House Democrats Insert Gay Rights into Immigration Debate
By Jake Gibson
Published July 15, 2010--FoxNews.com
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats are trying to broaden support for immigration reform by reaching out to the gay and lesbian community with a provision in immigration legislation that would allow gay and lesbian Americans to bring foreign partners home to the United States.
Under current law, American citizens and other legal permanent residents can get a green card or immigrant visa for a spouse or immediate family members living abroad. However, the same rights do not extend to same-sex couples living in the country.
During a news conference on Capitol Hill Thursday, Democratic Reps. Jerrold Nadler of New York, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and Mike Honda of California, among others, urged Congress to pass the Uniting American Families Act as part of a comprehensive immigration reform package this year.
"Right now too many same-sex, binational couples face an impossible choice," said Gutierrez, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, "to live apart or to break the law to be with partners, their families and children."
“Government should never engage in purposeless, gratuitous cruelty and we should stop it," Nadler said.
With no support from the GOP, the comprehensive immigration bill introduced by Gutierrez last December has stalled in the House. Republicans say this legislation won't help.
"These are creative people who just have the wrong philosophy," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, a member of the immigration subcommittee. "It's an alliance designed to grant amnesty."
"It tries to redefine traditional marriage. I can't support that," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told Fox News. "If they're looking to truly reach out to conservatives and Republicans and do something in a bipartisan way, this isn't it."
The legislation appears to be part of an effort to strengthen support on the left, rather than the right, by targeting a constituency that has yet to be heard from in the immigration debate -- the lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgendered community.
"Last time around the pro-immigration side took us for granted. ... It is crucial to shore up the support of real genuine progressives who will pick up the phone and call their representatives," said Rachel Tiven of Immigration Equality, an organization that describes itself as one fighting for equal immigration rights for the LGBT community as well as HIV positive immigrants and their families.
Last month in Arizona, Phoenix' gay chamber of commerce urged national gay rights groups not to boycott the state over its impending immigration law that allows a crackdown by local police on illegals, saying the decision would hurt gay-friendly businesses. Proposed comprehensive immigration reform legislation in Congress is in part a reaction to criticism that the federal government has not done enough to resolve illegal immigration in the country.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/15/house-democrats-insert-gay-rights-immigration-debate/
Showing posts with label lawmakers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lawmakers. Show all posts
Friday, July 16, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The End Game Is Near
AMERICAN SPECTATOR: The End Game Is Near, By Brandon Crocker
The American Left has long derided what it considers the romanticized myths regarding the virtue and wisdom of the group of dead, white males most responsible for the founding of the American Republic. It does not celebrate America as a land founded on the ideals (imperfectly as they may have often been realized) of individual liberty, equality under the law, and opportunity, but rather as a land founded on slavery, economic inequality, and exploitation. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the American Left also disdains the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution, even battered and weakened as it has been by precedents set by various liberal, activist Supreme Courts, still guards the liberty of Americans against the authoritarianism required to impose a fully socialist, or other collectivist, regime. It now appears we are headed towards the ultimate battle in the American Left's war on individual liberty.
The catalyst is the newly enacted "health care reform" law that was opposed by an outright majority of Americans (but endorsed by Fidel Castro who congratulated President Obama and the Democrats in Congress for finally imposing on Americans a system akin to what Cubans have had for decades). The focal point will be the "individual mandate" which requires all Americans to buy health insurance. The broader issue, however, is whether the Constitution in any way limits the power that the federal government can wield over individuals. The Left says "no."
According to the American Left (which now effectively controls the Democratic Party), the commerce clause in the Constitution, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, in reality allows the federal government to regulate in any way it sees fit any activity that remotely could affect economic activity -- in other words, just about anything, including, but not limited to, an individual's decision to buy, or not to buy, health insurance. I can think of a lot of activities that have more impact on the economy than does my decision on what kind of health insurance, if any, to purchase. For instance, how about my decision on whether or not to have children, and how many, or when I choose to retire? Are these decisions also subject to federal regulation under the commerce clause? One would think that if the authors of the Constitution really meant to say that the federal government has the power to regulate any activity (or even non-activity) it wants, they would have said so, instead of just saying that it has the right to regulate commerce across state lines. But left-wing law professors, journalists, and Democratic Party officials, assure us this is the case. And according to the national Democratic leadership, most everyone who thinks otherwise are ignorant, knuckle-dragging, racist, survivalist, whack-jobs.
Actually amending the Constitution takes significant national consensus. That's a problem when you want to leverage one election victory based on platitudes and "hope" into "bringing fundamental change to America" (to use President Obama's words). It is so much easier to try to get enough Supreme Court Justices appointed who share the view that the Constitution is more of a loose guideline than a legal document, and who are willing to gut the Constitution of all meaning in order to accommodate liberal policy objectives.
To the American Left, the idea that the Constitution exists to limit the power of the federal government is some moldy, if quaint, notion, with no place in the "modern" world. As E.J. Dionne recently wp-dyn/content/ article/2010/ 03/24/AR20100324 02429.html"> wrote in the Washington Post, court challenges to the individual mandate or federal meddling in matters reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment reveal "how far into the past" some people "want to push the nation." Indeed, he even claims "it would take a rashly activist court to find the individual mandate unconstitutional" because of "a more than seven-decade- long understanding of the Constitution' s interstate commerce clause that has allowed the federal government to regulate a modern, national economy." According to Mr. Dionne, the irrelevancy of the Constitution, at least in circumscribing the powers of the federal government to impose liberal social policies, is settled law.
Unfortunately, E.J. Dionne's view of this matter is not that of some fringe commentator, using Orwellian double-speak to label the potential faithful reading of the Constitution as the work of "a rashly activist court." This view currently holds sway in the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. It is undoubtedly held by at least three, probably four, and possibly five Supreme Court Justices.
Fortunately, the argument that seven decades of precedent have made it settled law that the federal government has near unlimited power allotted to it under the commerce clause is hogwash. Never before has the federal government claimed the right to force individuals to purchase a certain service or product due merely to the fact that they are alive. And other attempts to justify an expanded federal role in state and individual affairs with tortured interpretations of the commerce clause have, in fact, been shot down over the past couple of decades by the Supreme Court.
The justification most often cited by the Left for the need to uphold the individual mandate is not a legal one but a practical one. It is needed, supposedly, to solve the "free rider" problem. Since treatment is required by law, people can impose costs on the rest of us by not buying insurance and having us foot the bill when they need medical attention. Like much of the rhetoric coming from the current administration on health care, this argument is amazingly bold in its dishonestly. The people for whom it is true that taxpayers (or more often, hospitals) get stuck paying the bill are the indigent (paradoxically, the people that President Obama insists are dying because they don't have insurance and aren't getting treatment). For the rest of us, if we don't have insurance, or if our insurance does not cover some treatment, or if we carry high deductibles (another choice outlawed by the Democrats' new health care regime) we, as solvent individuals, pay the bill. We don't get a "free ride."
The case of the individual mandate potentially carries the legal precedent that the Left has long sought. If the Obama administration and its Leftist allies can win this case when it comes before the Supreme Court, which it ultimately will, they will have the legal ammunition to uphold any federal infringement on individual liberty in the name of regulating a "modern, national economy." The rights of the individual will no longer be protected by the Constitution, but merely allowed by the federal government, subject to revision by whatever faction holds a political majority over one or two elections.
This is not just the outcome that the American Left wants; it is the outcome the American Left needs if it is to "bring fundamental change to America." Most members of the current Democratic majority in both houses of Congress have already shown that they do not care about public opinion when it comes to redefining the relationship between citizens and the federal government. To preserve America as the land of the free, we need the Supreme Court to uphold its solemn duty.
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/12/the-end-game-is-near
The American Left has long derided what it considers the romanticized myths regarding the virtue and wisdom of the group of dead, white males most responsible for the founding of the American Republic. It does not celebrate America as a land founded on the ideals (imperfectly as they may have often been realized) of individual liberty, equality under the law, and opportunity, but rather as a land founded on slavery, economic inequality, and exploitation. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the American Left also disdains the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution, even battered and weakened as it has been by precedents set by various liberal, activist Supreme Courts, still guards the liberty of Americans against the authoritarianism required to impose a fully socialist, or other collectivist, regime. It now appears we are headed towards the ultimate battle in the American Left's war on individual liberty.
The catalyst is the newly enacted "health care reform" law that was opposed by an outright majority of Americans (but endorsed by Fidel Castro who congratulated President Obama and the Democrats in Congress for finally imposing on Americans a system akin to what Cubans have had for decades). The focal point will be the "individual mandate" which requires all Americans to buy health insurance. The broader issue, however, is whether the Constitution in any way limits the power that the federal government can wield over individuals. The Left says "no."
According to the American Left (which now effectively controls the Democratic Party), the commerce clause in the Constitution, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, in reality allows the federal government to regulate in any way it sees fit any activity that remotely could affect economic activity -- in other words, just about anything, including, but not limited to, an individual's decision to buy, or not to buy, health insurance. I can think of a lot of activities that have more impact on the economy than does my decision on what kind of health insurance, if any, to purchase. For instance, how about my decision on whether or not to have children, and how many, or when I choose to retire? Are these decisions also subject to federal regulation under the commerce clause? One would think that if the authors of the Constitution really meant to say that the federal government has the power to regulate any activity (or even non-activity) it wants, they would have said so, instead of just saying that it has the right to regulate commerce across state lines. But left-wing law professors, journalists, and Democratic Party officials, assure us this is the case. And according to the national Democratic leadership, most everyone who thinks otherwise are ignorant, knuckle-dragging, racist, survivalist, whack-jobs.
Actually amending the Constitution takes significant national consensus. That's a problem when you want to leverage one election victory based on platitudes and "hope" into "bringing fundamental change to America" (to use President Obama's words). It is so much easier to try to get enough Supreme Court Justices appointed who share the view that the Constitution is more of a loose guideline than a legal document, and who are willing to gut the Constitution of all meaning in order to accommodate liberal policy objectives.
To the American Left, the idea that the Constitution exists to limit the power of the federal government is some moldy, if quaint, notion, with no place in the "modern" world. As E.J. Dionne recently wp-dyn/content/ article/2010/ 03/24/AR20100324 02429.html"> wrote in the Washington Post, court challenges to the individual mandate or federal meddling in matters reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment reveal "how far into the past" some people "want to push the nation." Indeed, he even claims "it would take a rashly activist court to find the individual mandate unconstitutional" because of "a more than seven-decade- long understanding of the Constitution' s interstate commerce clause that has allowed the federal government to regulate a modern, national economy." According to Mr. Dionne, the irrelevancy of the Constitution, at least in circumscribing the powers of the federal government to impose liberal social policies, is settled law.
Unfortunately, E.J. Dionne's view of this matter is not that of some fringe commentator, using Orwellian double-speak to label the potential faithful reading of the Constitution as the work of "a rashly activist court." This view currently holds sway in the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. It is undoubtedly held by at least three, probably four, and possibly five Supreme Court Justices.
Fortunately, the argument that seven decades of precedent have made it settled law that the federal government has near unlimited power allotted to it under the commerce clause is hogwash. Never before has the federal government claimed the right to force individuals to purchase a certain service or product due merely to the fact that they are alive. And other attempts to justify an expanded federal role in state and individual affairs with tortured interpretations of the commerce clause have, in fact, been shot down over the past couple of decades by the Supreme Court.
The justification most often cited by the Left for the need to uphold the individual mandate is not a legal one but a practical one. It is needed, supposedly, to solve the "free rider" problem. Since treatment is required by law, people can impose costs on the rest of us by not buying insurance and having us foot the bill when they need medical attention. Like much of the rhetoric coming from the current administration on health care, this argument is amazingly bold in its dishonestly. The people for whom it is true that taxpayers (or more often, hospitals) get stuck paying the bill are the indigent (paradoxically, the people that President Obama insists are dying because they don't have insurance and aren't getting treatment). For the rest of us, if we don't have insurance, or if our insurance does not cover some treatment, or if we carry high deductibles (another choice outlawed by the Democrats' new health care regime) we, as solvent individuals, pay the bill. We don't get a "free ride."
The case of the individual mandate potentially carries the legal precedent that the Left has long sought. If the Obama administration and its Leftist allies can win this case when it comes before the Supreme Court, which it ultimately will, they will have the legal ammunition to uphold any federal infringement on individual liberty in the name of regulating a "modern, national economy." The rights of the individual will no longer be protected by the Constitution, but merely allowed by the federal government, subject to revision by whatever faction holds a political majority over one or two elections.
This is not just the outcome that the American Left wants; it is the outcome the American Left needs if it is to "bring fundamental change to America." Most members of the current Democratic majority in both houses of Congress have already shown that they do not care about public opinion when it comes to redefining the relationship between citizens and the federal government. To preserve America as the land of the free, we need the Supreme Court to uphold its solemn duty.
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/12/the-end-game-is-near
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Lawmakers ripped over 9/11 mosque fundraiser
Lawmakers ripped over 9/11 mosque fundraiser -- Democrat congressmen 'trashed their oath to protect U.S.'
Posted: April 02, 2010 11:40 pm Eastern © 2010 WorldNetDaily
An anti-jihad watchdog group has slammed two U.S. lawmakers for breaking their oath to protect the country by agreeing to appear as special guests at a fundraising dinner Saturday night for a radical Saudi-funded mosque tied to the 9/11 hijackers and the Fort Hood shooter, among other Islamic terrorists.
Reps. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., and Jim Moran, D-Va., have "trashed their oath to protect and defend the U.S." by agreeing to attend the annual banquet for Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, a large mosque in Falls Church, Va., a suburb of Washington, according to the Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force, or VAST.
The group also criticized Virginia Democrat Gov. Tim Kaine for agreeing to attend the event, while praising Democrat Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia for withdrawing from the event following complaints from concerned constituents.
Get the book that exposed CAIR from the inside out, autographed, from WND's Superstore!
"While brave young Virginia men and women are risking their lives to fight terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, Connolly, Moran and Kaine are yucking it up with them and slapping each other on the back over at the Marriott," charged VAST Chairman James Lafferty.
He noted that the three politicians' campaign war chests are heavily funded by radical Islamists who support the mosque.
"Look at their Federal Election Commission reports," Lafferty said. "These spineless politicians are owned and operated by the radical Islamists and their sinister front groups."
Indeed, according to the book, "Muslim Mafia," Connolly and Moran have received thousands of dollars in donations from several Virginia Islamists under federal investigation for financing terrorism. In addition, the book reveals, Connolly received an $18,758 windfall from the Saudi government's U.S. public relations firm while fighting to keep open a Saudi-owned madrassa in Northern Virginia also tied to terrorism.
Dar Al-Hijrah hosted at least two of the 9/11 terrorists who attacked the Pentagon, as well as the Fort Hood terrorist and an al-Qaida sleeper agent convicted of plotting to assassinate President Bush. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali graduated valedictorian from the Saudi madrassa – Islamic Saudi Academy – in Alexandria, Va.
Lafferty says the mosque "has been directed by a string of radical imams, including former imam Anwar al-Awlaki, who has since been identified as a commander in al-Qaida" and is wanted in connection with the Christmas Day airliner attack.
A coalition of citizen groups including VAST, Act for America and the Center for Security Policy in Washington have organized a protest of the Dar al-Hijrah fundraiser at 5 p.m. Saturday at the Fairview Park Marriott, 3111 Fairview Park Dr. in Falls Church.
Federal investigators say Dar al-Hijrah is a breeding ground for known terrorists, including:
r
Abdullah bin Laden, nephew of the al-Qaida kingpin whose name appears on the federal terrorist watchlist.
Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, accused of murdering 13 and injuring 30 others in a jihad-inspired shooting spree at Fort Hood, Texas.
Hani Hanjour, 9/11 hijacker and Saudi national who flew the jumbo jet into the Pentagon.
Nawaf al-Hazmi, 9/11 hijacker and Saudi national who joined Hanjour on the Pentagon flight and acted as second in command of the entire al-Qaida operation behind hijacking ringleader Mohamed Atta.
The mosque, in fact, helped Hanjour and al-Hazmi obtain housing in the area.
After 9/11, investigators found the phone number for Dar al-Hijrah in the Hamburg, Germany, apartment of one of the planners of the 9/11 attacks – Ramzi Binalshibh, a Gitmo detainee.
Constructed with $5 million from the Saudi Embassy and run by radical Muslim Brotherhood leaders, Dar al-Hijrah is "a terror mill and a direct threat to national security," says terror expert Paul Sperry, co-author of "Muslim Mafia," an expose on the radical Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups in America.
Once a month, Dar al-Hijrah's lead imam – Shaker Elsayed – meets with top officials with the Council on American-Islamic Relations on the first floor of its Washington headquarters, Sperry notes. The Justice Department says Saudi-funded CAIR, which operates a booth at Dar al-Hijrah, is a terrorist front group for Hamas and its parent the Muslim Brotherhood.
Elsayed has said Muslims have the right to use violence: "We do have license to respond with all force necessary to our attackers."
He also says he believes in the teachings of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, which he describes as "the closest reflection of how Islam should be in this life."
The late al-Banna taught that "Islam wishes to do away with all states and governments anywhere which are opposed to this ideology and program of Islam. Islam requires the earth – not just a portion, but the entire planet."
Another imam at the mosque, Johari Abdul Malik, has preached to American Muslims that they are within Islamic law to "blow up bridges" and other infrastructure. "You can do all forms of sabotage," he said at a 2001 Hamas conference.
He has also called for Islamic supremacy in America.
"We will see the day when Islam, by the grace of Allah, will become the dominant way of life," Malik told his flock in 2004. "You will see Islam move from being the second largest religion in America to being the first religion in America."
Malik, who also acts as the mosque's official spokesman, is a close friend of the former Dar al-Hijrah imam al-Awlaki, who privately ministered to the 9/11 hijackers. After the attacks, Awlaki fled to London, where he gave a sermon extolling the virtues of martyrdom.
In an interview with author Sperry, Malik defended his friend's sermon, arguing Muslims who die while fighting unbelievers in the cause of Allah are no different from U.S. Marines fighting and dying for America in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"That's the same thing as telling Marines in this country semper fidelis," Malik told Sperry. "Telling people to give their all for their faith is not an unusual idea."
His mosque handled the funeral services of Maj. Hasan's mother when she passed away in 2001. It was then that Hasan fell under the spell of Dar al-Hijrah cleric Awlaki, aka Anwar Aulaqi, who corresponded with Hasan in some 20 e-mails in the months leading up to Hasan's alleged massacre.
One of al-Qaida's top Western recruiters, Awlaki is considered a rock star among jihadists and has cultivated fans among CAIR officials. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper's protege Ismail Royer and his terrorist cell chauffeured Awlaki around Washington in October 2002 as he looked for new terrorist recruits, according to Sperry. Prosecutors also found Awlaki's phone number stored on their cell phones.
Royer, who was personally recruited by Hooper and worked under him at CAIR's headquarters, is serving 20 years in federal prison. Internal CAIR memos show Hooper is heading his appeal effort within CAIR.
According to "Muslim Mafia," prosecutors have told the federal judge hearing Royer's case that Royer is an "inveterate liar" and has not cooperated with terrorism investigations as promised in a plea bargain.
CAIR is Dar al-Hijrah's top defender in Washington, and routinely runs interference between law enforcement and the mosque. Dar al-Hijrah, in turn, attends CAIR's annual fundraising dinners and is a major supporter of the front group.
IMPORTANT NOTE: WND needs your help in supporting the defense of "Muslim Mafia" co-author P. David Gaubatz, as well as his investigator son Chris, against CAIR's lawsuit. Already, the book's revelations have led to formal congressional demands for three different federal investigations of CAIR. In the meantime, however, someone has to defend these two courageous investigators who have, at great personal risk, revealed so much about this dangerous group. Although WND has procured the best First Amendment attorneys in the country for their defense, we can't do it without your help. Please donate to WND's Legal Defense Fund now.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=135825
Posted: April 02, 2010 11:40 pm Eastern © 2010 WorldNetDaily
An anti-jihad watchdog group has slammed two U.S. lawmakers for breaking their oath to protect the country by agreeing to appear as special guests at a fundraising dinner Saturday night for a radical Saudi-funded mosque tied to the 9/11 hijackers and the Fort Hood shooter, among other Islamic terrorists.
Reps. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., and Jim Moran, D-Va., have "trashed their oath to protect and defend the U.S." by agreeing to attend the annual banquet for Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, a large mosque in Falls Church, Va., a suburb of Washington, according to the Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force, or VAST.
The group also criticized Virginia Democrat Gov. Tim Kaine for agreeing to attend the event, while praising Democrat Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia for withdrawing from the event following complaints from concerned constituents.
Get the book that exposed CAIR from the inside out, autographed, from WND's Superstore!
"While brave young Virginia men and women are risking their lives to fight terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, Connolly, Moran and Kaine are yucking it up with them and slapping each other on the back over at the Marriott," charged VAST Chairman James Lafferty.
He noted that the three politicians' campaign war chests are heavily funded by radical Islamists who support the mosque.
"Look at their Federal Election Commission reports," Lafferty said. "These spineless politicians are owned and operated by the radical Islamists and their sinister front groups."
Indeed, according to the book, "Muslim Mafia," Connolly and Moran have received thousands of dollars in donations from several Virginia Islamists under federal investigation for financing terrorism. In addition, the book reveals, Connolly received an $18,758 windfall from the Saudi government's U.S. public relations firm while fighting to keep open a Saudi-owned madrassa in Northern Virginia also tied to terrorism.
Dar Al-Hijrah hosted at least two of the 9/11 terrorists who attacked the Pentagon, as well as the Fort Hood terrorist and an al-Qaida sleeper agent convicted of plotting to assassinate President Bush. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali graduated valedictorian from the Saudi madrassa – Islamic Saudi Academy – in Alexandria, Va.
Lafferty says the mosque "has been directed by a string of radical imams, including former imam Anwar al-Awlaki, who has since been identified as a commander in al-Qaida" and is wanted in connection with the Christmas Day airliner attack.
A coalition of citizen groups including VAST, Act for America and the Center for Security Policy in Washington have organized a protest of the Dar al-Hijrah fundraiser at 5 p.m. Saturday at the Fairview Park Marriott, 3111 Fairview Park Dr. in Falls Church.
Federal investigators say Dar al-Hijrah is a breeding ground for known terrorists, including:
r
Abdullah bin Laden, nephew of the al-Qaida kingpin whose name appears on the federal terrorist watchlist.
Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, accused of murdering 13 and injuring 30 others in a jihad-inspired shooting spree at Fort Hood, Texas.
Hani Hanjour, 9/11 hijacker and Saudi national who flew the jumbo jet into the Pentagon.
Nawaf al-Hazmi, 9/11 hijacker and Saudi national who joined Hanjour on the Pentagon flight and acted as second in command of the entire al-Qaida operation behind hijacking ringleader Mohamed Atta.
The mosque, in fact, helped Hanjour and al-Hazmi obtain housing in the area.
After 9/11, investigators found the phone number for Dar al-Hijrah in the Hamburg, Germany, apartment of one of the planners of the 9/11 attacks – Ramzi Binalshibh, a Gitmo detainee.
Constructed with $5 million from the Saudi Embassy and run by radical Muslim Brotherhood leaders, Dar al-Hijrah is "a terror mill and a direct threat to national security," says terror expert Paul Sperry, co-author of "Muslim Mafia," an expose on the radical Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups in America.
Once a month, Dar al-Hijrah's lead imam – Shaker Elsayed – meets with top officials with the Council on American-Islamic Relations on the first floor of its Washington headquarters, Sperry notes. The Justice Department says Saudi-funded CAIR, which operates a booth at Dar al-Hijrah, is a terrorist front group for Hamas and its parent the Muslim Brotherhood.
Elsayed has said Muslims have the right to use violence: "We do have license to respond with all force necessary to our attackers."
He also says he believes in the teachings of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, which he describes as "the closest reflection of how Islam should be in this life."
The late al-Banna taught that "Islam wishes to do away with all states and governments anywhere which are opposed to this ideology and program of Islam. Islam requires the earth – not just a portion, but the entire planet."
Another imam at the mosque, Johari Abdul Malik, has preached to American Muslims that they are within Islamic law to "blow up bridges" and other infrastructure. "You can do all forms of sabotage," he said at a 2001 Hamas conference.
He has also called for Islamic supremacy in America.
"We will see the day when Islam, by the grace of Allah, will become the dominant way of life," Malik told his flock in 2004. "You will see Islam move from being the second largest religion in America to being the first religion in America."
Malik, who also acts as the mosque's official spokesman, is a close friend of the former Dar al-Hijrah imam al-Awlaki, who privately ministered to the 9/11 hijackers. After the attacks, Awlaki fled to London, where he gave a sermon extolling the virtues of martyrdom.
In an interview with author Sperry, Malik defended his friend's sermon, arguing Muslims who die while fighting unbelievers in the cause of Allah are no different from U.S. Marines fighting and dying for America in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"That's the same thing as telling Marines in this country semper fidelis," Malik told Sperry. "Telling people to give their all for their faith is not an unusual idea."
His mosque handled the funeral services of Maj. Hasan's mother when she passed away in 2001. It was then that Hasan fell under the spell of Dar al-Hijrah cleric Awlaki, aka Anwar Aulaqi, who corresponded with Hasan in some 20 e-mails in the months leading up to Hasan's alleged massacre.
One of al-Qaida's top Western recruiters, Awlaki is considered a rock star among jihadists and has cultivated fans among CAIR officials. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper's protege Ismail Royer and his terrorist cell chauffeured Awlaki around Washington in October 2002 as he looked for new terrorist recruits, according to Sperry. Prosecutors also found Awlaki's phone number stored on their cell phones.
Royer, who was personally recruited by Hooper and worked under him at CAIR's headquarters, is serving 20 years in federal prison. Internal CAIR memos show Hooper is heading his appeal effort within CAIR.
According to "Muslim Mafia," prosecutors have told the federal judge hearing Royer's case that Royer is an "inveterate liar" and has not cooperated with terrorism investigations as promised in a plea bargain.
CAIR is Dar al-Hijrah's top defender in Washington, and routinely runs interference between law enforcement and the mosque. Dar al-Hijrah, in turn, attends CAIR's annual fundraising dinners and is a major supporter of the front group.
IMPORTANT NOTE: WND needs your help in supporting the defense of "Muslim Mafia" co-author P. David Gaubatz, as well as his investigator son Chris, against CAIR's lawsuit. Already, the book's revelations have led to formal congressional demands for three different federal investigations of CAIR. In the meantime, however, someone has to defend these two courageous investigators who have, at great personal risk, revealed so much about this dangerous group. Although WND has procured the best First Amendment attorneys in the country for their defense, we can't do it without your help. Please donate to WND's Legal Defense Fund now.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=135825
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
