Archive for the ‘Muslim lobby’ Category

Savage vs the Controlling Terrorist Islamic Lobby CAIR

December 6, 2007

Savage Sues the infamous Pro Terror devious Islamic Lobby CAIR

Radio Host Sues Group That Quoted Him
The Associated Press – Dec 4, 2007
The suit alleges CAIR is not a civil rights group, but a political organization funded by foreigners with ties to Hamas and other terrorist groups.
Radio Host Sues Islamic Civil Liberties Group For Quoting Him AHN
Effort targets supporters of Michael Savage’s talk-radio show WorldNetDaily

‘Proven record of senior officials being indicted, imprisoned
WorldNetDaily, OR – Dec 3, 2007
CAIR denies supporting terrorism and continues to claim to be a “moderate” voice for Muslims in America. The group says its critics are the extremists,

PipeLineNews.org

Clinton Foreign Policy Team Adopts cairs Twisted Ideology
PipeLineNews.org, CA
policy team have now wholly adopted cair’s position on Islamofascism, thus finding common ground with what is widely understood in the counter-terrorism

Congressional Paul Revere Warns Nation About Islamofascist Threat
http://www.aina.org/news/2007112093227.htm
… However, groups such as Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and others have a proven record of senior officials being indicted and either imprisoned or deported from the U.S. Just to name a few: Ghassan Elashi, a founding board member of CAIR, is serving 80 months in prison; Randall “Ismail” Royer, the communications director for CAIR, is serving 20 years in prison; and Bassam Khafagi…

Biased CNN’s Angry bitter-lemon Muslim face of the ‘YouTube – Republican debate’

November 18, 2007

Biased CNN’s Angry bitter-lemon Muslim face of the ‘YouTube – Republican debate’.

From http://lightonthings.blogspot.com

If you thought that the ‘Christianne Amanpour’ trend of
belittling radical Islam menace on the entire world via some cheap ‘journalism’
of 100% inaccuracy in her infamous refuted “God’s warriors’, where she distorts
and lies on other faiths, in order to equalize others to the only real danger
the globe faces today, which is of course, not Buddhist, Christian, Jewish,
Shinto, but [extreme] Islam.

At CNN’s advertisement ahead of the Republican debates it
CHOOSE by no accident an Arab Muslim young woman covered with a Muslim scarf
asking: “If you were president, What would you do to repair the image of
America”?

Coming from a person of a culture that hates the west
especially the powerful in the west and the bastion of freedom such as US, UK,
Australia, etc. it was very odd to see the “most trusted name in news” to pick
up such an un-average American “point of view”, worse there is no secret behind
such a line, a Muslim typical propaganda as if “being liked by the Muslim world
is in US hands”….

Unless you see CNN for what it is, a worsening media as
nothing but on the Arabist side. Do not overlook the Arab money grip control,
like the Dubai “sponsorship” of CNN.

If I were to answer to that propaganda piece by that
Muslim woman, even with an effort of the best PC I’d still
answer:

Let’s see, for years, you, the Arab Muslim world have
been trying to sell to is that your grievances are mainly because of the
“palestinian” -Israel issue, hmm, President George W. Bush is the most pro
“Palestinian” president ever, the one that has pushed for an independent state,
practically an unprecedented historic gift, for this group of grandchildren of
mostly Arab immigrants into the historic land of the Jews.

So where do the Arab “Palestinians” or the Arab world as
a whole stand in its “likeness” of the US?

Did the Arab Muslim world like us better when we the US
have interfered to save Kuwaiti Arabs ass, or Bosnian Muslims
ass?

Well, maybe the ball is exclusively in your hands, in
your hate education, in your Mosques, in your mainstream media?

Maybe this “why do we hate you” is a convenient card to
take as much as you can from the US, and still demand more without every
reducing their hatred for the powerful infidel?

Well, I for one just replace the word “maybe”, for
SURE.

Technorati –

The Arab Lobby Controls US Media and Foreign Policy

September 9, 2007

The Arab Lobby Controls US Media and Foreign Policy

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2007/09/arab-lobby-controls-us-media-abd.html

Last year Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal donated $20 million each to Harvard and Georgetown Universities for programs in Islamic studies. The good prince also owns a chunk of Time/AOL the company who’s unit CNN employs the anti Israel Christiane Amanpour.In November of 2005, Fox’s O’Reilly showed live footage of the French Intifada as it raged in Paris. According to WorldNetDaily, Saudi billionaire Prince al-Waleed bin Talal, (aka Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin AbdulAziz AlSaud), who owns 5-6% of the Fox News Channel, personally called Rupert Murdoch and asked him to change the offensive (but accurate) caption: “Muslim Riots” to the less offensive (and less accurate) “Civil Riots.” Within thirty minutes, the Prince had his way.

In December 2005, Prince Al-Waleed donated $20 million each to Harvard University and Georgetown University to finance Islamic studies. The gift to Georgetown, which set up the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding in his honor, was the university’s second-largest donation in history, and the gift to Harvard was among its 25 largest. Any idea of what the skew of thoses studies are.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is the largest single stockholder in Time and Citibank he is a one man Arab Lobby. But you wont hear Messers Walt and Mearsheimer talk about him or any of the other Saudi investors who challenge our free speech and influence American foreign policy.


What’s so nefarious about Jews exercising their right to speech?

What’s so nefarious about Jews exercising their right to speech?

By Jeff Robbins

September 7, 2007

A crop of Israel’s critics — most prominently Jimmy Carter and now Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, the authors of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” — have managed something of a feat: They express no concerns about the massive pro-Arab effort, funded in significant measure by foreign oil money, taking American Jews to task for participating in the American political process; meanwhile, they inoculate themselves against charges of anti-Jewish bias by pre-emptively predicting that “the Jewish lobby” will accuse them of it.

Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer, in particular, have been heralded by Israel’s critics for their “courage” in attacking American Jews, who have allegedly “strangled” criticism of Israel. Their case seems one part laughable, and one part eyebrow-raising.

An anecdote from my own experience with the anti-Israel lobby may shed some light on the absurdity of the Walt-Mearsheimer offensive. Not long after Sept. 11, 2001, I received a call from a major defense contractor asking for a favor. I was serving as president of the Boston chapter of the World Affairs Council, a national organization that debates foreign policy, and the defense contractor was one of the Council’s principal sponsors.

The Saudi Arabian government was sponsoring a national public relations campaign to cultivate American public opinion, and was sending Saudi emissaries around the country to make the case that Saudi Arabia was a tolerant, moderate nation worthy of American support. Would the Council organize a forum of Boston’s community leaders so that the Saudis could make their case?

While this was patently no more than a Saudi lobbying effort, we organized the forum, and it was well-attended by precisely the slice of Boston’s political and corporate elite that the Saudis and their defense contractor benefactor had hoped for. The Saudis maintained that their Kingdom should be regarded as a promoter of Middle East peace, and that the abundant evidence that Saudi Arabia was in fact promoting a virulent brand of extremist Islam should be discounted.

Saudi Arabia paid for the trip of its emissaries to Boston, for the Washington, D.C.-based public relations and lobbying company which organized the trip, and for the Boston public relations and lobbying company that handled the Boston part of the visit. And it drew upon the resources and relationships of the defense contractor, which sells hundreds of millions of dollars of military equipment to Saudi Arabia, to support and orchestrate its public relations effort.

The billions in petrodollars Arab states spend in the U.S. for defense, construction, engineering and consulting contracts position them nicely to win friends in high places, and friends are what they have. That is true all over the world, is true in this country, and has been true for quite some time. As U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull noted 60 years ago, “The oil of Saudi Arabia constitutes one of the world’s great prizes.” His successor, Edward Stettinius, opposed the creation of a Jewish state in the Middle East, stating “It would seriously prejudice our ability to afford protection to American interests, economic and commercial . . . throughout the area.”

The Saudis and their allies have not been shy about supplementing their considerable leverage in the U.S. by targeting expenditures to affect the debate over Middle East policy by funding think tanks, Middle East studies programs, advocacy groups, community centers and other institutions.

To take one obvious example, just last year Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal donated $20 million each to Harvard and Georgetown Universities for programs in Islamic studies. Prince Alwaleed, chairman of a Riyadh-based conglomerate, is the fellow whose $10 million donation to the Twin Towers Fund following the Sept. 11 attacks was rejected by then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani after the Saudi Prince suggested that the U.S. “re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinians.”

Georgetown and Harvard had no apparent qualms about accepting Prince Alwaleed’s money. The director of Georgetown’s newly-renamed Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center rejected any suggestion that the Saudi magnate was attempting to use Saudi oil wealth to influence American policy in the Middle East. “There is nothing wrong with [Prince Alwaleed] expressing his opinion on American foreign policy,” he said. “Clearly, it was done in a constructive way.”

In other words, for those who accept the Arab line on the Israel-Arab conflict — namely, that it is the product of Israeli intransigence in some form or another — the increasing proliferation of Middle East-funded enterprises all across the country aimed at advancing the Arab view of the conflict constitute “nothing wrong.” Nor are those hewing to the anti-Israel line troubled by the way in which the massive Islamic bloc of nations, by dint both of their number and their economic leverage over the rest of the world, are able to guarantee an incessantly anti-Israel agenda at the United Nations and other international fora.

Although the aggressive deployment of petrodollars and oil-based influence from foreign sources aimed at advancing a pro-Arab line constitutes “nothing wrong” as far as Israel’s critics are concerned, a new political fashion holds that there is something very wrong indeed about American Jews and other American backers of Israel expressing their support for Israel, and urging their political leaders to join them in that support.

Our major newspapers and networks, with correspondents in Israel able to take advantage of an Israeli political system that is a free-for-all and an astonishingly vibrant and self-critical Israeli press, report daily on every twist and turn of the conflict and are very frequently critical of Israel. As for American campuses, most objective observers would have little difficulty concluding that far from being criticism-free, they are in fact dominated by critics of Israel. Clearly, as strangleholds on criticism go, whatever stranglehold the pro-Israel community has on debate in the U.S. is a very loose one indeed.

If the charge that American Jews are able to stifle criticism of Israel is simply silly, the leveling of the charge that there is something nefarious about Jews urging support for the Jewish state raises questions about whether Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer have descended into a certain ugliness. And the tactic of trying to neutralize those questions by loudly predicting that they will be asked, however clever a tactic it may be, does not neutralize them.

It is apparently the authors’ position that, even in the face of the overwhelming leverage of an Arab world swimming in petrodollars, with a lock on the U.N. and an unlimited ability to pay for pro-Arab public relations, American Jews are obliged to stay silent. In essence, Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer have repackaged the “the-Jews-run-the-country” stuff which has long been the bread and butter of anti-Semites.

Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer deny that they are anti-Semitic, and that is certainly good news. But where they are apparently content with foreign oil money being used to advance a pro-Arab position on the Middle East, but devote themselves to criticizing American Jews for lobbying their public officials in support of the Jewish state, one may legitimately wonder what phrase would apply. Surely, one’s denial that he is anti-Semitic, while welcome, is hardly dispositive; after all, the marked increase in anti-Semitism around the world is well-documented, and yet one rarely hears anyone actually announce that they are anti-Semitic, or that their views are anti-Semitic.

But if anti-Semitism is too harsh a term, and if the word “bigoted” is also taken off the table, perhaps one can be forgiven for concluding that “anti-Jewish bias” fits the bill here. After all, where there is nothing wrong with foreign money from Arab countries advancing a pro-Arab agenda in Messrs. Walt’s and Mearsheimer’s world — but there is something very wrong with American citizens who are Jewish exercising their civic right to speak out on behalf of Israel and taking issue with the pro-Arab agenda — even the most vehement disclaimers of any bias against Jews lack a certain credibility.

The potency of the Middle East-funded anti-Israel lobby around the world and in the U.S. is difficult to ignore. Yet, Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer and others who adhere to an anti-Israel line ignore it. In and of itself, this is not surprising. When at the same time they portray American Jews’ efforts to make the case for Israel as morally suspect, however, they open themselves up to reasonable charges of something far more troublesome than mere hypocrisy, and that is anti-Jewish bias, by whatever name.

Mr. Robbins, a U.S. Delegate to the U.N. Human Rights Commission during the Clinton administration, is an attorney at Mintz, Levin in Boston and represents David Project in the Islamic Society of Boston lawsuit.

ADL Responds To CAIR; Releases Photo Of Group’s Leader Speaking Next To [fascist] Hezbollah Flag – CAIR a bastion of hatred

September 3, 2007

ADL Responds To CAIR; Releases Photo Of Group’s Leader Speaking Next To [fascist] Hezbollah Flag
ADL ^

ADL Responds To Open Letter From CAIR; Releases Photo Of Group’s Leader Speaking Next To Hezbollah Flag

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Teror_92/5122_92.htm

ADL Responds To Open Letter From CAIR; Releases Photo Of Group’s Leader Speaking Next To Hezbollah Flag
New York, NY, August 30, 2007 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), in response to an “open letter” from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) suggesting that their organization has “acted numerous times … to condemn terrorism,” today released a photograph of CAIR’s executive director speaking at a podium next to a known anti-Semite and the flag of the terrorist group Hezbollah.

Glen S. Lewy, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, National Director, issued the following statement:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has once again squandered an opportunity to unequivocally condemn terrorists – such as Hezbollah and Hamas – by name and to address its past affiliation with the Islamic Association for Palestine, whose ideology is rooted in virulent anti-Semitism.

The August 29, 2007, “Open Letter from CAIR to ADL” is yet another weary tactic by CAIR’s leadership to divert attention from its troubling roots and disingenuous record. CAIR Chairman Parvez Ahmed and Executive Director Nihad Awad continue to willfully ignore legitimate questions.  Attacking ADL will not make the real issues go away.
 
An organization that purportedly seeks to enter into dialogue with ADL should firmly denounce the anti-Semitic rhetoric and support for terror organizations that regularly occur at rallies, instead of sponsoring and joining them.

ADL’s 94-year history supporting the civil rights of all in this country, including Muslims, and our record of teaching respect for all religions through interfaith and diversity education programs is unparalleled.  Unfortunately, CAIR has shown that it is not a legitimate partner in this vital work.

In the attached photo released by ADL, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad is shown delivering a speech under a Hezbollah flag during a rally on April 20, 2002 in Washington, DC.  To his right stands Imam Abdul Alim Musa, the anti-Semitic head of Masjid Al Islam mosque. 

CNN’s God’s Warriors at war with truth

August 30, 2007

CNN’s God’s Warriors at war with truth Jerusalem Post ^

8-26-07 R. Marvin Hier

West of Delancey http://blogcentral.jpost.com/index.php?cat_id=&blog_id=63: CNN’s God’s Warriors at war with truth Posted by Rabbi Marvin Hier

A day prior to the airing of Christiane Amanpour’s six-hour CNN documentary entitled God’s Warriors, I was one of four clergymen to be a guest on Larry King Live to discuss the issue of fundamentalism in today’s world. The interview on Larry King was pre-recorded in mid-July and none of the participants had seen the six-hour documentary because it was still being edited. Now that I have seen it, I sent the following critique to the producers of God’s Warriors.

1. MORAL EQUIVALENCY – There is no moral equivalency between some 200 Israeli fanatics prone to violence and tens of thousands of Palestinian terrorists whose acts are endorsed by the elected government and a significant portion of the population. The failure of the documentary to clearly make that distinction skews the facts and conveys the false impression allowing people all over the world to conclude that there IS a moral equivalency between the number of Palestinian terrorists and Jewish terrorists – this is a complete distortion. More importantly, the largest terrorist group responsible for much of the unrest in the Middle East, Hamas, got a free pass from CNN in God’s Warriors and is not even mentioned in the documentary’s segment on Islam.

2. JEWISH LOBBY – CNN spends much time describing the strength of the “Jewish Lobby” in Washington. But what do supporters of Israel active on the Hill have to do with a documentary focusing on the power of religion? Indeed, many of those defending Israel on Capital Hill are, in fact, secular Jews. Furthermore, if you are going to talk about powerful lobbies, why not give equal time to the enormous power of the Arab Oil lobby?

3. SECURITY FENCE (Hamas Wall) – The consultants of the documentary make a point of showing the security fence that now separates the Palestinians from the Israelis. Palestinians interviewed explain the hardships they face and call the fence an “apartheid” wall. Nowhere is there a mention of the wide consensus of support for the security fence amongst all Israelis, left and right, including Israel’s Supreme Court, which has sanctioned the fence because, without it, the suicide bombings would continue unabated, something NO society can tolerate. Indeed, the terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad are the real architects and designers of that fence.

4. FIGHTING TERRORISM – God’s Warrior’s makes mention of the fact that the few Jewish terrorists described in the film were all arrested by the Israeli government and sent to jail for their crimes. Yet, they ignore the fact that Palestinian officials have never convicted Palestinian terrorists. Had they done so, there would be no need for a security fence.

5. SIX DAY WAR – The documentary spends a lot of time on the Six Day War and emphasizes how Israel decided to attack the Old City during the War, which changed the status quo forever. But God’s Warriors fails to explain how or why the Six Day War started. It hides from its audience the fact that Egypt blocked the Straits of Tiran (an international waterway), an act of war under international law, denying all shipping to Israel and that the Arab States, including Jordan, which controlled the Old City, brought their armies to the border. Had they not taken those actions, the Six Day War would have been averted. By ignoring all that and instead focusing on Israel’s attack on the Old City, God’s Warriors guides its audience to the conclusion that the purpose of the War was Israel’s intention to grab the Old City of Jerusalem.

6. SHARON – The documentary is critical of Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount, which enraged Muslims and allegedly started the Second Intifada. It also mentions his “responsibility” in allowing Lebanese Christians to massacre Muslims at Sabra and Shatila. Yet, it ignores his critical decision to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza in an attempt to jump start the peace process. Nor does it mention the Palestinian response to the withdrawal – the election of Hamas – a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel – as the new Palestinian government.

7. TEMPLE MOUNT – The documentary fails to emphasize that the Muslims, to whom Israel gave the authority to administer the Temple Mount, strongly discourage any Jew from coming there despite the fact that it is the holiest site in all of Judaism (whereas, the holiest sites in Islam are, in fact, Mecca and Medina). On the other hand, the Western Wall, which is under Israeli control, regularly welcomes visitors of all faiths.

8. RELIGIOUS LEADERS – CNN presents the senior Imam in charge of the Al-Aksa Mosque on the Temple Mount, who explains the site’s holiness to Muslims. But rather than interview the Chief Rabbi of Israel to describe the sacredness of the site for Jews, CNN contents itself with allowing an extremist layperson to explain the importance of the Temple Mount to Jews. Where is the fairness?

9. TWO STATE SOLUTION – God’s Warriors ignores the origins of the Arab/Israeli conflict: the Arab refusal to accept the 1947 United Nations Partition of Palestine, which called for both a Jewish state and an Arab State. The Jews accepted the plan – the Arabs rejected it. Had the Arab world accepted the two-state solution then, much of the bloodshed would have been averted. There’s a lot of talk about settlements, but no talk at all of the consistent Arab policy from 1948 until 1978 to make no compromises with Israel.

10. A HUMAN FACE ON TERROR – God’s Warriors keeps mentioning the “despair” that many Arabs feel, as if that is a justification for the insane behavior of honoring people as martyrs because they murdered innocent civilians they never knew. Why patronize terrorists and even humanize them if we are going to allow the conversation to be dominated by their despair? The parents of these terrorists should be confronted with the simple truth that despair has existed throughout time – that billions of people throughout history have felt pain without reverting to mass murder. Following the defeat of Nazism, the Holocaust survivors were also in despair. They lost their families, but they didn’t resort to killing innocent civilians as a way of alleviating their pain. Neither did the 750,000 Jews expelled from Arab countries following the 1948 War – they too, did not become suicide bombers.

Technorati –