Islamic supremacists’ legal jihad

 

DEFENDING THE WEST

Islamic supremacists’ legal jihad

Exclusive: Pamela Geller covers latest Hamas-CAIR attack on anti-savagery ads

 

The Chicago branch of the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is trying to stop my organization’s campaign countering their bizarre jihad propaganda, threatening suit to keep our ads that tell the truth about jihad from running. Hamas-CAIR once again moves to silence the freedom of speech of those who stand against the jihad and Islamic supremacism. They are bent on imposing Shariah restrictions on criticism of Islam.

It all started when Hamas-CAIR developed a new propaganda ad campaign, a psyop, that kicked off on Chicago buses and is now running in San Francisco and Washington, D.C., as well. “#MyJihad” is a deceptive campaign designed to distract from and obscure the true meaning of jihad. It depicts smiling, attractive Muslims saying, “My jihad is to stay fit despite my busy schedule”; “my jihad is to build friendships across the aisle”; and the like.

The Islamic supremacists of Hamas-CAIR say that their MyJihad campaign is designed to respond to our Quran ad and fight “bigotry” and “Islamophobia.” According to the Chicagoist, CAIR-Chicago’s executive director, Ahmed Rehab, who originated the campaign, “told the Sun-Times the term ‘jihad’ has been twisted by groups such as Geller’s so that its true meaning is obscured and the word is most closely associated with ‘holy war.’”

Yes, Muslims are blowing things up and murdering infidels around the world today because I “obscured” the “true meaning” of the word jihad. What’s even worse is that enemedia reporters eagerly swallow Rehab’s garbage and never, ever call him on it. But in fact the real bigotry, the real hatred, is coming from devout Muslim jihad terrorists around the world every day: over 20,000 jihad attacks since 9/11, each one with the imprimatur of a Muslim cleric.

And so we countered. We created a jihad campaign speaking about the true meaning of jihad. Our new campaign focuses on how jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism. It uses actual quotes by jihadis and Islamic supremacists, including Osama bin Laden and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, as well as statements from Hamas TV and one of the victims of the Fort Hood jihad massacre.

One ad depicts Osama bin Laden and the burning Twin Towers along with a bin Laden quote explaining why he took down the Twin Towers: “The first thing we are calling you to is Islam.” Another quotes an eyewitness to the jihad mass murders of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, noting that he was shouting “Allahu akbar” as he murdered 13 Americans at Fort Hood. Another quotes a Hamas TV music video including the lyric, “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah.” A fourth quotes Times Square jihad car bomber Faisal Shahzad saying that jihad involving “weaponry” was “an obligation and duty in Islam on every Muslim.”

This usage of jihad as killing non-Muslims is much more influential and widespread among Muslims worldwide than the benign and whitewashed understanding of it being pushed by Hamas-CAIR. Also, the fact that some Muslims don’t think of jihad as involving violence does not cancel out the fact that many do. Our AFDI campaign shines the light of truth to break through the fog of CAIR’s deceptions.

So what did CAIR do? They commenced legal action in their jihad against free speech. I received a “cease and desist” letter from Rehab (Mr. Jihad), claiming ownership of the phrase “my jihad.” Tell that to the millions of Muslims waging jihad in the cause of Islam.
Read their lawyer’s letter.

Litigation jihad – that’s Ahmed’s jihad, what’s yours? Yes, now CAIR claims to own #myjihad despite the fact that I registered myjihad.us four days before they registered any use of the phrase “my jihad.” Hey, Ahmed, you owe me money!

The imperialistic and supremacist group is claiming ownership of holy war and what amounts to a Twitter hashtag (#myjihad). Is that a first? They love using American law to crush American freedoms. In this case of parody (as in most things), Hamas-CAIR Chicago is overreaching and out of control, but there is always some hungry lawyer eager to line his pockets with myjihad dollars (and AFDI’s).

Hamas-CAIR has been encouraging people to use the hashtag #myjihad – did they really think they could control who, what, where and when? Typical Islamic supremacism.

Nonetheless, I tweaked my ads, removing the phrase “my jihad,” because I wanted them up and they don’t. They will never win this lawsuit. But they can try to tie us up for at least a year. It is obvious to me that Hamas-CAIR and Chicago Transit are in collusion. They are working together. I submitted the ads on Dec. 14; I didn’t hear back for six weeks, despite the fact that I inquired repeatedly. But on the day I received the email from Rehab’s lawyer, the Chicago Transit Authority rejected our ads, citing that legal letter not five minutes later. San Francisco then followed suit.

This is how egregiously our free speech rights are being violated.

Meanwhile, Hamas-CAIR’s deceptive campaign has received fawning media coverage all over the United States and as far away as Cairo, including a full hour of coverage on the BBC. So many non-Muslims are so eager to be fooled and to swallow the deceptions of these Islamic supremacists. But like all wars on the truth, Hamas-CAIR’s is doomed to fail. Our legal team of David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise of the American Freedom Law Center is on the case, and the truth will prevail.

 

Millions of lives at stake as Iran develops biological arsenal

WND EXCLUSIVE

8 deadly agents ‘to bring U.S. to its knees’

Millions of lives at stake as Iran develops biological arsenal

Iranian scientists, working under orders from the radicals running the Islamic regime, have genetically altered microbial agents in a nightmarish scheme to bring the West to its knees.

According to a source in the Revolutionary Guards intelligence unit with knowledge of Iran’s microbial research and development, the scientists, with Russian and North Korean help, currently possess eight extremely dangerous microbial agents that, if unleashed, could kill millions of people.

As reported exclusively on WND on Dec. 16, the source revealed the existence of a plant in Marzanabad, Iran, where 12 Russian and 28 Iranian scientists are working on microbial agents for bombs. At that time, the source disclosed that Iran was working on 18 agents, with four completed. He has now provided information that with work at two other plants, Iran has created a total of eight microbial agents, with research on insects to be used as the vector to infect the societies of its enemies.

DigitalGlobe Image, May 2012 – Shahid Bahonar Microbial Plant in Marzanabad – Iran

The eight agents are anthrax, encephalitis (the blueprint of this virus, Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis, was provided by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in an agreement two years ago with the Islamic regime), yellow grain (developed with the help of North Korea), SARS, Ebola, cholera, smallpox and plague.

Iran, with North Korea’s help, has genetically altered the smallpox virus that makes current vaccinations useless against it. And research at two facilities that act as drug companies but are fronts for the deadly research shows insects can be used as the vector to carry plague, infamous as the “Black Death,” according to the source.

The outbreak of plague in the Middle Ages killed one-third of Europe’s population, and it resurfaced in the 19th century in Asia, killing millions in China and India.

Discover the astonishing double life of a CIA agent inside the Revolutionary Guards of Iran with Reza Kahlili’s “A Time to Betray,” from the WND Superstore!

The radicals ruling Iran believe their planned microbial attacks cannot be traced to them, the source said. Through various commerce channels and trade with Europe and even through Mexico into the U.S., the regime could release the infected insects and small rodents into populated cities, causing an epidemic that could possibly kill tens of millions of people, he said.

“The most dangerous biological weapons agents today are genetically modified or even synthetically created in a laboratory in ways that not only make them more contagious, infectious and lethal, but also are intended to defy existing vaccine countermeasures,” said Clare M. Lopez, a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, a non-profit, non-partisan think tank based in Washington, D.C. “Among such (biological weapons) agents are (genetically-modified) strains of anthrax, plague and smallpox.

“The open-source literature consistently describes Russia and North Korea as sources of such strains and the scientific know-how to create and deploy them,” Lopez said. “Likewise, Iran and Syria are reported to be among the recipients of such deadly (biological weapons) agents; each of these countries also has an extensive medical and pharmaceutical research and development infrastructure within which to produce (and also conceal) its BW programs. Both Iran and Syria also have shared not only these pathogens, but the artillery, ballistic missile and munitions technology with each other and, likely, with Hezbollah as well, for delivery of such pathogens.”

Lopez said that insects such as fleas, flies and mosquitoes long have been recognized as natural vectors for the spread of deadly diseases and that disease-bearing insects have been used in warfare for centuries, perhaps most notoriously by the Japanese during WW II against China, causing the death of hundreds of thousands. While cholera typically is not fatal if treated quickly, some strains can kill within hours. Bubonic plague has been the cause of some of the greatest pandemics in world history.

The Revolutionary Guards source added that the Islamic regime has already armed 37 of its ballistic missiles with microbial agents, which upon launch would spray targeted areas as opposed to an explosion. It has also armed cluster bombs with such agents, which could be dropped from fighter jets spraying an intended area.

What makes it worse, the source said, is that Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist proxies of the regime have now been armed with microbial weapons. As reported in the Washington Times in August, chemical and microbial weapons have been transferred to Iran’s proxies in the region.

The West, with its soft approach on the radical regime in Iran, has provided the needed time not only for it to arm itself with some of the most deadliest biological weapons but also, with the help of North Korea, to get the nuclear bomb, and, despite what the West believes, is now working to arm its missiles with such weapons of mass destruction, the source said.

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and author of the award-winning book “A Time to Betray” (Simon & Schuster, 2010). He serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI).


Why Radical Islam Just Won’t Die

Op-Ed Contributor

Why Radical Islam Just Won’t Die

By PAUL BERMAN

THE big surprise, viewed from my own narrow perspective five years later, has taken place in the mysterious zones of extremist ideology. In the months and weeks before the invasion of Iraq, I wrote quite a lot about ideology in the Middle East, and especially about the revolutionary political doctrine known as radical Islamism.

I tried to show that radical Islamism is a modern philosophy, not just a heap of medieval prejudices. In its sundry versions, it draws on local and religious roots, just as it claims to do. But it also draws on totalitarian inspirations from 20th-century Europe. I wanted my readers to understand that with its double roots, religious and modern, perversely intertwined, radical Islamism wields a lot more power, intellectually speaking, than naïve observers might suppose.

I declared myself happy in principle with the notion of overthrowing Saddam Hussein, just as I was happy to see the Taliban chased from power. But I wanted everyone to understand that military action, by itself, could never defeat an ideology like radical Islamism — could never contribute more than 10 percent (I invented this statistic, as an illustrative figure) to a larger solution. I hammered away on that point in the days before the war. And today I have to acknowledge that, for all my hammering, radical Islamism, in several of its resilient branches, the ultra-radical and the beyond-ultra-radical, has proved to be stronger even than I suggested.

A lot of people right now make the common-sense supposition that if extremist ideologies have lately entered a sort of grisly golden age, the Bush administration’s all-too-predictable blundering in Iraq must bear the blame. Yes, certainly; but that can’t be the only explanation.

Extremist movements have been growing bigger and wilder for more than three decades now, during that period, America has tried pretty much everything from a policy point of view. Our presidents have been satanic (Richard Nixon), angelic (Jimmy Carter), a sleepy idiot savant (Ronald Reagan), a cagey realist (George H. W. Bush), wonderfully charming (Bill Clinton) and famously otherwise (George W. Bush). And each president’s Middle Eastern policy has conformed to his character.

In regard to Saddam Hussein alone, our government has lent him support (Mr. Reagan), conducted a limited war against him (the first President Bush), inflicted sanctions and bombings (Mr. Clinton, in other than his charming mode), and crudely overthrown him. Every one of those policies has left the Iraqi people worse off than before, even if nowadays, from beneath the rubble, the devastated survivors can at least ruminate about a better future — though I doubt that many of them are in any mood to do so.

And each new calamity for Iraq has, like manure, lent new fertility to the various extremist organizations. The entire sequence of events may suggest that America is uniquely destined to do the wrong thing. All too likely! But it may also suggest that America is not the fulcrum of the universe, and extremist ideologies have prospered because of their own ability to adapt and survive — their strength, in a word.

I notice a little gloomily that I may have underestimated the extremist ideologies in still another respect. Five years ago, anyone who took an interest in Middle Eastern affairs would easily have recalled that, over the course of a century, the intellectuals of the region have gone through any number of phases — liberal, Marxist, secularist, pious, traditionalist, nationalist, anti-imperialist and so forth, just like intellectuals everywhere else in the world.

Western intellectuals without any sort of Middle Eastern background would naturally have manifested an ardent solidarity with their Middle Eastern and Muslim counterparts who stand in the liberal vein — the Muslim free spirits of our own time, who argue in favor of human rights, rational thought (as opposed to dogma), tolerance and an open society.

But that was then. In today’s Middle East, the various radical Islamists, basking in their success, paint their liberal rivals and opponents as traitors to Muslim civilization, stooges of crusader or Zionist aggression. And, weirdly enough, all too many intellectuals in the Western countries have lately assented to those preposterous accusations, in a sanitized version suitable for Western consumption.

Even in the Western countries, quite a few Muslim liberals, the outspoken ones, live today under a threat of assassination, not to mention a reality of character assassination. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-Dutch legislator and writer, is merely an exceptionally valiant example. But instead of enjoying the unstinting support of their non-Muslim colleagues, the Muslim liberals find themselves routinely berated in the highbrow magazines and the universities as deracinated nonentities, alienated from the Muslim world. Or they find themselves pilloried as stooges of the neoconservative conspiracy — quite as if any writer from a Muslim background who fails to adhere to at least a few anti-imperialist or anti-Zionist tenets of the Islamist doctrine must be incapable of thinking his or her own thoughts.

A dismaying development. One more sign of the power of the extremist ideologies — one more surprising turn of events, on top of all the other dreadful and gut-wrenching surprises.

Paul Berman, the author of “Power and the Idealists,” is a writer in residence at New York University.

Muslim Brotherhood group to ‘connect all U.S. schools

 

WND EXCLUSIVE

Muslim Brotherhood group to ‘connect all U.S. schools’

Partners with State, Education departments on international initiative

author-image  Aaron KleinEmail | Archive

Aaron Klein is WND’s senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio. Follow Aaron on Twitter and Facebook.More ↓Less ↑

 

130123morsi

JERUSALEM – A Muslim Brotherhood-linked organization has partnered with the U.S. Department of Education and the State Department to facilitate an online program aiming to connect all U.S. schools with classrooms abroad by 2016.

Vartan Gregorian, a board member of the organization, the Qatar Foundation International, was appointed in 2009 to President Obama’s White House Fellowships Commission.

WND previously exposed that Gregorian served as a point man in granting $49.2 million in startup capital to an education-reform project founded by former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers and chaired by Obama.

Documentation shows Gregorian was central in Ayers’ recruitment of Obama to serve as the first chairman of the project, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge – a job in which Obama worked closely on a regular basis with Ayers.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s infiltration of Washington is exposed in “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America”

Obama also later said his job at the project qualified him to run for public office, as WND previously reported.

Connecting schools to fulfill Obama pledge

The Qatar Foundation International, or QFI, in 2011 partnered with the Department of State and the U.S. Department of Education to facilitate matchmaking between classrooms in the U.S. and international schools through something called the “Connect All Schools” project.

QFI, funded by the Qatari government, explains on its website the initiative was founded in response to Obama’s call in his June 2009 speech to the Arab world in Cairo, Egypt, to “create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.”

QFI relates how more than 100 U.S. schools and organizations have already connected on the interactive website.

The stated goal of the initiative is to “connect every school in the U.S. with the world by 2016.”

This is not the QFI’s first foray into the U.S. education system.

WND reported last May the Qatar-based foundation awarded “Curriculum Grants” to seven U.S. schools and language organizations to “develop comprehensive and innovative curricula and teaching materials to be used in any Arabic language classroom.”

QFI, based in Washington, D.C., is the U.S. branch of the Qatar Foundation, founded in 1995 by Qatar’s ruling emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani.

Thani is still the group’s vice-chairman, while one of his three wives, Sheikha Moza bint Nasser, chairs the organization’s board.

Thani also launched Al Jazeera in 1996 and served as the television network’s chairman.

The Qatar foundation is close to the Muslim Brotherhood.

In January 2012, it launched the Research Center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics under the guidance of Tariq Ramadan, who serves as the center’s director.

Ramadan is the grandson of the notorious founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al Banna. Ramadan was banned from the U.S. until 2010 when the Obama administration issued him a visa to give a lecture at a New York school.

QFI, meanwhile, named several institutions after Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the top leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. Many regard Qaradawi as the de facto spiritual leader of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.

The foundation instituted the Sheikh Yusuf Al Qaradawi Scholarships and in 2009 established a research center named the Qaradawi Center for Islamic Moderation and Renewal.

Qaradawi has personally attended scores of foundation events, including conferences at which he served as a keynote speaker.

Qaradawi achieved star status because of his regular sermons and interviews on Al Jazeera.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism documents Qardawi openly permitted the killing of American troops in Iraq and praised the “heroic deeds” of “Hamas, Jihad, Al-Aqsa Brigades and others.”

Obama, Ayers connection

Gregorian, president of Carnegie Corp. charitable foundation, was appointed by Obama in 2009 as a White House fellow. Born in Tabriz, Iran, Gregorian served for eight years as president of the New York Public Library and was also president of Brown University.

As Brown president, Gregorian served on the selection committee of the Annenberg Foundation, which funded Ayers’ Chicago Annenberg Challenge with a $49.2 million, 2-to-1 matching challenge grant over five years. Ayers was one of five founding members of the Annenberg Challenge who wrote to the Annenberg Foundation for the initial funding.

Steve Diamond, a political-science and law professor and a blogger who has posted on Obama, previously posted a letter from Nov. 18, 1994, in which Gregorian, serving as the point man on Annenberg’s selection committee, asked Ayers to “compose the governing board” of the Challenge’s collaborative project with “people who reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of Chicago.”

Ayers and other founding Challenge members then recruited Obama to serve as the project chairman.

WND was first to expose that Obama and Ayers used the project grant money to fund organizations run by radicals tied to Ayers, including Mike Klonsky, a former top communist activist who was a senior leader in the Students for a Democratic Society group, a major leftist student organization in the 1960s from which the Weathermen terror group later splintered.

National Review Online writer Stanley Kurtz examined the project archives housed at the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago, finding Obama and Ayers worked closely at the project.

The documents obtained by Kurtz showed Ayers served as an ex-officio member of the board that Obama chaired through the project’s first year. Ayers also served on the board’s governance committee with Obama and worked with him to craft project bylaws, according to the documents.

Ayers made presentations to board meetings chaired by Obama. Ayers also spoke for the Chicago School Reform Collaborative before Obama’s board, while Obama periodically spoke for the board at meetings of the collaborative, the project documents reviewed by Kurtz show.

WND reported Obama and Ayers also served together on the board of the Woods Fund, a liberal Chicago nonprofit that granted money to far-left causes.

One of the groups funded by the Woods Fund was the Midwest Academy, an activist organization modeled after Marxist community organizer Saul Alinsky described as teaching tactics of direct action, confrontation and intimidation.

WND reported Jackie Kendall, executive director of the Midwest Academy, was on the team that developed and delivered the first Camp Obama training for volunteers aiding Obama’s campaign through the 2008 Iowa Caucuses.

Camp Obama was a two- to four-day intensive course run in conjunction with Obama’s campaign aimed at training volunteers to become activists to help Obama win the presidential election.

Obama scholar linked to ‘Ground Zero’ imam

Meanwhile, WND reported Gregorian is closely tied to the Muslim leaders behind the controversial Islamic cultural center to be built near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Gregorian also serves on the board of the Sept. 11 Memorial and Museum. The museum is reportedly working with the American Society for Muslim Advancement, whose leaders are behind the mosque, to ensure the future museum will represent the voices of American Muslims.

“[The Sept. 11 museum will represent the] voices of American Muslims in particular, and it will honor members of other communities who came together in support and collaboration with the Muslim community on September 11 and its aftermath,” stated Daisy Khan, executive director of the society.

The Sept. 11 museum’s oral historian, Jenny Pachucki, is collaborating with the society to ensure the perspective of American Muslims is woven into the overall experience of the museum, according to the museum’s blog.

Khan’s husband, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is the founder of the society as well as chairman of Cordoba Initiative, which is behind the proposed mosque to be built about two blocks from the area referred to as Ground Zero.

With Gregorian at its helm, Carnegie Corp. is at the top of the list of society supporters on the Islamic group’s website.

Carnegie is also listed as a funder of both of the society’s partner organizations, Search for Common Ground and the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations. Gregorian was a participant in the U.N. body’s first forum, as was Rauf.

Rauf is vice chairman on the board of the Interfaith Center of New York, which honored Gregorian at an awards dinner in 2008.

World domination

Gregorian is the author of “Islam: A Mosaic, Not A Monolith.” According to a book review by the Middle East Forum, his book “establishes the Islamist goal of world domination.”

A chapter of the book, “Islamism: Liberation Politics,” quotes Ayatollah Khomeini: “Islam does not conquer. Islam wants all countries to become Muslim, of themselves.” Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, is quoted stating it “is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its laws on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”

Gregorian himself recommends for Muslims a system he calls “theo-democracy,” which he defines as “a divine democratic government” that, according to the book review, “would have a limited popular sovereignty under the suzerainty of Allah.”

With additional research by Danette Clark and Brenda J. Elliott

McDonald’s Settles Michigan Suit Over Islamic Diet

 

IMAM, BASEBALL AND APPLE PIE

McDonald’s to pay $700,000 over Islamic diet

Muslims in Michigan claim false advertising

DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) — McDonald’s and one of its franchise owners agreed to pay $700,000 to members of the Muslim community to settle allegations a Detroit-area restaurant falsely advertised its food as being prepared according to Islamic dietary law.

McDonald’s and Finley’s Management Co. agreed Friday to the tentative settlement, with that money to be shared by Dearborn Heights resident Ahmed Ahmed, a Detroit health clinic, the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn and lawyers.

Ahmed’s attorney, Kassem Dakhlallah, told The Associated Press on Monday that he’s “thrilled” with the preliminary deal that’s expected to be finalized March 1. McDonald’s and Finley’s Management deny any liability but say the settlement is in their best interests.

The lawsuit alleged that Ahmed bought a chicken sandwich in September 2011 at a Dearborn McDonald‘s but found it wasn’t halal — meaning it didn’t meet Islamic requirements for preparing food. Islam forbids consumption of pork, and God’s name must be invoked before an animal providing meat for consumption is slaughtered.

Dakhlallah said there are only two McDonald’s in the United States that sell halal products and both are in Dearborn, which has one of the nation’s largest Arab and Muslim communities. Overall, the Detroit area is home to about 150,000 Muslims of many different ethnicities.

The locations advertise that they exclusively sell halal Chicken McNuggets and McChicken sandwiches and they have to get those products from an approved halal provider, Dakhlallah said. He said there was no evidence of problems on the production side, but he alleges that the Dearborn location on Ford Road sold non-halal products when it ran out of halal.

Dakhlallah said he was approached by Ahmed, and they conducted an investigation. A letter sent to McDonald’s Corp. and Finley’s Management by Dakhlallah’s firm said Ahmed had “confirmed from a source familiar with the inventory” that the restaurant had sold non-halal food “on many occasions.”

After they received no response to the letter, Dakhlallah said, they filed a lawsuit in Wayne County Circuit Court in November 2011 as part of a class action.

The AP left messages Monday afternoon for attorneys representing the corporation and the franchise.

In the settlement notice, Finley’s Management said it “has a carefully designed system for preparing and serving halal such that halal chicken products are labeled, stored, refrigerated, and cooked in halal-only areas.” The company added it trains its employees on preparing halal food and “requires strict adherence to the process.”

He said although Ahmed believes McDonald’s was negligent, there was no evidence that the chain set out to deceive customers.

“McDonald’s from the very beginning stepped up and took this case very seriously,” Dakhlallah said. “They made it clear they wanted to resolve this. They got ahead of the problem.”

The lawsuit covers anyone who bought the halal-advertised products from the Ford Road restaurant and another Dearborn McDonald’s with a different owner between September 2005 and last Friday. Since that would be impossible to determine, Dakhlallah said both sides agreed to provide money to community-based charities that benefit members of this group.

The other location on Michigan Avenue wasn’t a defendant or a focus of the investigation, Dakhlallah said.

He said the final hearing will ultimately determine who gets what and how much, but roughly $275,000 is expected to go to the Huda Clinic, about $150,000 to the museum, $230,000 to attorneys and $20,000 to Ahmed.

Dakhlallah said he believes it’s the first lawsuit of its kind related to McDonald’s and halal food.

In 2002, McDonald’s agreed to donate $10 million to Hindu and other groups in the U.S. to settle lawsuits that accused the chain of mislabeling french fries and hash browns as vegetarian. The vegetable oil used to prepare the items had contained traces of beef for flavoring purposes.

___

Follow Jeff Karoub on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jeffkaroub

Algerian Islamists Holding 7 Americans Threaten to Blow Up Site

Newsmax

Algerian Islamists Holding 7 Americans Threaten to Blow Up Site

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 06:23 PM

By: AOMAR OUALI

Islamist gunmen holding dozens of Western hostages and scores of Algerians — including seven Americans — at a gas plant deep in the Sahara desert let some of them speak to the media on Thursday to warn they would be blown up if the site is stormed.

Governments around the globe were holding emergency meetings to respond to one of the biggest international hostage crises in decades, which sharply raises the stakes over a week-old French campaign against al-Qaida-linked fighters in neighboring Mali.
A group calling itself the “Battalion of Blood” says it seized 41 foreigners — including Americans, Japanese, and Europeans — after storming a natural gas pumping station and employee barracks in Algeria before dawn on Wednesday.
The attackers have demanded an end to the French military campaign in Mali, where hundreds of French paratroopers and marines are launching a ground offensive against rebels in a campaign that began a week ago with airstrikes.
Algerian troops have the site surrounded, deep in the Sahara desert. An unidentified hostage who spoke to France 24 television said prisoners were being forced to wear explosive belts. Their captors were heavily armed and had threatened to blow up the base if the Algerian army tried to storm it.
“They attacked the two sites at the same time. They went inside, and once it was daylight they gathered everyone together,” the man, who sounded calm, said in the only part of the phone call the French broadcaster aired.
Another hostage, identified as British, spoke to Al-Jazeera television and called on the Algerian army to withdraw from the area to avoid casualties.
“We are receiving care and good treatment from the kidnappers. The [Algerian] army did not withdraw and they are firing at the camp,” the man said.
“There are around 150 Algerian hostages. We say to everybody that negotiations is a sign of strength and will spare many any loss of life,” he said, adding that there were about 150 Algerian hostages in custody.
Another hostage, identified as Irish, told the Qatar-based channel: “The situation is deteriorating. We have contacted the embassies and we call the Algerian army to withdraw. . . . We are worried because of the continuation of the firing. Among the hostages are French, American, Japanese, British, Norwegian, and Irish.”
In what it said was a phone interview with one of the hostage takers, the Mauritanian news agency ANI said Algerian security forces had tried to approach the facility at dawn.
“We will kill all the hostages if the Algerian army try to storm the area,” it quoted the hostage taker as saying. Algeria has not commented on reports its troops tried to approach.
Algerian Interior Minister Daho Ould Kablia said the raid was led by Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a veteran Islamist guerrilla fighter who fought Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s and had recently set up his own group in the Sahara after falling out with other local al-Qaida leaders.
A holy warrior-cum-smuggler dubbed “The Uncatchable” by French intelligence and “Mister Marlboro” by some locals for his illicit cigarette-running business, Belmokhtar’s links to those who seized towns across northern Mali last year are unclear.
NUMBERS UNCONFIRMED
The precise number and nationalities of foreign hostages could not be confirmed, with countries perhaps reluctant to release information that could be useful to the captors.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague confirmed one Briton had been killed and “a number” of other British citizens were being held. Algerian media said an Algerian was killed in the assault. Another local report said a Frenchman had died.
The militants said seven Americans were among their hostages — a figure U.S. officials said they could not confirm. Norwegian oil company Statoil said nine of its Norwegian staff and three Algerian employees were captive. Japanese media said five workers from Japanese engineering firm JGC Corp. were held.
France has not confirmed whether any French citizens were held.
“This is a dangerous and rapidly developing situation,” Britain’s Hague told reporters in Sydney. “The safety of those involved and their co-workers is our absolute priority, and we will work around the clock to resolve this crisis.”
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said: “I want to assure the American people that the United States will take all necessary and proper steps that are required to deal with this situation.”
Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, in Vietnam on the first leg of a Southeast Asian tour, told reporters that “Japan will never tolerate such an act”, according to the Jiji news agency. His government held an emergency meeting and said it was working with other countries to free Japanese citizens.
One thing is clear: as a headline-grabbing counterpunch to this week’s French buildup in Mali, it presents French President Francois Hollande with stark choices.
France’s ambassador to Mali, Christian Rouyer, said the attack in Algeria demonstrated that the French were right on the need to intervene in Mali.
“We have the flagrant proof that this problem goes beyond just the north of Mali,” Rouyer told France Inter radio. “Northern Mali is at heart of the problem, of course, but the dimension is really national and international, which gives even more justification to the French intervention.”
Hollande has received backing from Western and African allies who fear that al Qaeda, flush with men and arms from the defeated forces of Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi, is building a desert haven in Mali, a poor country that was helpless to combat fighters who seized its northern cities last year.
The Algerian government has ruled out negotiating with the hostage takers and the United States and other Western governments condemned the attack on a facility that produces 10 percent of Algeria’s gas, much of which is pumped to Europe.
The militants, communicating through established contacts with media in neighboring Mauritania, said they had dozens of men armed with mortars and anti-aircraft missiles at the base and had rigged it with explosives.
They said they had repelled a raid by Algerian forces after dark on Wednesday. There was no government comment on that. Algerian officials said earlier about 20 gunmen were involved.
GOVERNMENTS HELD RESPONSIBLE
“We hold the Algerian government and the French government and the countries of the hostages fully responsible if our demands are not met, and it is up to them to stop the brutal aggression against our people in Mali,” read one statement carried by Mauritanian media.
They condemned Algeria’s secularist government for letting French warplanes fly over its territory to Mali. They also accused Algeria of shutting its border to Malian refugees.
Regis Arnoux, head of CIS, a French catering firm operating at the site, told BFM television he had been in touch with a manager of some 150 Algerian workers there. Local staff were being prevented from leaving but were otherwise free to move around inside and keep on working.
“The Westerners are kept in a separate wing of the base,” Arnoux said. “They are tied up and are being filmed. Electricity is cut off, and mobile phones have no charge.
“Direct action seems very difficult. . . . Algerian officials have told the French authorities as well as BP that they have the situation under control and do not need their assistance.”
Norway’s Statoil operates the gas field in a joint venture with Britain’s BP and the Algerian state company Sonatrach.
“Our total focus is on fixing this situation and returning our colleagues home,” Statoil CEO Helge Lund told a news conference in Stavanger, western Norway. “Family, friends and colleagues are waiting for news from them.”
Lund will travel later Thursday to Bergen, western Norway, to a crisis centre set up in a hotel by the company where some relatives of the hostages are gathering.
Japan’s JGC Corp. said in a statement it was cooperating with the government but would not comment the number of its employees kidnapped.
In Mali, France said on Wednesday its forces were about to launch a ground assault on the rebels they began targeting from the air last week. Residents said a column of some 30 French Sagaie armored vehicles set off toward rebel positions from the town of Niono, 190 miles from the capital, Bamako.
Many inhabitants of northern Mali have welcomed the French attacks, although some also fear being caught in the cross-fire.
The Mali rebels who seized Timbuktu and other oasis towns in northern Mali last year had imposed Islamic law, including public amputations and beheadings, which angered many locals.
“There is a great hope,” one man said from Timbuktu, where he said Islamist fighters were trying to blend into civilian neighborhoods. “We hope that the city will be freed soon.”
The rebels include fighters from al-Qaida’s mainly Algerian-based North African wing AQIM as well as home-grown Malian groups Ansar Dine and MUJWA. Islamists have warned Hollande that he has “opened the gates of hell” for all French citizens.
The United Nations has authorized an African force to fight the rebels, and about 2,000 troops from Nigeria, Chad, Niger and other states are expected soon.

© 2013 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

Criticizing Islam Considered National Security Threat

 

WND EXCLUSIVE

Criticizing Islam considered national security threat

Spanish authorities threaten to deport Christian to certain death for speaking out

author-image  by Taylor Rose

Taylor Rose is a Washington, D.C., staff reporter for WND.

 

gavel

WASHINGTON – As tensions continue to surge over the expansion of Shariah law both in the Middle East and in Europe, a new speech rights case has emerged in Spain where an ex-Muslim Christian convert is threatened with deportation for speaking out against Islam.

Imran Farasat, who was interviewed by WND, is a Pakistani Christian who converted from Islam in 2004, after, he said, “I realized that what I was following for 26 years of my life is not a religion but in reality is a political dictatorship which persecutes and teaches to persecute through the orders and teachings of a self-proclaimed prophet (Muhammad).”

After his conversion to Christianity, he began to speak out against Islam. He told WND, “Muslims are involved everywhere in terrorism. Christians are being persecuted in Islamic countries to the maximum level of torture and suffering and Islam is trying to invade the Western world and kill our values. Who will stop this all?”

In his legal fight, he’s represented by The Legal Project, which describes itself as working “…to protect the right in the West to freely discuss Islam, radical Islam, terrorism, and terrorist funding.”

It has a large, transnational clientele that “includes authors, bloggers, journals and politicians.”

He adds on a more personal note that it is the tenets of his Christian faith that lead him to resist Islam.

“It is the time that the citizens of the Western world should stand up and speak the truth against something what is wrong. [The] Bible teaches us to speak the truth in any situation. And for me the truth is that Islam is a man-made religion which was created in order to govern the world. It has several contradictions in itself. It teaches killing (Jihad), hate non-Muslims, discriminate women, rule the world at any price etc….”

According to Sam Nunberg, an attorney at The Legal Project who spoke to WND on the details of the case, it was threats from the Islamic community for violating Shariah blasphemy laws that prompted the Spanish Interior Ministry to grant refugee asylum status in 2004.

See what happens to Christians under Islam, in “A Cry From Iran.”

While in Spain, Imran continued his activism against Islam, by calling for the Quran to be banned throughout Europe and after the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, releasing a film about Muhammad called “The Innocent Prophet.”

Since the film’s Internet debut, the Spanish Interior Ministry has revoked his asylum status and is now threatening to send him back to Pakistan on the grounds that his activism is “creating national security concern,” according to Nunberg.

The fight now is in the Spanish courts.

But The Legal Project noted, “The Spanish government has revoked Imran Farasat’s asylum status because he made a film. Besides denying him his right of freedom of expression, the government is now trying to facilitate his transfer to Pakistan where Imran will face certain death for blasphemy. It is downright shameful. The Legal Project plans to take every measure possible to make sure that does not happen.”

Spanish government’s role

“He was granted political asylum in 2004 in Spain, and it was granted specifically because his life was in danger because he criticized Islam.”

Nunberg described the case to WND as a straightforward legal fight, explaining, “The Spanish government is reneging on the fact that they granted him asylum in the first place…”

However, Nunberg says that it is more fundamentally “…a violation of his right to freedom of expression to be able to speak out against Islam.”

Both Nunberg and Imran suspect that there are “ideological” reasons behind the Spanish government’s decision to deport Imran. Nunberg told WND the impetus behind the fight now is that the “Spanish government is afraid to lose their economic relations with the Islamic countries. That is why they want to leave a message to the Islamic world that they have taken sufficient actions against someone who criticized Muhammad.”

Nunberg additionally believes the Spanish government is supporting the implementation of Shariah and appeasing Islam. When asked if this is true Nunberg replied “Sure. I would say definitely.”

Imran also adds, “The Spanish government wants to set an example for all the Western countries that all the countries should do the same thing with the anti-Islamic bloggers and activists what Spain has done to me. My status has been revoked and I am on the verge to be deported, not because I have violated any Spanish law, but it is all because of the fear from the Islamic world.”

He said his life is in danger if forced to return to Pakistan.

“I know if I would be sent back to Pakistan, I will be killed on arrival for the blasphemy. What I consider is the truth. Muslims consider that the blasphemy. They do not have the capacity to bear the truth. That is why they kill brutally … everyone who speaks the truth about Muhammad,” he said.

Nunberg commented on the uniqueness of this case by saying that Imran “would be the first case where they [the Europeans] flat out extradite someone to an Islamic country to be killed for blasphemy.”

Nunberg also believes this case is a part of a larger agenda to forward the interests of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation via the Istanbul Process and the UN Resolution 16/18. The OIC, a collection of all Islamic nations at the UN, has been pushing for the implementation of laws globally to criminalize any negative reference to Islam or Muslims.

When asked by WND if this case can set a precedent for the implementation of new speech codes against Islam in Europe, Nunberg said, “Yes that is exactly it. This is certainly a precedent.”

He adds though it is not just Islamic and European nations that are pressing the agenda but the United States under President Barack Obama as well.

“This would set the precedent and Obama also set the precedent. By using the rationale that the Benghazi attack … was all caused by spontaneous combustion … by a video, it becomes the rationale that it [freedom of speech] is a crime.”

Imran also fears the encroachment of Shariah will lead to hate speech laws that protect Islam, while ignoring attacks on Christianity.

“Then a day will arrive in a very near future when expressing your view on Islam will be declared a legal crime according to the Western constitutions. Anyone can criticize Jesus Christ and insult the Christianity and nothing happens. But criticizing Muhammad for his cruel acts and corrupt life doesn’t fall anymore under the right of liberty of speech.”

Nunberg argues that this case serves the core presuppositions of the Istanbul Process and UN Resolution 16/18 by shifting responsibility away from the perpetrator to the victim. He says it sets the legal precedent that, “They [Islamic extremists] are not responsible for the attack, but rather we are responsible for provoking the attack.”

He adds that thanks to already existing European hate speech laws, it provides an already institutionalized precedent for expanding those laws to include the prohibiting of the defaming of Islam.

Nunberg suspects a darker agenda behind the Spanish government, because, “The Spanish Interior Ministry will not even say who accused him….He cannot even face his accuser.”

Imran confesses that even if he is deported back to Pakistan and killed, “I will be happy to die even, if I can change the mentality of some Muslims before something happens to me. I never hated Muslims. For me they are blind. What I hate is the Islamic violent ideology which is not compatible to our Western world.”

He also adds that despite his troubles, “Today I feel proud to say that I am a Christian. I have found the real God and the true message of life. I know that Christ has a special purpose for my life which is to expose the false prophets who misguide and mislead people. I want the entire Muslim world to know that truth which I have recognized.”

Lawyers for terrorist suspect try to blame government

Lawyers for terrorist suspect try to blame government

Associated Press

There’s no dispute that a 19-year-old Muslim college student tried to set off a car bomb at Portland’s 2010 Christmas tree lighting ceremony, but how he reached that point is the crux of a trial that began in federal court this week.

A jury of seven men and nine women will decide whether this was a case of the U.S. government preventing the radicalization of a young Somali-American man, or was instead the FBI’s coercion of an impressionable, hotheaded braggart into a plan he was otherwise incapable of carrying out.

Mohamed Mohamud’s attorneys began to build their case during opening statements Friday, arguing that he was the victim of a sophisticated manipulation by undercover FBI agents.

“In America, we don’t create crime,” defense attorney Steve Sady said. “The FBI cannot create the very crime they intend to stop. And sometimes, it’s just a matter of going too far.”

Sady said Mohamud was an impressionable college student who talked big about carrying out terrorism plots but had neither the means nor the experience to follow through.

That changed, Sady said, when undercover FBI agents posing as jihadist co-conspirators provided Mohamud with a fake bomb in November 2010.

Prosecuting attorney Pam Holsinger said Mohamud was on the path to radicalization, and it was only the FBI’s intervention that prevented him from committing terrorism in the U.S. or abroad.

Holsinger pointed to a picture of the estimated 25,000 people at the Christmas tree-lighting event.

“Little did they know that the defendant plotted and schemed for months to kill each and every one of them with a massive truck bomb,” Holsinger said.

Given multiple chances to reconsider, Mohamud refused, Holsinger said, intent instead on being a soldier in a religious and cultural war with the West.

Even prominent radical Islamic contacts in the Middle East, including the American-born Samir Khan, had to admonish Mohamud against being too violent, Holsinger said.

“Even (Khan) had to tone down the radical and violent message,” Holsinger said.

Through 1 1/2 days of jury selection, U.S. District Judge Garr King made his way through a significant portion of the 85-person pool of prospective jurors, several of whom said they had reservations about the FBI’s counterterrorism strategy after 9/11, including its sting operations.

It’s no surprise in Portland, a city that has a long and uneasy relationship with federal law enforcement. The erroneous prosecution of a Muslim attorney on terrorism charges, the city’s withdrawal from an information-sharing task force with the FBI, and the overseas interrogations of two Portland Muslim men have all contributed to a fractious climate.

Sady warned jurors that they would see and hear Mohamud expressing views about the West that they may find “offensive or disgusting,” but urged them to put aside their emotions and decide the case based on the law.

Holsinger made reference to some of Mohamud’s radical writing and statements he made to undercover agents. Some of what he published online for an English-language al-Qaida publication will be shown to the jury, she said, and he was writing for the publication in February 2009, long before the FBI contacted him.

Dates are critical to the dueling narratives presented by the prosecution and defense. Prosecutors told jurors to focus on Nov. 26, 2010, the day Mohamud is accused of punching numbers into a black Nokia cell phone that he thought would set off a 1,800-pound bomb.

The defense says the crucial date is more than a year earlier: Nov. 9, 2009, the day Mohamud was first contacted by an informant directed by the FBI to feel out his intentions.

Before that day, Sady said, Mohamud wasn’t predisposed to terrorism. He was simply an angry, conservative Muslim trying to pull off a double life as a gin-drinking, marijuana-smoking college freshman.

“The FBI agent wrote that in an email,” Sady said. “This was an (easily manipulated), impressionable kid.”

The trial continues Monday with evidence from the prosecution.

American Muslims About Themselves

American Muslims About Themselves

   A summary of polls about the ideological makeup of the Muslim-American community shows that the majority is moderate, but there is a formidable minority influenced by Islamist doctrine. A significant number are refusing to give answers or are still figuring out where they stand on issues like terrorism and Sharia Law.

The number one question is how many Muslim-Americans support terrorism. A 2011 Pew poll found very little support for Al-Qaeda, with only 2% viewing the terrorist group very favorably, 3% somewhat favorably and 11% somewhat unfavorably. About 70% view Al-Qaeda very unfavorably, an increase of 12% since 2007.

There are 2.6 million Muslim-Americans, a number that is expected to rise to 6.2 million by 2030. This means there are 130,000 Muslim-Americans who will admit that they view Al-Qaeda favorably and that assumes there are no supporters among the 14% who did not answer the question. Plus, the survey did not poll support for Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups.

Only 1% of Muslim-Americans say violence against civilians to defend Islam is “often” justified. About 7% say it is sometimes justified and 5% say it is rarely justified. Approximately 81% say attacks on civilians are never justified. Of course, the definition of “civilian” varies. Hamas supporters, for example, argue that there is no such thing as an Israeli civilian. The survey did not poll support for attacks on soldiers.

The 2007 Pew poll found that about 49% feel mosques should stay out of politics and about the same amount feel the Koran should not be taken entirely literally. The survey concluded that Muslim immigrants are more moderate on this issue than those who were born here.

“Native-born Muslims express overwhelming support for the notion that mosques should express their views on social and political matters. By contrast, a large majority of foreign-born Muslims—many of whom are from countries where religion and politics are often closely intertwined—say that mosques should be kept out of political matters,” the report said.

Perhaps the most surprising findings were related to social issues. The Pew 2011 poll shows that 39% feel that homosexuality should be accepted by society, an increase of 12% from 2007. On the issue of multiple wives, a Wenzel Strategies poll released in October found 22% support allowing polygamy.

The findings related to Sharia Law and specific elements of Islamist doctrine were less comforting.

The Wenzel poll found that almost 40% strongly or   somewhat agree that Sharia Law should be the supreme law of the country. A slight majority oppose that proposition, with 35% strongly disagreeing and 18% somewhat disagreeing. However, when presented with a more refined question about what to do if Sharia conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, 70% would follow the Constitution and only 9% would follow Sharia Law. About 21% were undecided.

There is high support for restricting freedom of speech in compliance with Sharia Law.

About 59% feel that criticism of Islam or its founder is not permitted under the First Amendment. Only 41% disagreed. Shockingly, 52% strongly or somewhat support criminal charges against those that criticize or parody Islam, while 33% oppose it. Nearly 15% strongly or somewhat support executing critics of their religion. About 70% strongly oppose it and around 11% only somewhat oppose it.

Only about 30% believe that Americans have the right to encourage Muslims to leave their faith. Around 45% disagree. Note that this question isn’t about whether people should proselytize to Muslims. It’s about whether doing so is a constitutional right.

The polls indicate that the Muslim-American community is more moderate than its counterparts overseas on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A 2011 Gallup poll found that over 80% support a two-state solution. However, the 2011 Pew poll shows only 61% believe a two-state solution that respects the rights of Palestinians is possible. About 20% feel it is impossible, matching Gallup’s result.

The Wenzel poll directly asked Muslim-Americans whether Israel has a right to exist. About 46% strongly agreed that it does and 21% somewhat agree. Only 8% strongly disagree, essentially supporting the elimination of the state of Israel. Another 8% somewhat disagree that Israel has a right to exist and 16% were unsure.

The campaign to demonize the U.S. government’s counter-terrorism efforts by Islamists and Muslim Brotherhood legacy groups has been fruitful. The 2011 Pew poll found that 41% do not believe that the war on terrorism is a sincere effort to reduce terrorism, while slightly more (43%) believe it is. (Although this is a huge improvement from 2007, when 55% felt the U.S. government had ulterior motives and only 26% felt it was sincere.)

  One important observation from the Gallup poll is that the Muslim-American community does not feel represented by any major Muslim-American organization with Muslim Brotherhood origins. The most popular one was the Council on American-Islamic Relations, followed by the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Circle of North America, in declining order of popularity.

Altogether, only 25% of Muslim-American men and 19% of Muslim-American women chose one of these organizations when asked which one most represents their interests. This is remarkable because these organizations have been around for decades without any major challenge from within the community. This may be connected to the 2011 Pew poll’s finding that 48% feel that the Muslim-American leadership hasn’t done enough to speak out against extremism and only 34% feel they have.

The polls show there is a sharp divide in the Muslim-American community between those who completely reject Islamist doctrine and those who subscribe to it, in part or in whole. There is a significant number that is on the fence. Unfortunately, the U.S. government overlooks it.

The nominee for CIA director, John Brennan, won’t say “Islamist” or “jihadist.” The White House is regularly visited by the self-proclaimed Islamist leaders of the Muslim-American community that have actually been rejected by the community. The coordinator of the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism efforts emphasizes that it is focused on violence, not ideology.

You cannot be an Islamist terrorist without first being an Islamist. You cannot spread Islamist doctrine unless you are first a believer in that doctrine. We must recognize that this is a broader ideological conflict than just Al-Qaeda.

  Ryan Mauro is RadicalIslam.org’s National Security Analyst and a fellow with the Clarion Fund. He is the founder of WorldThreats.com and is frequently interviewed on Fox News.

This article was sponsored by the Institute on Religion and Democracy.

Copyright © 2009 Clarion Fund, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Blind Sheik and Our Mute President

The Blind Sheik and Our Mute President

Posted By Michelle Malkin On January 10, 2013 @ 12:25 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage

omar_rahman--300x300

Egypt’s terror-coddling President Mohamed Morsi has repeated his arrogant demand that America free convicted 1993 World Trade Center mastermind Omar Abdel-Rahman. I’d like to report that President Obama repeated his unequivocal rejection of the Muslim Brotherhood leader’s entreaties. But as of this writing, no such public statement or restatement yet exists.

That’s right. Obama has kept mum about Morsi’s vociferous lobbying on behalf of Abdel-Rahman, the “blind sheik,” who is serving a life sentence at a maximum-security prison in North Carolina for seditious jihad conspiracy. The commander in chief’s silence speaks volumes.

Morsi started publicly haranguing the U.S. to have mercy on the ol’ blind sheik back in September. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., confirmed to the New York Post at the time that the Egyptian government had “asked for his release” and that the request was being considered by the Obama administration.

Underlings denied any talks were underway, but pressure on the White House had been building since at least last June, when the State Department granted a visa to a member of the radical Egyptian terrorist group Gamaa Islamiyya (the very group the blind sheik is alleged to lead). The Gamaa Islamiyya representative joined an entire delegation of Egyptian lawmakers who met with top State Department and White House officials. They reportedly discussed the possible release of the blind sheik with at least one Obama national security official.

In late August, Gamaa Islamiyya went on to schedule and organize a protest at the Cairo embassy to further ratchet up public pressure to free the blind sheik. Not coincidentally, a terror mob attacked the Cairo embassy on 9/11/12. While Obama minions were busy blaming an obscure YouTube video, theDepartment of Homeland Security had warned two days before the Cairo attack that jihadists were inciting the “sons of Egypt” to attack the embassy over Abdel-Rahman. “Let your slogan be: No to the American Embassy in Egypt until our detained sheikh is released,” the incitement thundered.

Morsi has now amended his plea to include an array of “humane” benefits and visitation privileges for the murderous Islamic cleric “(b)ecause he is a man, an old man, and he deserves full care.”

Lest you need reminding, the wily blind sheik has used his visitation privileges to wreak more terror from behind bars. His radical left-wing lawyer Lynne Stewart was convicted in 2005 of helping her client smuggle coded messages of Islamic violence from the imprisoned sheik to outside followers in violation of an explicit pledge to abide by her client’s court-ordered isolation.

This “old man” is a virulent anti-American propagandist who condemned Americans as “descendants of apes and pigs who have been feeding from the dining tables of the Zionists, Communists and colonialists,” called on Muslims to “destroy” the West, “burn their companies, eliminate their interests, sink their ships, shoot down their planes, kill them on the sea, air or land,” and issued bloody fatwas against U.S. ”infidels” that inspired the 1993 WTC bombing, the 1997 massacre of Western tourists in Luxor, Egypt, and the 9/11 attacks.

As GOP watchdogs call for Obama to keep the blind sheik locked up, we will no doubt hear more slick protestations that the White House has “no plans” to release the terror preacher. But I’m with Andrew McCarthy, the former assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted Abdel-Rahman, who warned last fall, “There’s no way to believe anything they say.”

This is the administration, after all, that endorsed the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, whose terrorist act resulted in the murder of 189 Americans. The Obama White House feigned “surprise” over the release, but documents obtained by The Sunday Times of London in 2010 revealed that the administration “secretly advised Scottish ministers that it would be ‘far preferable’ to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.”

This is the administration whose attorney general was a senior law partner for Gitmo detainee cheerleaders Covington and Burling.

This is the administration that tried to shove Cirque du Jihad civilian trials in NYC down America’s throat over objections from 9/11 families and national security experts.

This is the administration that has rolled out the red carpet for scores of visitors belonging to groups serving as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and other militant Islamic outfits.

This is the administration that lied and blamed pretextual Internet movies for its own dereliction of duty at our consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

This is the administration that suffers from chronic and deadly apologitis when it comes to dealing with the demands of the Religion of Perpetual Outrage.

This is the administration that continues to deny plans to shut down Guantanamo Bay and transfer inmates to the U.S., while it quietly moved forward to purchase the Thomson Correctional Center in western Illinois “to provide humane and secure confinement of individuals held under authority of any Act of Congress,” i.e., Gitmo detainees.

Denial is a river that runs through 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., but the Obama administration’s tone-deaf acts of jihad-appeasement speak for themselves. Concern is more than warranted. It’s de rigueur.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.