The Council on American-Islamic Relations Created For Hamas

Federal Bureau of Investigation recorded evidence places CAIR founders Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad at a Philadelphia meeting of the radical Muslim Brotherhood's "Palestine Committee". According to the FBI, "all attendees of this meeting are Hamas members or sympathizers."

An Investigative Project on Terrorism report on the HLF trial reveals that FBI agent Lara Burns testified CAIR's Omar Ahmad was "a leader of the Palestinian committee".

In FBI wiretaps of various telephone conversations and the "Philadelphia Meeting" surveillance, CAIR Chairman Emeritus and Founder Omar Ahmad appears to lead, organize, and call votes on the many issues that members discussed. The extent of Omar Ahmad's involvement in this secret committees' activity has shown to be vast and at a top level. There is a clear reason Omar Ahmad is listed as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the Holy Land Foundation trial.

It should be noted that the FBI identifies Omar Ahmad also as "Omar Yehya". Omar Ahmad acknowledged his alias in a 2003 deposition:

"Some people call me Omar Yahya [sic] because it's like one of my middle names"

In September of 1993, "Omar Yehya" (Ahmad) discussed the participants, agenda, and organizing the program format of the "Philadelphia Meeting". Omar Ahmad mentions that "four or five" IAP members would attend and indicates he will get "Nihad" to write a paper for the meeting.

"I mean the Association [IAP] organization will write a paper
and the Fund will write one and Al Aqsa will write one"

In September 2008, FBI agent Lara Burns reviewed wiretap transcripts during the new trial of the Holy Land Foundation, specifically from the event called the "Philadelphia Meeting" in which among other things, the participants discussed the need to create a new political organization.

"In my opinion, we must form a new organization for activism which will be neutral because we are placed in a corner, ... It is known who we are, we are marked and I believe that there should be a new neutral organization which works on both sides."

Furthermore, Omar Ahmad discussed forming a lobbying group that would "bolster our position in America with the U.S. Administration and other media and political organizations." (Note: Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad formed CAIR the following summer.)

"This can be achieved by infiltrating the American media outlets, universities and research centers ...if Muslims engage in political activism in America and started to be concerned with Congress
and public relations we will have an entry point to use them to pressure Congress and the decision-makers in America"

Omar Ahmad (A.K.A. "Omar Yehya") and Shukri Abu Baker discussed with others at the Philadelphia Meeting the need to hide their affiliation with Hamas by using the name "Samah" instead.

Shukri Abu Baker explains:

"Samah ... Samah is classified a terrorist (organization). By constitution, by law, if I wanted to adopt it's work, they kick me out, they kick me out of this country..."

Shukri Baker later makes additional comments:

"I cannot say to him that I am Hamas."

"You can go meet a congressman in your name, in Omar Yehya's name
of the Association...and tell him, '(Yassir Arafat) doesn't represent us. Mr. Ahmad Yasin represents us'"

(A committee member objects):

"You cannot say that ..."

The FBI points out that "Ahmad Yasin" is none other than Sheikh Ahmed Yassin - the founder and spiritual leader of Hamas. Yassin was assassinated in 2004 by Israeli Forces. Here is clear evidence that the men of the Palestine Committee including CAIR founders Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad, considered themselves "represented" by the head of Hamas - Ahmad Yassin.

At the Philadelphia Meeting, Omar Ahmad discussed the ease of "registering" organizations in America. He then mentioned not having enough people to do the type work they want to "hide".

"Registering an organization is easy. I can register 100 organizations in 100 cities in one day..."

"I mean, we don't really have available people whom we could dedicate for the work we want to hide..."

A NEFA Foundation analysis of the meeting in Philadelphia reveals that the group discussed a "rumor" circulating that a new organization was being formed, causing some concern among members. Omar Ahmad tried to quell the talk of this new organization; however, Shukri Baker expressed a real need for a new group because current organizations may be viewed as too "Islamic."

Shukri Baker speaks of not "hoisting the Islamic Flag" to keep an organization's true nature from being revealed. Baker speculates they'd be:

"unable to work because all of us have become burned, all of our organizations are purely Islamic organizations..." "we should start right now ... begin thinking about establishing alternative organizations ...whose Islamic hue is not very conspicuous."

Omar Ahmad then had an interesting exchange with Shukri Abu Baker:

Baker: “I swear by Allah that war is deception,”...“We are fighting our enemy with a kind heart ... Deceive, camouflage, pretend that you’re leaving while you’re walking that way. Deceive your enemy ...”

Ahmad: "I agree with you. Like they say, politics is a completion of war"

It should be noted that in a 2003 deposition, Omar Ahmad stated that he "can't recall attending this meeting". Nihad Awad, also in a 2003 deposition, said he couldn't remember if he attended the Philadelphia Meeting either, even though he was an active and vocal participant at the event.

The FBI revealed that HLF paid the airline tickets and hotel bills for Omar Ahmad's attendance of the Philadelphia meeting. The Holy Land Foundation also provided CAIR with a "donation" check for $5000 in October of 1994.

In February of 1994, "Omar Yehya" (Ahmad) discussed the Hamas Charity Al Aqsa Fund with other members including the transfer of Holy Land Foundation money to Sheikh Jamil Hamami's [Islamic Culture and Science Society] and that HLF would represent and oversee it's interests in America. Omar Ahmad (Yehya) calls a vote for the following decision:

"Sheik Jamil's program is to proceed as is, but under the name of the Holy Land Foundation Fund. And that the one which will oversee the program is the Holy Land Foundation and that the funds
will be collected ...we leave the agreement concerning the funds to be between him and the Holy Land Foundation"

Omar Ahmad's involvement in the business of HLF continued throughout the 1990's. In May of 1999, FBI wiretaps disclosed "Omar Yehya" (Ahmad) discussing Holy Land Foundation records with Shukri Baker including how many thousands of dollars to pay a member:

"We reviewed the Holy Land record for the past 3 years and the brothers sat down and your due compensation is 20,000 for the past 3 years"

The FBI began investigating the actions of future CAIR officials during a time when they were clearly active working for the interests of Hamas here in America. It can only be concluded through FBI evidence that Omar Ahmad's and Nihad Awad's interests were based in supporting Hamas.

CAIR officials and members try to deflect these glaring facts with ridiculous statements on CAIR's "work" as the "largest American Muslim advocacy organization," all the while denying that events like the Philadelphia Meeting - that obviously inspired the creation of CAIR to support Hamas - took place the way that FBI evidence, and not CAIR spin, reveals.

Omar Ahmad expressed how easy it was to "register organizations" here in America, and proved it by creating many CAIR Chapters across the country (including Canada) - apparently for the nefarious purpose of supporting Hamas goals.

The Truth exposed by FBI investigations that snared CAIR founder and Chairman Emeritus Omar Ahmad - a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood's clandestine "Palestine Committee" - and partner Nihad Awad, flies in the face of CAIR's denials.

CAIR, in its own words, supports those working from within to damage our country.

We have been warned ...

http://www.anti-cair-net.org/FBItiesCAIRHamas

We know that Todd Gallinger monitors this webpage. I wonder if he would care to comment on this last comment. If he wants to be Irvine City Councilman, I think he should address this question about CAIR's origins. As their attorney, he should know if the above is true, right?

What say you, Mr Gallinger?

PS:

The Gary who posted the info about cair's origins is a different Gary.

He's an attorney you idiot. He represents his clients to the best of his ability (He is required by law to do so). As an attorney I represent a lot of people or organizations that I am not to keen about, but I still do my job. And even if I disagree with them I would never bash on them. Gary if you are looking for Mr. Gallinger to come out and bash CAIR you're a flippen idiot.

Just remember he is running for Irvine City Council not for a federal seat. You should be more concerned on his stance on local issues not international issues, which in case you forgot doesn't come up at city council meetings.

As a Jew I will have not problem voting for Mr. Gallinger.

Well you sound like a very nice man, Counselor. I'm sure your great at swaying juries with your eloquence.

(By the way, Mr Anonymous, which Gary are you responding to-is it Gary LNU or Gary Fouse (me)? I always admire the courage who call people names behind the shield of "Anonymous". (I always sign my name to everything I write.)

Seriously though, as a former law enforcement officer (28 years) I know a thing or two about the right of people to have legal representation. Even when I saw so many (not all) attorneys getting rich defending drug trafficers, I never questioned our system.

I think my essay on Gallinger was quite fair and accurate. I would not vote for Mr Gallinger-not because he is an attorney who may have represented unsavory people accused of crimes, but because he is an attorney representing an organization that many suspect is connected to terrorists trying to destroy my country. (I am not saying that charge is true, of course, in case you may be planning on jumping into a lawsuit.) Gallinger is an attorney who engages in lawsuits on behalf of CAIR, one of which was an attempt to suppress a book about Hamas. He has been invited to respond to these questions as any candidate for public office should (especially since we know he reads this blog and occasionally contributes to the discussions).

He even signs his name, which is more than we can say for you.

In regards to our discussion about Todd Gallinger's representaion of Kinderusa against Yale University Press, I am providing a weblink to an article by Inside Higher Education.com, which gives details on the final outcome of the case (won by Yale).

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/16/yaleup

In this article, Yale responded to Gallinger's lawsuit with a SLAPP countersuit, which apparently forced KinderUSA to drop their case.

SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Translation: It is a legal provision designed to protect against trivial, harassment lawsuits filed against people or entities (with lesser resources) expressing their positions on issues. According to the article, when asked if SLAPP was the reason the lawsuit was dropped, Gallinger (reportedly) responded, "Yale came at us pretty hard."

So perhaps Mr Gallinger can clarify that also for us. Mr Gallinger, did you initiate a SLAPP-type suit against Yale University Press in order to suppress that book about Hamas, which mentioned KinderUSA?

And what do you think about that, Counselor Anonymous?

A lot of "I was just doing my job" was thrown around a the Nuremberg trials, Mr anonymous. As a Jew you should know that. Granted everyone is entitled to a defense but are you really representing people who you are not "keen about" or are you representing "mamsers" with blood on their hands because the money is good?

By the way, Gary Fouse is neither an idiot nor a "flippen idiot", counselor. Certainly name calling is not "required by law". "As a Jew", you should know better.

Are we still waiting for Candidate Gallinger's responses to our questions?

C'mon, Mr Gallinger.

Is there a connection between CAIR and Hamas?

Did you file a harassment lawsuit against Yale University Press trying to squash a book.

Try to answer before election day, please.

I've talked about my work with CAIR on here before, you can draw your own conclusions based upon that. I'm proud of the work I've done with them, I know it has been in defense of civil rights and also national security.

I've never represented CAIR-National nor have I ever heard the story about there founding here. I honestly could't understand the claims, but its clear they're more attempts at guilt by association, which I reject.

My work with KinderUSA is described in the article.

If you have meaningful questions, just email me, I'll try to get to them, but am pretty busy right now.

Mr Gallinger,

With all due respect, your post actually doesn't clear up the questions, Sir.

You say you don't know about the origins of CAIR. Are you (aside from being an attorney for CAIR), a member of that organization? If so, you should know a thing or two about their origins and associations. I sure would make it my business to know these things about any organization I belonged to.

But even if you don't actually belong to CAIR, you have not answered the question I asked about KinderUSA.

Was it your attention to suppress a book about Hamas, and was it your intention to harass Yale University Press into submission with your lawsuit (in the spirit of SLAPP)?

What you call "guilt by association" I call, "you are known by the friends you keep".

Last point. As for any other questions I have, I don't know your e-mail nor do I want to. Since you are a candidate for public office, I prefer to pose questions to you in a public forum like this.

I can appreciate that you are a busy man, but I hope you can "try to get to them".

IrvineTattler.com has been following Mr. Gallinger's antics for six months now. Our latest story is at:

http://www.irvinetattler.com/election2008/election11.aspx

Stephen
IrvineTattler.com

Mr Smith,

You raise a whole lot of questions that Mr Gallinger might want to respond to. However, don't hold your breath. As he told me in evading my questions, Mr Gallinger is very busy these days. Hopefully, he will be able "to get to your charges" if he gets time.

I wouldn't hold my breath, however.

Gallinger sent me an e-mail on May 27 after I reported he was laundering OC Young Democrats money into an Irvine special election, which was used to smear Christina Shea. Since he was an unknown in Irvine -- he'd just moved here from Aliso Viejo so he could run for City Council -- I Google'd him and found his ad on the Muslims Online Directory. He advertised he'd worked for several groups; when I queried those groups, I found they'd all been raided at one time or another by federal agencies because they were suspected of laundering money for terrorist groups.

Here's what Gallinger sent me in e-mail that day:

*****

I believe that your choice to bring up my work with these organizations when attacking me for my involvement in the
Yes on Measure H campaign is evidence of a biased and bigoted person. There is no reasonable connection, but because the
groups were Muslim, you chose to try and smear me for that past work. You had absolutely no knowledge of the work I did,
but assumed that because it was linked to Muslims that it must be bad. This is the exact same tactic adopted the right-wing
attack machine in trying to smear Obama by calling him Muslim.

*****

Of course, Gallinger made no mention of his work with KinderUSA, which was a front for Hamas fundraising.

Well, the cat's out of the bag.

Gallinger can keep playing his little game that he's being attacked because he's Muslim. The truth is his qualifications for office are being questioned because of his choice to represent clients who are laundering money for extremists. The fact that those extremists are Muslim is irrelevant.

And let's be clear about this -- he CHOSE to represent them. He's not a public defender. The KinderUSA document shows that he solicited their board of directors to file the lawsuit against Dr. Levitt.

You can expect more about this on IrvineTattler.com in the next couple days.

Stephen
IrvineTattler.com

Ah yes, it's the old "right-wing attack machine".

If Mr Gallinger is not "too busy" with his campaign, I hope he will respond to Mr Smith's charges.

As promised:

http://www.irvinetattler.com/election2008/election12.aspx

You can see for yourself the documents Gallinger filed on behalf of KinderUSA, and the evidence that KinderUSA raises funds for Hamas.

Stephen
IrvineTattler.com

The book in question was published in 2006; the lawsuit filed in 2007 was for defamation. You can't file a defamation suit unless the book was published or you had access to pre-publication documentation that made the claim (which means "published" even though not available in a mass market book).

Mr. Levitt's book was panned as a by a senior research fellow on Middle Eastern Policy at Harvard; Sara Roy wrote: "Levitt’s book has many serious flaws and merits a detailed critique that extends well beyond the scope of this review. His is not a work of analysis or scholarship, to say the least, and despite certain points that are interesting and accurate, anyone wishing to gain a substantive, reasoned and critical understanding of Hamas would do well to look elsewhere."

Mr Chmielewski is partially correct. The lawsuit (for defamation) was indeed filed in 2007, while the book was published in 2006.

However, around July of 2006, the plaintiffs demanded that Yale University Press make a retraction regarding the references to Kinderusa and discontinue publication of the book. Yale refused standing by the content and thus, Kinderusa filed the lawsuit.

Secondly, as one who has published three books and had two of them reviewed, critical reviews in no way argue for the suppression of a book.

I also would like one of these victims of death threats actually produce the tape of said death threat. If you're going to allege you are being threatened by someone speaking against CAIR, produce the tape.

Boy, that's a fairly tepid response from Gallinger's apologist. Makes me think there's really something to this.

The pro-Gallinger speakers sent to Tuesday's City Council meeting kept saying that national/international issues were off limits, that candidates could only speak about local issues. Any time Agran-coordinated speakers keep saying the same thing sends a clear message that Agran is really afraid of people talking about that subject.

Which is all the more reason to talk about it.

This seems to be the "smoking gun" Agran and Gallinger have been trying to hide -- that Gallinger worked for a Hamas charity. CAIR is one thing, but no one can deny that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

The undeniable fact that Agran, Krom and Kang recruited Gallinger to move into Irvine so they could run him for City Council should be the #1 issue on the campaign trail. Why would any competent public official want to put on the City Council someone who seeks work with groups connected to terrorists?! It just boggles the mind.

Stephen
IrvineTattler.com

In regards to the reported telephone death threat to Todd Gallinger a couple of weeks ago. I was wondering if there are any updates on the investigation surrounding this incident.

Specifically, I would like to ask Mr Gallinger if he filed a police report.

Has anyone heard from Todd Gallinger? I know he reads this blog. We need to know if he filed a police report on the alleged death threat he received.

We know you are busy running for city council, but it's a simple one word answewr, Sir-yes or no.

PJ,

You're not going to get proof of the threatening phone call to Gallinger because it never happened. All the police have to do is go to the phone company, subpoena in hand, and start looking through the phone records to see who called Gallinger's number about the time of the threatening phone call and start making arrests. This is just more of the phony hate crime racket Muslims are known for.

Five days after a young Muslim student at Elmhurst College in Illinois admitted that her claim of being the victim of a hate crime was a hoax, CAIR has taken down its initial report of the "assault". (I think someone alerted them to the fact that I was keeping a count on how many days it would take them to set the record straight.)

http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=25560&&name=n&&currPage=1&&Active=1

Yet, the article CAIR chose to post (by a Chicago Sun Times writer) almost seems to portray the complainant as a victim and contrasts her case (she was charged with filing a false police report) with another recent incident in which a minor female falsely reported a rape and described her attacker as "Arab-looking" (she has not been charged-see below).

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/10/parents-say-girl-made-up-palos-heights-rape-story.html

Let's not make excuses here. Filing a false police report is a crime and inexcusable no matter who does it. The young woman in Elmhurst did a disservice to everybody, Muslims, non-Muslims and the community as a whole. Yet, according to CAIR, it all came down to giving racists an excuse to hate Muslims-and a disparity in the handling of two separate cases.

I deplore true cases of acts against Muslims because of their religion, but perpetrating false cases of victimhood and hate crimes is inexcusable. We are still awaiting the results of the alleged Dayton Mosque gas attack, but the news has completely stopped after it was revealed that a can of pepper spray was found inside the mosque after the fact.

I would hope that there will be no more false claims of hate crimes against Muslims. That will enable all of us to rally around Muslims when they are the true victims of real hate crimes.

It seems that message is lost on CAIR.

Any comments, Mr Gallinger?

To Fouse - Yes, a police report was filed the day the threat came in. This of course was reported in both the OC Register & LA Times articles. You guys honestly amaze me with your intellectual laziness.

To whoever wanted a tape recording, I don't make it a habit of recording all incoming calls. Do you?

I don't see a need to. Also, if I did record every call, it would be in violation of CA law which requires permission before taping.

What do you all think of the McCain volunteer w/ the B on her cheek? Does this now mean every report by a white person is subject to suspicion?

Though I do occasionally read this blog, if you want to find something out, try using the google or emailing me. But it seems like you wouldn't want any knowledge which challenges your preconceived notions.

Mr Gallinger,

Thanks for the response. I was just asking a question, that's all.

As for the Pittsburgh hoax, I am attaching my blog entry from today in fousesquawk.

If I have any further questions for you, I still prefer to use a public venue since, after all, you are running for public office.

The Hoax in Pittsburgh

"Yesterday, when I read the report of a young woman in Pittsburgh being robbed and assaulted-then badly beaten and mutilated because her car had a McCain-Palin bumper sticker, I was ready to post my comments on the incident. (The woman reported to police that her attacker had carved a letter "B" into her face with a knife.)

Something, however, told me to hold off a day or two until the dust settled. Perhaps, it was because I had been reporting on a recent hoax at Elmhurst College in Illinois, where a young Muslim woman reported being assaulted by a masked man in a college restroom because she was Muslim. A week later, the woman was charged with filing a false police report. It took CAIR five days to remove the original report of assault from their website, a fact I duly noted.

Fortunately for me, I didn't run with the story, and, today, it turns out the Pittsburgh case was also a hoax. So what do I say now? Well, for starters, I am glad that this young woman has also been charged with filing a false police report.

Her action obviously got a lot of people upset. McCain and Palin apparently called the woman personally to wish her speedy recovery. The Obama campaign expressed their concern as well. It certainly didn't help that the woman identified her attacker as an African-American, which only served to open up old wounds.

Manufacturing a phony crime to affect public opinion is a serious offense (though the charges in both cases are actually misdemeanors). Though McCain cannot be blamed for her actions, it does his campaign no good-especially among African-Americans.

So now we are saddled with another bad episode in an election in which I will be glad when it's finally over."

fousesquawk

Fouse -

You still didn't answer my question, will this make you less likely to believe crimes reported by white people, as you feel with the false report by the Muslim girl? Does this report discredit the McCain campaign & the Republican party, the same way you believe CAIR was discredited?

Also, you can email me and then post my response, rather than simply rely on me to read everything that gets written on here. I have dead time tonight, the first in a long time and likely the last for at least the next 10 days. Additionally, your question could have been answered by reading below the headline of any of the articles which were published on the threat, which I assume is how you originally heard of it.

Gallinger-

"Does this now mean every report by a white person is subject to suspicion?"

What's being white got to do with anything? A hoax is a hoax, regardless of the ethnicity. I thought I made that clear in my posting about the Pittsburgh incident.

Unlike CAIR, even though I had not even written on the initial report, I didn't sit around for 5 days leaving a hoax story up on my web site. I felt it was an issue that required a comment. Also unlike CAIR, I didn't put up an ambiguous article by a Sun Times reporter deflecting guilt off to "racists".

You still have an unanswered question that I posed several days ago. In the KINDERUSA suit, did you file a SLAPP - type suit designed to harass Yale University Press into not printing information your client didn't like?

And,no, I will not e-mail you privately and hope for a response. You are a candidate for public office, so you can deal with public questions. If you keep insisting that you are too busy to respond publicly to questions that might affect Irvine voters' judgement about you, then we will draw the necessary conclusions about you as a candidate.

I may have to wait awhile-as usual-to get my question to Todd answered. He is probably much more concerned with the article that just appeared on Irvine Tattler.

While Todd Gallinger is working on his answer to my question about his Kinderusa lawsuit against Yale Univ Press, I wonder if he could also illuminate us about the "Irvine Community News and Views", a newspaper he and his political running mates allegedly have an interest in. This has been alleged by Stephen Smith in the Irvine Tattler.

What is that story all about, Sir? Is it true what Mr Smith alleges that this is just a campaign rag on your behalf that is actually printed in Northern California? I, of course, don't know the truth, and I am not accusing you of anything, but we frequenters of Red County would sure appreciate your side of the story- before the election, of course.

"Yes, a police report was filed the day the threat came in. This of course was reported in both the OC Register & LA Times articles. You guys honestly amaze me with your intellectual laziness."

Laughably irrelevant point. No one cares whether or not you filed a police report. We care whether or not the cops found anything to SUBSTANTIATE the claim made in the report, which requires them subpeonaing the phone company's records. We all know CAIR is great at filing these reports. What we want to know is what comes of them.

PRCALDUDE,

Yes, but I think it is important whether a police report was filed or not.

By the way, I have been retired from law enforcement (DEA) for 13 years and technology may have advanced since then (I don't keep up on it), but going through telephone records would only tell you if someone has called a certain number at a certain time. That's assuming you have a suspect who may have made the call. It doesn't tell you what was said. Like I said, there may be new tech methods available now-especially with cell phones, but I don't see how you can actually retrieve the conversation itself-unless somebody's phone was being tapped at the time.

"but going through telephone records would only tell you if someone has called a certain number at a certain time. "

Exactly. And from there, they can back out a list of names and numbers and start bringing people in for questioning. The police are good at picking out liars usually. It's been at least two weeks, how are the police coming along on this one?

But you need to identify suspect phone numbers that may have called a certain number. When I was in dea, we used to supoena as suspects telephone records to determine whom they were calling. Local calls were not reflected. In addition, phone records didn't reflect telephone numbers of incoming calls. So first, you would have to ID a suspect then check his own telephone records.

What I am saying is that if you go to the phone company with a subpoena wanting to know which numbers have called a certain telephone number, I don't think they can find that. They certainly couldn't do it in my day.

As for the cell phone technology that has come along since I retired, I don't know, but I will ask around.

So the truth or falsehood of Gallinger's claim is floating around in the ether somewhere, never to be verified. We'll just have to take his word that it's true, even though he's associated with an organization chock full of terrorist sympathizers and practices the faith of a man who once said, "War is deceit," shortly after slaughtering some men to whom he'd granted safe passage. Sounds like a plan to me.

PRCALDUDE,

As for the alleged death threat, I have no conclusion on that. As for Mr Gallinger's religion, I would prefer to leave that out of the discussion.

"As for Mr Gallinger's religion, I would prefer to leave that out of the discussion. "

Wouldn't we all, Mr. Fouse? Unfortunately, Muslims act in accordance with the mandates in their religious texts, and given the lack of backbone shown by infidels in Orange County so far, we're going to be discussing their religion more and more.

PRCALDUDE,

If you have been following my posts and blog, you know when it comes to criticizing Islamic terrorism and the activites of the UCI MSU, I take a back seat to no one. I have also been quite vocal in criticizing the cowardice of UCI's administration (my own employers)in allowing hate speech on campus by MSU speakers. I will continue to do that. What I am not prepared to do is condemn all Muslims. I cannot condemn hate speech on one end if I engage in it myself.

"I cannot condemn hate speech on one end if I engage in it myself. "

I've been following your blog a short time. I don't see how a discussion of the aspects of Islamic doctrine that lead to the behavior we see from Muslims constitutes "hate speech." You and I didn't invent Islam, and I don't see how learning how Muslims understand their religion and correlating it with their behavior constitutes "hate speech."

Gallinger, CAIR, and the MSU at UC Irvine are simply being orthodox Muslims. According to the Qur'an (specifically Surah 33:21), Mohammed is an "excellent model of conduct", which pretty much means that anything Mohammed did to advance the cause of Islam is "good behavior" from the Islamic point of view: deception, killing, obfuscation, terror. Mohammed even went so far as to say, "I have been made victorious through terror" (Bukhari 4.52.220). It would be quite difficult for Muslims themselves to be more "extreme" than Mohammed, who was Islam incarnate. You needn't take my word for any of this, though. You can read Qur'anic commentaries and other Islamic source documents for yourself.

PRCALDUDE,

I have read the Koran, and there is much that troubles me. We are all dealing with the question of what is the true nature of Islam, and I am no exception. I also find it troubling that Mohammed was undisputably a warrior. I share many of your misgivings. I also think we must resist any attempts to impose this religion on our society and allow it to take away our freedoms through Shariah. I also would agree with you that sometimes, we must put aside any fear of being called racists or Islamophobes to speak the truth as we see it.

Where I draw the line is persecuting our Muslim citizens for their faith. Their challenge is apparently accepting a society with freedoms that the Koran would ban, but we enjoy-both good and bad. With immigration must also come assimilation into the society of the host country. That means accepting our values. And yes, assimilation also means things like intermarriage and religious conversion if they choose to do so, much as we see in the Asian-American communities.

I also would like to see more Muslims take a stronger stand against terror and hate speech on the part of their co-religionists. Those that have deserve our support. In my view, there have not been enough of them.

Anyway, I didn't mean to write such a long response, but what I am trying to say is this. I agree that we should continue to have an open discussion of Islam-we will for the next several decades. We must continue to point out acts and words of hate committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. All I am saying is let's don't use the same language used by some of the speakers that the MSU brings to UCI.

Gary,

I appreciate your response. Muslims cannot take a stand against terror because the founder of their religion was a terrorist himself. Of that, there can be no doubt. I never suggested "persecuting" the Muslims, even though they are engaged in an obvious campaign of the same. I think, rather, that the best approach simply involves making people aware of what Islam itself teaches. The minute one starts quoting the Qur'an, Hadith, or Sira in an argument with a Muslim, they immediately try to change the subject or start talking about "intolerance", hate speech, and other non sequiturs. Discussion boards like this are a great example. Rather than tip-toe around the issue of Islam, I think the best approach is to discuss it openly and honestly. The Muslims will never take a stand against jihad (what we call terrorism), because it is a fundamental duty of their religion.

PRCALDUDE,

Sorry my above response came in as anonymous (it was me). It was apparently because I used an outside computer, like I am doing now. (I always make it a point to sign my name to all I say.

I am certainly not opposed to an open discussion of Islam because right now, it is a world issue. I am also perplexed as to how Muslims can accommodate themselves to a free society if they insist on adhering to certain aspects of the Koran. To have Shariah law in a free country like ours is incompatible with our principls and our values. So US Muslims have a real dilemma. How they reconcile that issue will mean a lot as to how they fit into American society.

On the other hand, Christians and Jews must accept that we will not be a theocracy in that regard either. (Almost all of us have, I feel).

I just want to reiterate that my issues with Mr Gallinger go to his actions with cair in a particular lawsuit. Am I suspicious of cair? -You bet. I just think we should leave the fact that Gallinger is a Muslim out of the discussion. His religion is his right.

gary fouse

Speaking of Mr Gallinger, he still has two questions to answer-
or is he running out the clock?

Perhaps he's waiting for more Medinan days to start replying to the kuffar.

Actually, I think he is waiting for Nov 5 to reply.

gary fouse

Where is Todd Gallinger?

Another day closer to the election, and stiil Todd Gallinger has not answered my two questions (see previous posts).

Is he running out the clock?

gary fouse

Is it too late to ask Todd gallinger another questions? Perhaps, so, but here goes.

Mr Gallinger; If you, in fact, moved from Aliso Viejo to Irvine in April in order to qualify to run for Irvine City Council, how is it that your posters have the phrase, "homegrown leadership".

What's that all about?

We know you are busy, but could you try to answer that question-and the previous two I posed before the election?

Another day passes and still no responses from Todd Gallinger.

Yet another day has passed and still no answers from Todd Gallinger. With the election only 4 days away, Mr Gallinger is presumably busy running around Irvine with his "musical chairs" running mates, making speeches, kissing babies and whatever else people running for public office do-except answer troubling questions from the public.

But I am not giving up hope. I will be checking this site today and over the weekend-and yes, Monday if necessary, anxiously expecting Todd's answers to my 3 basic questions.

In case you have forgotten, here they are:

1 Did you really file a SLAPP-type lawsuit on Yale University Press to pressure them to pay damages and pull a book that identified your client, KINDERUSA as a funding front for terrorists?

2 What's the deal reported by Steven Smith in Irvine Tattler about the northern California "Newspaper" called Irvine Community News and Views, which is reportedly nothing more than a campaign flyer for you and your running mates?

3 How can you put out posters with the phrase, "homegrown leadership" when you moved to Irvine from Aliso Viejo last April so you could run for City Council?

There's still time, Todd. Put that baby down and send us some answers-before voters go to the polls.

Yet another day has passed, and still no word from Todd Gallinger on those 3 questions I have asked him.

Where is Todd Gallinger?

Nancy Grace wants to know.

Greta van Susteren wants to know.

C'mon, Mr Gallinger. If you want to be an Irvine City Council member, you could at least have the courage to answer some simple questions. Or are there things you don't want the voters to know before they vote Tuesday?

One more day, and Todd Gallinger is still hiding. And you folks in Irvine are expected to vote for this guy who won't answer legitimate questions about his past?

Last day before the election and rather than answer some questions, Todd Gallinger is still hiding out somewhere running out the clock. Good strategy, Mr Gallinger.

This is "Homegrown leadership"?

"Homegrown Leadership"? Sounds very much like a cheesy political slogan.

I guess Mr. Galinger doesn't wish to call any more attention to himself than he has to.

Especially when you just moved to Irvine last April.

To Todd Gallinger:

Maybe you should have answered my questions, Mr Gallinger.