Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America
Page 21
In addition, the Arab-American Leadership PAC, which is funded in part by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, donated $2,000 to Connolly in 2008, records show.38
Investigators say Mirza is a Saudi bagman, acting on behalf of Saudi millionaire and al-Qaida financier Yassin al-Qadi. He, along with al-Talib and Ashraf, runs a Virginia-based network of Saudi-funded fronts called the Safa group, which is still the subject of an active federal investigation into terror financing—in fact, a federal grand jury in northern Virginia has been hearing evidence in the case. All three Connolly donors’ homes and-or offices were raided by federal agents after the 9/11 attacks. Mirza, one of the ringleaders of the network, is so dirty that even Muslim Representative Carson returned his terror-tainted cash.
Omeish is an advocate of violent jihad who helps run a Saudi-backed, Muslim Brotherhood-controlled mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, that ministered to some of the Saudi hijackers before 9/11.
As first reported in the book Infiltration, Omeish in 2004 used his home to bond out a terrorist suspect jailed for allegedly casing the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. The suspect, Ismail Elbarasse, is also an accused Hamas money man employed by the Islamic Saudi Academy as comptroller. His college roommate, Hamas leader and fugitive Mousa Abu Marzook, sent his kids to ISA. (More on Elbarasse in a later chapter.)
Awad, meanwhile, has personally accepted large checks from Saudis on behalf of CAIR.
Point is, these Brotherhood donors and their families support the Islamic Saudi Academy, an arm of the Saudi government and a patron of Representative Connolly. This spring, ISA’s lease came up for renewal, and the Saudis knew they’d face resistance in the local community. The school had made national headlines since their last request for renewal after a former school valedictorian Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was convicted of joining al-Qaida and plotting to assassinate President Bush. His ISA classmates voted him “Most Likely to Be a Martyr.” His father works for the Saudi embassy.
Also, reports had detailed numerous hateful passages from academy textbooks, including a twelfth-grade text teaching students that it is permissible for Muslims to kill adulterers and apostates who leave Islam. Other passages in the school’s texts state that Muslims are permitted to take the lives and property of Jews and those deemed “polytheists,” or Christians.
Connolly shrugged off the complaints and accused critics of “slander” before rubberstamping the school’s lease and accepting a rent check from the Saudi embassy for $2.2 million.
“I find no evidence, no grounds, to do anything but renew the lease of an institution that has been a good neighbor,” Connolly declared at the board’s meeting on the issue last year.
Thanks to Connolly, the Saudis have been allowed to maintain an incubator for jihadists in the shadow of the nation’s capital.
But wait. There’s more to the story.
A SUDDEN WINDFALL FROM A SAUDI FLACK
The Saudi government’s paid mouthpiece in Washington—Qorvis Communications—launched a PR offensive to protect the Islamic Saudi Academy as Connolly and his board were voting on the lease. Qorvis’s managing partner Michael Petruzzello personally appeared at a press conference held at the school to defend its textbooks.
Qorvis, whose retainer with the Saudi government is worth tens of millions of dollars, never contributed a dime to Connolly during his dozen years in local office. But then beginning in 2006, when the Saudi academy came under major fire, the money suddenly started rolling into his campaign coffers and continued through the end of his run for Congress last year.
Qorvis, the Saudi’s top PR agent in America, pumped at least $10,000 into Connolly’s local campaigns—$5,000 in 2006 and $5,000 in 2007—and another $2,300 into his recent federal campaign. Last year, Qorvis officers opened up their wallets for another $6,458 in individual donations to Connolly’s congressional race, including at least $2,300 from Petruzzello himself.
To be clear, the money from Qorvis started appearing when the Saudi madrassa started attracting national headlines and continued to flow through the end of Connolly’s run for Congress.
* * *
QORVIS’ DONATIONS TO CONNOLLY
1995-2005 $0
2006 $5,000
2007 $5,000
2008 $8,758
TOTAL: $18,758
Sources: FEC, Center for Responsive Politics, Virginia Public Access Project
* * *
“The $10,000 appears to have been a downpayment for the upcoming renewal of the lease,” a senior congressional investigator says. Connolly “did not disclose at the meeting where he voted to renew the lease that he had taken Qorvis money.”39
Curiously, Qorvis has not reported any of the total of $18,758 in donations to Connolly to the Justice Department as required under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. No record of disbursement of these political contributions appears in its latest financial disclosure statements.40
“Qorvis may be in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act,” the congressional investigator says.41
Willful violations of the registration law are punishable by up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.
It wouldn’t be the first time Qorvis, which declined comment, has run afoul of the law. After 9/11, the Justice Department conducted a criminal investigation of the firm for failing to disclose required information. Qorvis distributed Saudi propaganda under a different name, in violation of the foreign agents act. FBI agents raided Qorvis’s Washington and Northern Virginia offices while Qorvis was in the middle of a $15 million-plus campaign to help the kingdom repair its image in the wake of the Saudi-led attacks.
Upon his election to Congress, Connolly asked the Democratic leadership for a seat on the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, and he got it as his first committee assignment. The panel has oversight of all military basing rights and foreign assistance in the region, which covers Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian territories, Israel, Iraq and Iran, as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Ellison and Jackson-Lee happen to sit on the panel with him. Connolly is also a member of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation and trade, which has oversight of international finance and customs.
These plum assignments are sure to please his Saudi and Muslim Brotherhood patrons, especially campaign contributor and Hamas supporter Awad of CAIR.
‘BEWARE OF CAIR’
While some members of Congress see no problem giving CAIR a political platform, others are warning colleagues of the dangers of continuing to associate with the group.
“Members should think twice before meeting with representatives of CAIR,” a letter signed by five U.S. House members says. “The FBI has cut ties with them. There are indications that this group has connections to Hamas.”42
The three-page “Dear Colleague” letter, sent earlier this year to every U.S. House member, points out that prosecutors allege CAIR conspired with a charity recently convicted of funding terrorism. It was written under the title, “BEWARE OF CAIR,” and signed by Representatives Sue Myrick (R-NC), co-chair of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus; Pete Hoekstra (R-MI); Trent Franks (R-AZ); Paul Broun (RGA); and John Shadegg (R-AZ).
GOP representative Frank Wolf of Virginia followed up with a letter of his own to the FBI requesting it formally brief all members of Congress about CAIR’s terror connections.
“I’ve talked to CAIR people in the past on a very casual basis,” he told Fox News. “They’re very active up here on Capitol Hill. I think it’s something that we really have to look into.”
He added, “Whatever information there is available, we ought to know,” so that lawmakers do not risk giving the group undue access or legitimacy.43
Republicans aren’t the only ones concerned that the political lobbying arm for Hamas is actively lobbying Congress.
Democratic senator Charles Schumer of New York recently joined senators Jon Kyl and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma in formally suppor
ting the FBI’s divorce with CAIR.
In fact, “We believe this should be government-wide policy,” the senators wrote the FBI director not long after the House’s “Dear Colleague” letter was distributed.44
In a sign even some supporters may be starting to distance themselves from CAIR, outspoken war critic and presidential candidate Ron Paul turned down CAIR’s invitation to speak at its annual banquet last year.
And now a Muslim member of Congress apparently is having second thoughts about cozying up to CAIR. Andre Carson, the second Muslim sworn in as a member of Congress, had participated in a townhall meeting in 2008 sponsored by CAIR-California.
But CAIR spokesman Hooper privately worries Carson is leery about being seen with CAIR. According to undercover video captured by researcher Chris Gaubatz, Hooper advised CAIR chapters not to publicly invite Carson to future events, because he may turn them down. And if he declines a public invitation, Hooper warned colleagues, critics will say, “Oh, a Muslim member of Congress won’t be seen with CAIR.”
No doubt CAIR wants to avoid repeating the humiliating slap it suffered in 2007 when Democratic senator Barbara Boxer of California withdrew an award that she offered the head of CAIR’s Sacramento chapter. Boxer later cited “concerns” about CAIR’s associations and explained that her office hadn’t thoroughly researched the organization before extending the honor.
Internal emails show CAIR debated going “all out against” the senator in a smear campaign but decided against it because she’s a popular Democrat and it didn’t think it could make an attack on her “hurt enough.”45 Others haven’t been so lucky.
CHAPTER TWELVE
BLACKMAILING CORPORATE AMERICA
“Now when Muslims are targeted, there is a unified and powerful voice that responds. Never before have corporate America, small business, and large media organizations alike had to contend with the Muslim community on an activist and legal level.”
—CAIR newsletter, March/April 2007
CAIR SPOKESMAN IBRAHIM HOOPER likes to crow that Nike, Inc. put CAIR “on the map.” He’s right, but gaining notoriety through extortion is nothing to be proud of.
Ten years ago CAIR made national headlines when it led a protest that forced the athletic footwear giant to remake a line of shoes that CAIR claimed had “Allah” displayed prominently in Arabic script on the heel.
It was just a stylized font for the word “Air,” but CAIR declared it blasphemous to Islam. Nike clearly meant no offense. But facing bad publicity and a threatened boycott of its products throughout the Muslim world, it nonetheless apologized, recalled its entire production run of some forty thousand pairs of sneakers, and removed the allegedly offending word.
And as a gesture of goodwill, it financed the construction of playgrounds at several Muslim schools and mosques selected by CAIR while making donations to a number of Islamic charities—also at CAIR’s choosing.
The mosques on the receiving end of Nike’s benevolence included mosques funded by the Saudis and run by the radical Muslim Brotherhood—including Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, the 9/11 mosque just outside Washington. In fact, CAIR insisted Dar al-Hijrah be the first recipient of a playground. Nike agreed and shelled out $50,000 for that facility alone. Unwittingly, America’s favorite sneaker company helped a mosque that would later help the al-Qaida hijackers—all in the name of tolerance.
As added protection against future CAIR extortion, Nike agreed to adopt Islamic-sensitivity training for its workers. After CAIR’s triumph, a CAIR official gloated that the group “forced Nike to submit to the will of Allah and then to the will of the Muslim community.”
Since then CAIR has recorded more than six thousand cases of other so-called offenses against Islam or alleged discrimination against Muslims. And it has successfully intervened to win concessions from businesses and employers in many of the higher-profile cases—even though they’ve often mimicked the Nike case in baseless grievance-mongering.
But CAIR wields two powerful cudgels to beat concessions out of corporate America.
First, it lets them know about all the other Fortune 500 companies that have backed down in addition to Nike—including Office Max, Office Depot, Delta Air Lines, Best Buy, Microsoft, JC Penney, Sears, and Burger King—without mentioning any of the cases it has lost (and there have been plenty as we’ll show further on).
At the same time, CAIR reminds its corporate targets that “the population of Muslims in the United States is around seven to ten million people,” and that they buy lots of products and services. Even though CAIR’s numbers and leverage are illusory—as we pointed out in an earlier chapter—the threat of boycott too often causes Fortune 500 CEOs who don’t know better to go wobbly and capitulate to its demands.
Compounding the threat, CAIR often teams up with the progressive left to intimidate the corporate world. CAIR and the ACLU, for one, have formed a strategic partnership to attack board rooms for alleged anti-Muslim discrimination. ACLU has agreed to notify CAIR of any Muslim cases it receives so they can consolidate their resources, according to internal documents.1
As a result, CAIR each year succeeds in bullying corporate America into accepting Islamic law and practices—from letting employees wear beards and head scarves (in spite of time-tested health, safety, and security policies) to allowing breaks for daily Islamic prayer and time off for Islamic holidays. The pressure group has also discouraged John Doe passengers from reporting suspicious activities on airlines and censored media critics from speaking the truth about Islamofascism.
CAIR chief Nihad Awad claims that forcing religious accommodations through legal jihad is a “win-win” for America. He fancies CAIR a kind of ambassador of good will, spreading religious harmony in workplaces across the country.
CAIR VERUS BANK OF AMERICA
“CAIR has a successful track record of negotiating amicably,” he claims, “enjoying huge community support, and taking conflicts to a win-win resolution.”
Amicably? Tell that to Bank of America. It’s one company that knows better, and would no doubt laugh at such a description.
After 9/11, the financial giant found itself on the other side of the negotiating table with CAIR’s goons in a trumped-up employee discrimination case. It quickly discovered that CAIR negotiates such disputes with all the tact of a Jersey mobster. CAIR’s gambit is simple: Deal, or we’ll boycott you and brand you a racist.
A series of “confidential” memos generated by CAIR during its clash with Bank of America provide unreported details and a valuable window into the group’s shakedown strategy.
It was 2003, and CAIR thought it had found its “big case”—one that would bring America’s biggest bank to its knees genuflecting before Allah.
A part-time Muslim bank teller working at one of Bank of America’s branches in Maryland complained to CAIR that she faced a hostile work environment after receiving an offensive anti-Muslim email circulated among bank employees. The message said that “Muslim terrorists” are quick to commit suicide because, among other reasons, “your bride is picked by someone else. She smells like your donkey, but your donkey has a better disposition.”
The email was not directed at the Muslim teller, nor was it generated or approved by bank management. It had nothing to do with bank policy, and was simply one of a garden variety of humorous, albeit often tasteless, anonymous chain emails that get passed around the office every day.
But teller Gul Naz Anwar insisted she had been “subjected to humiliation as a result of discrimination,” and she teamed up with CAIR to attack the bank.
Awad immediately tasked subordinates to conduct “research on the global Muslim involvement with BoA,” even before sending a formal complaint to Bank of America.
Then on July 30, CAIR fired off a letter to Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis listing its demands and implying it would hurt the bank economically if it did not meet them.
“Muslims have long been important investors in Bank of America, not only d
omestically but internationally,” CAIR asserted in its letter, a copy of which we obtained. “The population of Muslims in the United States is around seven to ten million people. Surely, Muslims would not feel comfortable investing in an institution that allows such unbridled prejudice to flourish behind its doors.”2
With that, CAIR demanded the “following actions be taken immediately:
1. Initiate a formal investigation of this incident;
2. Issue a formal written apology to Ms. Anwar and the American Muslim community;
3. Compensate Ms. Anwar for any damages as well as emotional distress she suffered as a result of this discrimination; and
4. Institute CAIR’s Diversity/Sensitivity Training to all employees,” including top management.3
It closed by noting that “CAIR has resolved a number of acts of discrimination and defamation involving some of America’s top corporations, such as Nike, Solectron, the Los Angeles Times, JC Penny [sic], Sears, Burger King, Office Max, Office Depot, Delta Air Lines, Best Buy, Microsoft, and many others.”
In response, the bank conducted a full investigation of CAIR’s allegations of “blatant discrimination,” and found no substance to them.
“Our investigation did not reveal any evidence of discrimination,” Bank of America spokesman Scott Scredon said.4
CAIR rejected the findings and mobilized its attack machine against the bank. Awad huddled with Hooper to draft a “BoA Action Alert” sent to members asking them to protest the bank’s “bigoted” affront to Muslims. The alert included Lewis’s phone and fax numbers, along with his email address.