How Our State Department Promotes Radical islam In America

Not only does our government refuse to admit that we're in a war with Islamism, they actually promote it as official policy.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has the facts on how the US State Department is working to promote Islamism in America, under the guise of 'Muslim outreach'.

With the United States battling Islamist extremists, making America's case to Muslims around the world has never been more of a priority for policymakers. Unfortunately, the State Department continues to take a counterproductive approach: serving as a veritable infomercial promoting Islamist organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) while giving the back of the hand to the very anti-jihadist Muslims that Washington should be cultivating. The latest example is a State Department booklet issued in March titled "Being Muslim in America."

Do a search on JoshuaPundit for any one of these organizations, and you will find that they are mainly wahabi and Muslim Brotherhood Islamist fronts, mostly Saudi funded. They are organs of the so-called 'stealth jihad' that seeks to radicalize American Muslims while pushing for sharia law and the ultimate Islamization of the country.

The booklet in question, entitled "Muslim In America" is designed for US Diplomatic personnel to hand out to Muslims overseas ostensibly to show that the US is a Muslim friendly country, sensitive to Muslim values. Instead, it touts the values of Islamists like the ones mentioned above:

Unfortunately, the substance of the booklet is so flawed that it could
undermine the struggle against this form of radicalism. It perpetuates the
mythology that American Muslims are united in the belief that law enforcement
and the public are willing to flout innocent Muslims' civil rights
post-September 11, describing American Muslim reactions to the attacks as
follows:

"A new, truly American Islam is emerging, shaped by American
freedoms, but also by the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks -- planned
and executed by non-Americans -- [which] raised suspicions among other Americans
whose immediate responses, racial profiling among them, triggered in return a
measure of Muslim-American alienation."

Then:

"Sadly, suspicions of this kind are not uncommon -- in the United
States or in other nations – during wartime or when outside attack is feared.
But 2008 is not 2002, when fears and suspicions were at their height. Context is
also important: Every significant immigrant group has in the United States
faced, and overcame, a degree of discrimination and resentment."

This is an extremely tendentious, even intellectually dishonest, description of September 11 and its aftermath. From reading it, one would have no idea that there have been numerous convictions and guilty pleas on
terrorism-related charges since September 11 that involved Muslims living in the United States, including terrorist plots to attack the military base at Ft. Dix, N.J., to create a terrorist training camp in Bly, Oregon and to attack U.S. military and Jewish targets in California.

Also omitted from the booklet is the fact that organizations like CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) were listed by the government as unindicted co-conspirators in the federal government's prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) -- in which the Justice Department won convictions of five former HLF officials for providing money to the terrorist organization Hamas. But from reading this passage in "Being Muslim in America," one would get the impression that public
concern about Islamist terror has no basis in reality and is merely the result of backward Americans' "discrimination and resentment."

One picture on page 15 of the booklet shows people marching under a CAIR banner and has a caption reading: "Muslims march to support volunteerism." The identical picture appeared at the top of CAIR's website when IPT News accessed it May 15.

In reality, CAIR was created as a front for Hamas and it has defended radical Islamists since 1994. See the IPT dossier on CAIR here.

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad typifies this see-no-evil attitude toward jihadist terror. He has repeatedly defended the HLF. At a May 2003 forum at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, an audience member commented that the Justice Department has released reams of information showing that the HLF and another charity whose assets were frozen "have direct connections and in fact their leadership was the leadership of al Qaeda and Hamas." Awad replied: "I am sure if we…put under the microscope, every major civic or political organization in this country, including the Red Cross, you will see that some dollars went here and there in some country, but you don't shut down the entire operation of the Red Cross."

CAIR officials >dismissed the verdict of 12 jurors in HLF's Hamas-financing trial as "based more on fear-mongering than on the facts" and predicted it would be overturned on appeal.

Awad has steadfastly defended Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) supporter Sami Al-Arian, despite evidence that Al-Arian served on the PIJ governing board. Al-Arian is fighting a criminal contempt charge, triggered by his
refusal to testify before a federal grand jury investigating terror financing in Virginia despite a grant of immunity. He claims his 2006 plea agreement to conspiring to provide goods and services to the PIJ absolved him of any future testimony, be it voluntary or compelled by subpoena. The plea agreement itself contains no such language. U.S. District Judge James S. Moody blasted Al-Arian as a "master manipulator" at his sentencing in the PIJ support case, saying Al-Arian lied to the public about his PIJ support.

Yet, during an August 2008 forum on the contempt case, Awad argued it was motivated by bigotry against Muslims:

"And I believe he's being punished for this, belonging to a minority – Palestinian, Arab, Muslim in America is not like the best thing to be in America today. So he's being the victim of this malicious misunderstanding in this midst of increased Islamophobia in America."

The message being sent overseas, of course is that America is a willing host to the parasitical growth of Islamism - not the message that Muslims are welcome in America if they adhere to our norms. In a triumphalist honor-shame culture like Islam, that message is extremely dangerous and roughly equivalent to hanging a prominent sign in front of your house detailing the valuables inside and the hours the house is empty.

The book makes absolutely no mention of how moderate Muslims practice their faith while still abiding by our laws and traditions, and cites no organizations that embrace that viewpoint. Every example is one of the Muslim Brotherhood wahabi spinoffs cited above.

What this does, of course is to reinforce the message of weakness and appeasement coming out of the White House. I don't doubt that this message is being received by both our enemies and our friends quite clearly.