Louisiana: Resolution calls for ban on contact with terror-linked CAIR

Source: www.legis.la.gov. h/t @DanielPipes

HLS 16RS-1729

ORIGINAL

2016 Regular Session
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 131
BY REPRESENTATIVE IVEY

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS: Requests law enforcement and governmental agencies to avoid and suspend contacts and outreach activities with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To urge and request law enforcement and governmental agencies in Louisiana to avoid and suspend all contacts and outreach activities with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

WHEREAS, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has suspended all formal contacts with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) due to evidence indicating a relationship between CAIR and Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization; and

WHEREAS, one of CAIR’s directors was sentenced to a year in federal prison for violating U.S. sanctions against Iraq; and

WHEREAS, a CAIR director in Virginia pled guilty to terrorism-related financial and conspiracy charges, which resulted in a federal prison sentence; and

WHEREAS, a communications specialist and civil rights coordinator for CAIR trained with an al Qaeda-tied Kashmir organization that is listed on the Department of State’s international terror list and was also indicted on charges of conspiring to help al Qaeda and the Taliban battle American troops in Afghanistan and was sentenced to twenty years in prison; and

WHEREAS, CAIR’s former community affairs director pled guilty to three federal counts of bank and visa fraud and agreed to be deported to Egypt after he had funneled money to activities supporting terrorism and had published material advocating suicide attacks against the United States; these illegal activities took place while he was employed by CAIR; and

WHEREAS, a CAIR fund raiser was arrested on terrorism-related charges and was deported from the United States due to his work as executive director of the Global Relief Foundation, which was designated as a fundraising front organization for a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. Treasury Department for financing al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations; and

WHEREAS, CAIR opened its first office in Washington, D.C., with the help of a grant from the Holy Land Foundation; and

WHEREAS, the federal case against the Holy Land Foundation, a charitable organization that was shut down by the United States Department of the Treasury for funding Jihadist terrorist organizations, was the largest successful terrorism financing prosecution in U.S. history, and the case identified CAIR as a Muslim Brotherhood front group, and CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial; and

WHEREAS, the cofounder of CAIR’s parent organization, Islamic Association for Palestine, was sentenced to prison on terrorism charges for financing Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a designated terrorist organization.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of Louisiana does urge and request law enforcement and governmental agencies in Louisiana to avoid and suspend all contacts and outreach activities with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).


Add this whereas: Designated Terrorist Group CAIR stands by its decision to support the family of the San Bernardino Muslim terrorists

bewarecair

CAIRwahabi CAIRdiorama32

Syrian ‘rebel’ from al Qaida linked group visited U.S.

Source: Syrian rebel whose group is linked to al Qaida visited U.S. | McClatchy DC

U.S. authorities denied entry to a prominent Syrian humanitarian leader. So why did it allow in a member of a controversial Islamist rebel faction?

A senior figure from a Syrian rebel group with links to al Qaida was allowed into the United States for a brief visit, raising questions about how much the Obama administration will compromise in the search for partners in the conflict.

Labib al Nahhas, foreign affairs director for the Islamist fighting group Ahrar al Sham, spent a few days in Washington in December, according to four people with direct knowledge of the trip and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of U.S. relations with Syrian rebels.

An image grab from a propaganda video uploaded in 2013 by Ahrar al-Sham showing its members training at an undisclosed location in Syria. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

An image grab from a propaganda video uploaded in 2013 by Ahrar al-Sham showing its members training at an undisclosed location in Syria. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

His previously undisclosed visit is a delicate matter for both sides – the conservative Salafist insurgents risk their credibility with even perceived ties to the United States, and the U.S. government risks looking soft on screenings by allowing entry to a member of an Islamist paramilitary force.

National security analysts say U.S. authorities likely knew of Nahhas’ arrival – intelligence agencies for years have watched his group’s interactions with al Qaida’s Syrian branch, the Nusra Front.

That suggests that authorities granted him entry at a time when U.S. immigration authorities face political pressure to block visitors with even tenuous ties to extremist groups. Four months after Nahhas entered the United States on a European passport, U.S. authorities denied entry to a well-known Syrian humanitarian leader who had been approved to visit Washington to receive an award from international aid groups.

“They’re treating Labib al Nahhas as an individual, and it’s also useful to have someone to talk to on the other side,” said Faysal Itani, a Syria specialist with the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, who said he’d known about Nahhas’ visit. “They could make, quickly, the decision that he’s persona non grata in the United States and yet they haven’t.”

A Syrian opposition official with knowledge of the matter said it shouldn’t have been surprising that he was allowed entry because Ahrar al Sham is not among U.S.-designated terrorist groups. He said Nahhas hadn’t planned meetings with any U.S. officials but wanted to speak with “third parties” who might be able to influence policymakers. He declined to elaborate on the “third parties;” others said the plan was to meet with lobbyists and Middle East researchers.

The State Department declined to answer whether any U.S. officials knew in advance or expressed reservations about Nahhas’s presence in Washington, or whether State Department officials had assisted his entry.

The Obama administration has considered slapping a terrorist label on the group, and Secretary of State John Kerry has lumped Ahrar in the same category as blacklisted groups the Islamic State, Nusra Front and Hamas.

Officials so far have held back on a designation, privately saying that they’ve calculated it would do more harm than good on the ground.

“They’re not al Qaida but they are Salafi jihadists – they’re just not transnational ones,” Itani said of Ahrar al Sham.

Given the State Department’s growing impatience with Syrian insurgents’ “co-mingling” with Nusra Front, it’s unclear whether Nahhas would be welcomed back to Washington.

“Straddling the jihadi-mainstream divide has served them very well earlier in the conflict,” Lund said of Ahrar al Sham, “but by now their inability to come down on one side or the other is starting to look more like weakness.”


One of those third parties he met with was very likely CAIR, the Hamas front group. As was reported here: US Muslim Brotherhood’s Political Party to Blitz Capitol Hill This Week

The Board of Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA) is littered with Hamas leaders including…all of them.  Dr. Jess Ghannam, Dr. Hatem Bazian (name familiar?), Tarek Alkadri, Mouffa Nahhas, and Khalil Meek.  Alkadri, Nahhas, and Meek all openly served in various positions for Hamas in the U.S. (dba “CAIR”).

Are Labib Nahhas and MLFA/CAIR’s Mouffa Nahhas related?

U.S. taxpayers still paying ‘salaries’ of jailed Palestinian murderers

Source: U.S. taxpayers paying ‘salaries’ of jailed Palestinian murderers

Norwegian officials calling on the Palestinians to drop a program that uses funding from U.S. and other Western nations’ taxpayers to pay salaries to jailed murderers.

Borge Brende, the Norwegian foreign minister, confirmed in a report in the daily Dagen newspaper that he told Mahmoud Abbas to cancel the payments, according to Palestinian Media Watch.

WND reported earlier it was PMW that followed a “money trail” showing that the Palestinian Authority is secretly continuing to pay “salaries” to convicted terrorists, despite promising two years ago to stop the payments.

The organization said it found Palestinian Authority Ministry of Finance documents that show a transfer of money from the PA to the Palestinian National Fund, the body that funds the Palestinian Liberation Organization, in the amount needed to pay the salaries.

The PA has received an estimated $25 billion in financial aid from the U.S. and other countries over two decades, according to the Gatestone Institute.

The PA’s payments became an issue for donor nations in 2014 after PMW exposed them.

PMW said that among the likely recipients is Abdallah Barghouti, now serving 67 life sentences for preparing explosives for terror attacks over the years that killed 67 people.

After having been imprisoned for 13 years, Barghouti would be receiving about $1,600 a month now, according to the PA law.

When the Western donor nations objected in August 2014, the PA announced it had closed its Ministry of Prisoners’ Affairs and promised “that salaries to prisoners will no longer be paid by the PA but by the newly formed PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs.”

But the PMW report revealed the new PLO Commission is identical to the old PA Ministry of Prisoners’ Affairs in everything but name.

The commission and the salary payments to prisoners remain under the “supervision” of the Palestinian presidency, meaning Mahmoud Abbas. The PA minister of prisoners’ affairs became the director of the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, PMW explained

In 2014, the last year the PA Ministry of Prisoners’ Affairs operated, its budget was 442 million shekels ($118 million), PMW noted. The year after the “closure” of the PA Ministry of Prisoners’ Affairs, the PA raised the amount it transfers to the PLO by 481 million shekels ($128 million), from 294 million in 2014 to 775 million in 2015.

PMW found the additional $128 million the PA gave to the PLO in 2015 “is the amount the PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs needed to take on the responsibilities of the PA Ministry of Prisoners’ Affairs, which is primarily paying terrorists salaries.”

It means, PMW said, Western nations were duped into believing the murderers’ salaries no longer were being subsidized by taxpayer funds.

Read it all.

An Oral History of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, in Their Own Words

Source: Center for Security Policy | BOOK RELEASE: Ikhwan in America: An Oral History of the Muslim Brotherhood in Their Own Words

(Washington, D.C.): The Center for Security Policy is proud to announce the second release in its Archival Series, Ikhwan in America: An Oral History of the Muslim Brotherhood in their Own Words.

Like the first volume in this series, The Explanatory Memorandum: From the Archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, this new volume provides context for the needed, far deeper understanding of the true nature of the Muslim Brotherhood (known as the Ikhwan in Arabic). It does so by making accessible an original source document – along with an evaluation of its ideological, historical and organizational significance to equip our countrymen and women, and their elected representatives, to make informed decisions about one of the most serious threats facing our country: the Islamic supremacist enemies within.

“Ikhwan in America” was the title given an early 1980s lecture about the Muslim Brotherhood by a man who was at the time one of the organization’s most prominent leaders: the chief masul (“guide”) of its executive office, Zaid Naman (a.k.a. Zeid Noman). The audience were participants in a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood camp in Missouri.

The Center for Security Policy is proud to present this monograph as the latest in its Muslim Brotherhood Archival Series. Ikhwan in America is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback format at Amazon.com. As with this Archive Series’ Explanatory Memorandum, this one can also be downloaded for free at www.SecureFreedom.org.

A PDF of the newly released monograph is embedded here:

 

 

Muslim Brotherhood Day on Capitol Hill

Source: Muslim Brotherhood Day on Capitol Hill | TheHill

Lawmakers should be leery of the new Muslim Brotherhood front group visiting the Capitol.

On Monday, April 18, legislators’ offices will be visited by individuals associated with a group unknown to most lawmakers: The United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO). In the interest of helping members of the U.S. Congress understand precisely who their interlocutors are, permit a brief introduction: The USCMO is the latest in a long series of front organizations associated with, and working to advance, the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.

Members of Congress should be clear about the true nature of that agenda. It is laid out most authoritatively in a document introduced into evidence by federal prosecutors in the course of the largest terrorism financing trial in the nation’s history, U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation et al. Written in 1991 by a top Muslim Brotherhood operative, Mohamed Akram, and entitled “The Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America,” this internal correspondence was meant for the eyes only of the organization’s leadership in Egypt. So, the document is direct and to the point: It explicitly states that the mission of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America is “destroying Western civilization from within … by [the infidels’] hands and the hands of the believers so that Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

There are two other important facts legislators should know about Akram’s memo.

First, the document helpfully attaches a list of 29 groups under the heading “Our organizations and organizations of our friends: Imagine if they all march according to one plan!” A number of the identified Muslim Brotherhood fronts — and many others that have come into being since 1991 — are members of the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations. Representatives and associates of such fronts will be among the Islamists in congressional offices on Monday.

Second, the memo describes in detail the Muslim Brotherhood’s favored technique for accomplishing its stated goal of “destroying Western civilization” — at least until such time as they are strong enough to use violence decisively: “civilization jihad.” This sort of jihad involves employing stealthy, subversive means like influence operations to penetrate and subvert our government and civil society institutions. (The successful application of these means have been chronicled extensively in the Center for Security Policy’s “Civilization Jihad Reader Series.”)

With the launch of the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations in March 2014, the Muslim Brotherhood has secured a new instrument for its subversion: a self-described U.S. “political party” meant to dominate and mobilize Muslim voters across the country and get them marching according to one plan. The object is to elicit support for the Muslim Brotherhood’s demands from candidates and to help achieve what the Islamic supremacists would regard as favorable outcomes in the 2016 elections. (For more on the USCMO, its purpose and activities to date, see “Star Spangled Sharia: The Rise of America’s First Muslim Brotherhood Party.”)

Unfortunately, some members of Congress have already embraced the Council of Muslim Organizations. For example, two with longstanding ties to assorted Muslim Brotherhood fronts, Reps. André Carson (D-Ind.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), spoke at the USCMO’s inaugural banquet in June 2014. Neither has disavowed the USCMO’s subsequent participation in anti-Semitic, pro-Hamas and pro-Muslim Brotherhood demonstrations and its fundraising on behalf of Islamic Relief USA, a large, U.S.-based Islamic supremacist charity.

Another reason lawmakers and their staffs should be leery of this new Muslim Brotherhood front group is its avowed intention to make common cause with radical non-Muslim entities like the Black Lives Matter movement. At a conference in December 2015 convened by two of the Muslim Brotherhood’s most virulent fronts, the Muslim American Society and Islamic Circle of North America, leading USCMO figures publicly discussed how they could impart lessons to African-Americans by holding up the Brotherhood as the community that staged revolutions across the world.

Congress is on notice: As long as organizations associated with Islamic supremacism like the USCMO and its member organizations dominate “Muslim Advocacy Day” on Capitol Hill, it will actually be Muslim Brotherhood Advocacy Day. And legislators should have nothing to do with either its participants or its programs.


More: Muslim Brotherhood Orgs Gather on Capitol Hill

Among the principal members of the US Council of Muslim Organizations is the Muslim American Society, which the Chicago Tribune reported in 2004 was one of the chief arms of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S.: “In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.”

The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), which openly states its goal of establishing a global caliphate and was listed in a May 1991 internal Muslim Brotherhood document that was later discovered by law enforcement officials. Entitled An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, the document lists ICNA as an allied group and states that Brotherhood operatives in the U.S. “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.”

This support for jihad terror is in line with the Brotherhood’s goal since its founding. Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna’s  ambition was to restore the caliphate (which had been abolished in 1924, four years before he founded the Brotherhood), creating a global Islamic superstate instituting Sharia as a universal law. Al-Banna insisted that it was a “duty incumbent on every Muslim to struggle towards the aim of making every people Muslim and the whole world Islamic, so that the banner of Islam can flutter over the earth and the call of the Muezzin can resound in all the corners of the world: Allah is greater [Allahu akbar]!”

Read it all.

 

How Muslims Are Slowly Desensitizing Europe And America

Source: How Islamists Are Slowly Desensitizing Europe And America

Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine whose offices Islamists attacked in 2015, published an editorial recently titled “How Did We Get Here?” that has raised some eyebrows. In it, they ask how Europe has become where European-born Muslims have attacked the hearts of Paris and Brussels. Their answer has proved distasteful to many on the Left.

The editorial has been harshly criticized and the magazine accused of racism and xenophobia. The Washington Post says Charlie Hebdo blames extremism on individual Muslims—the veiled woman on the street, the man selling kebabs. There’s some truth to this accusation, and to the extent that there is, Charlie Hebdo is wrong. But this, and other critiques, miss the larger point of the article, which is to demonstrate the gradual and quotidian way in which criticizing Islam has been silenced.

It’s worth quoting Charlie Hebdo at length:

In reality, the attacks are merely the visible part of a very large iceberg indeed. They are the last phase of a process of cowing and silencing long in motion and on the widest possible scale. Our noses are endlessly rubbed in the rubble of Brussels airport and in the flickering candles amongst the bouquets of flowers on the pavements. All the while, no one notices what’s going on in Saint-German-en-Laye. Last week, Sciences-Po* welcomed Tariq Ramadan. He’s a teacher, so it’s not inappropriate. He came to speak of his specialist subject, Islam, which is also his religion…

No matter, Tariq Ramadan has done nothing wrong. He will never do anything wrong. He lectures about Islam, he writes about Islam, he broadcasts about Islam. He puts himself forward as a man of dialogue, someone open to a debate. A debate about secularism which, according to him, needs to adapt itself to the new place taken by religion in Western democracy. A secularism and a democracy which must also accept those traditions imported by minority communities. Nothing bad in that. Tariq Ramadan is never going to grab a Kalashnikov with which to shoot journalists at an editorial meeting. Nor will he ever cook up a bomb to be used in an airport concourse. Others will be doing all that kind of stuff. It will not be his role. His task, under cover of debate, is to dissuade people from criticising his religion in any way. The political science students who listened to him last week will, once they have become journalists or local officials, not even dare to write nor say anything negative about Islam. The little dent in their secularism made that day will bear fruit in a fear of criticising lest they appear Islamophobic. That is Tariq Ramadan’s task.

The Charlie Hebdo editorial correctly points out that in Europe the dominant liberal culture has pounded into us that we must adapt to Muslims who come to our country, and never ask them to adapt to any of our ways. Doing so would be colonialist and wrong. It’s a double standard, of course. As the welcoming countries, Europeans must suppress their own culture and ideals for those of the Islamic immigrant population. But when they go abroad to non-Western countries, either to live or to visit, it’s considered offensive not to adapt to their ways of life.

Learning a Culture Should Work Both Ways

No one who found the Charlie Hebdo op-ed so offensive would ever suggest Morocco ought to welcome McDonalds or Wal-Mart with open arms. They would say the country is being ruined with Western culture. They want non-Western countries to remain exactly as they are—preserved and frozen in time-while the West must endlessly adapt to anyone who makes it their home.

Europe has failed to ask its Muslim immigrant population to assimilate.

The article highlights the important fact that Europe has failed to ask its Muslim immigrant population to assimilate. This fact was demonstrated recently when police discovered that the only surviving terrorist from the Paris attacks, Salah Abdeslam, was able to travel from Paris to Brussels and conceal himself there until a few days before the Brussels attacks. He was aided by a large community of French and Muslim Belgians whose loyalties clearly lie with their own community, not with Belgium, or Europe at large. What’s more, a 2013 study shows the shocking degree to which European Muslims hate the West.

Asking immigrants to assimilate doesn’t mean white-washing their culture and religion, asking them not to wear the hijab, or demanding that they eat pork. But it does mean asking them to accept, to some degree, the culture of the country to which they have willingly moved. These are things like women’s rights, tolerance, free speech, or criticism of religion. It also means not having to apologize for having a culture of one’s own. This is the point that Michel Houellebecq made in his recent novel, “Submission.”

Slow-Boiling Our Brains [what we call CREEPING SHARIA]

Europeans have been lulled into accepting that it’s wrong to criticize Islam or scrutinize it in any way. The Charlie Hebdo editorial points out that it’s a slow process, an insidious wearing away of what is and isn’t acceptable to say or think. The process must be slow, because few people would accept a proposal dictating what topics they’re not allowed to discuss. So, you gradually shame them into it.

The process must be slow, because few people would accept a proposal dictating what topics they’re not allowed to discuss.

This establishes a pre-conditioned mindset so the line of acceptability can be moved further and further until the problem of global jihad can no longer be effectively explored because we aren’t even allowed to ask fundamental questions. This is Charlie Hebdo’s point about Tariq Ramadan, whose grandfather founded the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood and whose father was an active member of the group. Through the guise of intellectualism and purported adherence to moderate Islam, he instructs his audience ever so gently that the problem has nothing to do with Islam, and that suggesting so is ugly and base.

We acquiesce, because, as Charlie Hebdo points out, we fear being seen as Islamaphobic or racist. We are made to feel guilty if the thought flashes through our head that we wish that the new sandwich shop run by a Muslim sold bacon, or that a woman wearing a hijab makes us a little uncomfortable. That fear that we feel when we entertain those thoughts, the op-ed argues, saps our willingness to scrutinize, analyze, debate, or reject anything about Islam. And this is dangerous.

Fierce Reactions Aim to Condition Us Into Fear

Although Europe is further along in this process, there is a clear relevance to the United States. We are already being instructed on college campuses and by our own president that Muslims are a sort of protected class regarding criticism. President Obama even went so far as to censor French President François Hollande when he used the forbidden phrase “Islamist terrorism.”

We are already being instructed on college campuses and by our own president that Muslims are a sort of protected class regarding criticism.

The latest incident of shaming those who do push back is happening in Kansas, where the Islamic Society of Wichita invited Sheik Monzer Talib to speak at a fundraising event on Good Friday. Talib is a known fundraiser for Hamas, the militant Islamist Palestinian group that the United States classifies as a terrorist organization. He even has sung a song called “I am from Hamas.” U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo dared to put out a press release objecting to the speech out of concern that it would harm the Muslim community, particularly in the wake of the Brussels terrorist attack.

In response, the mosque claimed Pompeo stoked prejudice and Islamaphobia and that they had to cancel the event because of protest announcements and because some individuals on Facebook made some offhand comments about guns. Cue a local media frenzy, letters to the editor accusing Pompeo of government overreach, and the predictable arrival of two CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) representatives to skewer Pompeo.

This is just one example of how criticizing or questioning the actions of a Muslim community—even one that is supporting a Hamas fundraiser—has become anathema. The line of acceptability has been moved so now it’s Islamaphobic to object to someone with links to Islamist groups being invited to a U.S. mosque while we’re in the midst of a global battle against Islamist terrorism. People don’t even want to discuss it. The conversation is over. Just as Charlie Hebdo asks, so should we ask ourselves, “How did we get here?”

Although the particulars of the Charlie Hebdo editorial may go too far, and I do not endorse everything the article says, the overarching message is that Europe has slowly let this happen year by year, decade by decade, like a frog in a pot slowly brought to a boil. Post-colonial guilt and shame have stopped Europeans from openly loving and defending their own culture. The state of things in Europe today is the natural conclusion of that neglect. We in America are on the same road.


Read the Hebdo piece.

To reiterate:

US Media Fails Again- Muslim Brotherhood Electoral Group in US Receives No Scrutiny

islam-rule

Source: US Media Fails Again- US Muslim Brotherhood Electoral Group Receives No Scrutiny

By gmbwatch

US media is doing its customary incompetent job at doing any kind of due diligence when it comes to US Muslim Brotherhood groups. Last week, World Religion News reported on an organization known as Project Mobilize, describing it only as a “a political action nonprofit organization dedicated to the betterment of the Muslim American community. ” Despite the fact that the report goes on to cite the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), it fails to identify any of the connections of Project Mobilize to CAIR itself much less to the other Global Muslim Brotherhood organizations tied to the group:

In Chicago, while Muslims have been active in voter registration, Othman and other candidates like her are part of the first organized effort to prepare and mobilize Muslims to run for political office.

Project Mobilize is a nonprofit organization with the mission of developing the political potential of the Muslim community in Chicago’s southwest suburbs.

Launched last spring, it is the first professional political action organization that focuses on the grass-roots political empowerment and engagement of American Muslims through local politics.

Executive Director Reema Ahmed says that Muslim candidates running for public office is a natural next step.

‘For the past 20 years, the Muslim American community here has gone from learning about what it means to be a citizen, to registering to vote, to going out on election day. The natural trend of any community is to become more and more involved and seek to give back.’

More than 400,000 Muslim Americans live in the Chicago area.

In the city’s southwest suburbs, in the 10 precincts surrounding one of largest mosques in the country, 20% of the registered voters are Muslim.

But only one Muslim is in local office in this area. But do they vote?

While a growing number of American Muslims are running, and winning elections nationwide, Muslim American have the lowest percentage of registered voters of all American religious groups, according to a 2009 Gallup Poll.

Safaa Zarzour, who is a board member at Project Mobilize and the first Muslim commissioner of the Bridgeview Park District in Illinois, stresses the importance of Muslims running for political office, despite low political participation.

Read the entire report here.

In January 2013, the GMBDW posted an extensive analysis of Project Mobilize, an organization we described as “a newly-emerging organization whose leaders are tied to the US. Muslim Brotherhood and which is designed to help elect Muslims to local governments in the Chicago area.” That post documented the group’s extensive connections to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Mosque Foundation, and the Muslim American Society, all part of the US Muslim Brotherhood. We excerpt here the relevant portion of that post and it should be noted that many of the links documenting these connections have been subsequently scrubbed as we find often happens after a post such as this:

According to its website, the following individuals are members of the board of Project Mobilize and are known to have ties to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood:

  • Safaa Zarzour (Secretary-General of the Islamic Society of North America who has extensive ties to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood)
  • M. Yaser Tabbara (former Executive Director of Council on American Islamic Relations Chicago chapter)
  • Oussama Jammal (Vice President of the Mosque Foundation in Bridgeview, Illinois, known to have been a center for terrorism fundraising)

In addition, the online c.v. for Reema Ahmed indicates that she did more than “work with” the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). She was in fact the Government Affairs Coordinator for the Chicago chapter. In addition, she is currently a director of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee where Salah Sarsour serves as the Religious Chair as well as being the registered agent for the Wisconsin chapter of the Muslim American Society (MAS), a part of the US Muslim Brotherhood closely tied to the Egyptian organization. The Sarsour family in Milwaukee is known to have many ties to the Hamas infrastructure in the US.

Her c.v also indicates that she is a Fellow at the American Muslim Civic Leadership (AMCLI) Institute which serves as home for Project M. According to its website, the AMCLI  is:

…housed at the University of Southern California’s Center for Religion and Civic Culture (CRCC), and works in partnership with the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding (ACMCU) at Georgetown University.

The Saudi-funded ACMCU is well known as the home of John Esposito, who has at least a dozen past or present affiliations with global Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas. Since that time Oussama Jammal has become known as the leader of the US Council of Muslim Organizations, a coalition of US Muslim Brotherhood organizations that recently held the 1st International Conference of Muslim Councils in the West, a new global body comprised of Global Muslim Brotherhood groups from around the world.  A followup to the original post identified even further ties of Project Mobilize to the Global Muslim Brotherhood.

As we describe in our short profile on CAIR, the organization  was founded in 1994 by three officers of the Islamic Association of Palestine, part of the U.S. Hamas infrastructure at that time.  Documents discovered in the course of the the terrorism trial of the Holy Land Foundation confirmed that the founders and current leaders of CAIR were part of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood and that CAIR itself is part of the US. Muslim Brotherhood. In 2008, the then Deputy leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood acknowledged a relationship between the Egyptian Brotherhood and CAIR.  In 2009, a US federal judge ruled “The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas.” CAIR and its leaders have had a long history of defending individuals accused of terrorism by the US. government, often labeling such prosecutions a “war on Islam”, and have also been associated with Islamic fundamentalism and antisemitism.


Read it all and remember that the terror-listed CAIR has implored Muslim settlers in the U.S. to turn their mosques into voter registration and polling stations. Considering they regularly select candidates for their constituents, the legality of these efforts should be investigated.

Bonus:  Muslim Brotherhood 101: Why the State Dept Should Ban Them

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56,072 other followers

%d bloggers like this: