Peter King calls Eric Holder on Terrorist Funding

by Caroline May, Daily Caller
Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, New York Republican Rep. Peter T. King is demanding answers from Attorney General Eric Holder, calling on Holder to explain to why the Justice Department decided not to prosecute the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) in a Hamas terror finance case.

In a letter to Holder, King questions the credibility of Justice Department for deciding not to prosecute the aforementioned actors in United States v. Holy Land Foundation.

“I have been reliably informed that the decision not to seek indictments of the Council on American Islamic Relations (“CAIR”) and its co-founder Omar Ahmad, the Islamic Society of North America (“ISNA”), and the North American Islamic Trust (“NAIT”), was usurped by high-ranking officials at Department of Justice headquarters over the vehement and stated objections of special agents and supervisors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as the prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Dallas, who had investigated and successfully prosecuted the Holy Land Foundation case,” King wrote. “Their opposition to this decision raises serious doubt that the decision not to prosecute was a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”

King requests that Holder respond to his questions by April 25th, including the reason Justice did not pursue cases against the three groups and Omar Ahmad (co-founder of CAIR and former head of a Muslim Brotherhood branch); the person behind the decision to drop the case and if the decision involved anybody from the executive branch; and how will concerns about these groups funding terrorists be handled in the future.

King cites a previously sealed “Memorandum Opinion Order” from United States District Judge Jorge A. Solis who refused the three group’s earlier requests not to have their names listed as unindicted co-conspirators.

“Judge Solis found that the ‘Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with [the Holy Land Foundation, ‘HLF’], the Islamic Association for Palestine (‘IAP), and with Hamas.’ The Court found that the evidence was ‘sufficient to show the association of these entities with HLF, IAP, and Hamas,’” wrote King, clarifying that that State Department has listed Hamas as a terrorist organization since 1997.

Some in the Muslim community have not reacted well to King’s questioning of the Justice Department.

“It is sad that Representative King’s personal vendetta against the American Muslim community has led him to become a mouthpiece for anti-Islam hate,” CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told TheDC in a statement. “This is an obvious attempt at political payback for criticism of the anti-Muslim bias in Mr. King’s recent hearing. Representative King is abusing the power of his office to carry out a political witch hunt targeting American Muslims.”

King has been at the forefront of fighting Muslim terrorism. In March King spearheaded congressional hearings on Islamic radicalization.

Follow Caroline on Twitter

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/20/rep-peter-king-challenges-holder-on-muslim-terror-funding/#ixzz1KB0ixv00

Hamas-Backed Getting off Easy with DoJ

Rep. King Demands Answers; Ibrahim Hooper Complains

On April 18, The House Committee on Homeland Security issued a press release detailing Rep. King’s call for answers from the Department Of Justice regarding non-prosecution of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad in the notorious Holy Land Foundation trial.

Specifically, Rep. King wants to know why the DOJ has given CAIR, founder Omar Ahmad, and other unindicted co-conspirators such as the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), among others, a “free pass” considering the ample evidence against them presented at the Holy Land trial.

Previously, CAIR, and other unindicted co-conspirators, had asked the court to strike them from the unindicted co-conspirator list in both August 2007 and June 2008. Judge Solis declined CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT’s (among others) petition based on sufficient evidence showing links between these groups and the terrorist group Hamas. Hamas is well-known for engaging in very low risk suicide bombings against Israeli targets, among other cowardly acts that are the hallmark of Islamist terrorist groups.

Predictably, CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper described Rep. King’s letter as “an obvious attempt at political payback for criticism of the anti-Muslim bias in Mr. King’s recent hearing…It is sad the Representative King’s personal vendetta against the American Muslim community has led him to become a mouthpiece for anti-Islam hate sites.”

The evidence of CAIR's creation and support for Hamas is vast, clear, and overwhelming. It is worth noting that Ibrahim Hooper has not demanded proof that CAIR and its founders engaged in terrorist or terrorist supporting activities. CAIR and Omar Ahmad's guilt is so obvious that CAIR's only choice is to deny and make counter accusations.

If Ibrahim Hooper and CAIR hold any evidence, however slim, that CAIR is not guilty of the acts accused, CAIR should file a lawsuit to have its “good name” cleared.

However, we all know how well that worked out for CAIR last time.

Atlas Shrugs

Sexy beach dancers flash mob in Israel - cultural clash

A commenter on our TV branch nails it:

Call me crazy but didn’t Ellison lay out exactly why we are having these radicalized Islam [hearings by Rep. Peter] King right now? ‘To weed out those who misuse the words of the Koran for political reasons…?’ Ellison should be supporting King not crying like a baby to undermine what King is doing.

Wish I’d said that, and how nice to once again see Bill Maher stand up for Western Civilization and take the truthful, non-PC stand that radical Islam is in fact a unique and dangerous threat to our country and the world. Maher loathes all religions (and isn’t a fan of King’s hearings), but unlike most of his liberal counterparts who aren’t as upfront about their loathing of Christianity, Maher’s at least willing to admit that comparing Islamists to militias, the KKK and those who shoot abortion doctor makes little sense. Not all evils are equal, and certainly not equal threats. As far as I know, Maher is the ONLY guy in the entertainment world willing to speak this truth and he deserves credit for doing so.



Furthermore, all week long the liberal media — aided in no small part by their ally Jon Stewart, –have been rightly heaping scorn on Rep. Peter King’s support of the I.R.A., which was and is reprehensible. What’s also reprehensible, though, is using King’s past to discredit what he’s doing now. The media and Stewart’s intellectually dishonest PC crusade to use King’s past as a weapon to undermine the Congressman’s necessary and long overdue hearings is also deserving of scorn. Supporting terrorists like the I.R.A. is wrong but do you want to know else is wrong? Sticking your head in the sand in the face of a real threat and while doing so, using political correctness to dishonestly puff yourself up with moral righteousness.

In the early part of the video above when Ellison is talking about how gosh-darned inclusive Islam is, my wife made an excellent point: “I wonder how many Jews and gays attend those meetings?”

You can see the comment in context by hitting the "nails it" link.

King: Hearings are to Show Extent of Radicalization in Muslim American C...

Exactly what is the ALA doing opposing radicalization hearings? Do the hearings have anything to do with libraries? Exactly why is the ALA joining CAIR in this effort?

Concerns being raised here are about the ALA and whether it should be viewed as authoritative in local communities when the facts show it appears to support terrorists or at least be sympathetic. For example, when an actual 9/11 terrorist's presence in a Florida library was revealed to the authorities by a librarian, the ALA's de facto leader said she wished the librarian had followed library patron confidentiality laws and not reported the incident. See: "A Nation Challenged: Questions of Confidentiality; Competing Principles Leave Some Professionals Debating Responsibility to Government" by David E. Rosenbaum, The New York Times, 23 November 2001. I would call that supporting terrorists, wouldn't you?

In addition, consider the following previous posts of mine on the ALA's affinity for terrorists:

* "Proof of ALA Pro-Terrorist Censorship; ALA Challenged to Explain and to Include Censored Speaker Next Time"

* "ALA Opposes FISA; Joins Soros, ACLU, and PFAW to Restrict War on Terror"

* "Soros, the ALA, and Terrorists"

* "ALA is Duplicitous and Fraudulent, Censors Whomever It Wants, Suppresses Intellectual Freedom, and Joins the Jihad"

* "ALA Defends Book Confiscation Worldwide by Communist/Terrorist Regimes? SafeLibraries Asks ALA Councilor James Casey to Clarify Anti-American Stand"

* "American Troops Defamed by ALA Councilor Peter McDonald"

As SafeLibraries, I take no official position on Rep. Pete King, the radicalization hearings, CAIR, or any issue unrelated to libraries or the ALA. Indeed, I have been told by members of the Islamic community that my goal of advising communities about protecting children from harm completely aligns with Islamic goals in that regard and that I should consider fund raising in mosques.

American Library Assoc Caves to Jihadists

This is what it must have looked like in pre-war Nazi Germany. One after another, they all fall down.

The ALA is the same craven organization that caved and cancelled Robert Spencer in 2009 after Hamas-linked CAIR demanded adherence to Islamic law. "Do not defame or insult Islam." The ALA accommodates the sharia.

Check this out from SafeLibraries:

ALA Joins CAIR to Oppose Radicalization Hearings Sponsored by Congressman Pete King
ALA Joins CAIR to
Oppose Radicalization Hearings

The American Library Association [ALA] has joined with the Council On American-Islamic Relations [CAIR] to oppose Congressman Pete King's congressional hearings to "show [the] extent of radicalization in [the] Muslim American community." For proof, read the ACLU press release and letter to Rep. King.

What is CAIR that the ALA should align with it? According to Rep. Pete King, "to me it's a badge of honor to be attacked by CAIR which was named as a, uh, unindicted co-conspirator in a major terrorist financing case." Similarly, a group called Anti-CAIR says, "Let there be no doubt that the Council on American-Islamic Relations is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists, founded by terrorists, and that CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of Sharia Law in America."

Peter King's pre-hearing Defenders and Critics

Official: Peter King Represents 'Majority Perspective' Of Federal Law Enforcement
There are basically two schools of thought on the hearings on Muslim radicalization that Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is holding tomorrow. One side sees the hearing as a witchhunt akin to Sen. Joseph McCarthy's anti-Communist campaign of the 1950s that will result in the "demonization and scapegoating" of Muslim-Americans because of their religion. The other side sees King as an American hero who refuses to let political correctness get in the way of protecting national security.

Why must POTUS and Keith Ellison Vilify Peter King?

More to the point, however, is the question of what Ellison and the others have to fear from King -- who after all, as the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee is being quite serious about carrying out his responsibilities. In fact, we might consider him derelict in his duties if he did not investigate this threat after foiled plots over Detroit and in Times Square; not to mention plots like the Ft. Hood massacre that unfortunately was not stopped. They claim that the hearings themselves create divisions among Americans; but judging from the reaction of most Americans to the proposed Ground Zero mosque, it appears that ship has already sailed. Besides, they never chide the administration's purveyors of "identity politics" for doing that very thing.

Are they afraid that King's inquiry might turn up something ominous? What if they found most American Muslims good people, but determined that their leaders have failed to uproot radical "charities" or mosques within their midst? Perhaps the Obama White House fears that hearings might find that it is more concerned about political correctness than it is about protecting the homeland. From their incessant opposition to such things, they seem to believe that admitting any modicum of terrorism in the name of Islam damns the entire community -- which I do not think has ever been King's position. There was a German Fifth Column operating in the United States during World War II, but it did not mean that the German-American community was disloyal. Somehow the PC brigade has a tough time with that intellectual operation.

Liberal Dupe Trashes Peter King

King's Charlie Sheen-like self assessment is at best inflated and, more often than not, flat out wrong. It's not that King is politically incorrect that is troublesome; it's that he's empirically incorrect. From his wide-ranging positions on the Guantanamo prison camp, torture, civilian trials for terrorists, profiling, Muslim-American involvement with terrorism and support for ever more intrusive security measures, King engages in wild demonizations and irresponsible fear mongering that exaggerates the jihadist threat and alienates Muslim-Americans. By doing so, King, a potent symbol of US Homeland Security policy, conceivably makes recruitment and radicalization easier for the very jihadists who prey on young Muslim-American alienation. His obsession with radical Islam also leaves more American forms of extremism and, therefore, less conspicuous, unexamined. To see why a general sense of uneasiness surrounds this week's fast approaching hearing is as easy as reviewing some of King's controversial and inaccurate statements relating to the war on terrorism and Muslim-Americans.
Truthout