Pamela Geller's Blog, page 989

October 25, 2010

The Muslim Brotherhood By Any Other Name is Still Hamas-Linked Muslim Groups Get Little in the Way Of Ruling

In 1973, the Saudis created an important arm of Muslim Brotherhood operations in the United States and domination of American Muslim communities: the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).



NAIT "controls" approximately 80 percent of the titles/deeds to the mosques, Islamic organizations and Islamic schools in the United States, ensuring that the vast majority of Muslim facilities in this country are dominated by pure, Islam, origianl Islam, the most reactionary strains of Islam (more here.)



A U.S. appeals court ordered that a lower court's reference to the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) association with Hamas be partially expunged. But the reporting on this has been less than accurate.  See Politico's Joah Gerstein's wrong conclusions.



Federal prosecutors violated the rights of a major American Islamic organization by including it in a list of unindicted co-conspirators in a terrorism-support case, a federal judge ruled in an opinion ordered disclosed Wednesday by a federal appeals court.



Not so fast, tool. Download the two files below  and read the document that the prosecution in the original Holy Land  trial wrote when NAIT and ISNA asked to be removed as unindicted co-conspirators (UCC) in the original case and then check out the Court opinion from earlier last week.


Download 20 October 2010 - Appeal of NAIT on UCC-1


Download US_v_HLF_OppositionNAIT_ISNA[1]-1


I conferred with a number of legal experts and I think the Court ruled as it had to - but gave no more - and specifically refused to go any further by sustaining any arguments to overrule the facts giving rise to Appendix A. To defeat all of NAITs efforts in this case, all one needs to do is to say UCC and "and Joint Ventures" and all is good. 

 As you read through the 20 October 2010 opinion, it suggests that had the Holder DOJ followed up and prosecuted as planned and as it should have, the court would not have been required to render the current judgment.  In fact, given that DOJ did not follow through, it made the opinion somewhat necessary. 

The court gave what was technically true and then seems to say:  "we grant NAIT what the law demands, but gave not one "fu++ing inch more!

On reading it, you get the sense that those writing about it to date mischaracterize what the Court did (or did not do):
 



·        "It is clear that the Government's procedural error, therefore, was its failure to file Attachment A under seal, not its decision to try to characterize the scope of the charged conspiracy or to lay the groundwork for relying on Rule 801(d)(2)(E). In light thereof, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to expunge the mention of NAIT in the newly sealed attachment." (page 10)
·        V.  NAIT seeks two additional forms of relief. First, it asks that we "publicly affirm" the district court's conclusion that its rights were violated. Second, it asks that we order that the district court make a public declaration that NAIT's rights were violated. As to the first request, we cannot affirm or reverse the district court's holding that NAIT's rights were violated, because the Government has not appealed it. The district court's ruling on that issue is the final determination thereof. As to the second request, it would be unnecessary to require the district court to make a public declaration of its earlier Fifth Amendment conclusion, because that conclusion will itself be public when the district court's opinion and order is unsealed. (page 13)
·        VI.  For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court's order only insofar as it requires that the opinion and order be sealed. All other requests for relief are DENIED. The case is REMANDED to the district court to unseal its order in accordance with this opinion.  (page 13)

 
I read this to say that the Court knows that the trial court was wrong to publish Attachment A:  List of Unindicted Conconspirators (it actually was wrong) but maybe the trial court judge understood this as well when deciding to put it out anyway. 

A very hollow victory!
 
IMHO, this is a Holder/DOJ issue.  To so publicly name an entity an unindicted co-conspirator for the purpose of following up and prosecuting them on the second round puts parties on notice.
 
Put aside what you personally think about NAIT, ISNA and CAIR, they are being made to wear a label that has not been made real by a follow-up trial to prove the guilt already clearly mapped out in HLF.  So when Justice decided not to proceed on the case, it makes the UCC designation serve as a indice of guilt without trial.  In this country, this is not right and ... if you think about, the current Justice will let this serve as a mantle on which those entities can not unreasonably claim discriminatory practices - if they are allowed to spin it as the media seems to be doing.  By not following up with a court case, Justice made this a foreseeable outcome - one that could actually  validate the Muslim Brotherhood narrative of harrassment.  So, once Justice decided not to follow through on the prosecution, it made the recent court opinion "correct" in the sense that it removes a status that has lost its relevance through failure to follow through.
 
I would not challenge the judges  on this - they played it close and gave NAIT nothing they did not have to --- and not the "prize" (when you read at least the last few pages – in bulleted statements above, I suspect you will see the point here).  Again, this is in the purview of why Holder does not proceed with prosecution on a dead bang case --- lumping it with the New Black Panthers.  IMHO, this is the nexus that has to be advanced! The evidence is overwhelming.  This is what has to be made the issue and it must be directed towards why Justice will not undertake such a case!


The recent ruling concerning the Muslim Brotherhood groups did not exonerate these subversive groups of their terror ties. The next round of prosecutions would have been Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad who founded CAIR. But just as in the Black Panther case, the DoJ under Obama is not doing its job. Those  Holy Land documents are all but dispositive in that area so I would suspect that CAIR and especially its leaders fall deep in the unindicted coconspirator side of the equation whereas NAIT is closer to the "joint venturer" side -- because the focus of HLF was HAMAS and CAIR was in the middle whereas documents regarding NAIT just noted their habitual relationship.


Z has a good piece on this here.



Still Tainted by Terrorism Z STREET

10/25/10 Our attention was caught by a JTA story that suggested all of us CAIR-haters may not have CAIR to kick around anymore because of a court decision.  But after reading the article, and the Politico article upon which the JTA apparently relied, we decided to do something radical and read the actual opinion.

RELAX everyone, we still have CAIR to kick around.  And ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) and NAIT (North American Islamic Trust).  You see, the courts did NOT decide that CAIR or its fellow-terrorist-travelers are not actually terrorists or not actually terrorist enablers.

What the courts did was rule that the government should not have made public a document it attached to a brief in May, 2007, which the government then referred to as a list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing case.  The case determined that the so called Islamic Charity actually existed almost exclusively to support Hamas, the Arab Palestinian terrorist entity.

In fact, thank you so much to CAIR and to ISNA and to NAIT.  In the course of trying to get the courts to clear their "good" names, those organizations gave the courts and the government lawyers nearly half a dozen opportunities to point out that the government presented evidence during the trial of the organizations' connections to Hamas.  In other words - the fact that there was a violation of the organizations' Fifth Amendment rights because the organizations were publicly named as having close connections to terrorist entities in a document - and the organizations had no opportunity to defend themselves in that document - really didn't amount to a hill of beans because evidence was introduced at trial of those same connections. In fact, the government witness, testifying under oath, referred to CAIR as a Hamas front group.

The really fun reading is in the government's brief in opposition to CAIR's effort to clear its name.  Smackdown!  The trial court never even bothered to rule on CAIR's motion, presumably because the name-calling became justified by evidence introduced at the trial.  Bottom line?  The court REFUSED to remove the whiners from the official list of bad guys.  The appellate court merely said that the lower court should publish its opinion, but that opinion only says the list attached to the government's pre-trial brief should not have been published, and, again, NOT that the whiners were entitled to a court pronouncement that they were not connected to terrorists.




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA    § § v.    § § HOLY LAND FOUNDATION    § FOR RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT,    § also known as the "HLF" (01)    § SHUKRI ABU BAKER, (02)    § MOHAMMED EL-MEZAIN, (03)    § GHASSAN ELASHI, (04)    § HAITHAM MAGHAWRI, (05)    § AKRAM MISHAL, (06)    § MUFID ABDULQADER, (07) and    § ABDULRAHMAN ODEH (08)    §
CR NO. 3:04-CR-240-P
ECF
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION
The United States, through its undersigned counsel, hereby submits its
memorandum in opposition to Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North
American Islamic Trust's (NAIT) motion for equitable relief. Through this motion – filed
without leave of court and without formal intervention – ISNA and NAIT seek a range of
declaratory and injunctive relief stemming from the public filing of Attachment A ("List
of Unindicted Co-conspirators and/or Joint Venturers") to the government's May 29,
2007 trial brief.    As part of the requested relief, ISNA and NAIT seek the "expunging of
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 2 of 20
Petitioners' names from any public document filed or issued by the Government that identifies Petitioners as unindicted co-conspirators." Pet. Mot. at 3. According to Petitioners, their motion is an effort to combat the negative press it allegedly incurred by being identified as a participant in a network of U.S.-based organizations affiliated with the designated foreign terrorist organization, HAMAS. ISNA and NAIT allege that the Government's identification of them as unindicted co-conspirators and/or joint venturers nearly fourteen months ago caused them significant injury, resulting in a violation of their Fifth and First Amendment rights.
The Court should deny the Petitioners' motion for equitable relief.    First, Petitioner's motion is untimely, coming more than a year after the filing of the Government's Trial Brief. Petitioners were aware back in May 2007 that the Government publicly filed its Trial Brief. They were also aware that during the 2007 trial, another listed co-conspirator/joint venturer, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), moved for leave to file an amicus brief (ecf # 777) asking for essentially the same relief, for the same reasons, that Petitioners seek here. Yet, Petitioners, without explanation, waited over a year to file this motion.
Even if their filing were timely, which it is not, Petitioners' motion would be moot.
During last year's trial, numerous exhibits were entered into evidence establishing both
ISNA's and NAIT's intimate relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestine
Committee, and the defendants in this case. Accordingly, there is no possible basis for
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 2
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 3 of 20
petitioner's "expungement" from the Government's list of co-conspirators and joint venturers. Even sealing the co-conspirator list at this juncture would be futile – the evidence has been appropriately introduced during the course of a public trial.
ISNA and NAIT also lack standing. Petitioners cannot trace any current injury to the Government's Trial Brief, as opposed to the actual exhibits that were introduced at trial. Petitioners also lack standing because their alleged injury cannot be redressed.
Finally, with respect to Petitioners' legal arguments, Petitioners merely repeat the arguments made by CAIR in its proposed amicus submission. The government hereby incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth below, its opposition to CAIR's motion seeking similar relief (ecf # 824).1
The Government respectfully submits that petitioner's belated motion to litigate their status diverts this Court's attention from the imminent retrial of this case, and could have been brought many months ago. For these reasons, and those set forth below, Petitioners' motion for equitable relief should be denied.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1.    On July 26, 2004, a federal grand jury indicted HLF; Shukri Abu Baker, HLF's Secretary and Chief Executive Officer; Mohammed El-Mezain, HLF's Director of Endowments; Ghassan Elashi, HLF's Chairman of the Board; Haitham Maghawri, HLF's
1Rather than repeating its arguments in opposition to CAIR's nearly identical brief last year, the government will focus on those arguments specific to these Petitioners.
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 3
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 4 of 20
Executive Director; Akram Mishal, HLF's projects and grants director; Mufid Abdulqader, one of the HLF's top fundraisers; and Abdulrahman Odeh, the HLF's New Jersey representative.2    In addition to charging the defendants with providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization, the indictment also charged the defendants with engaging in prohibited financial transactions with a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, money laundering, filing false tax returns, and several conspiracy charges, including: conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1); conspiracy to provide funds, goods and services to Specially Designated Global Terrorist, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1706; and conspiracy to commit money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The indictment also seeks the forfeiture of $12.4 million in HAMAS assets.
2.    On May 29, 2007, the Government submitted a Trial Brief in support of the evidence and arguments to be relied upon in its case-in-chief. As explained in the brief, its purpose was to provide the Court with an overview of the case, the scope of the conspiracy, and information regarding the different kinds of evidence that the Government intended to seek to admit at trial, as well as the evidentiary bases for the admission of that evidence. The Government did not detail all of the evidence that it intended to present in its case-in-chief, nor did it describe all of the evidence showing the
2    The defendants Akram Mishal and Haitham Maghawri have not been arrested in this case and are fugitives.
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 4
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 5 of 20
existence of the alleged conspiracy and the statements made in furtherance of the conspiracy. Instead, the Trial Brief outlined the law with respect to types of evidence the Government intended to admit and provided background to the Court for evaluating their admissibility.
With regard to the breadth of the conspiracy, the Government provided:
Although the indictment in this case charges the seven named individual defendants and the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, it will be obvious that the defendants were not acting alone. . . . the defendants were operating in concert with a host of individuals and organizations dedicated to sustaining and furthering the Hamas movement. Several of the individuals who hold leading roles in the operation of Hamas are referenced by name in the indictment. A list of unindicted coconspirators is attached to this trial brief. (Attachment A).
The object of the conspiracy was to support Hamas. The support will be shown to have take several forms, including raising money, propaganda, proselytizing, recruiting, as well as many other types of actions intended to continue to promote and move forward Hamas's agenda of the destruction of the State of Israel and establishment of an Islamic state in its place.
Trial Brief at 31. Thus, to provide greater clarity to the Court and the defense regarding the
complexity and magnitude of the global HAMAS-affiliated conspiracy to be demonstrated in the Government's case-in-chief, the Government identified in an attachment to the Trial Brief those individuals and organizations which it intended to prove were engaged in supporting HAMAS. Attachment A to the Trial Brief listed 246 different individuals and organizations as either unindicted co-conspirators and/or joint
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 5
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 6 of 20
venturers under one or more headings:
(1) individuals/entities who are and/or were part of the HAMAS social infrastructure in Israel and the Palestinian territories;
(2) individuals who participated in fundraising activities on behalf of HLF;
(3) individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee and/or its organizations;
(4) individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the Palestine Section of the International Muslim Brotherhood;
(5) individuals who are and/or were leaders of HAMAS inside the Palestinian territories;
(6) individuals who are and/or were leaders of the HAMAS Political Bureau and/or HAMAS leaders and/or representatives in various Middle Eastern/African countries;
(7) individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood;
(8) individuals/entities that are and/or were part of the Global HAMAS financing mechanism;
(9) individuals/entities that Marzook utilized as a financial conduit on behalf and/or for the benefit of HAMAS;
(10) individuals who were HLF employees, directors, officers and/or representatives; and
(11) HAMAS members whose families received support from the HLF through the HAMAS social infrastructure.
ISNA and NAIT are listed in the attachment under the seventh heading, individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 6
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 7 of 20
Besides the category descriptions, the Government did not provide any further information regarding specific individual and organizational links to the conspiracies described in the Indictment and in the Trial Brief.
3.    The trial commenced on July 16, 2007. The Government called its first witness on July 25, 2007. During the trial, the Court entered into evidence a wide array of testimonial and documentary evidence expressly linking ISNA and NAIT to the HLF and its principals; the Islamic Association for Palestine and its principals; the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States and its Palestine Committee, headed by HAMAS official Mousa Abu Marzook; and the greater HAMAS-affiliated conspiracy described in the Government's case-in-chief. See, e.g., Government Exhibits 1-16, 3-1, 3-3, 3-23, 3- 49, 3-50, 3-64, 3-85, 3-89, 5-1 through 5-14, 5-23 through 5-26, 5-42, 5-78, 16-59, 16-87, 20-33.
4.    On August 14, 2007, CAIR filed a motion requesting that this Court permit
it to submit an amicus curiae brief in opposition to the "public issuance" of the
Government's list of unindicted co-conspirators and/or joint venturers filed with the Trial
Brief. The government responded on September 4, 2007, and CAIR replied September
13, 2007. The Court did not rule on the motion. Petitioners' current motion, which
essentially repeats those arguments advanced by CAIR, was filed June 18, 2008, over a
year after the Government filed the co-conspirator/joint venturer list at issue, over ten
months after CAIR filed its brief, and nearly eight months after the Court declared a
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 7
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 8 of 20
mistrial. The retrial of this matter is scheduled to begin September 8, 2008.
ARGUMENT
I.    THE COURT SHOULD DENY THE PETITIONERS' MOTION AS TIME- BARRED
It is axiomatic that a district court has the inherent power "to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936); Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d 1406, 1417 (5th Cir.1995) ("The federal courts are vested with inherent power 'to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases[,]' ... includ[ing] the power of the court to control its docket[.]"). Included within the court's inherent power to control its docket is the power not to entertain untimely filings, particularly from non-parties who have neither sought nor obtained the court's permission to participate in the case. This is all the more true when the movant seeks to invoke the court's equitable powers. It is the "long-established doctrine of courts of equity that their extraordinary relief will not be accorded to one who delays the assertion of his claim for an unreasonable length of time." Hayes v. Port of Seattle, 251 U.S. 233, 239 (1920).
In this case, the Petitioners have inexplicably delayed for more than a year before seeking the requested relief. The government's Trial Brief setting forth its legal position with respect to co-conspirators and joint venturers was filed May 29, 2007. Petitioners
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 8
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 9 of 20
failed to raise any issue at that time. Nor did Petitioners choose to join CAIR in its submission on August 14, 2007, even though that filing raised the identical issues Petitioners raise now.3    And, even after the government immediately announced its intention to retry the case following the court's declaration of a mistrial in October 2007, Petitioners were silent.4    When the Court set the trial date for mid-August and then finally for September 8, Petitioners did nothing. Instead, Petitioners waited until the virtual eve of retrial, in the midst of pretrial preparations, to file what could have been raised at countless earlier opportunities.5
Petitioners offer no explanation as to why they did not seek leave to file a motion immediately following the Government's filing of its Trial Brief,6 or at any point
3 Petitioners' motion recognizes that CAIR filed a proposed amicus brief, but spends mere paragraphs addressing it and the government's arguments in opposition. Even those paragraphs ignore entirely the government's jurisdictional arguments in opposition to CAIR's filing.
4 ISNA, immediately following the mistrial, did issue a press statement parroting almost verbatim its current grievance. Yet, despite its promise to "vigorously employ all legal avenues available," it waited until the eve of retrial to interject itself into this case. See "Islamic Society of North America, HLF Verdict Press Statement," www.isna.net/articles/Press-Releases (attached).
5The only time Petitioners raised this issue with the government was in the middle of the last trial, when the prosecution's attention was exclusively devoted to trying the case. It is hardly surprising that, as Petitioners' counsel complains, prosecutors were unwilling to divert their attention to what was, as exhibits establishing the conspiracy/joint venture were introduced into evidence, a moot exercise of sealing the co-conspirator list. By the time Petitioners called the government to confer with respect to this motion, the sealing of the co-conspirator list would have been pointless – the evidence had already been made public during the trial.
6Not only do Petitioners fail to explain their delay, but they fail to provide any explanation or support for their failure to seek the court's permission to file the instant motion.
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 9
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 10 of 20
thereafter. In particular, Petitioners provide no explanation as to why they waited until after evidence at trial had already established their ties to defendants and the conspiracy at issue, or how the relief they request can, at this late date, have any impact on evidence already in wide circulation in the public domain. At this juncture, the Petitioners' motion only serves to divert the Court's attention from the pressing task of preparing for and completing an on-going criminal matter. The Court should therefore exercise its discretion to reject the petitioner's untimely motion. II.    PETITIONERS' CLAIMS ARE MOOT
Even were the Court to consider Petitioners' motion, the Court would lack
jurisdiction to act on the requested relief. Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits the
jurisdiction of federal courts to the resolution of "actual, ongoing controversies." Honig
v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988). The law is well-settled that federal courts have no
authority "to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare
principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it."
Church of Scientology of California v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (quoting Mills
v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)); see also United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty,
445 U.S. 388, 397 (1980) (Mootness is "the doctrine of standing in a time frame. The
requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of litigation (standing)
must continue throughout its existence (mootness)."). Moreover, because mootness goes
to the heart of the constitutional power of a federal court to consider the rights of the
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 10
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 11 of 20
parties and afford any relief, it is a "jurisdictional question" that "a federal court must resolve before it assumes jurisdiction." North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971).
Generally, any set of circumstances that eliminates an actual controversy after the commencement of a lawsuit renders that action moot. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997). That means, "throughout the litigation, the plaintiff 'must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.'" Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477) (emphasis added). Thus, if an event occurs while a case is pending that makes it impossible for the court to grant "meaningful relief" to a prevailing party, the case must be dismissed as moot. Church of Scientology, 506 U.S. at 12.
Petitioners' claims against the Government are plainly moot. ISNA and NAIT have asserted no justiciable claim because no "meaningful relief" is available, in light of the fact that their participation as a joint-venturer and/or co-conspirator is a matter of public record in this case, and was a matter of public discussion even prior to the filing of the government's Trial Brief.7
7 See, e.g., "In Search of Friends Among The Foes," by John Mintz and Douglas Farah, The Washington Post, September 11, 2004, p. A01 ("Some of the same Brotherhood people who started MSA [Muslim Students Association] also launched the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) in 1971. * * * In 1981, some of the same people launched the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which was also cited in [Yussef] Qaradawi's speech."); "Muslim Brotherly Hate," FrontPageMagazine.com, June 30,
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 11
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 12 of 20
The evidence introduced at trial, for example, established that ISNA and NAIT were among those organizations created by the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood.8    Govt. Exh. 3- 64 (seized from the home of HAMAS leader Ismail Elbarasse); Govt. Exh. 3-3 (Muslim Brotherhood document noting that ISNA was founded by the US-Muslim Brotherhood) ; Govt. Exh. 3-85 (1991 memorandum authored by U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood Shura Council member Mohamed Akram Adlouni, recognizing ISNA and NAIT as Muslim Brotherhood organizations.) Government's Exhibit 3-85, entitled An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group, described the Brotherhood's strategic goal as a kind of "grand Jihad":
The Ikhwan must understand that their role 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....
2006, frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle... "The Truth About The Muslim Brotherhood," Assyrian International News Agency, June 16, 2006, www.aina.org/news/20060616105850.htm.
8 The Muslim Brotherhood, also known as the Ikhwan Al Muslimin, was founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan Al Banna. Its ultimate goal is the creation of a global Islamic State governed by Sharia law. Muslim Brotherhood members first migrated to the United States in the 1960s where they began their grassroots work on campuses, through an organization called the Muslim Students Association. At that time, the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood was loosely structured and in its infancy. Govt. Exh. 3-89. By the mid-1980s, the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood had grown exponentially, established numerous front organizations, developed a solid hierarchical structure, and received direction from the International Muslim Brotherhood's General Guide. Id. HAMAS was established in 1987 as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, by Muslim Brotherhood leader Sheik Ahmad Yassin. Govt. Exh. 21-61, 3-6. In the late-1980s and early 1990s, the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood was controlled by Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood members, and the leader of the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood was Mousa Abu Marzook, who in 1989 was selected to be the leader of HAMAS, a position that he held while residing in the United States and controlling the US-Muslim Brotherhood. Govt. Exh. 3-1. Marzook was arrested in New York in 1995, deported to Jordan, and subsequently expelled to Syria, where he currently serves as the head of the HAMAS political bureau under Khalid Mishal. See generally testimony of Matthew Levitt.
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 12
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 13 of 20
Govt. Exh. 3-85. At the end of the document, the memorandum lists those Muslim Brotherhood organizations that – if they all worked together – could help accomplish this grand objective. These organizations include ISNA, NAIT, the Occupied Land Fund (OLF )(the former name of the Holy Land Foundation), the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), and others. Id.
ISNA and NAIT, in fact, shared more with HLF than just a parent organization. They were intimately connected with the HLF and its assigned task of providing financial support to HAMAS. Shortly after HAMAS was founded in 1987, as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, Govt. Exh. 21-61, the International Muslim Brotherhood ordered the Muslim Brotherhood chapters throughout the world to create Palestine Committees, whose job it was to support HAMAS with "media, money and men." Govt. Exh. 3-15. The U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood created the U.S. Palestine Committee, which documents reflect was initially comprised of three organizations: the OLF (HLF), the IAP, and the UASR. CAIR was later added to these organizations. Govt. Exh. 3-78 (listing IAP, HLF, UASR and CAIR as part of the Palestine Committee, and stating that there is "[n]o doubt America is the ideal location to train the necessary resources to support the Movement worldwide . . ."). The mandate of these organizations, per the International Muslim Brotherhood, was to support HAMAS, and the HLF's particular role was to raise money to support HAMAS' organizations inside the Palestinian territories. Govt. Exh. 3- 17 (objective of the Palestine Committee is to support HAMAS).
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 13
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 14 of 20
During the early years of the HLF's operation, HLF raised money and supported HAMAS through a bank account it held with ISNA at NAIT. Govt. Exh. 5-1 through 5- 14, 5-26, 5-42. Indeed, HLF (under its former name, OLF) operated from within ISNA, in Plainfield, Indiana, where Defendant Shukri Baker was employed. Govt. Exh. 5-6, p. 3; 1-16. ISNA checks deposited into the ISNA/NAIT account for the HLF were often made payable to "the Palestinian Mujahadeen," the original name for the HAMAS military wing. Govt. Exh. 1-174. From that ISNA/NAIT account, the HLF sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to HAMAS leader Mousa Abu Marzook, Nadia Elashi (defendant Ghassan Elashi's cousin and Marzook's wife), Sheikh Ahmed Yassin's Islamic Center of Gaza, the Islamic University, and a number of other individuals associated with HAMAS. Govt. Exh. 20-55, 20-56.
ISNA was also discussed during the 1993 Philadelphia conference, a meeting of the Palestine Committee convened to discuss the impact of the Oslo Accords. Govt. Exh. 16-47. During the conference, Palestine Committee members discussed using ISNA as official cover for their activities. Govt. Exh. 16-0059 at 10-11; 16-60. In short, evidence introduced during the course of a public trial demonstrates that ISNA and NAIT are indeed co-conspirators/joint venturers, and no relief that the Court can grant would alter the state of the record in that regard.9
9 All the exhibits cited herein were admitted into evidence and posted publicly on the Court's website. Due to their volume, we have not resubmitted them here. In the event that the Court or Petitioners do not have access to the exhibits, government counsel will provide them upon request.
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 14
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 15 of 20
Although Petitioners seek "expungement" of their names from any document reflecting their co-conspirator status, they cannot expect this Court to alter evidence properly admitted during the course of a public trial. The law is well-settled that the public has a presumptive right of access to the records of judicial proceedings, Press- Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 509 (1984), and that public information regarding "[t]he source of evidence admitted at trial and the circumstances surrounding its admittance are important components of the judicial proceedings and crucial to an assessment of the fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings," Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959). See also United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794, 805 (5th Cir. 1975) ("[I]t must be recognized in the process of balancing private injury and governmental interests that wholly different, and valid, governmental interests apply to naming the private citizen . . . in trial testimony.").
Petitioners, in fact, do not dispute that once such information is admitted into evidence at trial it is properly in the public domain. Instead, Petitioners ignore entirely the evidence presented at trial, relying only on the government's representation that ISNA and NAIT were not subjects or targets of the criminal investigation to support their contention that they were unfairly included within the universe of co-conspirators and joint venturers. See Petitioners' Mot at 14, 18-19; see also Press Statement (attached).10
10 ISNA's post-trial Press Statement stated that ISNA "never was, and is not now, affiliated with or influenced by any international organizations including the Muslim Brotherhood." It did not address any of the Muslim Brotherhood documents introduced during the trial that state the contrary.
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 15
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 16 of 20
Petitioners' status as co-conspirators/joint venturers, however, is not inconsistent with the government's earlier representations. Even were the Court to agree to strike Petitioners' names from the attachment to the Trial Brief, or seal it, that would not prevent Petitioners' involvement with HLF, and others affiliated with HAMAS, from remaining a matter of public record. That has already occurred as a consequence of the presentation of evidence at trial.11
Because this Court is unable to provide Petitioners with any "meaningful relief," as contemplated by law, their motion for equitable relief must be denied. III.    PETITIONERS LACKS STANDING
An "essential and unchanging part"of the case-or-controversy requirement is also the doctrine of standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). To establish standing, a plaintiff must, at an "irreducible constitutional minimum," demonstrate: (1) an injury-in-fact; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61. The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements and of coming forward with evidence of specific facts which prove standing. Grant v. Gilbert, 324 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2003);
11 To be clear, the purpose in introducing this evidence at trial had little to do with ISNA and NAIT. The documents and testimony at issue give the background and context for the conspiracy in which the defendants operated, and constituted evidence as to the defendants' participation in the charged illegal conspiracies. That ISNA and NAIT appeared in these documents and share a common history with these defendants is a reflection of the evidence, not any attempt to "disparage" or "vilify." Pet. Mot. at 12.
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 16
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 17 of 20
Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. Petitioners have no justiciable claims resulting from the Government's decision
not to file the portion of its Trial Brief enumerating unindicted co-conspirators and/or joint venturers under seal. Even assuming cognizable injury, Petitioners cannot trace its alleged injury to the Trial Brief, versus the public evidence properly admitted during trial.
A simple Google search for "Muslim Brotherhood" and "Explanatory Memorandum," for example, reveals nearly 1000 "hits" for Government's Exhibit 3-85, with many providing a hyperlink to the document itself. Broader searches reveal over 250,000 references. Even articles cited by the Petitioners discuss actual evidence introduced at trial, and not merely the Government's Trial Brief. See, e.g., Petitioners' Mot., Appendix B, pp. 16-22 (Rod Dreher, The Muslim Brotherhood is Here, Pittsburgh Trib. Rev., Sept. 16, 2007; Rod Dreher, A Nation Asleep, Dallas Morning News, Oct. 28, 2007; Cal Thomas, A New Fifth Column?, Fort Worth-Star-Telegram, Oct. 26, 2007).
Consequently, Petitioners cannot demonstrate any "causal connection between the [alleged] injury and the conduct complained of," such that the injury is "fairly traceable to the challenged action . . . and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court." See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.
Finally, as discussed in connection with the above mootness argument, and for the reasons set forth therein, there is no likelihood that the Petitioners' alleged injury could be redressed. Even a favorable decision by this Court to strike Petitioners' names from the
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 17
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 18 of 20
Government's Trial Brief attachment would not remedy Petitioners' alleged injury, as its involvement as a participant in the conspiracy and/or joint venture has already been disclosed at trial. See, e.g., Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61; Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) ("The injury must be 'fairly' traceable to the challenged action, and relief from the injury must be 'likely' to follow from a favorable decision.). In the absence of redressibility, and therefore standing, Petitioners' motion must be denied.
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the Government respectfully requests that this Court deny Petitioners' Motion for Equitable Relief. July 10, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
RICHARD ROPER United States Attorney Northern District of Texas
By:    /s/ Elizabeth J. Shapiro JAMES T. JACKS BARRY JONAS ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO D.C. Bar 418925
Assistant United States Attorneys 1100 Commerce St., Third Floor Dallas, Texas 75242 214.659.8600
214.767.2898 (facsimile) elizabeth.shapiro@usdoj.gov
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 18
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 19 of 20
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 10, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:
Linda Moreno Law Office of Linda Moreno P.O. Box 10985 Tampa, Fl. 33679
Nancy Hollander Theresa M. Duncan Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg & Ives 20 First Plaza, Suite 700 Albuquerque, NM 87102
John D. Cline Jones Day 555 California St., 26th Fl. San Francisco, CA. 94104-1500
Joshua L Dratel Aaron J. Mysliwiec Law Office of Joshua L Dratel 2 Wall St, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10005
Marlo P Cadeddu Law Office of Marlo P Cadeddu 3232 McKinney Ave, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204
Greg Westfall Westfall Platt & Cutrer Mallick Tower One Summit Ave, Suite 910 Fort Worth, TX 76102
In addition, I have served on this same day, by electronic mail, the following counsel for third party petitioners Islamic Society of North America and North American Islamic Trust:
Lisa Graybill Legal Director ACLU Foundation of Texas P.O. Box 12905 Austin, TX 78711 LGraybill@aclutx.org
Hina Shamsi ACLU Foundation 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 hshamsi@aclu.org
/s/ Elizabeth J. Shapiro
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Attorney, U.S. Dept. Of Justice
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 19
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 20 of 20
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 20

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on October 25, 2010 21:19

FOX NEWS' Bill O'Reilly Praises Hamas-Linked Anti-Semite CAIR Thug

Bill O'Reilly does it again. Not a week after CAIR got Juan Williams fired (for something he said on the O'Reilly show), Bill O'Reilly had notorious Jew-hater and subversive Hamas-linked Ahned Rehab in his show. Why? And why are the Muslim Brotherhood ties never mentioned, or the multitude of convictions against CAIR leadership for raising money for Hamas?


O'Reilly will never have Bat Ye'or, Wafa Sultan, Ibm Warraq, Robert Spencer, et al on his show to speak of Islam (and this is their life work), but an Islamic supremacist thug? He gladly hosts the Rehab CAIRboy. Did O'Reilly mention Hamas, Holy Land, Israel hate, Juan Williams? No. Did O'Reilly let Ahab spew his propaganda and speak down to him? Yes.


Joe Kaufman write this:



FOX NEWS' BILL O'REILLY PRAISES ANTI-SEMITIC REPRESENTATIVE OF HAMAS-RELATED GROUP

CALLS CAIR'S AHMED REHAB A "STAND UP GUY"

(New York, NY) On Monday night, October 25th, popular Fox News television host Bill O'Reilly praised CAIR spokesman Ahmed Rehab, calling him a "stand up guy."


O'Reilly had Rehab on the show to discuss the subject of Muslims.

Not once did O'Reilly challenge Rehab about the Hamas ties of his organization or about Rehab's anti-Semitism.

CAIR or the Council on American-Islamic Relations was founded by Hamas operatives in 1994, under the leadership of then-global head of Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook. The U.S. Justice Department has linked CAIR to the financing of Hamas.

Rehab, O'Reilly's guest, has refused to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. Rehab has also exhibited anti-Semitic tendencies, claiming that there is a "Jewish control over the media" and that "Jewish film producers… predate on weak minorities by default."

Last Thursday, Megyn Kelly also had a CAIR rep on her Fox show as a guest. That guest, Ibrahim Hooper, has as well refused to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations.


CAIR's Ahmed Rehab and the use of ridicule
Ahmed_Rehab2.jpg Lipstick? Eye shadow? You be the judge


Islamic supremacists are wholly intellectually bereft. They cannot answer the arguments of anti-jihadists, since anti-jihadists in general simply explicate what is in the Qur'an and Sunnah, and show how jihadists act upon these texts and teachings. So since they cannot engage their opponents on the level of ideas, they instead try to bludgeon them into silence. They do this either by ignoring us altogether, or by engaging in the Alinsky tactic of ridicule -- which allows them to adopt a posture of superiority, but only reveals their utter intellectual exhaustion and desperation.


Examples of this abound. Most recently, Islamic supremacist metrosexual Ahmed Rehab of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group with numerous ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, has responded to my pointing out a lie he told about never ducking debate with adolescent ridicule and abuse rather than substance.


Rehab's refusal to engage his opposition's arguments is a sign that he feels keenly his own intellectual vacuity. He knows that in light of it he can do nothing but ignore, mock, or try to bully people who speak the truth. Even the Soviet Union under Stalin was confident enough that its own people were sufficiently cowed, and that it had enough useful idiots among the intelligentsia abroad, that it was able to mount high-profile show trials of dissenters and Stalin's political rivals in the 1930s.


But by the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviet regime had grown sclerotic, and had lost the assurance that its own people were still terrorized enough to keep silent, or that it could still count on a foreign intelligentsia willfully blind enough to defend the regime. And so instead of mounting flashy show trials, it packed off its opponents to mental hospitals under the cover of darkness. They simply didn't exist any longer. It was an effective tactic in the short run, as it certainly silenced their opponents of the day; in the long run, however, it was an expression of exhaustion, an admission of defeat.


But as Rehab, his fellow Islamic supremacist metrosexual Reza Aslan, and others practice these tactics, the implicit admission rings louder and clearer all the time: they have no arguments. They can't really explain away what's in the Qur'an and Sunnah -- the long-winded "refutations" and "proofs" that Islam is really a Religion of Peace™ are rendered hollow every day by the jihad news worldwide: if "Islamophobes" are really misunderstanding the peaceful teachings of Islam, then coincidence of coincidences, so are innumerable Muslims, including Islamic clerics and scholars, in exactly the same way.


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on October 25, 2010 19:27

Harry Reid, Clueless or Complicit in Terror-Tied Aide?

Wow. The Senate Majority Leader is either stupid or compromised. Either way ..............


Any one who votes for the traitor party in November is voting against America. It's not party, folks, it's country.


EXCLUSIVE: Aide to Harry Reid Lied to Feds, Submitted False Documents About Sham Marriage



An aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid repeatedly lied to federal immigration and FBI agents and submitted false federal documents to the Department of Homeland Security to cover up her illegal seven-year marriage to a Lebanese national who was the subject of an Oklahoma City Joint Terror Task Force investigation, FoxNews.com has learned. 


Diana Tejada, Reid's Hispanic Press Secretary, admitted to receiving payment for "some of her expenses" in exchange for fraudulently marrying Bassam Mahmoud Tarhini in 2003, strictly so he could obtain permanent U.S. residency, according to court documents.


Tarhini, now 37, was held in jail and at an immigration detention center in connection with his 2009 indictment on felony charges, documents show. He pleaded guilty to entering a fraudulent marriage to evade immigration laws — a Class D felony — in November 2009, and he was deported in March 2010. 


Tejada, now 28, was never charged for her role in the crime.


"We did not charge the woman, and of course we don't discuss the reasons we don't charge people," said Bob Troester, spokesman for the Western District of Oklahoma U.S. Attorney's Office, which prosecuted the case, which began as an FBI investigation out of the Oklahoma City Joint Terrorism Task Force.


There's multiple factors that go into charging decisions. She wasn't charged and we can't go beyond that."

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement would not comment on why it took five years to investigate the couple's marriage.


As recently as five weeks ago, on Sept. 21, 2010, Tejada appeared as a guest on a Spanish-language radio program in her official capacity as a spokeswoman for Harry Reid.


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on October 25, 2010 19:07

FOX VIDEO: GZM Response "Mosque Week" -- Geller, "Islamic supremacists need some sensitivity training"

Late last week I spoke to Lauren Green (and blogged about it here) about "open mosque week," as if that were the problem. Islamic interfaith dialogue is one way. That's the problem.


Mosques use open houses against Islamophobia MSNBC

How to battle fear and hatred of Islam? For dozens of mosques around the U.S. this week, one strategy has been to host open houses for non-Muslims that also aim at building religious relationships.
[...]
For many, the visit has been their first time at a mosque, Uddin said, and "some are shocked to know that a Muslim could not be a Muslim until he/she believes in Jesus, Moses and Jacob."

No,  I think their shock is more about the fact that Muslims are taught that Jesus, Moses, and Jacob were Muslims. But MSNBC doesn't report that. This is a news story dripping with this Islamic dawah  and supremacist propaganda.



Q&A about Islam Check out MSNBC here.


Msnbc.com invited Shakeel Syed, executive director of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, to take reader questions about the Islamic faith. This chat is moderated and will begin at noon ET. As many questions as possible will be answered within the time allotted.



Extremist television. Broadcast news dawah. Check the above link: there is a "cover it live" dialogue box; I kid you not. A coalition of extremist Muslim groups called for "interfaith dialogue" to show their  support for the right to build a mega-mosque at Ground Zero. They called for a "week of dialogue" on the weekend of Oct. 22-24. And the media is all over like white on rice.


BTW, the antisemitic Syed is very active in the ongoing campaign to de-legitimize Israel and end the Jewish state. His group was "honored" to learn that they "made the Anti-Defamation League's (ADL) top ten list of "anti-Israel groups" in the United States.


I spoke with Lauren Green of FOX News on this latest propaganda attack on the American people by extremist Muslim groups. This relentless re-education/dawah (proselytizing to Islam) practiced on the American psyche is outrageous. Using our broadcast media to proselytize for Islam. Why do non-believers have to be subjected to this constant dawah and Islamic propaganda whitewashing of the most radical, intolerant ideology on earth? Did you ever see this for Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddism, Scientology? And those religions/ideologies have not engaged in a relentless, brutal war against the West, the world, and their own moderates.


The American people are sick of being deceived and misled. Stop talking, start acting. Let's see Muslim supremacist groups lay down their arms against those of us who are exposing and reporting on jihad, and instead take up the fight against the jihadist "fringe" that is at war with the West. Why is Geller or Spencer their target? Why aren't the Muslim "extremists" their target?


This is all about the Ground Zero victory mosque. Notice how they all close ranks and make it about "Islamophobia," when everyone knows it is a deeply offensive, deliberately provocative act. Opposition to the mosque is not "Islamophobia," it's "Islamorealism" (hat tip to Spencer, who coined that term years ago).


The Ground Zero islamic supremacist mosque is a horrible idea. But the pain experienced by non-Muslims and Muslims of conscience is treated with contempt by these Muslim extremist groups. The 70% of Americans are looked down upon with disdain by these Islamic supremacists. The Cordoba House is a 16-story middle finger to the America. And yet they dig in their heels and no one goes off the reservation -- exactly the same modus operandi of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the  57-government bloc of Islamic nations.


Get your teeth out of our neck.



Mosques Open Their Doors to Neighbors in Effort to Win Over Skeptics  FOX NEWS  Lauren Green

The prayers, the Koran and the people. They're the three things Muslims would like Americans to know about.





Really? Says who?

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on October 25, 2010 18:03

Hamas-Linked Group Wants Freedom Organizations Investigated

The latest attacks on those of us fighting for freedom are on "money." The idea that counter jihad work is "profiteering" is laughable. We can barely rub two nickels together. Would I have bought 20 buses a city or 2000, if money were plentiful? Anyone doing this for money gets paid in death threats, marginalization, defamation and character assassination. It's to laugh, it's to cry.


Little Green Vomit and the Salon smearers are foaming at the mouth at yesterday's ridiculous hit piece by The Tennessean's  Bob Smietana, an anti-Israel CAIR lackey. USA today had the story up yesterday but took it down because it was such biased, anti-American propaganda.


The media is all over this disgusting lie like maggots on dead flesh. I ask where is the media's investigation of the millions upon millions of dollars given by the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood to the "Islamic charities" and to Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the United States? Millions and millions of dollars funnelling into stealth groups bent on "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within."


The smear stops here. Steve Emerson is singular. Outside the military, Steve Emerson has done more to preserve, yes save, the republic than anyone. He is doing the investigative work of a now impotent and compromised FBI and NSA.


I have no staff but there organizations that do. How should they be paid? In good intentions? The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas-linked CAIR wants an investigation. I want an investigation of the 50 million the Saudis gave to CAIR back in 2007 and that's just  we know of. I want Media Matters and Think Progress and Soros investigative for funding the overthrow of America.


I want an investigation as to who is funding these lawfare lawsuits, litigation jihad, against me and my colleagues.


This is a call to harassment. Further, the real objective is to discourage the folks contributing funds to these scattered efforts to stave off the onslaught of leftist/Islamic totalitarianism. How these Islamic supremacists must laugh at their leftwing slaves.


Here's the Nazi propgandan mill's directive for today;



CAIR Asks IRS to Probe Emerson and IPT  PR Newswire:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A prominent national Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization today called on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to investigate allegations that Steven Emerson, one of a growing number of "self-proclaimed experts who spread hate toward Muslims," has used a non-profit "front" group to collect tax-exempt donations that are later transferred to his for-profit endeavors.

(...)

In a letter sent today to IRS Commissioner Douglas H. Shulman, CAIR wrote: "Given the evidence uncovered by the Tennessean's investigation, we believe the IRS has a duty to investigate Mr. Emerson's alleged misuse of his group's non-profit status."

A copy of the letter was sent to Rep. Sander M. Levin (MI), acting chairman of the House Committee on Ways & Means.

This. of course, is due to Bob Smietana's irresponsible allegations in The Tennessean. Emerson's Investigative Project on Terror responded here.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



To: letters@tennessean.com; msilverman@tennessean.com
Cc: Smietana, Bob
Subject: letter to editor from the Investigative Project on Terrorism re Sunday's story
Importance: High
 
Dear Editors,
 
I am writing to take great exception to reporter Bob Smietana's characterization of the work done by Steve Emerson and the Investigative Project on Terrorism in today's article, "Anti-Muslim crusaders make millions spreading fear."
 
First, Mr. Smietana cites one line in our 2008 tax filings to make the unsupported implication that Steve Emerson is somehow pocketing $3,349,000 in management fees from his relationship with the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation. He ignores the details on page 10 of the 990 form that shows $2,373,000 of that money went to pay for program expenses, such as the high costs of conducting our research, and $1,017,000 in management and salary costs for our staff of more than 15 people.
 
Mr. Smietana says without attribution that we are "spreading hate." On what information does he base that subjective, opinionated claim? Is it the Tennessean's practice to allow reporters to make such claims without the benefit of attributing what is clearly an opinion to a named source?
 
The article also says IPT is "telling donors they're in imminent danger from Muslims." Again, what is the source for this claim? IPT's clearly stated role is to identify potential terrorist threats, particularly those coming from people who hide their true leanings. Our track record is clear: From members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad working at a university think tank in Florida to Hamas supporters using a charity to support terrorism, IPT has been ahead of the curve. Many of the subjects of our work are either in prison or have been deported. That speaks to our track record.
 
Mr. Smietana also uses loaded terms, such as "self-styled" to refer to Steve and others. Steve has reported on these issues for more than 25 years, and his work and that of IPT has been recognized by national journalism organizations. His 1994 documentary Jihad in America received a George Polk Award. If you are to refer to anyone who reports on or studies any topic as "self-styled," wouldn't that also refer to virtually every employee of the Tennessean? Are all of your court reporters lawyers? Do your police reporters have degrees in criminal justice?
 
The article implies that we say there is a blanket danger from all Muslims, and anyone who reads the site would see that's not correct. We print articles by Muslims and do stories about Muslims who present a different point of view than the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other Islamist groups.
 
By saying our "tax-exempt status is facing questions," you imply that someone other than the Tennessean and the paper's hand-picked analysts are raising those questions. You present this as something that is already happening outside the realm of the newspaper and its talking heads. If so, what proof do you have of that?
 
The article also ignores what we told Mr. Smietana about the expansion of our board of directors in 2009, and that the structuring of the relationship between the foundation and SAE Productions was done to provide a layer of security for our employees. Steve has been the subject of death threats because of his work, and our organization as a whole has also been threatened. All of this was approved by our outside legal and accounting experts.
 
We told the IRS we were contracting out much of our work with a group that did not have tax-exempt status. That was approved. As for the for-profit or not-for-profit nature of SAE Productions, the IRS is aware of that as well. That has not been questioned. We say IPTF contracts out with SAE Productions, which files tax returns with the IRS. All of that has been disclosed.
 
Finally, your article has taken our limited role in the Murfreesboro story and blown it way out of proportion. We received a question from someone in Tennessee about officials at the mosque. We found that one board member had pro-Hamas writing on his MySpace page. Hamas has been designated as a terrorist organization by the federal government since 1995. The article says the Department of Homeland Security told mosque officials that they found nothing to worry about, but your sources are those officials. Also, you attempt to back up by recycling a quote from an FBI official that says they don't comment on specific allegations. In essence, you have no primary source to back up the mosque officials' claims.
 
Sincerely,
Ray Locker
Managing Director
Investigative Project on Terrorism

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on October 25, 2010 15:06

Taking America Back!

I love this video! Do this. You are America. You can change the way forward. This is small but not insignificant. We are what we've been waiting for (hat tip Mansourian president).


We need a landslide in November -- go. Make it happen. Get to work.












The crowd breaks into the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of Wednesday night's candidates forum with 8th Congressional District candidates Joe Walsh, Melissa Bean and Bill Scheurer at Grayslake Central High School.
The left hates this -- it's like the silver cross to Dracula. (hat tip Ruth)
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on October 25, 2010 10:45

Religious demands rise in French state schools -- study Tips for Muslim Parents in US: Imposing Islam in Your Public Schools

This is a strategy of the global jihad ..... to impose Islam on secular societies. In the culture war, the public school system is key.



Religious demands rise in French state schools - study Yahoo (hat tip Jon)

PARIS (Reuters) - Muslim pupils and parents in France are increasingly making religious demands on the state school system that teachers should rebuff by explaining the country's secular principles, according to an official report.


[...]
"It is becoming difficult for teachers to resist religious pressures," said the report, published in draft form by the newspaper Journal du Dimanche over the weekend. The final report will be presented to the government next month.

"We should now reaffirm secularism and train teachers how to deal with specific problems linked to the respect for this principle," it said.

France's strict separation of church and state relegates religion to the private sphere, an approach challenged by a growing Islamic identity among some of the five million Muslims in the country's 65 million population.
[...]
REFUSING CLASSES, DEMANDING HALAL

Teachers often faced objections when they taught courses about world religions, the Holocaust or France's war in Algeria, or discussed events related to Israel and the Palestinians or American military actions in Muslim countries, the study said.

"Teachers regularly find that Muslim parents refuse to have their children learn about Christianity," it said. "Some think it amounts to evangelisation."

"Anti-Semitism ... surfaces during courses about the Holocaust, such as inappropriate jokes and refusals to watch films" about Nazi concentration camps, it said. "Tensions often come from pupils who identify themselves as Muslims."

Teachers found they could discuss the trans-atlantic slave trade but met criticism from pupils when they brought up the history of slavery within Africa or in the Middle East.

Reflecting the promotion of anti-Darwinist thinking in Muslim countries, "evolution is challenged by pupils who posit divine or creationist action without any argument for it."

In some areas with large immigrant populations, many pupils shun school cafeterias for religious reasons, even though most offer alternative dishes when pork is on the menu.

"Demand for halal menus is strong, even for the very young in public crches," it said. "In some cities, there are petitions for halal -- and sometimes kosher -- meals."

[..]
PHILOSOPHICAL UPHEAVAL

During Ramadan, some Muslim pupils harass others who don't observe the annual daytime fast, it said. Boys who identify themselves as Muslims and reject French values harass girls who do well in class as "collaborators" with the "dirty French."

Some girls ask to be excused from gymnasium or pool sessions because they are not supposed to mix with boys, it added.

The report said French schools must insist on co-education, equal rights and mutual respect. "Being a French citizen means accepting challenges to one's opinions ... this is the price to pay for the freedom of opinion and expression.

"Must we recall that the crime of blasphemy has not existed in France since the French Revolution?" it asked.

"The principle of secularism leads to a profound relativisation of religion. This is a philosophical upheaval that religions only consent to with difficulty," it said.

(Editing by Tim Pearce)



This is something we are witnessing in all Western countries: Islamic supremacism's playbook, worldwide.

ISLAM-~1school


 


IP #1: READ YOUR CHILD'S TEXTBOOK AND EVALUATE THE MISINFORMATION

First of all, you should familiarize yourself with your child's textbooks, particularly the Social Studies-History textbook. If you feel qualified, you can review the unit on Islam yourself, or you can request a local scholar to review it for you.

In either case, the review should be done in writing. All examples of misinformation should be cited, and most importantly, a corrected version of each example should also be provided.

TIP #2: ARRANGE TO MEET THE TEACHER AND THE DIRECTOR OF CURRICULUM

Once the review has been completed and typed in an organized, clear manner, you should request a meeting with your child's teacher, as well as the Director of the Curriculum for the entire school district.

The teacher will be able to incorporate the recommended changes in the corrected version in his/her own classroom, and the District Director of Curriculum will be able to incorporate the changes in classrooms district-wide.

TIP #3: APPROACH THE MEETING AS A CONTRIBUTOR TO SOLVE PROBLEMS

It is critical to remember that when meeting with the teacher and the director, a calm, friendly, yet concerned manner should be employed.

Blaming the teacher for the misinformation would be a grievous mistake.

Teachers are overburdened as it is just trying to teach their students, and they do not determine the contents of the texts.

The best approach is to take the position that you have some concerns about the treatment of Islam in the text, and that you would like to help alleviate some of the problems.

By taking the approach of a helper, you can change the entire dynamic of the meeting.

At that point, you can supply the teachers and director with the review and the corrections, as well as any additional material you feel would help the teacher teach more accurately about Islam.

For example, they can obtain An Introduction to Islamic History Teacher's Resource Book for Grades 7-12 (contact the Council on Islamic Education).

TIP #4: SOLIDIFY YOUR CONTACT WITH THE SCHOOL AND TEACHER

Additionally, you can request that one day, the classroom or entire school can have Muslim guest speakers come and make a presentation about Islam.

Also, refer the teacher to resources such as Islamic centers, the Council on Islamic Education, and other organizations.

Furthermore, consider donating a Quran and copies of An Introduction to Islamic History and Teaching About Islam: A Handbook for Educators to your child's school.

For further information, please contact the Council on Islamic Education at (714) 839-2929 or check out the CIE's website.
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on October 25, 2010 08:52

Big Journalism Featured Article: Media Capitulation: If Juan Williams is Fair Game...

BJ juan
Check out my latest at Breitbart's Big Journalism -- here's an excerpt:


Media Capitulation: If Juan Williams Is Fair Game…… Pamela Geller, Big Journalism



I am grateful for this high-profile incident. Much like with the Ground Zero mosque affair, Americans have suddenly become aware of something quite terrible — a sea change, a profound transformation of a basic assumption, and a stunning reversal of their very basic unalienable rights. Their sensibilities are shaken. How could such a major seismic shift be kept hidden, kept so secret, until suddenly Juan Williams, a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, gets fired for telling the truth? Is it any wonder that recent polls show that the majority of Americans no longer trust the media? That is a good thing.


To Williams' point, we have an entire government agency, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), dedicated to protecting us from terrorists who are largely Muslim. We have torturous security procedures at every stage of air travel. We bear unfathomable costs in taxpayer dollars, but worse, in the surrender of privacy and individual rights because of Islamic jihad: because of the 9/11 Muslim terrorists; and the British Muslims who planned to blow up seven planes and kill 4,000 Americans and/or British people in the name of Islam in 2006; and because of Richard Reid, the Muslim with the exploding shoes; and the Christmas day bomber, the Muslim with the exploding crotch.


And yet in watching the mainstream media coverage of Juan Williams affair, we witness the fact that the media still cannot face up to its own capitulation. It's all over the airwaves, but no one will discuss what is actually happening — the loss of the freedom of speech to Islamic supremacism and domination. This is a deadly fight — Islam in the West and its suppression of free speech.


When the horror of jihad is discussed, it is always in the context of a "fringe" element among Muslims committing violent jihad. The "extremists" are slaughtering people every day across the world in the name of Islam. But aren't those who are destroying our constitutional republic, shutting us down, attacking free speech and demonizing the good and the truth tellers the real extremists and radicals? Isn't CAIR, as well as the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Students Association, the Muslim American Society, the Islamic Circle of North America, and the North American Islamic Trust the real extremists? The only difference between them and the military wing of Islam is their weapon of choice. Islamic supremacist groups in Western countries viciously attack our unalienable rights and chip away at our very legal and societal foundations.


CAIR et al slaughter human thought. They are destroyers, as ruinous and destructive as the organizations of their fellow Muslims: Al Qaeda, Hezb'Allah, Hamas, Al-Muhajiroun, MILF, Islamic jihad, Fatah, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen, Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the Armed Islamic Group, Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin, Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, and all the rest of them.


This is war. And fighting that war has been Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN), the Muslim Brotherhood's man in Congress, who called Juan Williams, a black American, a "bigot" and "un-American." Considering the notorious Islamic history of Muslims keeping blacks as slaves (abid) — to this very day in North Africa — it is the height of black humor (no pun intended) that this Islamic supremacist would call an honorable African American a "bigot." Ellison is twisting the very definition of "American" to some perverted idea of sharia. This is rich coming from a man who took money from a group that is the American wing of an organization whose stated aim is "eliminating and destroying Western Civilization from within."


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on October 25, 2010 08:25

Front Page Interview: Pamela Geller Sharia in the UK

Check out my interview with Jamie Glazov in Front Page Magazine, here.


Screen shot 2010-10-25 at 1.11.22 AM



FP: Pamela Geller, welcome to Frontpage Interview.


I would like to discuss with your accurate prediction about a London borough becoming  an Islamic republic.


What's going on?


Geller: Thanks Jamie.


As I predicted at my website Atlas Shrugs, a vile Islamic supremacist, Lutfur Rahman, has been elected executive mayor of the London borough of Tower Hamlets. And he has accomplished this through massive voter fraud — isn't this always how they get their way?


FP: It appears to be the case, yes.


Tower Hamlets is the poorest borough in all of Great Britain, yes?


Geller: Yes, Jamie, it is. Nonetheless, as Executive Mayor of Tower Hamlet council, Rahman will have control of over a billion-dollar budget.


And remember, Rahman is an Islamic supremacist with links to jihadist groups. Mind you, Jamie, he was previously dropped from the Labour Party because of these troubling ties. He was elected as an independent. The Telegraph's superb investigative journalist Andrew Gilligan has outlined what he calls Rahman's "deeply problematic two years as council leader until he was removed from that post six months ago." Gilligan explains that after Rahman


"secured the leadership with the help of the IFE, millions of pounds were channeled to front organizations of the IFE, a man with close links to the IFE was appointed as assistant chief executive of the council despite being unqualified for the position and the secular, white chief executive was forced out. Various efforts were made to 'Islamicize' the borough. Extremist literature was stocked in Tower Hamlets' public libraries."


And this election has made matters even worse. The Islamic machine went into overdrive and fraudulently gamed the system.


FP: How did they do that?


Geller: Jamie, Tower Hamlets changed from a conventional leader system to a mayoralty this year, after a successful campaign spearheading this change was waged by an Islamic supremacist organization known as the Islamic Forum of Europe. According to the local laws, just five percent of the electorate can petition a local council to change the system. So early in 2010, Abjol Miah, a Muslim affiliated with the IFE, started gathering signatures for such a petition – and in Tower Hamlets, which is only one-third Muslim, 99.3% of those who signed Miah's petition were Muslim.


And a large number of those were fraudulent. Authorities discovered that almost half of the signatures were invalid. Miah turned in whole pages filled with names and addresses that were all written in identical handwriting – on a petition that was supposed to have been signed by thousands of different individuals. Even more unbelievable, as many as 5,000 of the names were of people whose names were not in the electoral registration records at all.


But the dhimmi court allowed it just the same.


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on October 25, 2010 07:55

October 24, 2010

Geller! Spencer! Texas!

Yes, we are saddling up and heading out to the Lone Star State :) 


Geller spencer

We will be speaking at a gala event in Fort Worth, Texas on November 12. Tickets are flying -- get thee to the box office -- here.





The organizers of the event say: "With the knowledge of what is happening in our world today under the banner of Islam and dismayed by the inroads it is achieving in our country to destroy our culture, we are proud to bring to Ft. Worth, Texas, two of the foremost fighters against Islamist Jihad in the United States."



And we are proud to be there.

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on October 24, 2010 22:13

Pamela Geller's Blog

Pamela Geller
Pamela Geller isn't a Goodreads Author (yet), but they do have a blog, so here are some recent posts imported from their feed.
Follow Pamela Geller's blog with rss.