Posted tagged ‘Civil rights’

Trump’s Latest Education Nominee Steps into the Maelstrom

November 8, 2017

Trump’s Latest Education Nominee Steps into the Maelstrom, American ThinkerRichard L. Cravatts, November 8, 2017

No sooner had President Trump nominated Kenneth Marcus, president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights under the Law, to be assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education than extremist anti-Israel groups mounted an aggressive campaign to derail the appointment.

This is a remarkable affront to a civil rights lawyer who has spent his career fighting for the rights of women, the disabled, and members of many minority groups: black Americans, Hispanics, and Asians, as well as Sikhs, Arabs, and Muslim Americans.  Marcus’s prior tenure at the federal Office for Civil Rights was widely lauded for effective leadership and support for the rights of all students.  For this reason, most civil rights groups have thus far refrained from subjecting Marcus to the vituperation other recent Trump nominees have faced.

Some anti-Israel groups, however, have broken ranks, attacking the administration’s Jewish civil rights nominee with reckless and malicious falsehoods.  One of these groups, Palestine Legal, whose mission is to bolster the anti-Israel movement by challenging efforts to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitism, immediately issued a letter smearing Mr. Marcus as an “anti-Palestinian crusader” and opposing his nomination in terms of the so-called Livingstone Formulation.  Under that formulation, as identified by British sociologist David Hirsch, anti-Semites accuse Jews of fabricating anti-Semitism claims in order to silence decent people concerned about Israel’s supposed human rights violations.  In this way, Palestine Legal’s director, Dima Khalidi, levels the spurious charge that “Marcus is the architect of a strategy to abuse civil rights law to suppress campus criticism of Israel.”  In other words, she contends that Marcus’s campaign to ameliorate campus anti-Semitism is not based on a virtuous desire to end bigotry, but is a disingenuous attempt at “shielding Israel from scrutiny,” consistent with the Livingstone Formulation.  Part of that notion is “the counteraccusation that the raisers of the issue of antisemitism do so with dishonest intent, in order to de-legitimize criticism of Israel. The allegation is that the accuser chooses to ‘play the antisemitism card’ rather than to relate seriously to, or to refute, the criticisms of Israel.”

Those who refuse to acknowledge that their speech or behavior may, in fact, be anti-Semitic normally resist such designations, but the allegation of Palestine Legal against Mr. Marcus is particularly odious because it seeks to impugn his integrity as someone fighting anti-Semitism, suggesting instead that his true motive, carefully hidden from view and masked as benign activism, is actually to serve the interests of Israel by trying to delegitimize and libel Israel’s campus critics.  Moreover, Palestine Legal claims, in order to shield Israel from scrutiny, to insulate its policies and state behavior from critique, Mr. Marcus pretends to be interested in anti-Semitism but is actually creating a smokescreen to shield Israel “at the expense of civil and constitutional rights.”

In addition to the Livingstone Formulation, these groups are also going after Marcus with the classic charge that Jews are attempting to gain control of government power for nefarious purposes.  “Marcus has no business enforcing civil rights laws when he has explicitly used such laws to chill the speech activities and violate the civil rights of Arab, Muslim, Jewish, and other students who advocate for Palestinian rights,” Khalidi charged.  It is not coincidental that a group dedicated to undermining efforts to fight anti-Semitism is aware of the efforts of Mr. Marcus and his colleagues as they attempted to identify the causes and corrosive impact of campus anti-Semitic speech and behavior.

For at least the last decade, the primary source of anti-Zionist, anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic activism on campuses has been anti-Israel individuals and groups, including the Muslim Student Association and the radical Students for Justice in Palestine, among others.  So even as Ms. Khalidi would have one believe that Mr. Marcus launched a campaign to silence pro-Palestinian activists merely as a tactical ploy to insulate Israel from critique and condemnation, the anti-Israel activism she so ardently defends has regularly spawned instances in which agitation against Israel has included speech and behavior that have been considered, and, in fact, often were, anti-Semitic.

Of great concern to those who have observed the invidious byproduct of this radicalism is the frequent appearance of anti-Israel sentiment that often rises to the level of anti-Semitism, when virulent criticism of Israel bleeds into a darker, more sinister level of hatred – enough to make Jewish students, whether or not they support or care about Israel at all, uncomfortable, unsafe, or hated on their own campuses.

That is precisely the type of “hostile environment,” created by generating hostility toward Jewish students over their perceived or actual support of Israel, that may violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of the legal tools Mr. Marcus has used and may well continue to use in his new role to ensure that universities take steps to ameliorate situations in which such prejudice-laced campus climates are allowed to develop.

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), another anti-Israel group that also, not insignificantly, supports the BDS movement, published an open letter denouncing the choice of Mr. Marcus for the OCR appointment as well, repeating the spurious charge that the use of Title VI statutes, and such guidelines as the U.S. State Department Working Definition of Anti-Semitism, would have the perverse side-effect of suppressing the free speech of “pro-Palestinian” activists.

And despite Palestine Legal’s fear that the conflation of “criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism    …  has really serious consequences for those who advocate for Palestinian human rights and are being condemned and censored and punished as a result of the enormous pressure being placed on universities by the likes of Marcus and dozens of other Israel advocacy groups,” the fact that “pro-Palestinian” activists support a minority group does not justify their misbehavior and extremism, even for what they clearly believe to be a noble cause.

Pro-Palestinian advocacy on campus – the very activism Palestine Legal is so intent on preserving – has been shown to correlate directly with an uptick in anti-Semitic speech and behavior.  For example, in two studies it conducted of anti-Semitism on U.S. campuses, the AMCHA Initiative, an organization that investigates and documents anti-Semitism at U.S. universities, found that “[s]chools with instances of student-produced anti-Zionist expression, including BDS promotion, are 7 times more likely to have incidents that targeted Jewish students for harm than schools with no evidence of students’ anti-Zionist expression and the more such anti-Zionist expression, the higher the likelihood of incidents involving anti-Jewish hostility.”  This “anti-Zionist expression” and “BDS promotion” are the central aspects of Palestinian activism.

That is the issue here, and why it is necessary and important that, in the effort to promote the Palestinian cause and help the Palestinians to achieve statehood, another group – Jewish students on American campuses – do not become victims themselves in a struggle for another group’s self-determination.

Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., president emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and the author of Dispatches from the Campus War against Israel and Jews, is also a member of the board of directors of the Brandeis Center for Human Rights under the Law and the AMCHA Initiative.

CAIR’s Agenda: Islamization of America, Not Protecting Muslims from Civil Rights Abuses

October 31, 2016

CAIR’s Agenda: Islamization of America, Not Protecting Muslims from Civil Rights Abuses, Jihad Watch,

(Excellent reference material on CAIR and its associated Islamist organizations. — DM)

cair-terrorist-organization-hp_3

This article is part of the Organization Trends series.

Summary: The terrorist-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) claims to be America’s largest civil rights organization for Muslims. But its agenda has more to do with the Islamization of America than with protecting Muslims from civil rights abuses.

Capital Research Center last examined the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its aggressive, jihad terrorism-whitewashing Islamists in the August 2005 Organization Trends. CAIR statements and actions in recent years show that this organization, which sprang out of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, has in no way changed its radical spots—a fact that ought to call into question its continuing respectability in media and politics.

The basics

Information about CAIR’s revenue sources is surprisingly difficult to come by. IRS filings reveal donations to CAIR by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors ($30,000 since 2008), Silicon Valley Community Foundation ($90,000 since 2008), and Tides Foundation ($5,000 since 2002). CAIR is actually registered as CAIR Foundation Inc., a public charity recognized under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code. That entity reported a budget of $2,632,410 in 2014 and gross receipts of $2,355,032. It also claims to have had 28 employees in 2014 and 40 volunteers. Many of CAIR’s state and local chapters are separately incorporated as nonprofits.

CAIR was founded in 1994 by Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jaber. The three men were linked to the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was established by senior Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook and created to serve as Hamas’ public relations and recruitment arm in the United States. CAIR opened an office in Washington, D.C., by using a $5,000 grant from the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a charity that the Bush administration closed down in 2001 for collecting money “to support the Hamas terror organization.”

CAIR’s ties to terrorists are recognized on Capitol Hill. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has said, “CAIR is unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect.” Before leaving Congress in 2013, Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) said, “Groups like CAIR have a proven record of senior officials being indicted and either imprisoned or deported from the United States.”

Ghassan Elashi, a co-founder of Texas CAIR, was convicted in 2005 of terrorism-related offenses and sentenced to almost seven years imprisonment. CAIR civil rights director Randall Todd Royer was given 20 years for federal weapons and explosives convictions in 2004. Bassem Khafagi, a community affairs director at CAIR, was convicted in 2003 on bank and visa fraud charges and shipped back to Egypt. Rabih Haddad, a fundraiser for CAIR’s chapter in Ann Arbor, Mich., was detained in 2001 for overstaying his visa. Authorities found a firearm and considerable ammunition in his home. He served 19 months in prison and was then deported to Lebanon in 2003. CAIR board member Abdurahman Alamoudi was sentenced to 23 years imprisonment for directing at least $1 million to al-Qaeda. (See Foundation Watch, December 2015.)

“Contending that American Muslims are the victims of wholesale repression, CAIR has provided sensitivity training to police departments across the United States, instructing law officers in the art of dealing with Muslims respectfully,” according to DiscoverTheNetworks. The estate of 9/11 victim John O’Neill Sr., a senior FBI counter-terrorism agent, filed a lawsuit claiming that CAIR’s goal “is to create as much self-doubt, hesitation, fear of name-calling, and litigation within police department and intelligence agencies as possible so as to render such authorities ineffective in pursuing international and domestic terrorist entities.”

CAIR and its allies have spent years pressuring the FBI to give Muslims special treatment in investigations. As of 2012, FBI agents weren’t allowed to treat individuals associated with terrorist groups as potential threats to the nation, according to an FBI directive titled, “Guiding Principles: Touchstone Document on Training.” The fact that a terrorism suspect is associated with a terrorist group means nothing, according to the document. (“Terrorist? Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Matthew Vadum, FrontPage Mag, Sept. 24, 2012)

In the aftermath to 9/11, CAIR refused to blame Osama bin Laden for those terrorist attacks. Earlier, in 1998 CAIR denied bin Laden was responsible for two al-Qaeda bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa. The group claimed the bombings resulted from “misunderstandings of both sides.” The same year CAIR objected to a Los Angeles billboard that called bin Laden “the sworn enemy,” claiming it was “offensive to Muslims.”

Guess who’s coming to dinner

CAIR’s list of gala dinner honorees from its 2015 annual banquet underlines CAIR’s continuing extremism. (CAIR’s aversion towards critical observers kept this writer out of the gala dinner.) CAIR recognized Omar Suleiman, an American sheikh who has defended sex-slavery and encouraged the murder of adulterous Muslim women by family members. He describes himself as an “advocate for a global non-violent resistance to apartheid Israel,” claiming recent stabbing attacks in Israel “are not random acts of violence. They are the unfortunate result and response to decades of … ethnic cleansing of an indigenous people.” Interestingly, his past condemnations of homosexuality as a “repugnant shameless sin” did not prevent him from declaring that Muslims “stand in solidarity with the LGBTQ community” before a Texas LGBT group after the Orlando, Florida, massacre earlier this year.

During the same month, the annual banquet for CAIR’s New York chapter honored Imam Siraj Wahhaj and the executive director of CAIR’s Florida chapter, Hassan Shibly. A Hezbollah defender, Shibly equates Israeli “apartheid” and “state terrorism” with Nazism, while he supports sharia law in Muslim-majority societies and spews conspiracy theories concerning U.S. national security. Considered by American authorities a possible 1993 World Trade Center bombing conspirator, the pro-jihad, pro-sharia Wahhaj is a former CAIR board member.

CAIR branches invited extremists to their 2016 gala dinners as well. CAIR’s Minnesota chapter honored Johari Abdul-Malik, the imam of a terrorist-tied mosque who has advocated sabotaging Israeli infrastructure. A CAIR-Cincinnati banquet hosted keynote speaker Alaf Husain, vice president of the Muslim Brotherhood-derived Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which has decried Israel as an “apartheid” state from its founding. After 9/11, when Husain was president of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) from which ISNA developed, he admitted to a mere “oversight” when links were discovered between the MSA website and terror-tied groups.

CAIR-Cleveland hosted Canadian sheikh Alaa Elsayed and the writer Murtaza Husain. The dinner featured a “Mother’s Day Tribute,” which is ironic, given that Elsayed has supported wife-beating, bigamy, and polygamy. His comments upon a past Canadian honor killing focused on the importance of a daughter wearing a hijab, not her murder by her father.

Yet Husain focuses his literary ire on those who would in any way scrutinize Islam and Muslims. He has called Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaza a “well-coiffed talking monkey,” “native informant,” and “porch monkey,” and he’s described Iranian-American commentator Sohrab Ahmari as “one of the most prominent Iranian ‘Uncle Tom’s’ of the neoconservative movement.” He has condemned American law enforcement surveillance of certain Muslims, while ignoring the valid concerns that led to such scrutiny.

CAIR-Cleveland is no stranger to controversy, having hosted Monzer Taleb, an unindicted terrorism-financing conspirator who sang “I am from Hamas” at a 2009 fundraising banquet. Nonetheless, CAIR’s Florida chapter co-hosted Taleb yet again at a 2014 event in Tampa, and he recently planned to address a mosque in Wichita, Kansas, but cancelled after a public outcry. Speaking in his defense and using his own self-description, CAIR-Dallas/Fort Worth executive director Alia Salem reportedly described him as a “motivational speaker and leader within the Muslim community.” He is an “upstanding citizen” and “very prominent community leader” in his Dallas home area, Salem said.

As in life, so in death CAIR’s extremism continues, as shown by CAIR condolences for the deceased Ahmad Sakr in 2015. “Very few people in our community have left a legacy comparable to that of Dr. Sakr,” said CAIR-cofounder Awad of a founding member of the Muslim Brotherhood-derived Muslim Students Association. “My very first few English sermons in 1989 as a student in Austin were read from his books,” said CAIR’s southern California chapter executive director, Hussam Ayloush. “No words can describe how much we owe him.”

Sakr impresses objective observers less in light of his 2011 lectures at a Florida camp for Islamic schoolchildren. In one he declares that “here in America the Congress puts themselves in the position of Allah” by instituting laws contradicting Islam’s supposedly divine decrees. Such a legislature is a false pagan institution, he said. “How can you see Allah on the Day of Judgment and he says ‘you crazy man, you crazy woman you put yourself in my position, you want to take over my position, go to Hell,’” Sakr stated. After asking the schoolchildren whether they are proud as Muslims or Americans (they respond with the expected answer of Muslims), he said that “America is trying to entangle itself with every foreign country and to control it.”

In another children’s camp lecture, Sakr emphasizes the orthodox Islamic understanding that “Islam is a total way of life” in contrast to other religions. Accordingly, not only should Muslims prioritize Islamic commands in case of any conflict with secular governance, but his pupils should seek the Muslim Brotherhood’s goal of an “Islamization of science and technology”; “Islamize your profession,” he stated. Reflecting Suleiman, Sakr said of homosexuality that “all of us have to condemn it and say this is unnatural,” and he referenced the Islamic teaching that God destroyed Sodom with an earthquake.

Hating Israel

According to a 2015 Anti-Defamation League (ADL) report, CAIR has a longstanding hatred of Israel, as demonstrated by the CAIR executive director Nihad Awad at a 2014 Washington, D.C., rally. He said Israel is a “terrorist state” and that the American-Israeli Political Action Committee “should have its hand off the United States Congress. They have corrupted our foreign policy.”

CAIR “chapters continue to partner with various anti-Israel groups that seek to isolate and demonize the Jewish State,” the ADL notes, such as the anti-Semitic and jihadist-tied Council on the National Interest (CNI). CAIR and CNI collaborated in presenting a 2006 Washington, D.C., lecture by the Islam apologist Karen Armstrong.

CAIR National Board member Sarwat Husain (no relation) similarly wrote in 2009 that Israel practices “state sponsored terrorism at its best.” “No other country in the world have [sic] terrorized as many people for so long as Israel has for more than half a century.” CAIR-Georgia executive director Edward Ahmed Mitchell has tweeted that the American-Israeli Political Action Committee “is the only explanation for US’s morally bankrupt Israel policy.”

CAIR San Francisco Bay Area (CAIR-SFBA) executive director Zahra Billoo has declared that “Zionism is racism” and that “Israel ‘defending’ itself is analogous to Nazi Germany defending itself from Jewish uprising.”

Mongi Dhaouadi, the executive director of CAIR’s Connecticut chapter, does not let facts disturb the anti-Israel animus. At a 2010 Connecticut rally he ranted that Israel had “murdered” 1,400 people during the 2008–2009 Cast Lead military strikes against Gaza, thereby furthering the completely unsubstantiated charges of indiscriminate use of military force by the Israelis. His CAIR chapter executive director colleague in Arizona, Imraan Siddiqui has referenced debunked propaganda posters that claim “Palestinians were cleansed from their land.”

Not surprisingly, Dhaouadi and Siddiqui have led their respective CAIR chapters in supporting Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. (See Organization Trends, January 2016.) CAIR-CT in 2014 called for Connecticut to sever financial ties to an Israel that “discriminates against its citizens on the basis of ethnicity and wages a war against innocent and unarmed civilians,” according to Dhaouadi. Like CAIR’s California chapter, CAIR-AZ in 2016 opposed an Arizona bill requiring state pension system divestment from any company boycotting Israel. “It would be un-American to deny constituents the right to work to change the illegal and discriminatory actions of a foreign government,” Siddiqui said. In 2011 CAIR’s Los Angeles chapter (CAIR-LA) opposed criminal prosecution of University of California (Irvine) students who disrupted an Israeli ambassador’s speech.

Siddiqui, CAIR-LA former vice president and current CAIR National Board member Masoud Nassimi, Billoo, and CAIR as an organization signed a 2014 statement supporting BDS because “funding racism and Apartheid is un-American.” Supporting the “BDS Campaign to end occupation” would recreate a “non-violent tactic that was employed successfully during the South African freedom struggle.” Among the demands was a Palestinian “right of return” for millions descended from Palestinian refugees.

Corey Saylor, in 2007 the director of CAIR’s Department to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia, rejected what he called undue reliance on the “Israeli Apartheid lobby.” His antipathy towards Israel flows logically enough from his work from 1998 to 2001 with the now-defunct American Muslims for Jerusalem (AMJ), whose November 1999 fundraising dinner struck one participant as “crudely anti-Jewish.” Speakers like Awad and Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was subsequently convicted on terrorism charges, “vied with one another in verbally assaulting the State of Israel and American Jews,” Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes reported.

Such events were no exception for AMJ, which helped organize a notorious October 28, 2000 rally outside the White House at which Alamoudi expressed support for Hamas and Hezbollah before cheering crowds. AMJ executive director Khalid Turaani likewise attended conferences calling for jihad against Israel. He proclaimed to Palestinians at a 2002 AMJ conference that “Allah will allow you to conquer the land of Palestine. Its men, its women, and its servants are in a state of jihad until the Day of Judgment.” He added that “for too long the extremist pro-Israel groups have literally gotten away with murder” and that “we will never forget Jenin,” a reference to the myth that Israel perpetrated a massacre in that city.

Turaani’s fellow conference speakers included the notorious anti-Semite Alison Weir, who likened the Palestinian terrorist to a “terrorized victim who has tragically but explicably turned to violence.” Even more anti-Semitic was the neo-Nazi William Baker, who invoked the aforementioned Palestinian “Right of Return” in such circles. In their midst CAIR founder Omar Ahmed declared that “pro-Israeli groups have brainwashed Americans.”

Several of the conference speakers such as Yahia Abdul Rahman had links to the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, an organization uniting several Muslim Brotherhood groups and individuals. The Islamic supremacist and Hezbollah defender Mather Hathout discussed Israeli “apartheid” and “Israeli-occupied territory” in Congress, a body “more Zionist than the Knesset” (Israel’s parliament). Former ISNA president and jihad/sharia proponent Muzammil Siddiqi stated that “Zionists have created much confusion and misconception in the minds of Americans” concerning Jerusalem. He had discussed Jerusalem at AMJ’s first meeting in Washington in 1999 at which he falsely asserted that “Muslims established and practiced the most tolerant multi-religious and multi-faith character of Jerusalem.”

Contrary to the anti-Israeli invective of CAIR and its allies, CAIR has “for many years … refused to unequivocally condemn Palestinian terror organizations and Hezbollah by name,” ADL notes. Accordingly, in a 2013 interview Ayloush condemned any group that “engages in the harming of civilians” but refused to name Hamas specifically. Any such question concerning Hamas, he added, is “not acceptable,” and “proves that you have nothing but bigotry in you.”

“As a civil rights organization we’re not here in the business of being dragged into the Middle East affairs,” Ayloush said of CAIR, falsely describing it as a purely “American organization.” Organizations like the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) have amply documented CAIR’s serial condemnations of American and Israeli national security policies. Ayloush himself described American support for various dictatorships in Muslim countries as “partly responsible” for the 2015 San Bernardino jihadist massacre.

CAIR might have tried to acquire a more diverse, multicultural image with the 2013 appointment of Jacob Bender as the executive director of the organization’s Philadelphia chapter. Although the “first American Jew to head a chapter of a Muslim community organization,” the ADL notes, “Bender’s previous activism reveals a record of hostility towards the Jewish State that is consistent with CAIR’s anti-Israel agenda.” Bender and CAIR laughably claimed that Islam did not motivate a January 2016 stabbing attack on a Philadelphia policeman by a man screaming “Allahu Akbar.”

A fifth column

CAIR’s ideology presents a threat both to American civil society and U.S. national security. “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” CAIR Dallas/Fort Worth executive director and Hamas apologist Mustafa Carroll said in 2013. Syed, whose CAIR-Missouri featured in 2013 the venomous Khalid Yasin, once appealed online to Muslims to “Report anti Islamic and anti Muslim content on the internet to appropriate authorities … take actions according to the Shariah.” Given sharia’s death penalty for blasphemy, his call could have lethal implications depending upon where Muslims worldwide heeded it.

Other CAIR members like Dallas leader Alia Salem, speaking after the 2015 Garland, Texas, attack upon a cartoon exhibit that invited artists to depict the Muslim prophet Muhammad, also seem more influenced by sharia than by the principle of free speech. “When does free speech become hate speech, and when does hate speech become incitement to violence?” Salem asked. “Free speech is not the same as responsible speech.” After the publication of the 2005 Danish Muhammad cartoons, Sarwat Husain said that the “West has crossed all the boundaries of civility for the followers of Islam” and displayed “unethical double standards” in equating anti-Semitic expression with criticism of Islam. She decried a “free passport and an open season to degrade Islam, Muslims” for Western media and asked whether they wanted a “right of freedom of expression or an intentional attempt to provoke a violent reaction.” While the “freedom of expression in a democratic society must always be balanced by the no-less-important notion of social responsibility,” the West’s “dogma of free speech and the freedom of expression is destructive to the rest of the world.”

Husain’s condemnation of strict, even satirical scrutiny of Islam, makes sense given her one-sided adulation of Islam, as indicated by an article of hers from Christmas 2015. Her ecumenical appeal to Christians that “Islam respects and honors Jesus as a prophet, the same way it respects and honors Muhammad” falsely equated Quran 98:5 with Jesus’ Greatest Commandment. While this commandment directs Jesus’ followers to “Love your neighbor as yourself,” the zakat in Quran 98:5 does not have the common meaning of “charity” as translated by her. Rather, the almsgiving demanded by Islamic doctrine from its followers resembles more a compulsory tax serving only the Islamic community, including its jihad-related military demands. (“Uncharitable,” by Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review, April 23, 2011)

Husain also draws a deceptive equivalence between the Greatest Commandment’s “Love the Lord your God” and Quran 98:5’s stipulation that believers “were not commanded except to worship Allah.”  Yet this worship must have the “correct religion,” as the subsequent verse 98:6 condemns rejecters of Islam as the “worst of creatures” who “will be in the fire of Hell,” an important caveat considering the differences between Christianity and Islam. As Husain herself wrote in 2010, Islam claims that Jesus was not crucified, but rather “God saved Jesus and took him to paradise until the hour would come to complete his mission in the end of time.”

Husain’s dubious assessments of Islam extend beyond theology to more temporal matters like women’s rights as shown by her participation in a 2006 St. Edward’s University panel in Austin, Texas. As a reporter recounted, Husain “felt privileged to be a part of a religion that gave so many rights to its women” and believed that the “fight for feminism in the West has been done already for Muslim women in Islam.” While women worldwide have struggled for equality for centuries, supposedly “all those rights were given to women 1,400 years ago” in Islam, according to her and notwithstanding numerous Islamic doctrines oppressing women internationally today. While she has recounted the lasting success of her arranged marriage at the age of 17 in India to a man she had never met, abusive Islamic child marriages in Nigeria, for example, have been far less blissful.

Like Husain, other CAIR officials unswervingly express a Panglossian optimism about the House of Islam’s condition. CAIR’s website proclaims that “several scholarly works suggest that religion (Islam) is not the cause of terrorism,” while the executive director of CAIR’s Minnesota chapter, Jaylani Hussein, argued during a terrorism case that jihad did not mean “holy war.” “In America the greatest threat to any American is right-wing extremism,” Syed stated in 2015.

CAIR’s Oklahoma chapter executive director Adam Soltani tweeted after Orlando jihadist slaughter that “there is absolutely nothing in Islam that calls for the killing of homosexuals or anyone else for that matter.” Siddiqui made similar claims completely contrary to the lethal facts concerning Islamic doctrinal condemnation of homosexuality. In turn, Ahmed Bedier, CAIR-Tampa’s founder and past leader who has accused Israel of “Nazi-like tactics,” presented at CAIR-CT’s 2010 banquet various World War II Muslims who, he said, were heroic because they sheltered Jews during the Holocaust while the “Catholic Church looked the other way.” His analysis not only involves discredited accusations against the Vatican, but ignores various Islamic genocidal ambitions against the Jews both during and after the Holocaust.

For CAIR officials like Cyrus McGoldrick, CAIR-New York’s America- and Israel-hating former civil rights director, a top concern is an irrational “Islamophobia” prejudicially targeting Muslims. “War depends on Islamophobia. Zionism depends on Islamophobia,” he said in 2012. “This goes back to the original colonization of this country and moving Native Americans into concentration camps that we call reservations.”

CAIR’s “Islamophobia” obsession often reaches absurd dimensions, such as when CAIR-Florida in April “condemned a xenophobic alert sent out by the University of Central Florida.” In this case involving a false report of a gunman on campus, CAIR-Florida inexplicably criticized “‘Middle Eastern origin’ as part of the alleged suspect description.” CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper urged in 2013 with like ludicrousness that media avoid the now ubiquitous term “Islamist.” This “has become shorthand for ‘Muslims we don’t like’” and a word “currently used in an almost exclusively pejorative context.”

In CAIR’s twisted understanding moderate Muslims like Zuhdi Jasser who publicly confront dangers from within their faith face derision as “Uncle Tom Muslims” and “Uncle Zuhdi” from Billoo and Dhaouadi respectively. Billoo has repeatedly condemned American military personnel on several Memorial Days, leveling the accusation that they are “engaged in terrorism.” Yet Dhaouadi has uncritically quoted Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna, and Billoo has expressed admiration for convicted terrorism supporter (and CAIR-SFBA honoree) Sami Al-Arian and faux moderate Muslim Tariq Ramadan.

For all of their vitriol against United States Navy veteran Jasser and his fellow service members, Billoo and Dhaouadi have never condemned their fellow CAIR chapter executive director in Michigan, Dawud Walid. He has supported Hamas involvement in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, claimed that Muslims have “no other choice” but suicide bombing attacks against Israel, and espoused various conspiracy accusations against law enforcement. In glaring contradiction to Sarwat Husain, one of his 2016 Facebook postings condemned saying “Happy Easter” to Christians as a blasphemous affirmation of Christianity’s triune understanding of God. “Who are those who incurred the wrath of Allah?” Walid asked in a 2012 sermon. “They are the Jews.”

Nonetheless, no one should expect Husain to expose Walid’s assaults on interfaith harmony, given her history of duplicity. The Investigative Project on Terrorism caught her in 2008 observing that “it is very important, media in the United States is very gullible” and “especially as a Muslim, if you have something to say, they’ll come running to you. And take advantage of that.” A CAIR slide also revealed by the Investigative Project revealingly described the “Characteristics of a Journalist” as “They will expect you to do their work. Let them … Does little primary research … Under extreme deadline pressure … Fears charges of inaccuracy.”

While journalists may labor under such shortcomings, the double games of Husain and others provide a clear, compelling indictment of CAIR’s nefariousness. There is simply no justification for responsible authorities to respect CAIR’s claim to be the “nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization” when the group conceals its jihadist agenda. The group’s harmful actions were devastating in 2011, when CAIR and 56 other organizations successfully convinced the federal government to purge training materials of derogatory information about Islamic doctrine. Instead, government officials should follow the FBI’s 2008 decision to end normal relations with CAIR, an organization that is freedom’s foe, not friend, more meriting of prosecution than policy influence.

Exclusive — Donald Trump Plans To Continue GOP Legacy Of Leading On Women’s, Civil Rights Against Racist, Sexist Democrats

June 10, 2016

Exclusive — Donald Trump Plans To Continue GOP Legacy Of Leading On Women’s, Civil Rights Against Racist, Sexist Democrats, BreitbartMatthew Boyle, June 10, 2016

donald-trump-supporters-rally-associated-press-640x480AP Photo/Jae C. Hong

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president of the United States, tells Breitbart News he plans to continue the rich GOP tradition of standing up for women’s and civil rights in the face of opposition from Democrats.

He also says he plans to help the Republican Party, which led the way on ending slavery, the Civil Rights movement and women’s suffrage and women’s rights—among other big picture moral leadership causes in American history—take more credit for its victories for women’s and civil rights while fighting Democrats who opposed those measures.

“You’re right—100 percent,” Trump told Breitbart News when asked about how the Republican Party led the way on ending slavery, the Civil Rights movement and women’s suffrage.

On Tuesday night, when now presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton assumed the leadership of that party, she whitewashed the Democratic Party’s history of racism, sexism, support for slavery and long history of standing against civil rights for all in America. In fact, as the first woman to win the presidential nomination of a major political party in America, Clinton attempted to align herself with the Seneca Falls convention of 1848, the first ever women’s rights convention organized in large part by Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

“Tonight’s victory is not about one person,” Clinton said in her speech accepting her role as the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee.

It belongs to generations of women and men who struggled and sacrificed and made this moment possible. In our country, it started right here in New York, a place called Seneca Falls, in 1848. When a small but determined group of women, and men, came together with the idea that women deserved equal rights, and they set it forth in something called the Declaration of Sentiments, and it was the first time in human history that that kind of declaration occurred.

Clinton did not mention Cady Stanton, or the fact that the women’s rights leader went on to become one of the nation’s first Republicans. In fact, Stanton’s husband Henry Brewster Stanton—a journalist and a New York State senator—was one of the nation’s leading voices for the abolition of slavery and helped found the Republican Party in New York back in 1856.

Later in the speech, Clinton took a shot at Trump, arguing that he wanted to send America backward—that his trademark campaign phrase “Make America Great Again” was code for taking the country back before all people had civil rights.

“Donald Trump is temperamentally unfit to be president and commander-in-chief,” Clinton said. “And he’s not just trying to build a wall between America and Mexico – he’s trying to wall off Americans from each other. When he says, ‘Let’s make America great again,’ that is code for, ‘Let’s take America backwards.’ Back to a time when opportunity and dignity were reserved for some, not all, promising his supporters an economy he cannot recreate.”

Never mind the fact that her own husband, former President Bill Clinton, used the phrase“Make America Great Again” multiple times back in the 1990s—a phrase first popularized by former President Ronald Reagan, who used the campaign slogan in his own successful 1980 White House bid—but Clinton is forgetting the history of her own political party. Clinton’s success is built out of a Democratic Party that rose to and clutched onto power by actively suppressing equal rights of not just women, but minorities as well.

Abraham Lincoln, the president who signed the Emancipation Proclamation abolishing slavery then led the country through the Civil War preserving the Union until his assassination, was a Republican. The general public often forgets how influential the Republican Party was in ending slavery—Democrats wanted to continue slavery, while Lincoln’s Republicans wanted to end it—and if it weren’t for the GOP, slavery would not have ended and the Union itself may have fallen apart.

“Some may not realize that the modern Republican Party owes its origin to the fight over slavery nearly two centuries ago,” CNN’s Tom Foreman wrote back in 2012.

In the tumultuous mid-1800s, right before the Civil War, some political activists were concerned about keeping slavery from spreading into new western territories, and they saw no way to stop it through existing political powers: the Democrats and the Whigs (the pro-Congress party of the mid 1800s that largely destroyed itself in the 1852 elections in a battle over slavery). So they formed a new party, taking the name ‘Republicans’ in a salute to earlier American politicians.

As Republicans led the battle against slavery, in 1861 the party’s first U.S. president—Abraham Lincoln—was elected.

“Soon after, slavery fell,” Foreman wrote.

The Whig party disappeared. And the Republicans began a long steady rise in power. Even back then, the party liked to talk about fiscal responsibility — immigration, religion — and the need for a strong business climate. All of this spurred a sympathetic Chicago newspaper to call the Republicans the Grand Old Party, or the GOP.

Republicans have led the way on every major civil rights movement in American history—ending slavery was hardly the only one. What is now the Party of Trump also led the way in granting women the right to vote. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a leader in the women’s rights movement in the 19th Century, was a Republican, as was Susan B. Anthony. So were many of the others involved in the effort. In fact, it was Republicans who led the effort for decades that eventually saw passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—which granted women the right vote.

“Most educated Americans vaguely remember that the amendment granting women the right to vote was passed by Congress in 1919 and ratified by the states in 1920,” the American Spectator’s David Catron wrote back in 2012.

But the number of people who know anything about the forty-year legislative war that preceded that victory is smaller than the audience of MSNBC. That war began in 1878, when a California Republican named A.A. Sargent introduced the 19th Amendment only to see it voted down by a Democrat-controlled Congress. It finally ended four decades later, when the Republicans won landslide victories in the House and the Senate, giving them the power to pass the amendment despite continued opposition from most elected Democrats — including President Woodrow Wilson, to whom the suffragettes frequently referred as “Kaiser Wilson.”

Catron continued by noting that Republicans in Utah—Mormons—granted women the right to vote back in 1870. Then, for years afterwards, Republicans—facing objections from Democrats—over and over again introduced the 19th Amendment for ratification in Congress. Meanwhile, Republican states granted women the right to vote in many other places.

“Meanwhile, the Republicans continued to introduce the 19th Amendment in Congress every year, but the Democrats were able to keep it bottled up in various committees for another decade before allowing either chamber to vote on it,” Catron wrote.

In 1887 it finally reached the floor of the Senate. Once again, however, it was defeated by a vote of 34 to 16. After this setback, advocates of women’s suffrage opted to put pressure on Congress by convincing various state legislatures to pass bills giving women the vote. This met with some success. By the turn of the century a variety of Republican-controlled states, including Wyoming, Colorado, and Idaho, had granted women suffrage. During the first ten years of the new century, several other states gave women the vote, including Washington and California.

Eventually, Democrats relented and Republicans succeeded in granting women’s suffrage nationally.

“Congress, however, didn’t deign to vote on the issue again until 1914, when it was once again defeated by Senate Democrats,” Catron added.

It was subsequently brought up for a vote in January of 1915 in the House, where it went down by a vote of 204 to 174. Nonetheless, the Republicans continued to push even after it was defeated yet again in early 1918. The big break for 19th Amendment came when President Wilson, a true Democrat, violated his most solemn campaign promise. Having pledged to keep the United States out of the European conflict that had been raging since 1914, he decided to enter the war anyway. This set the stage for the 1918 midterm elections in which voter outrage swept the Republicans into power in both the House and the Senate. This finally placed the GOP in a position to pass the amendment despite Democrat opposition.

Later in the 20th Century of course, during the Civil Rights Movement, Democrats again stood against equal rights for all Americans regardless of race or gender. Writing in the Guardian of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act back in 2013, Harry Enten detailed how the Democratic Party opposed civil rights efforts while Republicans backed them.

“80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did,” Enten wrote. “Indeed, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.”

In fact, a PBS special on “The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow” detailed how systemic racism was embedded into the very fabric of what has now become Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Party.

“The Democratic Party identified itself as the ‘white man’s party’ and demonized the Republican Party as being ‘Negro dominated,’ even though whites were in control,” the PBS special writes on its website of the post-Civil War Democrats. “Determined to re-capture the South, Southern Democrats ‘redeemed’ state after state — sometimes peacefully, other times by fraud and violence. By 1877, when Reconstruction was officially over, the Democratic Party controlled every Southern state.”

The PBS special goes on even further to detail how even Northern Democrats tolerated the overt discrimination and racism from their Southern brethren so as to keep their coalition of power together. “The South remained a one-party region until the Civil Rights movement began in the 1960s. Northern Democrats, most of whom had prejudicial attitudes towards blacks, offered no challenge to the discriminatory policies of the Southern Democrats,” PBS writes.

A deeper more than 30-page report from the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU)—called “The Truth About Jim Crow”—details how the Democratic Party was integral to the development of such laws.

“Jim Crow’s political purpose was to keep the white population in power, and the Democratic Party thought of itself as the white man’s party,” one part of the more than 10-page-long section on how the Democratic Party pushed Jim Crow laws reads. “A chronological look at the Jim Crow era will illustrate how Democrats created and exploited Jim Crow.”

The report goes on to detail how it was Republicans who ended Jim Crow laws.

Trump, in his latest exclusive interview with Breitbart News, said that Clinton’s rewriting of her Democratic Party’s sordid history on these important narratives is more proof that she is just playing the woman card and the race card for pure political gain—and in opposition of the facts. He also believes that Republicans need to do more to take credit for the party’s leading role in the women’s rights, Civil Rights and slavery abolition movements—all movements the Democrats, the party of Clinton, originally fought against intensely.

“The Democrats have always played that card,” Trump said. “The Republicans have not taken enough credit for what’s taken place. They’ve never taken enough credit for what’s taken place.”

Trump told Breitbart News that he plans to win support across the country despite anyone’s particular race, and aims to seek support from Hispanics and African Americans and white voters alike—and men and women—using the same message delivered to each of them the same way, equally: Jobs and economic opportunity for all. Meanwhile, Clinton, of course, is going to use these race and gender issues to divide Americans into separate classes based on gender and skin color.

“I plan to help Hispanics and African Americans because I’m going to bring jobs back to the country,” Trump said.

She doesn’t know how. I’m going to rebuild the infrastructure of the country, she wouldn’t know where to start. That’s why a lot of the unions, the head people, they routinely endorse the Democrats. Routinely. And they’re having a hard time. Because while they’re dying to endorse the Democrats because that’s where their head people have their lunch and dinner, their membership wants to endorse Trump. Look at the Teamsters. The people within the Teamsters want Trump. They haven’t endorsed yet, and the reason they haven’t endorsed yet is because everybody in the Teamsters wants Trump. The reason they want Trump is because I’m going to rebuild the infrastructure of the country and that’s good for them. It appeals across the lines to people that have small businesses and contracting companies that are not unionized.

When asked about how—when those self-appointed leaders in the African American and Hispanic communities will certainly further the Democratic Party’s agenda and undermine the GOP’s efforts, facts be damned—he plans to get his message out to the actual voters, Trump said it is simple.

“I think that’s been my whole message up to this point,” Trump said. “I’m going to continue to hit it very hard. But I think it’s been very much my own message up to this point, jobs, good trade deals. Last night I talked about it. Great trade deals.”

There are some early signs that Trump—using his unique style of mixing interesting campaigning with his celebrity appeal—might be able to cut through the clutter and reach voters in African American and Hispanic communities that have for years now been outside the GOP’s grasp, despite the Democratic Party’s dark history on civil and women’s rights matters.

As noted by Fox News Latino, Trump’s support among Hispanics is spiking fast according to new data from analytics firm CulturIntel. In fact, he is almost equal with Clinton.

“Based on big data analysis over the last 30 days as of June 1st, Trump reports 37 percent of Hispanic positive sentiment versus 41 percent for Clinton,” CulturIntel writes in the report. “Surprisingly, the candidates tie in negative sentiment across Hispanics at 38 percent; discounting the fact that Latinos default as Democrats or are completely turned off by Trump’s off-color comments. After all, over 50 percent of Latinos identify as political independents.”

Meanwhile, as Gateway Pundit notes in a new report as well based off this and other data, Trump could be on par to win 25 percent of the black vote. It would, the report detailed, lead to a landslide victory for Trump in November. It would also be the first time since 1960, when Richard Nixon failed to beat John F. Kennedy for the presidency before coming back eight years later to win in 1968, that a Republican won such a big percentage of the non-white vote. With black unemployment rates double what they are for whites, according to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, if Trump hammers his jobs message—and corrects the record on Democrats versus Republicans when it comes to civil rights—maybe he could cut into a significant portion of the black electorate.

On top of all of this, as Breitbart News previously reported in an earlier part of this interview, Trump is also zoning in one place where failed 2012 GOP presidential former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney did not succeed: proving to voters he cares about them.

He said in this interview that he believes that to run the country, a president must “manage with heart”—a sign that he is appealing to the significant portion of the electorate that looks for a president who cares about people like them, qualifications be damned.

While Trump paints Clinton as “Heartless Hillary,” his second nickname for who he also calls “Crooked Hillary,” he could be growing the GOP tent and expanding the electorate based off key analytics that establishment Republicans in Washington, D.C., hellbent on amnesty for illegal aliens and jailbreak style “criminal justice reform” crime bills have completely missed.