US Muslim Organizations To Boycott Cooperation With The FBI

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

US Muslim Organizations To Boycott Cooperation With The FBI

A group of major Muslim groups has announced that they will no longer cooperate with our FBI, claiming 'bias' and 'targeting' :

In a statement, the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT) cited in particular an incident in California, in which it says that “the FBI sent a convicted criminal to pose as an agent provocateur” in several mosques. A federal agent allegedly told one of the mosque-goers that the FBI would make his life a "living hell" if he did not agree to become an informant.

“Muslims are law-abiding and productive citizens who uphold the democratic principles of freedom, equality and justice,” AMT contended.

Another leading Muslim coalition, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), recently issued a statement headlined "FBI Losing Partnership with American Muslim Community."

MPAC warned that “federal law enforcement cannot establish trust with American Muslim communities through meetings and townhall forums, while at the same time sending paid informants who instigate violent rhetoric in mosques.This mere act stigmatizes American mosques and casts a shadow of doubt and distrust between American Muslims and their neighbors.”

Yet another Muslim umbrella group, the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, suspended “outreach” to the FBI in February.

AMT’s recent statement protested the 2007 designation of Muslim groups such as CAIR, the Islamic society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), as "unindicted co-conspirators" in the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas, Texas.

I suppose the fact that those groups fully deserved the label of unindicted co-conspirators has absolutely nothing to do with it as far as these people are concerned.

And the bit about 'instigating violent rhetoric in mosques' is especially rich..as though it would never happen unless the FBI fanned the flames..

“We call on the FBI to reassess its positions on profiling and the use of informants as agent provocateurs within the Muslim communities,” the Muslim groups declared, adding the caveat that “this possible suspension, of course, would in no way affect our unshakable duty to report crimes or threats of violence to our nation.”

I guess their lawyers insisted on that last bit. Not reporting a crime would lay them open to the charge of being an accessory, although actually proving they had foreknowledge would be difficult. But not cooperating with law enforcement is a crime as well in most jurisdictions, and I find it interesting that groups like this feel emboldened enough to openly state this.

What we have here is a bunch of diverse groups which might differ on tactics and focus but have a common goal of creating an Islamist political foothold under sharia law here in America, and ultimately control of our country and its institutions.

After 9/11, the common narrative we were given was that Islam was a religion of peace who had been "perverted by radicals"...and in any event, we were told that we didn't want to go to war with 1.3 million people, did we?

This last line was frequently used by Muslims belonging to Saudi-funded groups like the ones above themselves, and I personally heard it come out of the mouth of Muslim Public Affairs Council Executive Director Salam Al-Marayati when he was pressed on a local talk radio show.

That line of reasoning was always ridiculous, because going to war against our enemy in this case the segment of Islam that wanted to conquer or destroy America meant a war against those enemies who chose to define themselves as our enemies through their actions. The majority of Muslims in America, at least by their own admission, claim to have distanced themselves from Islamist terrorism, attacks on Americans and the forced implementation of sharia over our Constitution.

The same goes for the rest of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims. The red lines and the enemies aligned against us in this war were always theirs to define.

All of the other squabbles between the various jihadi groups - Shia versus Sunni, al-Qaeda versus main stream Wahabi or Deobandi, al-Qaeda as opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood - were and are meaningless in this context no matter how much they fight amongst themselves, because Islamist domination and the implementation of Sharia is a goal they all have in common, and there is a long history of various disparate Muslim factions putting aside their differences temporarily and uniting to wage jihad on the infidel.

Jihad in America is promulgated at mosques and madrassahs across the country, as researchers like ex-intel officer Dave Gaubatz, award winning journalist and authors Steven Emerson, Zahdi Jasser, Daveed Garthenstein-Ross, Robert Spencer and others have amply documented. A number of terrorist attack attempts and jihad money laundering have come directly through these institutions or by Muslims that were radicalized through them.

If groups like MPAC, the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, CAIRand others are suspending their 'cooperation' with the FBI and don't want these mosques and other institutions put under surveillance and investigated, there's obviously a connection between them and the radicalization of America's Muslims that they would rather not see come to light. And that position, I think, self-defines them as our enemies.

All you have to do is connect the dots...

"The Toxic Assets We Elected...."

George Will hits one out of the ballpark..

With the braying of 328 yahoos -- members of the House of Representatives who voted for retroactive and punitive use of the tax code to confiscate the legal earnings of a small, unpopular group -- still reverberating, the Obama administration yesterday invited private-sector investors to become business partners with the capricious and increasingly anti-constitutional government. This latest plan to unfreeze the financial system came almost half a year after Congress shoveled $700 billion into the Troubled Assets Relief Program, $325 billion of which has been spent without purchasing any toxic assets. 

TARP funds have, however, semi-purchased, among many other things, two automobile companies (and, last week, some of their parts suppliers), which must amaze Sweden. That unlikely tutor of America regarding capitalist common sense has said, through a Cabinet minister, that the ailing Saab automobile company is on its own: "The Swedish state is not prepared to own car factories." 

Another embarrassing auditor of American misgovernment is China, whose premier has rightly noted the unsustainable trajectory of America's high-consumption, low-savings economy. He has also decorously but clearly expressed sensible fears that his country's $1 trillion-plus of dollar-denominated assets might be devalued by America choosing, as banana republics have done, to use inflation for partial repudiation of improvidently incurred debts.

From Mexico, America is receiving needed instruction about fundamental rights and the rule of law. A leading Democrat trying to abolish the right of workers to secret ballots in unionization elections is California's Rep. George Miller who, with 15 other Democrats, in 2001 admonished Mexico: "The secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose." Last year, Mexico's highest court unanimously affirmed for Mexicans the right that Democrats want to strip from Americans. 

Congress, with the approval of a president who has waxed censorious about his predecessor's imperious unilateralism in dealing with other nations, has shredded the North American Free Trade Agreement. Congress used the omnibus spending bill to abolish a program that was created as part of a protracted U.S. stall regarding compliance with its obligation to allow Mexican long-haul trucks on U.S. roads. The program, testing the safety of Mexican trucking, became an embarrassment because it found Mexican trucking at least as safe as U.S. trucking. Mexico has resorted to protectionism -- tariffs on many U.S. goods -- in retaliation for Democrats' protection of the Teamsters union.

NAFTA, like all treaties, is the "supreme law of the land." So says the Constitution. It is, however, a cobweb constraint on a Congress that, ignoring the document's unambiguous stipulations that the House shall be composed of members chosen "by the people of the several states," is voting to pretend that the District of Columbia is a state. Hence it supposedly can have a Democratic member of the House and, down the descending road, two Democratic senators. Congress rationalizes this anti-constitutional willfulness by citing the Constitution's language that each house shall be the judge of the "qualifications" of its members and that Congress can "exercise exclusive legislation" over the District. What, then, prevents Congress from giving House and Senate seats to Yellowstone National Park, over which Congress exercises exclusive legislation? Only Congress's capacity for embarrassment. So, not much.

The Federal Reserve, by long practice rather than law, has been insulated from politics in performing its fundamental function of preserving the currency as a store of value -- preventing inflation. Now, however, by undertaking hitherto uncontemplated functions, it has become an appendage of the executive branch. The coming costs, in political manipulation of the money supply, of this forfeiture of independence could be steep.

Jefferson warned that "great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities." But Democrats, who trace their party's pedigree to Jefferson, are contemplating using "reconciliation" -- a legislative maneuver abused by both parties to severely truncate debate and limit the minority's right to resist -- to impose vast and controversial changes on the 17 percent of the economy that is health care. When the Congressional Budget Office announced that the president's budget underestimates by $2.3 trillion the likely deficits over the next decade, his budget director, Peter Orszag, said: All long-range budget forecasts are notoriously unreliable -- so rely on ours.

This is but a partial list of recent lawlessness, situational constitutionalism and institutional derangement. Such political malfeasance is pertinent to the financial meltdown as the administration, desperately seeking confidence, tries to stabilize the economy by vastly enlarging government's role in it.

Well said, Mr. Will...I'm amazed the WAPO printed it.