity), and serves their country.

Violent extremism is a scourge that must be stopped, and I believe the best way to do so is by encouraging people to learn more about their own faith from authentic sources (and not self-proclaimed extremists in the media or on the internet). In doing so, we’d witness the best of faith defeat the worst of religion.

MN: For such a friendly guy, you have the worst search engine results of anyone I know. Why does David Horowitz, Frank Gaffney, Robert Spencer, and Pam Geller hate you so much?

SK: It’s been a sad and ugly phenomenon that, since the 9/11 tragedy, the individuals you cited and a few others have waged a hateful campaign of unfounded allegations against several Americans serving our country based on the faith background of these public servants. I’ve unfortunately been one of those subject to these baseless attacks. Having undergone a thorough background check and obtained the security clearances necessary to serve in the various sensitive positions in which I’ve had the honor to serve, these tired accusations fall into the shameful category of wild conspiracy theories of the past where others—Blacks, Jews, Irish, Italians, Japanese, Catholics, Mormons—Americans all, have been targeted. Time and time again, we’ve risen above the hate to unite as Americans. I’m proud that President Bush, Ed Meese, the late Paul Weyrich, Morton Blackwell, Cleta Mitchell, Speaker John Boehner, Senator John McCain, Senator Marco Rubio, and many other leading conservative, Jewish and Christian leaders have condemned these unfair attacks.

Khan names many people who are clearly compromised. But my friend and patron Paul Weyrich does not deserve to be on this list. In fact, he brought me in to speak at a CNP event back in 2003 or 2004 specifically to counter Grover Norquist's baneful pro-Muslim Brotherhood influence.

There are in fact those who wish our nation harm, and these murderous terrorists must be defeated. And in doing so, we should work with all freedom-loving people in this important cause. Likewise, we should resist the call to respond to the hate of our enemies with a bigoted hatred of our own making. We are Americans, and we can take great pride in the fact that, regardless of ethnic and religious heritage, we stand united as one American people.

Re avoiding "hatred," see again the video above.

Re the charges against Khan, are they really just "bigotry"? See for yourself: Paul Sperry summarized the evidence in the New York Post in January 2011:

* In June 2001, Khan personally accepted an award from the now-notorious Abdurahman Alamoudi, then head of the American Muslim Council.

* "We have with us a dear brother," Alamoudi said as he prepared to honor Khan with a plaque at the group's annual conference. "I'm really proud to be with Suhail Khan. Some of you saw him today in the White House, but inshallah [Allah willing], you will see him in better places in the White House, inshallah."

Khan thanked his patron, saying "Abdurahman Alamoudi has been very supportive of me. . . . I hope, inshallah, we can keep working together."

Just days earlier, Sen. Arlen Specter of the Judiciary Committee had cited a New York Post report documenting how Alamoudi had supported terrorists and "declared an interest in destroying America." By 2003, Alamoudi had been busted for plotting a terrorist attack; the top al Qaeda fundraiser is now serving 23 years in federal prison.

* In September 2001, four days before the 9/11 attacks, Khan spoke at the Islamic Society of North America's convention. Introducing him was Jamal Barzinji, whose offices and home were raided by federal agents after 9/11. "Barzinji is not only closely associated with PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad], but also with Hamas," according to the search-warrant affidavit. (A lawyer for Barzinji, who has not been charged, says he is the victim of a government "witch hunt.")

At the event, Khan shared his experiences from "inside" the White House, and praised his late father, Mahboob Khan, for helping found ISNA -- which the government now says is a front for the radical Muslim Brotherhood and has raised money for jihad. The founding documents of the Brotherhood's operation in America (recently seized by the FBI) reveal that it is in this country to "destroy" the Constitution and replace it with Islamic law.

Khan's father also helped found the Muslim Community Association in Santa Clara, Calif. This Khan family mosque is listed in the Muslim Brotherhood's own documents as one of "our organizations." In the 1990s, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, it hosted Ayman al-Zawahiri -- now al Qaeda's No. 2 -- as he toured the US raising money.

In PJ Media this morning I discuss the truth about yet another one of the people Michele Bachmann is alleged to have falsely accused: Mohamed Elibiary.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and four other representatives are now being accused of McCarthyism over the letter they sent to defense, diplomatic, intelligence, and law-enforcement agencies asking them to investigate Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in the U.S. government. The implication is that Bachmann, like McCarthy (at least according to liberal myth), hurled false accusations damaging to the careers and livelihoods of innocent people. What no one is bothering to establish, however, is that the allegations are actually false, much less that they will damage anyone’s career.

The questions swirling around Department of Homeland Security official Mohamed Elibiary are a case in point. Bachmann’s letter to DHS’s inspector general states that Elibiary has “extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood” and “sympathy for Islamist causes,” and accuses him of “gain(ing) access to classified documents.”

Last week, Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX), one of the signers of the letters asking for investigation of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration, asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano about Elibiary. Gohmert put this question to Napolitano: “Are you saying before this Congress right now, that as secretary of Homeland Security, that it is a lie that Mohamed Elibiary downloaded material from a classified website using the secret security clearance you gave him? Are you saying that’s a lie?”

Napolitano responded: “I’m saying that is inaccurate. That is correct.” But when Gohmert pressed her on what was inaccurate about it, Napolitano began talking about prejudice against Muslims, and then said: “I’m saying that he … as far as I know … he did not download classified documents.” Gohmert saw through that immediately, responding: “One of the games that gets played by some people who come up here and testify is that they have somebody not provide them with adequate information so that they can come in her and say ‘so far as I know,’ ‘not to my knowledge,’ that kind of thing, and they obscure the truth.” Then he asked Napolitano: “Has Elibiary’s status on Homeland Security Advisory Council changed?” Napolitano said that it had not.

Thus it is clear that Elibiary has not suffered any career difficulties because of these allegations. It is also clear that as long as Barack Obama remains president, he will not. Napolitano, in fact, was anxious to protect him, parrying Gohmert’s questions and only reluctantly giving him straight answers.

So where is the McCarthyism? Is it that the allegations against Elibiary are self-evidently false?

Not by a long shot. Napolitano did not refute investigative journalist Patrick Poole’s findings, reported at PJ Media last year. Poole noted that “Elibiary may have been given access to a sensitive database of state and local intelligence reports, and then allegedly shopped some of those materials to a media outlet.” According to Poole, Elibiary approached “a left-leaning media outlet” with reports marked For Official Use Only that he said demonstrated rampant “Islamophobia” in the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS).  The media outlet declined to do a story, but what was Elibiary doing shopping the Official Use Only documents in the first place?

There is more.

He didn't know! He didn't know!

The new skirt length policy was instituted for safety reasons, but as far as these Muslim employees are concerned, safety be damned. It is all about forcing accommodation, in line with the principle that wherever Islamic law and practice conflict with American law and practice, American law and practice must give way.

"New skirt length policy prompts Muslim walk-out at Minn. business," from KMSP TV, June 6 (thanks to all who sent this in):

LE CENTER, Minn. (KMSP) - More than 30 Somali employees walked out in protest of dress code changes at a privately-owned business in Le Center, Minn.

The former employees of Dianne's Fine Desserts claim a new uniform policy was instituted to force them off the job because of their Islamic beliefs.

The owner of the bakery, Mike Knowles, told the Faribault Daily News a woman's long dress recently got caught in a boot washer and the new guidelines were instated over safety concerns.

Knowles, who bought the business just 11 days before the accident, said the company leaders went out of their way to try to work with the Somali Community. Originally, they had recommended knee-high skirts but later agreed to boot-high or mid-calf skirts before making the policy public at a meeting on Friday.

On Monday, many devout women reported back to work in their full-length attire, saying the new dress code conflicts with their religious beliefs. They were then given the option adjust their skirt lengths or leave.

Eleven women walked out and were joined by about 20 Somali men.

The workers have asked the [Hamas-linked] Council on American-Islamic Relations to intercede, and [Hamas-linked] CAIR has previously helped 25 Muslim employees who were terminated in December 2010.

At the time, the business was called Dianne's Gourmet Desserts and was under a different owner who fired the employees after the break schedule was altered into conflict with employees' prayer schedule, but employees prayed anyway. A complaint was forwarded to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the workers were reinstated.

The walk-off has also been brought to the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Of course.

He's a rapist, sure, but he's a modest rapist. More strong-arming of the system to demand accommodation of Islam: "2 Muslim men sue over Pa. inmate strip searches," from The Associated Press, May 2 (thanks to Twostellas):

Two Muslim men have sued the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections saying their beliefs were violated when they were strip searched at a western Pennsylvania prison in the presence of female staff and other inmates.

The Philadelphia-area men, 58-year-old Pearlie Dubose Jr. and 57-year-old Elwood Small say in their federal lawsuit filed in Johnstown that Islamic law "prohibits a man from exposing his genitals to anyone but his spouse."...

Dubose has since been paroled after serving time for rape and other charges. Small is serving a life sentence for murder at the State Correctional Institution-Graterford.

Once again non-Muslims must accommodate Islamic law and practice, and an eager dhimmi judge does the bidding of Islamic supremacists. "Judge rules enforcing Muslim law on everyone not establishment of religion," by Peter Grady for the Greeley Gazette, April 26 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A federal judge says an Ohio prison that forces all inmates to adhere to a strict Islamic diet is not an establishment of religion because everyone eats the same food.

A federal judge recently threw out prisoner James Rivers' lawsuit against Ohio Prison director Gary Mohr's decision to ban pork from kitchens in all prisons under control of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Mohr made the decision to stop serving pork products after a Muslim on death row filed a lawsuit against the prison system.

Abdul Awkal, an inmate on death row, argued in his lawsuit that the prison’s failure to provide halal meals violated his religious freedoms.

Despite Awkal’s claims, Islamic teaching says it is perfectly acceptable to eat non-halal meat if there is no halal food available.

Islam teaches that meat such as pork is considered unclean and not to be eaten. This would include all pork products including sausage and bacon.

Awkal was later joined by a second Muslim who is not on death row. Prison authorities had argued that they provided non-pork and vegetarian options for Muslims. The Muslims said that was not good enough and still insisted that the food they were given meet halal standards.

Despite Awkal’s claims that eating halal meat is a requirement of his faith, Islamic teaching says it is perfectly acceptable to eat non-halal meat if there is no halal food available.

Prison authorities had argued that providing halal meet for the thousands of Muslims in prison would bankrupt the system.

In response to the lawsuit, prison officials stopped serving pork products to everyone; including atheists and those whose religion contains no such prohibition.

Former Navy chaplain Dr. Gordon Klingenschmitt says while the judge ruled it is acceptable to force all non-Muslims to adhere to a Muslim diet, Christians have no dietary rights.

"This is another example of the Islamicization [sic] of America. It's establishing Islam as the state religion of the prison system," Klingenschmitt contends. "The judge's reasoning is this: He said as long as all of the prisoners are forced to eat the same food, then there's no discrimination taking place. In other words, if he enforces Muslim law equally, then there's no establishment of religion. I think that's wrong, and I pray this is overturned on the appeal."

This has been a week of attempted advances for the Islamization of America (and Britain as well). Those who think it isn’t happening should ponder the case of Wegmans, a supermarket in Rochester, N.Y. Wegmans has put up a sign asking customers buying pork or alcohol not to use a particular checkout line when a Muslim teenager is on duty as the cashier. Only after public pressure from readers of my site AtlasShrugs.com and Robert Spencer’s JihadWatch.org did the sign come down.

This was more Islamization of the marketplace. This is a pattern. If you don’t want to handle meat that’s not halal, work for a Muslim butcher. Don’t take a job at Wegmans, Wal-Mart or Target. But this Muslim cashier’s special line was not about that. It was about imposing Islam on non-Muslims. Muslims are seeking special accommodations for a “special class.” (Islamic law places Muslims in a special class, giving them rights that non-Muslims do not have.)

This was part of a systematic campaign to impose the Shariah on the secular marketplace. Muslim workers suing Disney over its 60-year-old dress code or Muslim cashiers strong-arming Wal-Mart and Target over their refusal to handle meat that is not halal is all part of a much larger supremacist effort. It has succeeded in Europe, which is all but doomed. They mean to replicate it here. This is well-documented in my book, “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.”...

Meanwhile, Robert Spencer has a groundbreaking book coming out later this month: “Did Muhammad Exist?” It is a bombshell. I have read it, and I can tell you that it shatters every conventional and accepted myth on the history of Muhammad and Islam. Is it any wonder Islamic supremacists want to squash it? Spencer was scheduled to speak at a lunch hosted by MEF at the offices of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel (Kramer Levin), a law firm in New York City. But the Hamas front known as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) heard about it and sicced their dogs on Kramer Levin, demanding the enforcement of the blasphemy laws under the Shariah (Islamic law considers any critical examination of Islam to be blasphemous and subject to the death penalty), and it worked. Kramer Levin canceled the Spencer event. Kramer Levin readily acquiesced to the prohibition of the truth by Islamic supremacists. Imagine this, an American law firm, no less....

This is yet another example of the cultural and societal initiatives I wrote about at length in my 2008 book Stealth Jihad: Muslims demand special accommodation for Islamic law and practice, and reinforce the principle that wherever Islamic law and practice and American law and practice conflict, American law and practice has to give way. It also establishes special privileges for Muslims, in accord with their status in Islamic law.

"Sign at Wegmans draws attention," by Ray Levato for WHEC.com, March 30 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

It’s a first for Wegmans in this area. They’ve put up a sign asking customers buying pork or alcohol not to use a particular checkout line when a Muslim teenager is on duty as the cashier.

The sign went up a week ago at their Lyell Avenue store.

Wegmans says they haven’t gotten any in store complaints and Wegmans was very upfront about the cashier. They just wouldn’t allow us in the store to talk with her or customers.

Spokeswoman Jo Natale says the cashier is a teenaged girl who wears a head covering. She told her supervisor she was uncomfortable handling those items because of religious reasons. So the store manager who had experience with this type of situation outside of Rochester decided to put up a small sign whenever the girl was at the checkout counter.

It says, “If your order contains pork or alcohol product, we respectfully ask that you choose another lane.”

Wegmans also says the girl has been coached what to say if customers ask why. People News10NBC spoke with outside the Lyell Avenue Wegmans store said they were okay with it and one even knows Christians who don’t like the idea of serving alcohol.

But Christians who don’t like the idea of serving alcohol just get another job. They don't demand that their workplace change the way it does business in order to accommodate them.

Bernard Thomas said, “I feel like if they’re going to hire her and she’s got to have the job, why shouldn’t we respect her. Just go to another cashier.”

Why hire her if she won't do the job the way everyone else does it? There are no jobs in Rochester that wouldn't involve handling pork and alcohol?

Darlene Hucko said, “I would respect her beliefs and go to the next line if I had alcohol. Levato said, “You think that’s okay.” Hucko said, “I think it is okay.”...

I don't. This amounts to discrimination against non-Muslim customers -- they have one less checkout line, longer waits, etc. The civil rights movement was fought to establish equality of access to services for all Americans. This is a perversion of it.

The Muslim Brotherhood in America is a new pamphlet I've written for the Freedom Center. It reveals how the Muslim Brotherhood has targeted the United States for subjugation under Islamic law and is working in subversive ways to bring this about.

It is well known that the Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al Banna, who became an avowed admirer of Hitler, is the godfather organization for the jihad terror group Hamas and has become a dominant player in the changing politics of Egypt, Libya and Syria. Less well known is the fact that it also has a presence in Western countries, and is working in non-violent ways to bring elements of Sharia to them.

In this pamphlet I document how the Brotherhood has been active in America for decades, and has been markedly increasing its power and influence over the past few years. The MB acts through “fronts” such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Students Associations (MSA). The FBI has documented that the Brotherhood uses these and other groups as part of a “stealth jihad” to make U.S. public opinion and social institutions more vulnerable to the inroads of Islamic supremacism.

In Muslim Brotherhood in America, I outline the history of the Brotherhood’s secret efforts to establish a presence in the U.S., dissect the organizations it has created to spread its message, and explain why its hidden agenda could succeed.

To download the pamphlet, click here. To order the pamphlet, click here.

Yesterday afternoon Human Events posted my piece about recent shameful events in New York:

The mainstream media, led by the New York Times, and the Islamic supremacist Hamas-linked hate group the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are doing all they can to whip up a frenzy about the NYPD’s showing of a relatively tepid but accurate counter-terror film, The Third Jihad, to police officers.

Lost in the hysteria is the question of whether there is anything inaccurate or false in the film – yet those who are demanding apologies and reeducation from the NYPD have demonstrated not one inaccuracy in it. No one who is protesting against this film is going beyond the claim that it is “Islamophobic.”

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg immediately apologized, saying that showing the film to New York police officers manifested “terrible judgment.” Police commissioner Raymond Kelly apologized also: “I offer my apologies to members of the Muslim community, in particular, who would find the film inflammatory and its airing on department property, though unauthorized, to be inappropriate.”

In a sane world, Kelly and Bloomberg would not be apologizing at all. They’d be saying, “Yes, we showed the film, and we’re going to keep showing it, and what of it? If the Muslims in New York are upset about it being inaccurate, let them demonstrate its inaccuracy by taking positive steps to fight in their own community against the stealth jihad activity that the film documents.”

For the whole controversy is predicated on the assumption that The Third Jihad is whipping up hysteria about a non-existent threat. In reality, it covers much the same ground that I cover in my book Stealth Jihad, in which I show that the agenda of infiltration and subversion on the part of the Muslim Brotherhood and its allied groups is very real.

In a captured internal Muslim Brotherhood document, Brotherhood operatives in the U.S. are told that they “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

And at a Muslim event in California in 1998, CAIR cofounder and longtime Board chairman Omar Ahmad was quoted as saying: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

Nor are these isolated statements. Yet the initial New York Times article about the showing of this film, as well as all the coverage that has followed, was based on the assumption that no Muslim in the U.S. believes or acts upon such ideas. And the Times deplored that “at least 1,489 police officers, from lieutenants to detectives to patrol officers, saw the film.” Apparently they will all need to be reeducated.

Instead of considering whether or not the film is accurate, the mainstream media has scolded Bloomberg and Kelly for their failure to reach out to New York’s Muslim community. But here again, in a sane world, the Mayor and the NYPD would not be expected to reach out to the Muslim community and prove their good will. The Muslim community would be reaching out to the Mayor and the NYPD, eager to prove its good will. And the Mayor and the NYPD would be telling Hamas-linked CAIR that its counterterror cooperation was not enough, instead of letting this execrable Islamic supremacist Hamas front dictate New York City’s counterterror operations.

But now CAIR smells blood, and is going in for the kill. They’ve announced that Kelly’s apology was not enough, and are calling for his resignation. They’ve already succeeded, courtesy of Barack Obama’s compliant Justice Department, in eliminating any truth about Islam and jihad from national FBI training, and are now trying to eliminate it everywhere.

The outcome will be a cadre of agents and police officers full of politically correct nonsense that will render them clueless, complacent, weak and supine in the face of jihad activity. And so the jihad in the U.S. will advance unimpeded.

And so New York, by means of this controversy, is on the verge of taking yet another decisive step toward completely banning the truth about jihad and Islamic supremacism, thereby rendering New Yorkers, and all Americans, more vulnerable than ever to that jihad.

This whole controversy is epitomized by the photo illustration and lead paragraph of the first New York Times story on this issue: "In Police Training, a Dark Film on U.S. Muslims," by Michael Powell, January 23. The photo shows the black flag of jihad flying above the White House, with the caption, "An Islamic flag atop the White House in 'The Third Jihad.'”

Then the lead paragraph says: "Ominous music plays as images appear on the screen: Muslim terrorists shoot Christians in the head, car bombs explode, executed children lie covered by sheets and a doctored photograph shows an Islamic flag flying over the White House."

Both the Times' use of the image and its reference to it at the beginning of the story suggest that the producers of The Third Jihad doctored the photo themselves in order to push their cockamamie idea that some Muslims want to "infiltrate and dominate America." But in reality, Muslims originated this image, as we have reported here several times. Here is a photo of Muslims holding up this photo at a rally in New York in February 2006:

And another:

Yet this whole controversy is predicated on the assumption that The Third Jihad is whipping up hysteria about a non-existent threat. In reality, it covers much the same ground that I cover in my book Stealth Jihad, in which I show that the agenda of infiltration and subversion on the part of the Muslim Brotherhood and its allied groups is very real.

In "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," by Mohamed Akram, May 19, 1991, Muslim Brotherhood operatives in the U.S. are told that they "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

There are other indications as well:

"We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don't lobby Congress or protest because we don't recognize Congress. The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it. . . . Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah." -- Muhammad Faheed, Muslim Students Association meeting, Queensborough Community College, 2003

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." -- Hamas-linked CAIR cofounder and longtime Board chairman Omar Ahmad, 1998 (denial noted and full story explained at link)

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future." -- Hamas-linked CAIR spokesman Ibrahim "Honest Ibe" Hooper, 1993

"If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate." -- prominent American Muslim leader Siraj Wahhaj, 2002

Yet the initial Times article and all the coverage that followed are based on the assumption that no Muslim in the U.S. believes or acts upon such ideas. None of the coverage deals with the possibility that the film might be accurate, and to what extent:

During that time, at least 1,489 police officers, from lieutenants to detectives to patrol officers, saw the film.

News that police trainers showed this film so extensively comes as the department wrestles with its relationship with the city’s large Muslim community. The Police Department offers no apology for aggressively spying on Muslim groups and says it has ferreted out terror plots.

But members of the City Council, civil rights advocates and Muslim leaders say the department, in its zeal, has trampled on civil rights, blurred lines between foreign and domestic spying and sown fear among Muslims.

“The department’s response was to deny it and to fight our request for information,” said Faiza Patel, a director at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, which obtained the release of the documents through a Freedom of Information request. “The police have shown an explosive documentary to its officers and simply stonewalled us.”

Tom Robbins, a former columnist with The Village Voice, first revealed that the police had screened the film. The Brennan Center then filed its request.

Instead of investigating its accuracy, the Times, predictably, looks into who funded the film:

The 72-minute film was financed by the Clarion Fund, a nonprofit group whose board includes a former Central Intelligence Agency official and a deputy defense secretary for President Ronald Reagan. Its previous documentary attacking Muslims’ “war on the West” attracted support from the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, a major supporter of Israel who has helped reshape the Republican presidential primary by pouring millions of dollars into a so-called super PAC that backs Newt Gingrich.

Commissioner Kelly is listed on the “Third Jihad” Web site as a “featured interviewee.” Paul J. Browne, the Police Department’s chief spokesman, wrote in an e-mail that filmmakers had lifted the clip from an old interview. The commissioner, Mr. Browne said, has not asked the filmmakers to remove him from its Web site, or to clarify that he had not cooperated with them....

Clarion’s financing is a puzzle. Its federal income tax forms show contributions, grants and revenues typically hover around $1 million annually — except in 2008, when it booked contributions of $18.3 million. That same year, Clarion produced “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West.” The Clarion Fund used its surge in contributions to pay to distribute tens of millions of copies of this DVD in swing electoral states across the country in September 2008.

“The Third Jihad” is quite similar, in style and content, to that earlier film. Narrated by Zuhdi Jasser, a Muslim doctor and former American military officer in Arizona, “The Third Jihad” casts a broad shadow over American Muslims. Few Muslim leaders, it states, can be trusted.

“Americans are being told that many of the mainstream Muslim groups are also moderate,” Mr. Jasser states. “When in fact if you look a little closer, you’ll see a very different reality. One of their primary tactics is deception.”

Seeing as how most of them are listed as allied groups in that Muslim Brotherhood memorandum I linked above, this is an entirely reasonable statement.

Nonetheless, and again predictably, the Times is pressing on with its campaign, New York Mayor Bloomberg is in full retreat, and the Islamic supremacist thugs at Hamas-linked CAIR smell blood and are calling for the resignation of police commissioner Ray Kelly.

And so New York has taken a decisive step today toward outlawing the truth about jihad and Islamic supremacism, which only makes it more vulnerable to them.

Rick Santorum in last night's debate skewers Obama for banning the truth about Islam and jihad. It was good to see him bring this up, as it should be a much bigger issue than it is. The Administration has ruled out of bounds any investigation of the beliefs and goals of an international group dedicated to our destruction, and no one seems to care. So Santorum on that score deserves gratitude.

Pamela Geller has just published this revealing and important message from the Iranian-American human rights activist Arash Irandoost:

Dear Friend,

حرف بس است. متحد شویم. عمل کنیم

It is time to act. Court documents released as a result of a lawsuit filed by NIAC against Hassan Dai paint a very disturbing picture of Trita Parsi and the NIAC. They range from defrauding the federal government, lying to members of Congress, arranging secret meetings between the US and the criminal regime, to recent revelation that Trita Parsi paid Anne Singleton to provide testimony to U.S. Congress.  NIAC has lied about its membership numbers.  It claimed once that it had 33,000 members and now court documents reveal that it has less than 500 members and is not even willing to disclose them, we think the number to be even lower.  As a 501 c3 tax exempt, NIAC refuses to disclose its audit and tax reports. Many credible news organizations have expressed concern about NIAC's activities.  NIAC has falsely claimed that it represents Iranian Americans. While it is shunned from the Iranian-American community and does not even answer questions raised by the Iranian-Americans, a constituency he purports to represent. Have you asked why?

On February 26, 2011, NIAC held a public event in Plano, Texas and claimed that it was sponsored by the Press Club and Dallas and The World Affairs Council.  Since Trita would not let us record the event and our questions were filtered and altered, I called and objected to event sponsors, to my surprise, I was told by both organization (I have documents) that they had not heard of the event and had not sponsored the event. Do we really want such a deceitful organization to represent us? NIAC's stooge Ambassador, Sirros Amoie whose family recently returned to Iran????, falsely claimed that I was a part of the MEK organization.

There is just no limit to Trita's lies and slanders. Much like IRI officials who use Taggiyeh to justify their crimes and hide their nuclear activity, Trita Parsi is adept at Calumniation. Trita falsely charges others with malicious intent, attacks the good name and reputation of others who are opposed to him. Yes Trita lies! Much like its IRI masters! About 5 months ago we had reached more than 2,700 members in a similar cause like this against NIAC but the NIAC Cyber Army was able to deceive the CAUSE administrators and bring the cause down, as it was reported and bragged about by NIAC's Jamal Abdi.

Have you ever wondered why NIAC does not allow comments on its articles, websites or blogs?

Have you asked why Trita Parsi was paid by CIA?

Have you NIAC why Trita Parsi has a Swedish bank account and who were the depositors and why he did not pay taxes on it?

Trita Parsi was intimately involved with the convicted Congressman Bob Ney to help IRI get around the US-Iran sanctions.

Do you know who was behind the Pugwash meetings?

Have you asked why the PARSA Foundation (now closed down) donated thousands of dollars to NIAC?

NIAC held a Leadership Conference in October, many who attended were not even Iranian-Americans, have you asked why they were allowed to roam the Hall of our Nations's Capitol and talk to our representatives?

Trita Parsi is not an Iranian-American, how can he represent our interests.Our grievances against NIAC and Trita Parsi are plenty! For questions are many.

It is our belief that the Obama Administration is working closely with NIAC to appease the Islamic Republic and bring it to the negotiations table, a regime that attempted to assassinate a foreign diplomat on our soil.  We believe that the IRI cannot be reformed and the Islamic Republic have ulterior motives, just look at their own writings and statements:

“Killing is a great Divine gift.”

Ayatollah Khomeini: “Those who say Islam should not kill don't understand [it]. Killing is a great [divine] gift that appears [to man]. A religion that does not include [provisions for] killing and massacre is incomplete. Those who claim that Jesus was averse to killing and war, harm his prophetic mission… Killing is the same as mercy."

“Violence is the heart of Islam.”

Ayatollah Yazdi – Senior Advisor to Ahmadinejad and IRGC Leaders: “We must wipe away the shameful stain whereby some people imagine that violence has no place in Islam… we have decided and are determined to argue that violence is the heart of Islam.”

Examples are many!

Let's choose a candidate that respects and values our opinions.  Obama turned his back when Neda was shot as he has turned his back on us and works with organizations that advocate for policies favorable to the criminal and rapist regime.

It is time to act.  Every member, every call, every fax, every letter, every petition to your representatives counts.  Do your duty for Iran and the United States. Let them know what you think!

Let them know you/we matter!

Sincerely,
Arash Irandoost
Founder,
Pro Democracy Movement of Iran

Geller has more on NIAC in her recent American Thinker article, "Why Obama Betrayed the Iranian People":

Trita Parsi is the president of the George Soros-funded National Iranian American Council (NIAC), a powerful Iranian lobbying group in Washington.  Arash Irandoost of the Pro-Democracy Movement of Iran calls Parsi "an intellectually dishonest regime apologist and an unofficial and unregistered lobbyist for the Iranian regime."  According  to Irandoost, "Trita Parsi contributes to the regime's agenda and serves the interests of those in power in the Islamic Republic of Iran, not the Iranians, nor the Iranian-Americans."

And the Progressive American-Iranian Committee says that when NIAC and Parsi received funding for various projects from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), "NIAC's projects were approved and welcomed by the Iranian regime."  NIAC coordinated its work inside Iran with Hamyaran, a "government initiated agency incepted, initiated, founded and managed by the Iranian regime."  NIAC and Parsi even lobbied the U.S. Congress to "stop appropriating funds for independent democratic movements and NGOs that were not under Hamyaran or regime's control."

Not surprisingly, Parsi opposes sanctions against the Islamic Republic, claiming that "imposing new sanctions prior to diplomacy having begun will only decrease the chances of successful diplomacy."  The NIAC has opposed sanctions for quite some time.  Iranian dissident Hassan Daioleslam notes that "in 2008, when [the] U.S. Congress was showing some teeth to the Iranian regime," a coalition of Islamic groups, antiwar groups, and others founded the Campaign for New American Policy on Iran to fight against new sanctions against Iran called for by the advisory resolution H.R. 362.  This resolution was not passed, and "NIAC and Parsi," says Daioleslam, "were on top of this event."

And who is on the NIAC Board? Stealth Islamic supremacist Reza Aslan is on the NIAC Board. It is no surprise in light of Aslan's NIAC connection that he has tried to pass off Iran's genocidally-minded President Ahmadinejad as a liberal reformer. He has called on the U.S. Government to negotiate with Ahmadinejad himself, as well as with Hamas -- that is, with two of the most barbaric and murderous adherents of Sharia.

Aslan has even praised the jihad terror group Hizballah as "the most dynamic political and social organization in Lebanon," as well as the Jew-hating, women-hating, kuffar-hating Muslim Brotherhood, which is dedicated in its own words to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within." Aslan wrote: "The Muslim Brotherhood will have a significant role to play in post-Mubarak Egypt. And that is good thing." If, in 1932, someone had written that "the National Socialist Party will have a significant role to play in post-Weimar Germany, and that is a good thing," he would have rightly been called a Nazi sympathizer.

Aslan has also spoken at events sponsored by the Muslim Students Association, a Brotherhood group, and at an event co-sponsored by the Los Angeles chapter of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and moderated by the notorious Edina Lekovic, the Muslim Public Affairs Council flack whom Steve Emerson caught lying on national television, denying she was editor of a Muslim student publication that praised Osama bin Laden as a great mujahid. Emerson produced copies of the rag showing Lekovic's name on the masthead as editor on the very same page on which the praise for Osama appeared.