House Dems conspiring to end arrests

House Dems conspiring to end arrests

Jan. 17, 2007 12:00 AM

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas has said that if lawmakers did not intend the human smuggling law to apply to those being smuggled, they should have explicitly said so. Some Democratic House members are trying.

Reps. Kyrsten Sinema, David Lujan and Steve Gallardo, all representatives from Phoenix, are the primary sponsors of HB 2270. The proposal would add a sentence to the state’s human smuggling law that says it does not apply to people being smuggled.

Gallardo said the bill attempts to preserve the law’s original intent. The Republican sponsor of the law, Rep. Jonathan Paton of Tucson, who is serving in Iraq now, has said the measure was meant to go after smugglers, not the smuggled.

Gallardo said he doesn’t believe the bill will get a hearing in the Legislature.

“(Republicans) want to keep the issue quiet,” he said. “We’re going to beat the drums on it.”

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has arrested 382 people under the law. Most of those have been charged with felony conspiracy. Most have taken a plea deal and been deported. Only one has been convicted by a jury and sentenced. He was also released.

The arrests have actually added to the state’s illegal immigration population. Several defendants were released on bond or had their charges dropped and released from the jailhouse and into the community.

Even if Republicans vote down the change, Gallardo said he wants them to publicly state that Thomas is wisely spending tax dollars.

Pornography — The Real Perversion

var sWinHTML = window.opener.sWinHTML; document.write(sWinHTML); Pornography — The Real Perversion
By Dinesh D’Souza
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
On a recent trip to Istanbul I encountered a group of Muslim students who insisted that American culture was morally perverse. They called it “pornographic.” And they charged that this culture is now being imposed on the rest of the world. I protested that pornography is a universal vice. “Yes,” one of the students replied, “but nowhere else is pornography in the mainstream of the culture. Nowhere else is porn considered so cool and fashionable. Pornography in America represents an inversion of values.”

As I returned home to the United States, I wondered: are these students right? I don’t think American culture as a whole is guilty of the charge of moral depravity. But there is a segment of our culture that is perverse and pornographic, and perhaps this part of American culture is the one that foreigners see. Wrongly, they identify one face of America with the whole of America. When they protest what they see as the glamorization of pornography and vice, however, it’s hard to deny that they have a point.

Pornography has become big business in the United States. You no longer have to go places to find it; it now finds you. Once confined to “dirty old men” and seedy areas of town, pornography has now penetrated the hotel room and home. The Internet and cell phone have made pornography accessible everywhere, all the time.

The spread of porn is not surprising, and neither is its popularity. It is not the appeal of sex, but the appeal of voyeurism. After all, the actors in porn films seek to gratify not themselves but the viewer. The spectator finds himself in an unnatural position of being witness to a sexual act which is conducted fully for his benefit. It’s hard to deny that there is something degrading in the continuous exposure to increasingly hard-core pornography.

In a manner that the older generation of Americans finds scandalous, porn has become socially acceptable and lost its moral stigma. A good example of this cultural cache is that today a porn star like Jenna Jameson appears on billboards and on the cover of magazines like Vanity Fair. In some liberal intellectual circles, the advocacy of porn is now viewed as a mark of sophistication. Recently the New Yorker reported on an event held at the Mary Boone art galley in Manhattan where “artists, collectors, literati, and other art world regulars mingled seamlessly with adult-movie producers and directors and quite a few of the performers themselves.” The purpose of the event was to celebrate the publication of the book “XXX: Porn Star Portraits.” The pictures in the book are accompanied by appreciative essays by leading figures on the left like Gore Vidal, John Waters, and Salman Rushdie.

The liberal defense of obscenity and pornography began many decades ago as a defense of great works of literature and of free speech. It began as a defense of books like James Joyce’s Ulysses, Flaubert’s Madame Bovary, and D.H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterly’s Lover. But now some liberal advocates insist that all forms of sexual explicitness are equally deserving of legal protection and that no restriction of obscenity or pornography should be allowed.

This is the position defended in former ACLU president Nadine Strossen’s book Defending Pornography. As liberal pundit Wendy Kaminer puts it, in her foreword to the book, “You don’t need to know anything about art—you don’t even need to know what you like—in order to defend speech deemed hateful, sick or pornographic.” Kaminer even takes the view that child pornography should be permitted because “fantasies about children having sex are repellent to most of us, but the First Amendment is designed to protect repellent imaginings.” Actually this is pure nonsense: the framers were concerned to protect political speech and not depictions of pedophilia. But Kaminer’s view is a good reflection of what some liberals would like the Constitution to say.

Groups like the ACLU have taken the approach that pornography rights, like the rights of accused criminals, are best protected at their outermost extreme. This means is that the more foul the obscenity, the harder liberals must fight to allow it. By protecting expression at its farthest reach, these activists believe they are fully securing the free speech rights of the rest of us.

It is a long way, for instance, from James Joyce to a loathsome character like Larry Flynt, the publisher of Hustler magazine. There would seem to be an obvious distinction between fighting to include James Joyce in a high school library and insisting that the same library maintain its subscription to Hustler. For the ACLU, however, the two causes are part of the same free speech crusade. In a sense, the ACLU considers the campaign for Hustler a more worthy cause because if Hustler is permitted, anything is permitted, and therefore free speech has been more vigorously defended.

In recent years, leading liberals have gone from defending Flynt as a despicable man who nevertheless has First Amendment rights, to defending Flynt as a delightful man who is valiantly fighting against the forces of darkness and repression. “What I find refreshing about Larry Flynt is that he doesn’t pretend to be anything other than a scumbag,” Frank Rich writes in the New York Times. “At least Flynt’s honest about what he’s doing.”

These liberal virtues—honestly and openness about being a scumbag—are on full display in Milos Forman’s film The People vs. Larry Flynt. The movie sanitizes Flynt in order to make him a likeable, even heroic figure. In reality Flynt is short and ugly; in the movie he is tall and handsome, played by Woody Harrelson. In life Flynt was married five times. His daughter accused him of sexually abusing her, a charge that Flynt has denied. All of this is suppressed in the movie, where Flynt has one wife and is portrayed as an adoring and supportive husband.

Hustler features a good deal of gross and repellent material, such as its parody of Jerry Falwell having sex with his grandmother, or its picture of a woman being processed through a meat grinder. The movie, by contrast, features mostly tasteful erotica; if Flynt goes over the line, it is always presented as mischievous fun. If there is anyone who is despicable in the movie, it is Flynt’s critics, who are unfailingly shown as smug, hypocritical, vicious and stupid.

The pornographer generally knows that he is a sleazy operator. I have read interviews with men like Larry Flynt and Al Goldstein, the publisher of Screw magazine. Typically such men do not even try and defend the social value of what they do, other than to point out that there is a demand for it. It is only the ACLU and its supporters who celebrate the pornographer as a paragon of the First Amendment and a contemporary social hero. Social liberals like Frank Rich seem to have a much higher view of Flynt than Flynt himself. If we confine ourselves to liberal culture and its apologists, my Muslim interlocutors would seem to have a justified complaint. The liberal defense of pornography is even more perverted than the pornography itself.

Dinesh D’Souza’s new book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 has just been published by Doubleday. D’Souza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Debbie Schlussel: Showing Up @ the Airport Way Too Late While Muslim

Debbie Schlussel: Showing Up @ the Airport Way Too Late While Muslim

By Debbie Schlussel

**** UPDATE: Northwest Airlines a/k/a “Dhimmi Air” Quickly Caves, Gives Apology, $$$ to Whining Hezbollah Muslims ****

So, you’re flying back to the United States from Germany. You are late for your flight . . . way too late.

Even though for international flights you are required to check in at least an hour before the scheduled take-off time and board the flight a half hour before the flight, you arrive for the flight 20 minutes before take-off. The airline does not allow you on board and, maybe even makes you pay to get on the next flight because it’s overbooked. Since it’s the last flight out, your tardiness also costs you the expense of a night at a hotel.

What do you do?

If you’re like everyone else, you quietly chastise yourself for being late and kick yourself for the hassle and extra money your own lack of time-budgeting cost you. You knew the rules, and you blew it.

qazwinifadlallahsmaller.jpgnajahbazzy.jpgLeaders of Threatened Muslim Northwest Airlines Boycott:Hassan Qazwini (w/ Hezbollah Spiritual Leader/Specially Designated Terrorist Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah), Najah BazzyBut if you’re an American Muslim, you raise holy hell, scream and yell about bigotry, Islamophobia, “flying while Muslim,” etc., etc., etc. ad nauseam. And nausea. And you threaten to boycott the airline. Rules? Who cares about the rules? Hijackers? Security needs? Why is that my concern? The people who did that hijacked my religion, and I’m entitled to a giant chip on my shoulder and tons of privileges and special treatment because of it.

That’s what started yesterday, with press conferences on TV all over Detroit held by Hezbollah-supporting, Shi’ite Imam Hassan Qazwini, head of the Islamic Center of America, North America’s largest mosque. I’ve written about Qazwini, since 1998, when I went undercover to his mosque and watched Qazwini and his congregants vehemently cheer on Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic tirades and calls for a jihad on America’s Jews. I wrote about this in The Detroit Newsistan, before it became Islamist-occupied territory.

His friend, Hezbollah spiritual leader and Specially Designated Global Terrorist, Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, is the man who gave the fatwa (religious decree) okaying the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, murdering over 241 Americans.

I’ve also written about his congregants, like Najah Bazzy, a nurse who proudly proclaimed in 2004, “I’m embarrassed to be American,” and provided an anti-Israel exhibit to the Arab American National Museum. She is also suspected of helping pregnant Muslim foreigners who defraud Medicaid, getting U.S. taxpayers to cover the costs of hospital delivery of their children (and automatic U.S. citizenship for these Islamist anchor babies).

These are the kinds of people the rules for early arrival for flights were made for, NOT the people for whom the rules should be especially bent.

Ms. Bazzy and Mr. Qazwini led yesterday’s whining, hysterical multiple-press conferences threatening a Muslim boycott of Northwest. Believe me, I’d love to boycott Northwest, too. Not because of this, but because the airline stinks and has total contempt for its non-whining–read, non-Muslim–customers. But, if you are in the Detroit area, you simply don’t have a choice. Northwest runs most of the flights, unless you want to be flying all day, connecting everywhere, to travel 500 miles.

northwestairline.jpgOfficial Dhimmi AircraftI doubt a Muslim boycott will really take place, based on that logistic fact. But what I know will happen is tons of capitulation by Northwest Airlines. That’s what they do. The airline annually donates tons of free tickets to extremist pro-terror groups, like the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, flying people like “former” terrorist Imad Hamad all over the country for free. Well, actually not for free. You are making up the difference in your ticket price. Northwest even paid for ADC’s interns to travel cross-country.

Northwest gives in any time ADC or CAIR or any pan-Islamist group gets a paper-cut or lets out a whisper. Muslim Northwest employees who violated Northwest’s vacation and sick day policy, lying about being sick to go to a wedding were given their jobs back after being fired. Why? Easy. ADC yelled, and whined, and complained. Don’t look for non-Muslim employees to get such flexibility in company policy from Northwest.

But do look for Northwest to give in to the whining “showing up way too late at the Airport while Muslim” Muslims. They’ll get money, free tickets, a well-paid Northwest-wide sensitivity training consulting contract, an apology, and a whole lot of other stuff.

Cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-ching.

That’s Northwest’s dhimmi track record. And on that, at least, the airline has always been very consistent.

Dhimmi Air flies the not-so-friendly skies.

Will the Next Attack Get Our Attention?

Will the Next Attack Get Our Attention?

By J. Peter Mulhern

What will our politics look like the day after the next time jihad comes home to America?
Ever since September 11, 2001 political leaders of every stripe have been telling us that another catastrophic attack is inevitable. Consensus regarding terrorism begins and ends with the cliché “when not if.”
Our leaders speak as if they can avoid responsibility for the next attack by predicting it. They don’t seem aware that a grieving and enraged public isn’t likely to get much satisfaction from a chorus of “I told you so.”
Let’s suppose that conventional wisdom is uncharacteristically correct about the prospects for more terrorism in the United States. How will the American public deal with the political class that saw attacks coming years ahead and frittered away the opportunity to deter them?
The whole relevant political spectrum from Nancy Pelosi to George W. Bush has misled the American public about our enemies. Nobody who matters has been willing to identify the people we need to fight, describe their motivations accurately and explain how we can defeat them.
Instead we remain embroiled in a sterile debate about how to control the violence in Iraq. President Bush has just unveiled his “new way forward” which involves more troops and more aggressive and tenacious tactics in trouble spots. He hasn’t announced any plans to engineer regime change in either Syria or Iran.
Democrats are gearing up to make a lot of noise in support of ignominious withdrawal from Iraq before gracelessly accepting the inevitable reality that the Commander in Chief calls the shots in wartime. This way they hope to appease their defeatist constituency without having to take the fall for yet another surrender and the blood bath that would certainly ensue.
The entire discussion is surreal.
The public debate gives very little indication that our troubles in Iraq are just one part of a much larger strategic problem. It is as if the allies, having conquered Sicily in August 1943, agreed that the troops should all come home without bothering to invade the mainland of Europe, either in Italy or France.
Try to imagine Franklin Roosevelt reduced to arguing with congressional critics over whether American forces should leave the Sicilian quagmire immediately or stick around long enough to eradicate the Mafia and teach the Sicilians to rise above traditional vendettas. When a war leader has to engage in that sort of debate, things aren’t going well.
Pacifying Iraq is not now and never has been an important end in its own right. A peaceful and cooperative Iraq might be useful in our ongoing struggle against the terror masters in Damascus, Riyadh and Tehran. But, apart from George Bush’s insubstantial notion that Iraq can be a democratic inspiration to the rest of the Arab world, our leaders don’t seem to have any idea how we can use the conquest of Iraq to undermine our enemies in the surrounding countries. They have no apparent intention of doing so.
President Bush doesn’t talk about using the conquest of Iraq as a weapon against Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Instead he never misses an opportunity to claim that our goal in Iraq is to create the conditions that will make it possible to bring our forces home. But the idea that we have a job to do in Iraq that will come to an end any time in the foreseeable future is absurd.
We may establish a political equilibrium in Iraq that looks very much like peace but that equilibrium will last only as long as we have significant forces there to maintain it. When we insisted on a democratic Iraq we ensured that Iraq would remain dependent on American troops indefinitely. Apparently, the Bush administration either forgot or never learned that most “democracies” look a lot like two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Without our supervision any elected Iraqi government will rapidly degenerate into an extraordinarily well-equipped sectarian militia serving the interests of the Shiite majority. Sunnis, with the support of friendly neighboring governments, will fight to resist Shiite domination. Kurds will seize whatever advantage they can from the resulting chaos as will Iraq’s neighbors, in particular Iran.
The result will be a humanitarian disaster. It will also be a fatal blow to our war against militant Islam. It doesn’t matter whether we leave Iraq in chaos or leave after order is established and then watch it lapse back into chaos. Either way we will suffer a catastrophic defeat.
We have taken on an imperial role in Iraq and Great Britain’s imperial history is instructive. When you assume the task of running a foreign country there is no tidy way to disengage. The British East India Company conquered India starting in 1757. After the Sepoy Mutiny a hundred years later, the British Government took over and ran India for 89 years. It began trying to establish Indian home rule in the 1890’s.
Nonetheless, when the British left India in 1947, their former colony dissolved in an orgy of sectarian cleansing and divided into warring nations which now threaten each other with nuclear weapons.
If we decamp for North America and let the house of cards we constructed in Iraq collapse we will be utterly discredited in the Middle East and around the world. Then we can hunker down and wait for the next terrorist attack to give us yet another opportunity to demonstrate our impotence.
Very few politicians of any party will ever be willing to take responsibility for this result. At some level they all know that any person or party that gets blamed for defeat in Iraq will also get blamed for the next terrorist attack. President Bush will talk about bringing troops home and, with luck, he may preside over some troop reductions. But he will bequeath a substantial American presence in Iraq to his successor.
Democrats may get some short term political advantage from arguing that we should turn or backs on Iraq and disengage from the effort to detoxify the Middle East. Dogs get a short term kick out of chasing cars, but the smart ones know enough to avoid catching one. Every time the issue of our commitments in Iraq comes up Democrats will huff and puff and point fingers. Then they will participate in perpetuating those commitments. That’s what the new Democrat majority in Congress is about to do. That’s what the next Democrat president will do. World without end, amen.
The surreal debate about Iraq is a thin veil covering the real political preoccupation of our time – the competition to assign blame for the next terrorist attack to somebody else. Democrats are setting themselves up to argue that the Republican administration is at fault because it hasn’t been diligent enough about homeland security and because it has fanned the flames of Islamofascism by fighting in Iraq. Republicans are setting themselves up to argue that Democrats are at fault for refusing to take militant Islam seriously and working to frustrate our every effort to confront it.
Who wins this cat fight? Probably nobody.
The next terrorist attack should give us a relatively lucid moment. It will strike us like a bolt of lightening and illuminate the geopolitical landscape. Even without leadership the American people might see Iraq in context, if only for a moment They may suddenly see that our entire political class has been indulging itself in meaningless partisan disputes when it should have been teaching our Arab and Persian enemies a bitter lesson about the consequences of messing with the eagle.
It isn’t a forgone conclusion that any attack, no matter how savage, would make most Americans understand that we are fighting for our lives and doing so blindfolded with our hands in our pockets. Many, perhaps most, of us would react to another assault by redoubling their already heroic efforts to ignore unpleasant realities. But it is also possible that most of us might suddenly see just how feckless and irresponsible America’s politicians have been since 9/11.
If we wake up one morning to find that one of our great cities is a smoking ruin or that our children are dying by the million from some mysterious disease, the odds are that America’s contempt for its leaders of both parties will know no bounds.
What then?
Something similar happened to Britain at the outset of World War II when the people woke up to discover that their leaders had blundered into a war which they were utterly unprepared to fight. Most of Britain’s leaders were thoroughly discredited by the events leading up to the war, but there was one important exception. Winston Churchill had spent a decade warning that war was coming and urging his country to head it off or, failing that, to be ready. When war came, he was the logical person to lead the government.
Where is our Churchill?

Discover the Arab Lobby “Network”

Discover the Arab Lobby “Network”
By John Perazzo | January 17, 2007

As Western civilization faces the threat of a radical Islamic foe that seeks to annihilate it, the collective self-assurance of the Western psyche continues to wither under the relentless, low-grade assault of the political Left. This assault presents itself in the form of constant criticism aimed at
America’s allegedly vast array of societal defects — with the intent of expunging every last shred of self-respect from the Western mind and heart, and of thereby convincing Western man that his irredeemably sinful culture is unworthy of his defense. The key operatives in this assault are leftwing organizations describing themselves as defenders of such righteous-sounding ideals as “civil liberties,” “human rights,” “peace,” and “social justice.” Allied with them is a growing cabal of pro-Arab, anti-Israel groups that, both jointly and independently, characterize the
U.S. and
in particular as nations that routinely inflict immense suffering on Arab populations all over the world. By portraying Arabs as victims of American and Israeli transgressions, these groups aim — through their press releases, official statements, publications, and direct actions — to shape public opinion regarding such issues as the war on terror and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

While focusing on Arab concerns, by no means is this lobby composed exclusively of Arabs. The lobby is defined by its ideology, not the ethnicity of its active constituents. And that ideology tends to be, as noted above, pro-Arab on the one hand, anti-Israel on the other.

To be sure, the Arab lobby does not speak for all Arab Americans. According to the Arab American Institute, there are approximately 3.5 million people of Arab heritage in the U.S. today, about half of them concentrated in five states — California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York. Nearly 40 percent of these Arab Americans are Lebanese, mostly Christians, who are largely unsympathetic to the Arab lobby’s anti-Israel perspectives. By contrast, only about 70,000 Palestinian Americans reside in the
United States — a small percentage of the Arab American population. But because of their high level of political activism, their views and concerns have received hugely disproportionate attention from political leaders and the media alike. Indeed, the Palestinian cause heads the Arab lobby’s list of concerns. 

In an effort to expose the agendas and tactics of the Arab lobby, has added a new “Arab Lobby” section to its ever-expanding database. This section profiles not only those pro-Arab organizations and individuals (both in the U.S. and abroad) that lobby to affect specific legislation, but also those that engage in what might be defined, more precisely, as advocacy on behalf of Arab interests anywhere in the world. (There is technically a distinction between advocacy and lobbying. Advocacy is a broader term, connoting efforts to influence some aspect of society, be it individual behavior, public opinion, public policy, or legislation passed by elected government officials. Lobbying can be described as a subset of advocacy, referring specifically to efforts to convince legislators to vote in a certain way.)

The roots of the Arab lobby in America can be traced back to 1951, when King Saud of Saudi Arabia asked U.S. diplomats to finance a pro-Arab lobby to serve as a counterweight to the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs (later renamed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC).

While the pace of the Arab lobby’s growth was initially slow, there were nonetheless signs of increased assertiveness. After the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, for example, the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) set up a fund to present the Arab perspective on the conflict. In May 1970, ARAMCO representatives warned Assistant Secretary of State Joseph Sisco that American military sales to
Israel would harm U.S.-Arab relations and jeopardize American oil supplies.

Driven by oil revenues, the Arab lobby’s leverage in affecting American policy was demonstrated in early 1973 when Mobil published a pro-Arab advertorial in The New York Times. In July of that year, the chairman of Standard Oil of California (now called Chevron) distributed a letter asking the company’s 40,000 employees and 262,000 stockholders to pressure their elected representatives to support “the aspirations of the Arab people.” In a similar spirit, the chairman of Texaco urged the
U.S. to reassess its
Middle East

When another Arab-Israeli war broke out in October 1973, the chairmen of the ARAMCO partners issued a memorandum warning the White House against increasing its military aid to
Israel. Shortly thereafter, the OPEC oil embargo (enacted in retribution for Western support of
) ushered in an era where the Arab lobby became much more prominent and visible than ever before. “The day of the Arab-American is here,” declared National Association of Arab Americans founder Richard Shadyac. “The reason is oil.” Prior to October 1973 the price of oil had stood at $2.60 per barrel; within three months the price quadrupled to about $12 per barrel. Since then, it has risen to more than $60 — for a commodity whose production costs are, at present, only $1.50 per barrel.

In 1977 President Jimmy Carter noted, in his diary, that the Arab lobby had pressured him mightily while he was involved in the peace negotiations between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. “They [Arab Americans] have given all the staff, Brzezinski, Warren Christopher, and others, a hard time,” wrote Carter.

Among the more notable individual members of the Arab lobby in recent decades was the late Clark Clifford (died October 1998), who The New York Times described as a key adviser to four U.S. presidents, and as an influential paid lobbyist for Arab sources. In his memoir, Counsel to the President, Clifford wrote that he advised his clients: “What we can offer you is an extensive knowledge of how to deal with the government on your problems. We will be able to give you advice on how best to present your position to the appropriate departments and agencies of the government.”

Another key figure in the Arab lobby has been Fred Dutton, former Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs and special assistant to President John F. Kennedy. On July 19, 2005, The Hill reported that Dutton (a lobbyist for
Saudi Arabia
) had worked assiduously to persuade Congress to approve two major arms sales to that nation.

Axis Information and Analysis (AIA), which specializes in information about Asia and Eastern Europe, rated Prince Bandar Bin Sultan — a Saudi ambassador to the U.S. from 1983 to 2005 — as the single most influential foreigner in America. With links to high-ranking officials in the State Department, Pentagon, and CIA, Sultan was a key participant in many clandestine negotiations pertaining to
U.S. interests in the
Middle East. According to AIA, in 1990-91 it was Sultan who pushed President George H.W. Bush to launch the military campaign to drive Iraqi forces out of
Kuwait. Moreover, his father — Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz al Saud — was a leading figure in the ruling Saudi dynasty. As such, he helped determine the extent of his nation’s military cooperation with the
U.S. in the
Persian Gulf

During a January 1998 U.S. Congressional Delegation briefing in Damascus, Syria, Congressman Nick J. Rahall (D – West Virginia), who is of Lebanese descent, said: “Our [Arab] lobby in the United States is growing in its influence and its participation in political campaigns across the spectrum. Our trip [was] sponsored by the Arab American Institute — one of those most effective lobbying groups of the Arab groups in Washington — and a relatively new group, the National Arab American Businessmen’s Association. [Through] these groups … we are increasing our influence, and we are increasing our participation.”

Some members of the Arab lobby in
America are heavily financed with money from the Arab world. As Jacob Laksin recently detailed in FrontPageMagazine, for instance, the Atlanta-based Carter Center (founded by Jimmy Carter in 1982) has been a longtime recipient of Arab funding. Before his death in 2005,
Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd made several large donations to the Center, including a 1993 gift of $7.6 million. As of 2005, the king’s nephew, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, had given at least $5 million to the

Center. In 2001 the United Arab Emirates (UAE) gave the Center $500,000. The previous year, ten of Osama bin Laden’s brothers had jointly pledged $1 million, as did Sultan Qaboos bin Said of
Oman in 1998. The Saudi Fund for Development has been another major contributor, as has the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development. And
Morocco’s Prince Moulay Hicham Ben Abdallah has collaborated with the

on various initiatives. 

According to terrorism expert Steven Emerson, “Assessing the influence and breadth of the Arab/Muslim lobby would be a difficult thing to do, since the metrics for assessing such things are not easily available. The lobby’s real strength is felt on the local level, where its members receive community awards, participate in human relations councils, change the local educational curricula, persuade school districts to give them holidays off, and get local police and statewide officials to attend their events. Nationally, their influence is felt at the State Department in terms of their being invited to briefings, sponsored on road trips abroad, etc. The one recent time where they actually exacted an influence on President Bush was in persuading him to drop the use of the term ‘Islamo-fascism.’”

While the Arab lobby has a few friends in Congress today, its effect is felt mainly as a result of its joint efforts with organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union to dilute anti-terror measures. The lobby, says Emerson, “is mainly in the process of building up a grassroots network around the
United States, with the anticipation that, abetted by growing demographics, it will be in a position of political influence in the future.”

Following are brief summaries of a number of U.S.-based organizations that lobby on behalf of Arab interests. Each of these groups is profiled, in greater depth, by

* The American Muslim Alliance is a political action committee that works to get Muslims elected and/or appointed to policy-influencing positions at all levels of political governance in the United States. AMA currently has 98 chapters in 31 states, and aspires eventually to have chapters in all 435
U.S. congressional districts. 

* The American Muslim Association of North America is a self-described “civil rights” group that offers help to Muslims needing guidance in applying for food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare. AMANA views the
United States
as a nation rife with bigotry and injustice aimed at Muslims and Arabs. In an effort to confront this allegedly pernicious problem, the organization’s website features a complaint form where people can report instances of perceived discrimination they encounter in the housing market, the business world, or elsewhere. 

* The American Muslim Council was once among the most prominent Islamic organizations in the
U.S., though its importance has declined since its founder and former chairman Abdurahman Alamoudi was imprisoned in October 2003 on terrorism-related charges. In November 2002, AMC publicly urged American Muslims to give money to Islamic relief organizations to aid refugees who had fled their homes in response to
America’s post-9/11 invasion of
Afghanistan. Included in AMC’s list of preferred charities was the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, whose assets had recently been seized by the FBI and the Treasury Department because of its activities as a fundraising front for Hamas. AMC is a member organization of the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom, established in 1997 by Sami Al-Arian to litigate against
counter-terrorism laws, to provide legal counsel to terrorist suspects, and to help overturn terrorist convictions.

* The American Muslim Union views the post-9/11 anti-terror legislation passed by the U.S. government — particularly the Patriot Act — as a coordinated assault on the civil liberties of Americans, especially those of Arab and Muslim heritage. AMU Executive Director Waheed Khalid has called the Patriot Act “an extremely dangerous piece of legislation” that, “under the guise of ‘national security,’” tramples on the Constitution.

* American Muslims for Jerusalem has been characterized by terrorism expert Steve Emerson as an organization that “routinely involves anti-Zionist campaigns and has featured calls at its conferences for the killing of Jews.” AMJ frequently publicizes stories about Christians and Muslims being discriminated against by
Israel in

* The American Task Force on Palestine blames
Israel for most, but not all, Palestinian suffering, and favors the formation of a Palestinian state. “As
America continues the defense of its citizens and its freedoms in the global War on Terrorism,” ATFP explains, “a final and satisfactory resolution of the
Mideast conflict, which is the single greatest source of anti-American sentiment throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds, would be an invaluable asset.” “The ill will directed at the
United States by its perceived support for Israeli conquests and for corrupt authoritarian regimes,” adds ATFP, “has created serious security risks for our country, as demonstrated so horrifically on 9-11.” ATFP also asserts that: “As part of any comprehensive settlement ending the conflict,
should accept its moral responsibility to apologize to the Palestinian people for the creation of the refugee problem.”

* The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee accuses the Bush administration of seeking to deprive Arab Americans of their civil liberties, and has depicted most Justice and Treasury Department anti-terror efforts as manifestations of ethnic discrimination and persecution. Lamenting that the Patriot Act “fails to respect our time-honored liberties,” and “severely dilute[s] … many basic constitutional rights,” ADC endorses the Community Resolution to Protect Civil Liberties campaign, which tries to influence city councils to pass resolutions of non-compliance with the Patriot Act. ADC also endorsed the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004, which was designed to roll back, in the name of protecting civil liberties, vital national-security policies that had been adopted after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Between 2002 and 2005, ADC received more than $250,000 in foundation and corporate grants. * Americans for Justice in Palestine exhorts the
U.S. government to cut off all economic funding to
Israel, and to help force the latter into a “one-state solution” whereby
Israel would become a secular country called “Palestine-Israel,” or simply “
Palestine.” AFJP was founded by filmmaker Wendy Campbell, a veteran of the 1960s anti-war movement who contends that suicide bombers’ actions “are taken out of context” by their critics, and that “one of the reasons that 9/11 happened was because of the injustices happening in the Middle East, most specifically the Israeli Occupation.” Characterizing
Israel as a “racist country” ruled by an “apartheid regime,” 
calls hopes of achieving a two-state solution “obsolete.” 

* The Arab American Action Network seeks “to empower Chicago-area Arab immigrants and Arab Americans … [and] to be an active agent for positive social change.” This organization was founded by Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi (the former Director of the PLO press agency and onetime moderator of the PLO Advisory Committee) and his wife, Mona Khalidi. AAAN is “committed to speaking out” against what it calls the pervasive “biased reporting, media stereotypes, and the criminalization of Arabs and Muslims.” In early 2005, AAAN co-sponsored an art exhibit whose central theme was “the compelling and continuing tragedy of Palestinian life … under [Israeli] occupation … home demolition … statelessness … bereavement … martyrdom, and … the heroic struggle for life, for safety, and for freedom.” AAAN’s hostile view of the Jewish state is further manifest in the organization’s reference to
Israel’s creation in 1948 as Al Nakba (“The Catastrophe”). Between 2002 and 2004, AAAN received $95,000 in foundation grants.

* The Arab American Institute was established in 1985 to promote “Arab American participation in the
U.S. electoral system” and to advocate for the “domestic and policy concerns” of that demographic. Toward that end, AAI developed a strong reputation for organizing “voter-education” campaigns and acting as a liaison between the Arab American community and the major national political parties. Following 9/11, however, the tone of AAI’s public pronouncements underwent a striking change; with ever-increasing frequency, the Institute denounced its opponents as racists, extremists, and Zionist agents. According to Islam scholar Stephen Schwartz, the organization “moved from the center to the extreme left of the American public square.” AAI portrays
as a brutal oppressor of the Palestinian people, and denounces what it depicts as widespread civil liberties violations directed against Arab Americans in the post-9/11 period. “The USA Patriot Act and initiatives launched by the Attorney General in the aftermath of September 11,” says AAI president James Zogby, “have endangered basic constitutionally protected rights of due process and judicial review.” Between 2002 and 2005, AAI received more than $495,000 in foundation grants.

* The Center for Economic and Social Rights identifies “the discrimination and brutality inherent in the Israeli occupation” as “the root cause” of Palestinian hardship, calling for “alternatives that recognize and promote equal rights for all people living under Israeli rule.” Established on a grant of just over $100,000 from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Echoing Green Foundation, CESR currently operates on an annual budget of more than $500,000. Between 2002 and 2006, this organization received foundation grants totaling more than $2.6 million.

* The Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine claims that Israeli transgressions and human rights violations are entirely to blame for that nation’s ongoing state of war with the Palestinian people. At the organization’s 2003 winter conference  entitled “
Israel’s Policy of Apartheid and Ethnic Cleansing” CPAP Chairman Hisham Sharabi set the tone for the seminar with his opening remarks: “In the face of relentless Israeli force, the only weapon the helpless and desperate have is to fling their bodies against the beast. Suicide bombings are no longer the lone act of desperate fanatics, but have become a conscious weapon of resistance and war. The culture of death and self-sacrifice is spreading in many Arab and Muslim countries. With unprecedented force being unleashed [by Israel] against helpless people, the task of recruiting hundreds, if not thousands of men and women willing to die has become a routine organizational matter in the resistance process.”

* The Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy seeks “to contribute to the promotion of democracy, good governance, freedom, and human rights in the Arab and Muslim world.” “Most of CSID’s Muslim personnel are radicals,” wrote Islam scholar Daniel Pipes in March 2004. One such individual is CSID fellow Kamran Bokhari, who, according to Pipes, “also happens to have served for years as the North American spokesman for Al-Muhajiroun, perhaps the most extreme Islamist group operating in the West.” Some CSID Board members are agents of the Saudi Arabian government, which spends enormous sums of money to spread Wahhabism, a radical and intolerant form of Islam, all around the globe. One of the Center’s founding directors was Taha Jabir al Alwani, a founder of the Council of the Muslim World League in
Mecca, perhaps the most influential distributor of Saudi Arabian money on earth.

* The Committee for Justice in Palestine, based at

University, opposes what it calls
Israel’s “occupation” of “
.” The organization’s ongoing Divestment Campaign exhorts university officials to sever all financial ties to Israeli corporations and interests. In July 2006, CJP co-signed a letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, which stated: “[T]he inexorable march of Israeli human rights violations continues with renewed savagery. … [Israeli] forces continue illegally to arrest and detain thousands of Palestinians, confiscate Palestinian land, demolish homes, impose a deadly economic blockade, and build an annexationist Apartheid wall. … We therefore call upon the United Nations to intervene to defend the Palestinian people …”

* The Council for the National Interest enumerates among its organizational goals the “total withdrawal of Israel from all occupied territory”; “American recognition of a totally independent state of Palestine”; and “an elimination of all unaudited U.S. aid to Israel.”

* The Council on American-Islamic Relations is the preeminent Arab lobby group in the
U.S. today, describing itself as “similar to a Muslim NAACP.” CAIR was co-founded in 1994 by Ibrahim Hooper, Nihad Awad, and Omar Ahmad, all of whom had close ties to the Islamic Association for Palestine, which was established by senior Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook and functioned as Hamas’ public relations and recruitment arm in the United States. CAIR opened its first office in
Washington, DC, with the help of a $5,000 donation from the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which the Bush administration shut down in December 2001 for collecting money “to support the Hamas terror organization.” Today CAIR receives considerable funding from
Saudi Arabia. Writes Islam scholar Stephen Schwartz: “CAIR should be considered a foreign-based subversive organization, comparable in the Islamist field to the Soviet-controlled Communist Party USA, and the Cuban-controlled front groups that infiltrated ‘Latin American solidarity’ organizations in the
U.S. during the 1980s. It has organized numerous community branches and has had immense success in gaining position as an ‘official’ representative of Islam in the
” From 2002 to 2005, CAIR received more than $230,000 in foundation grants.

* Focus on American and Arab Interests and Relations was established by two Iraqi expatriates, Mohammed Alomari and Muthana al-Hanooti, “to promote fair policies and a better understanding of the issues pertaining to the Arab World.” Alomari authored a book titled The Secrecy of Evil: The Qabala and Its Followers, which denounced Jews and their alleged scheme to create a New World Order. He has also charged that the U.S. and
“organized” the 9/11 attacks.

* The Free Palestine Alliance is a pro-Hamas organization that supports the dissolution of “the racist
State of Israel” and the “unconditional liberation” of Palestinians in the
Territories and in
proper. It is a member of the International ANSWER steering committee, and its contact information is identical to that of Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center. Many individuals involved with FPA are also members of the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party.

* Grassroots International (GRI) states that it “was born out of a commitment to justice for Palestinians.” Since its founding in 1983, it has disbursed at least $20 million to its partner organizations and engaged in what it characterizes as “campaigns for positions on equality, development, independence, and self-reliance.” In 2004, GRI was a signatory — along with more than 200 other leftist groups — to a letter exhorting members of the U.S. Senate to oppose Israel’s construction of an anti-terrorist security fence in the West Bank, a barrier that GRI condemns as an illegal “apartheid wall.” Between 2002 and 2005, GRI was the recipient of foundation grants totaling nearly $750,000.

* If Americans Knew describes itself as a “research and information-dissemination institute, with particular focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, U.S. foreign policy regarding the Middle East, and media coverage of this issue.” The organization was founded in 2001 by freelance journalist Alison Weir to counter what she perceived to be a pro-Israel bias coloring U.S. media coverage of
events. Calling for an end to U.S. aid to Israel, IAK states: “Empowered by American money, Israel is occupying land that doesn’t belong to it, is breaking numerous international laws and conventions of which it is a signatory, and is promulgating policies of brutality …” 

* The International Solidarity Movement describes itself as “a Palestinian-led movement committed to resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.” Though professing a commitment to nonviolence, ISM members openly advocate the “liberation” of Palestinians “by any means necessary,” including “legitimate armed struggle.” Led by Palestinians working closely with American recruiters, ISM invites American volunteers to travel to the Palestinian territories and disrupt the actions of the Israeli Defense Force, which is engaged in anti-terror operations in the region.

* The Islamic Assembly of North America was created in 1993 to spread the “correct knowledge of Islam” and “to serve the Islamic presence in
North America.” In February 2003, four individuals associated with IANA were indicted for illegally sending millions of dollars to Iraq through a Syracuse,
New York charity called Help the Needy. According to court papers filed by
prosecutors in 2003, IANA’s mission included the “dissemination of radical Islamic ideology, the purpose of which was indoctrination, recruitment of members, and the instigation of acts of violence and terrorism.” In National Review Online, IANA has been described as a “glorified al Qaeda recruitment center.” According to a New York Times interview with former IANA Director Mohammed al-Ahmari, approximately half of the organization’s funding derives from the Saudi government, and the other half from mostly Saudi private donors.

* The Islamic Circle of North America strongly condemned the Oslo accords which sought to establish peace between the Palestinians and
Israel. In a joint statement with a number of other Arab/Muslim lobby groups, ICNA charged that
’s creation in 1948 “had involved the unjust and illegal usurpation of Muslim and Christian lands and rights,” and declared that “to recognize the legitimacy of that crime is a crime in itself, and any agreement which involves such recognition is unjust and untenable.”

* The Islamic Society of North America calls itself the largest Muslim organization on the continent. Its annual convention draws more attendees — usually over 30,000 — than any other Arab or Muslim gathering in the
Western Hemisphere. ISNA devotes much of its energy to providing Wahhabi theological indoctrination materials to some 1,100 of the approximately 2,500 mosques in
North America. Many of these mosques were recently built with Saudi money and are required, by their Saudi benefactors, to strictly follow the dictates of Wahhabi imams. Through its affiliate, the North American Islamic Trust — a Saudi government-backed organization created to fund Islamist enterprises in North America — the Saudi-subsidized ISNA reportedly holds the mortgages of between 50 and 79 percent of all mosques in the U.S. and
Canada. Thus the organization can exercise ultimate authority over the mosques and their teachings.
* The Israel Policy Forum describes itself as “a central clearinghouse for policymakers seeking to more effectively engage the
United States in the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” IPF has consistently urged the U.S. government to press
 into making ever-greater concessions to Palestinian militants in the belief that such a course of action would help bring peace to the region.

* The Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace believes that security for Israel “can only be achieved through the establishment of an economically and politically viable Palestinian state, necessitating an end to
Israel’s occupation of land acquired during the 1967 war and an end to Palestinian terrorism.” At the heart of JAJP’s efforts is its call for the evacuation of Israeli settlements in the
Territories, and for the withdrawal of Israeli military forces from the
West Bank. Whereas some Arab lobby members in the U.S. demand divestment from
and the withholding of monies from that country, JAJP instead advocates giving such funds directly to the Palestinian people.

* Jews Against the Occupation describes itself as “an organization of progressive, secular, and religious Jews of all ages throughout the New York City area advocating peace through justice for Palestine and
Israel.” Says JATO: “We … reject the Israeli government assertion that it is ‘necessary’ to subjugate Palestinians for the sake of keeping Jews safe”; “[t]he Israeli military fires bone-crushing rubber bullets and live ammunition at unarmed Palestinian civilians engaged in peaceful protest, failing to distinguish between peaceful and violent resistance”; “[t]he U.S. government provides more aid to Israel than to any other country the vast majority of this is for military purposes. … [t]his aid must end”; “t]he Israeli government has attacked the Palestinian economy …”; and “[t]housands of Palestinians were driven out of their houses and off of their farms during and after the creation of
Israel. They must be allowed to return to their homeland.”

* Jews For a Free Palestine is composed of nominally Jewish activists who support what they call “
Palestine liberation solidarity efforts.” In conjunction with its partner organization, Renounce Aliyah, JFFP says: “[W]e denounce the continued racist and inhumane policies of the Israeli government. There can be no safety for Jews internationally as the Israeli government continues in the role of occupier and oppressor, while falsely claiming to represent us all.” 

* Mercy Corps provides humanitarian assistance to people living in regions beset by war, internecine violence, and natural disasters. From 1981 through 2006, this organization provided $1 billion in assistance to people in 82 nations. With regard specifically to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Mercy Corps places all blame for Palestinian poverty and suffering directly on

* The Middle East Children’s Alliance claims that since its inception it has “brought over $8 million of much-needed relief to besieged communities in Iraq and
Palestine through emergency medical aid and direct aid to families and communities.” “Our work in the United States,” says MECA (which accuses the U.S. of “purposefully” targeting civilian areas), “is centered … on educating North Americans about … the role of U.S. policy in maintaining and perpetuating instability and conflict in the
Middle East
. … We stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people as they seek freedom from oppression and we support the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.”

* The Muslim Alliance of North America was founded in February 2001 by Siraj Wahhaj and Ihsan Bagby. MANA is part of the American Muslim Task Force on Civil Rights and Elections, a national coalition of some of the largest Muslim organizations in the U.S., whose common objectives are to “[m]ainstream the American Muslim community” and work for “the empowerment of [that] community and for the protection of its rights.”

* The Muslim American Society (MAS) describes itself as “a charitable, religious, social, cultural and educational, not-for-profit … Islamic organization.” In May 2005, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross reported in The Weekly Standard that MAS is a U.S. front group for the Muslim Brotherhood and, as such, wishes to see the
United States
governed by Sharia, or Islamic law. MAS is described by Stephen Schwartz, author of The Two Faces of Islam, as “a major component” of the “Wahhabi Lobby” that channels money from, and advances the policies of, Muslim-fundamentalist Saudi Arabia.

* The Muslim Public Affairs Council’s traditionally centrist public image unraveled after the September 2000 launching of the Second Palestinian Intifada, when MPAC severed its ties to the Jewish community and issued one-sided condemnations of Israel’s response to the Arab violence. The Council also actively opposed President Bush’s military incursions into Afghanistan and
Iraq, as well as his “excesses” in the war on terror. In July 2002, MPAC National Director Ahmed Younis stated that “if Thomas Jefferson or
Madison or the like were alive today, they would go to [Attorney General] John Ashcroft’s house and just shoot him.” MPAC asserts that Hezbollah “could be called a liberation movement” similar to American “freedom fighters hundreds of years ago whom the British regarded as terrorists.” According to MPAC: “Israel was established by terrorism”; its founding “involved the unjust and illegal usurpation of Muslim and Christian land and rights”; and it is a “racist, chauvinistic and militaristic” state that is prosecuting “a war to steal land from Palestinians, to decimate their leadership, to humiliate the Palestinian people.” A few hours after the 9/11 attacks, MPAC co-founder Salam Al-Marayati told a Los Angeles radio audience: “If we’re going to look at suspects, we should look at the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what’s happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies.”
* The Muslim Students’ Association of the United States and Canada currently has chapters on some 150 college campuses across
North America. According to Stephen Schwartz, MSA is a key lobbying organization for the Wahhabi sect of Islam. From its inception, MSA had close links with the extremist Muslim World League, whose chapters’ websites have featured not only Osama bin Laden’s propaganda, but also publicity-recruiting campaigns for Wahhabi subversion of the Chechen struggle in Russia. MSA once solicited donations for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, whose assets the
U.S. government seized in December 2001 because that organization was giving financial support to the terrorist group Hamas. Charging that U.S. foreign policy is driven by militaristic imperialism, MSA steadfastly opposes the American military incursions into both Afghanistan and Iraq. The organization is also harshly critical of Israel’s allegedly oppressive policies vis a vis the Palestinian people residing in the West Bank and
* The National Council of Arab Americans is a consortium of grassroots organizations professing a desire to help Arab Americans assert their “national presence as a community from coast to coast.”  “Our belonging in the
United States,” says NCAA, “can only be complete if our Arab heritage, culture, and identity are fully respected and cherished.” The Council’s 2003 anti-war manifesto calls for the immediate, unilateral withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq, and exhorts the
U.S. to renounce its “militarism and colonial expansions.” This manifesto is also decidedly hostile to
— advocating the suspension of all forms of economic, political, and military support for that nation, and demanding that Palestinians be granted a full “right of return” without further delay. 

* The National Council of Churches claims a membership of 36 Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox Christian denominations, and some 50 million members in more than 140,000 congregations. Of the seven human rights criticisms the organization issued from 2000-2003, Israel received four, the United States two, and
Sudan one. NCC was a signatory to a November 1, 2001 document ascribing the 9/11 hijackers’ motives to alleged social injustices against which they were protesting, and calling on the
United States to begin “to promote fundamental rights around the world.” Citing the counsel of the New Testament —  “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matthew 5:9) — NCC played a central role in opposing the first Gulf War in 1991, claiming that the risks of such an action were “out of proportion to any conceivable gain.”  Its assessment of the second Gulf War was identical. In February 2005, NCC declared that “[t]he crushing burden of
’s occupation of Palestinian territory contributes to deep anger and violent resistance, which contributes to fear throughout Israeli society.”

* The New Israel Fund’s mission is to “strengthen Israel’s democracy and to promote freedom, justice and equality for all
’s citizens.” From its 1979 inception through 2005, NIF granted over $120 million to more than 700 Israeli organizations that share its political and social objectives — which focus heavily on the redistribution of wealth and the radical transformation of an allegedly oppressive Israeli society. Between 2002 and 2005, NIF received foundation grants totaling more than $37 million.

New Jersey Solidarity: Activists for the Liberation of Palestine demands “an immediate end to the Israeli occupation of all Palestinian territories, the recognition of the full, non-negotiable human right of return for all Palestinian refugees, and full political, social and economic equality under law for all people in historic Palestine.” Moreover, it condemns “the existence of the apartheid colonial settler state of
Israel, as it is based on the racist ideology of Zionism and is an expression of colonialism and imperialism.”

* The Palestine Children’s Relief Fund states that its founders were “concerned people in the U.S. [wishing] to address the medical and humanitarian crisis facing Palestinian youths in the
Middle East
.” Considered a “Partner Organization” of Al-Awda, PCRF is headed by Stephen Sosebee, who depicts Israelis as murderous terrorists that Palestinians must resist by means of “armed struggle” (i.e., suicide bombings). Sosebee charges that the U.S. government, citizenry, and media are manipulated by a “Zionist lobby” and “Zionist influence.”

* Palestine Media Watch seeks to “help media outlets [gain] access to pro-Palestinian points of view and voices for interviews, op-eds, or background discussions.” The organization aims to minimize media references to Palestinian terrorism and corruption, while promoting images of Palestinians as victims of Israeli oppression. * The Palestine Solidarity Movement is the North American student arm of the International Solidarity Movement. In 2002 it adopted a resolution affirming unreserved support for the Palestinian Intifada: “We, the national student movement for solidarity with
Palestine, declare our solidarity with the popular resistance to Israeli occupation, colonization, and apartheid.” PSM members demand that their respective colleges and universities “divest from Israel all financial holdings until Israel ends its system of occupation and apartheid in
Palestine.” Moreover, the organization calls for “ending U.S. aid to Israel”; supports “the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees”; and endorses “education, public demonstrations and rallies, and non-violent direct action for the purpose of encouraging awareness of Palestine issues and of the above campaigns.”

* Partners for Peace is a Washington, D.C.-based, Palestinian-allied nonprofit group that generates publicity for Palestinian causes. PFP President Jerri Bird wrote in 2002: “It may come as an unpleasant surprise for many of you to learn that for over 30 years, Israel has repeatedly detained, tortured and incarcerated Americans of Arab origin, without suffering any sanctions or even a public reprimand from
. Of course the Palestinians have been suffering this torture for 35 years on a scale that is truly unimaginable.” Key PFP officials include Adam Shapiro, who also heads the International Solidarity Movement, and George McGovern, the former Democratic presidential candidate.

* Students for Justice in Palestine originated on the University of California, Berkeley campus in 2001. Since then, SJP cells have spread to some 25 major campuses throughout the
United States. The organization’s mission is to pursue “freedom and self-determination for the Palestinian people,” a goal predicated on ending “[t]he Israeli military occupation, with its daily humiliation, abuse and brutal violence”; ensuring “[t]he right of return and repatriation for Palestinian refugees of war and ethnic cleansing”; and “[t]he cessation of settlement activity and the dismantling of settlements built outside of Israel’s pre-1967 border.” Toward the advancement of these objectives, SJP demands “[d]ivestment … from companies that invest or do substantial business in Israel,” and an “end to U.S. tax-funded aid to

* Stop U.S. Tax-funded Aid to Israel Now (SUSTAIN) describes itself as “a non-hierarchical, grassroots organization committed to supporting and sustaining the Palestinian movement for justice, human rights and self-determination.” “We are committed to building a campaign against U.S. military and economic aid to Israel so that U.S. tax-dollars do not support the [Israeli] abuse of human rights,” SUSTAIN asserts. Two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, SUSTAIN organized a “Global Justice Intifada” in Washington, D.C. to condemn “U.S. imperialism,” and to demand justice on behalf of “Palestinians resisting Israeli occupation” and “Iraqis fighting genocidal sanctions.”

* The U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation is a coalition of groups working together “to change those U.S. policies that both sustain Israel’s … occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem, and deny equal rights for all.” In November 2002 the Campaign published an article titled “Seeing Clearly Through a Veil of Blood,” which asserted that Israel owed Yasser Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization a debt of gratitude for their supposedly invaluable “support for a two-state solution.” The article further stated that much anti-Jewish hatred “is fueled by the injustice of Israel’s occupation of

* The Union of Arab Student Associations describes itself as “a student-based organization that seeks to connect and unify local Arab-American university groups and … educat[e] the Arab community and the general public about the culture, language, and history of the Arab world while promoting vital issues that pertain to Arabs in the
United States.” The Union currently has several thousand members representing more than 40 universities across the
United States. In 1999, the UASA website directed its viewers to visit the website of its affiliate “Students for Palestine,” which featured a map of
completely covered by a Palestinian flag.

* The United Association for Studies and Research is an Islamic think tank professing a commitment to “the study of ongoing issues in the
Middle East, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict.” It also promotes the ideology of Hamas. Mohammad Salah, a Hamas operative who the
U.S. government identified as a “specially designated terrorist,” was an employee of UASR in the early 1990s. In 1993 Salah revealed that UASR served as the base for the political command of Hamas in the
United States, and he identified Hamas official Ahmed Yousef as UASR’s Director. “UASR is a front organization for a terrorist group,” says
University professor Peter Leitner, President of the

. Leitner calls UASR “part of a shell game of international terrorism — phony organizations that are really terrorist cells [and] part of the international terrorist network.” Former CIA operative Brian Fairchild asserts that “organizations like UASR” can advance the global terrorist agenda by “recruiting new members, raising funds to support international terrorism, and … actually support[ing] a terrorist attack in the U.S.”

* Wheels of Justice is a bus tour that canvasses the United States with activists who give “eyewitness accounts” of the suffering they have witnessed during visits to Iraqi and Palestinian villages. They identify Israeli and American militarism and oppression as “the root injustices” that give rise to such phenomena as the Iraqi insurgency and Palestinian terrorism. From 2003 through 2006, WOJ activists addressed audiences in hundreds of cities and thousands of venues, including more than 1,500 middle schools, high schools, colleges, and universities. WOJ charges that virtually every social, economic, medical, and spiritual ill afflicting the Palestinian people can be attributed to
’s policies of “colonization, occupation, displacement, [and] apartheid.” With regard to the war in Iraq, WOJ asserts: “The cultural, political and economic institutions of Iraq belong to the Iraqis, not to Washington; the hijacking of Iraq’s culture and resources by a foreign power exacerbates and prolongs the consequences of the … U.S.-led war …”

* The World Assembly of Muslim Youth is headquartered in Saudi Arabia but maintains satellite chapters in 55 additional countries and is affiliated with some 500 other Muslim youth groups on five continents. WAMY is one of the vehicles through which the Saudi Wahhabi government funds Islamic extremism and international terrorism. WAMY was co-founded by Kamal Helwabi, a former senior member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and by Osama bin Laden’s nephew, Abdullah bin Laden. WAMY raises funds for Hamas, and in October 2002 made Hamas leader Khaled Mash’al an “honored guest” at a Muslim youth and globalization conference held in
Riyadh. WAMY also helps finance the Kashmir insurgency against
India, characterizing it as a “liberation” movement. A Saudi opposition group reports that WAMY disseminates literature encouraging “religious hatred and violence against Jews, Christians, Shi’a and Ashaari Muslims.” As WAMY puts it, this literature is expressly designed “to teach our children to love taking revenge on the Jews and the oppressors, and teach them that our youngsters will liberate Palestine and
when they go back to Islam and make jihad for the sake of Allah.” Islam scholar Stephen Schwartz calls WAMY “the Saudi equivalent of the Hitler Youth: a hate-mongering, ultra-extremist group preaching, among other niceties, that Shia Muslims are not real Muslims, but products of a Jewish conspiracy.” The website Militant Islam Monitor characterizes the organization as “part of the Saudi Wahhabist ‘Jihad through conversion’ drive.”

To learn much more about these and many hundreds of other leftist organizations, visit


Mitchell Bard, “
The Israeli and Arab Lobbies,” Jewish Virtual Library.

Maurice Ostroff, “The Arab Lobby.”

Jacob Laksin, “Jimmy Carter and the Arab Lobby,” (December 18, 2006).

Arab American Institute, “Arab Americans: Population.”

Dave Eberhart, “Carter’s Arab Funding May Color Israel Stance,” (April 29, 2002).

Transcript: U.S. Congressional Delegation January 7 Briefing in Syria” (January 8, 1998)., “Arab Lobby (Groups).”

CAIR charges 40 kept from post-Hajj flight — Northwest says they were late for flight

CAIR charges 40 kept from post-Hajj flight — Northwest says they were late for flight

CAIR has found what it has been fishing for — or thinks it has. But it looks as if they’re trying to make something out of people being late for their flight.

“40 kept from Detroit flight, council says: Northwest: Muslim pilgrims were late,” by Shabina S. Khatri for the Detroit Free Press, with thanks to all who sent this in:

Thousands of American Muslims returned to Michigan this month exhausted in body but revitalized in spirit after performing the hajj, a pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia, that is a religious duty.But not all travelers had an easy time getting home.

The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations is expected to hold a news conference today regarding the treatment of 40 American Muslim pilgrims – some from Canton, Dearborn and Dearborn Heights – who were allegedly denied passage on a flight to Detroit.

The men were reportedly denied boarding on Northwest Airlines Flight 51 from Germany on Jan. 7. CAIR-Michigan is asking the Federal Aviation Administration to investigate the incident.

Northwest spokesman Roman Blahoski said Monday that the passengers were denied boarding because they arrived for the flight just 20 minutes before departure, a violation of airline and governmental regulations.

“These passengers did not meet the standard check-in deadline of 60 minutes or onboard deadline of 20 minutes,” he said. “It’s nothing beyond that.”

Don’t Just Stand There! Do Nothing!


Don’t Just Stand There! Do Nothing!

The virtue of gridlock

by Thomas Lindaman


On January 4th, Democrats took control of the House of Representatives and tenuous control of the Senate. With the change of power comes the possibility of something big government types dread.


Having to beg Ted Kennedy for political favors. Heck, the last lobbyist who asked Kennedy for a favor when he was in the majority broke his back carrying the portable wetbar around the Kennedy compound.


But there is something even more frightening than being Kennedy’s liquor boy. That something is gridlock. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, gridlock refers to when Congress can’t do its Constitutionally-mandated job of passing bills because the two major parties can’t agree on what needs to be done. Why does this bother big government types? Well, when you consider their veins run red with the bureaucratic tape of the same hue, having Congress unable to pass more laws makes them edgy. Think crack addicts with fashions by Brooks Brothers.


Gridlock also tends to force the two major parties to work together to pass bills that will pass muster with their constituents. That’s something we haven’t had a lot of in at least 12 years because one party has held Congress and the White House. With the Democrats taking control, some of the right’s favorite pet projects will have to take a back seat or be altered somewhat to bring it more to the center. In short, funding for faith-based programs designed to teach the 14-toed sloth of the Upper Lower Middle Amazon River basin how to speak in tongues is going to have to wait a bit.


However, it’s not just Republicans who will have to count their nickels and dimes. Democrats are in the same boat because their pet projects will be held under the same scrutiny. In short, funding for a refuge for gay 14-toed sloth of the Upper Lower Middle Amazon River basin who were taught to speak in tongues will also have to wait. Instead, we might have more sensible spending, like a study on why we’re spending so much money on 14-toed sloth in the first place.


Even though the House controls spending bills, and Democrats hold a decent-sized majority in the House, there’s a possibility that gridlock in the Senate could curtail any wild ideas from the House. In the Senate, the split is 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents who plan to caucus with the Democrats. Then, factor into this situation the fact that South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson (who just happens to be a Democrat) has been sidelined by a medical condition. That reduces the vote count to 99 instead of 100. Democrats would have to get both Independents to vote for anything they propose, or else they don’t get what they want, and that’s if votes are along strict party lines to begin with. Given some of the squirrelly Democrats and Republicans there, it’s not a lock by any means, but for the sake of argument (and since it’s my column), let’s say it happens.


Even if Senator Johnson comes back and votes, the ever-unpredictable Joe Lieberman could break ranks with the Democrats, leaving a 50-50 tie. And guess who gets to break the tie. Vice President Dick Cheney. Oops. That alone may make Senate Democrats more willing to either work with Republicans or not work at all. You know, just like John Kerry does.


There is one downside to gridlock. If there’s a highly charged bill, those who want to see it defeated can easily get it bogged down in Congress to the point that whoever proposed the bill will withdraw it instead of watching it get voted down. With some bills, like the PATRIOT Act or appropriations bills for the war on terrorism, gridlock can doom even the best bills if the political fortunes don’t shine upon it. But, like I said earlier, it also guarantees horrible bills may go the way of Britney Spears’s chances of being Mother of the Year, so you have a tradeoff to consider.


As a big believer in small government, I’m enamored with gridlock. I think it’s the greatest manmade political concept since the Electoral College (who, once again, was snubbed by the BCS for a bowl game). Sure, if gridlock happens, we’ll be paying Congress for not doing their jobs, but how exactly is that different from the way things are right now?



Thomas Lindaman is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. and The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets. He is also Publisher of