Radical Islamic Group Scores Invites to SOTU

Getty Images

by JIM HANSON12 Jan 20161,888

Politicians often bring guests to the President’s State of the Union address, sometimes to make a partisan point. This year that privilege is being stretched beyond the bounds of decency: At least two members of a radical Islamic group will be attending as guests of Members of Congress, supposedly to represent American Muslims. That is a disgrace.

Representatives Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)(D-Calif.) and Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)(D-Fla.) are bringing leaders from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR says it is an “advocate for justice and mutual understanding.” Yet after the San Bernardino terror attacks last month, CAIR was the chief public advocatefor the terrorists’ family, even arguing in court that they should retain custody of the terrorists’ child.

CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad, has stated publicly he supports the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. CAIR itself wasdesignated a terrorist group by the United Arab Emirates in 2014.

The impetus for this travesty was a call by Representative Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress, and Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) for their colleagues to bring a Muslim to the State of the Union. They said this is needed to counter the “shocking and alarming rise in hateful rhetoric against one particular minority population in our nation.”

But Muslims are not the primary victim of hate crimes in the U.S. The vast majority of victims of hate crimes, according to the FBI, are Jews.

What is actually more shocking and alarming than alleged rhetoric against Muslims is the rise in hateful killings by one minority population.

The recent slaughter in San Bernardino, the attempted assassination of a police officer in Philadelphia, and the slayings of our troops in Chattanooga and Fort Hood all had one thing in common: The killers were Muslim – or, more specifically, jihadists – a significant subset of Muslims who believe Islam must dominate the world.

The violent version of jihad is easier to understand, but the insidious nature of “civilization jihad” makes it even more dangerous in the long term. It aims to use the very institutions of free society to destroy it. This goal and strategy was stated outright in the Explanatory Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was seized in 2004 during a police raid in Virginia:

The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.

CAIR is considered part of a network of front groups tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. It was also named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror financing trial in US history, which shut down the Holy Land Foundation due to its funding of Hamas.

CAIR is out front in the effort to downplay the role of Islam in Islamic terror. For example, CAIR reacted to the recent shooting of a police officer with this statement from CAIR-Philadelphia’s executive director, Jacob Bender: ”At this time, it does not appear that he was an observant or mosque-going Muslim.”

He was describing a man who was wearing Islamic garb and who told police he was acting in the name of Islam.

After the San Bernardino jihadist attacks, Hussam Ayloush, director of CAIR’s Los Angeles chapter, told CNN that the United States bore responsibility for the killings: “Let’s not forget that some of our own foreign policy, as Americans, as the West, have fueled that extremism.”

CAIR does more than justify terrorism and obfuscate the motivations of the jihadists. It pushes the boundaries of “tolerance.” Last year, it promoted the story of Ahmed the clock-hoaxer as an incident of anti-Muslim bias, rather than what it arguably was: namely, an incident of political warfare striking back at the mayor of Irving, Texas, who came into CAIR’s crosshairs when she fought back against an attempt to open an Islamic Law tribunal in Irving.

The success of CAIR in presenting itself as an organization of “moderate” Muslims is especially dangerous as it marginalizes groups actually trying to reform Islam. TheMuslim Reform Movement, headed by Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, is one such group that actually deserves to be heard. It calls for an awakening within Islam to make it compatible with free western society. We must ensure that extremists like CAIR don’t drown such voices out.

Jim Hanson is the Executive VP of the Center for Security Policy and previously served in US Army Special Forces.

Read More Stories About:

National Security, Jihad, barack obama,Hamas, Muslims, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, democrats, Muslim Brotherhood,CAIR, State of the Union, Keith Ellison

America's Thanksgiving card to President Obama.

The Tea Party

America's Thanksgiving card to President Obama....

Thank you for: 8% unemployment when you promised it would be half of that by now

Thank you for: shoving the $3 trillion take over of our health care system Obamacare down Americans throats when not a single republican voted for it in either house and also several democrats

Thank you for: 50 million Americans on food stamps when it was 32 million when you took office

Thank you for: Not closing Gitmo, even though you promised to

Thank you for: Keeping the Patriot Act alive even though you said you would end it

Thank you for: 23 million unemployed Americans and another 10 million that have given up even looking for work

Thank you for: Getting ready to allow Bush tax cuts to expire to cause the largest tax increase in US history, even though you said in 2008 that you should NEVER raise taxes during a recession

Thank you for: Calling the Benghazi attack and murder of 4 Americans caused by a "video" for 6 weeks even though the CIA knew it was an Al Qaeda attack immediately

Thank you for: Telling us small business owners that "we didn't build" our small businesses, someone else in government did

Thank you for: Telling our nation of 83% Christians and Jews that "the US is not a Judeo Christian nation"

Thank you for: complete chaos in the middle east and hatred towards the USA even after you apologize to them over and over for 4 years

Thank you for: Demonizing the job creators in this country as "greedy rich who need to be taxed more".

Thank you for: Going all over the middle east apologizing to Muslims that the reason they hate the USA is the USA's fault

Thank you for: giving thousands of weapons to Mexican drug lords so they could use them against us and kill one of our border agents

Thank you for: turning your back on Israel and instead supporting Hamas in Palestinian areas

Thank you for: Giving billions to "green energy" companies that ended up in bankrupt failures like Solyndra

Thank you for: making America more divided than ever before even though you promised in 2008 to "unite" ALL Americans

And above all, thank you for energizing the Tea Party movement in being a permanent force to bring our founding principles of the Constitution back to America

The Tea Party

Sick bias in Yahoo! and AP article against Israel

In case you have been living under a rock, Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Israelis have been firing rockets at each other in what appears to be an escalating fight that could soon be considered an all-out war, especially if ground fighting commences. While the following AP article by Ian Deitch and Ibrahim Barzak, featured on the front page of Yahoo.com is not the first example of anti-Semitic bias coming from liberal journalists, I just felt the need to point it out to you. Please read the article here. 

This article left me with the false impression that the big bad bullies are purposefully avoiding diplomacy in order to use excessive and unprovoked force on a defenseless little group of civilians and other non-military targets. The authors made gratuitous use of the word "offensive" to drive home his point. This isn't an offensive as much as it is a response, but it wasn't until the sixth paragraph that it was pointed out:

"Israel launched the operation on Wednesday in what it said was an effort to end months of rocket fire out of the Hamas-ruled territory. It began the offensive with an unexpected airstrike that killed Hamas' powerful military chief, and since then has relentlessly targeted suspected rocket launchers and storage sites."

After this brief random act of journalism, the author quickly snapped back to liberal "victim" mode by mentioning the disparity between the dead and wounded of the Palestinians verses the Israelis, highlighting the civilian numbers.

How about this for warmongering: When Maj. Gen. Tal Russo, Israel's southern commander was "asked whether Israel is ready to send ground troops into Gaza, he said: 'Absolutely.'"

Words matter. This sentence sounds like Tal Russo is definitely going to invade, and trust me, the authors desperately hope you think so, to further the narrative of the "bullies" being warmongers. But he wasn't asked if he was going to invade. He was asked if he was READY to send troops. Even if he wasn't ready to invade he would have been obligated to say he was. This was a trick question in order to get the reader to believe something other than what was really meant.

Then here is the Big Whopper lie in the article:

"The White House said President Barack Obama was also in touch with the Egyptian and Turkish leaders. The U.S. has solidly backed Israel so far."

That is a boldface LIE. The truth is that the U.S. has been solidly backing Israel since the beginning all the way up until we elected a Commander-in-Chief that turned out to be clearly anti-Semitic in 2008. There has been a clear reversal of the above statement since Barack Obama took office with every action he has ever taken. Listen to Michael Savage talk about the last time Israel's Prime Minister had a chance to visit America:

Then the authors unwittingly give support to my belief that an Obama Administration led U.S. is NOT backing Israel by writing this"

"Speaking on Air Force One, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said that the White House believes Israel "has the right to defend itself" against attack and that the Israelis will make their own decisions about their "military tactics and operations."

Translation: Israel, you are on your own.

To put an exclamation point on my belief that the U.S. sadly no longer backs Israel, the authors end the article with this paragraph:

"[Egypt's President] Morsi warned that a ground operation by Irael will have 'repercussions' across the region. 'All must realize the situation is different than before, and the people of the region now are different than before and the leaders are different than before,' he said at a joint press conference with Turkey's Islamist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Erdogan, like Morsi, leads an Islamist government that has chilly diplomatic ties with Israel."

Translation: Neither George W. Bush or Mitt Romney can save you now.

I'm not really sure why these authors put the lie into this article. Maybe they are merely just mistaken? Considering the pro-Hamas bias in the article, I am left to conclude that by believing the U.S. has Israel's back, it makes them look even more like bullies than they are already made out to be. It could also be that since the authors are liberal and pro-Hamas, that they must also hate the U.S. and that if they subscribe to the old adage that an enemy of my enemy is my friend, then the reverse must be true. In other words, since Israel is the authors' enemy, and the U.S. is the authors' enemy, then Israel and the U.S. must still be friends. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.