No change just more Mea Culpas! A lotta Oink! CAIR!

From a very dear and old friend who is feeling taxed. (See 1 below.)

My previous memo about Gitmo might not have been clear in its meaning. I received some e mails from those who believe GW violated the rights of non-state combatants by holding them without trials etc. Others mentioned about the 'black prisons' run offshore by the CIA.

My comment was intended to be about the living conditions at Gitmo and how they were preferable to many,many state-run prisons. I also believe the care and sensitivity with which we treated prisoners of Islamic faith was exemplary. Were mistakes made - of course. Did we eventually get it right? Yes!

Beyond that, I am not in favor of holding prisoners without bringing them to trial. I believe they should be tried in a military court setting and if found guilty shot. If not found guilty, send them packing wherever that maybe. In bringing them to trial I would also make sure we do not reveal anything that would be damaging to our covert operations etc. and would not favor detainees having every right of an ordinary citizen of or soldier who fights for any stated country and whose rights are protected under rules of The Geneva Conference.

Geithner and Daschle apologize for violating our tax laws and everything becomes hunky dory. This is not change. This is the same old, same old when it comes to Democrats. Their apologies are accepted, their crimes excused and they go their merry way. Were it a Republican he would be hounded out of office by the press and media.

Where is the outrage over Dodd and Barney's ethical abuses?

No, I see little change but I hear a lot of Mea Culpas! (See 2 and 2a below.)

It all adds up to a 'lotta oink!' I told a friend that the American people should be outraged enough to send rubber pig masks to Congress but they are not! They are simply too concerned about other things to worry about losing their various freedoms, whether the death knell of capitalism is tolling etc. (See 3 below.)

No one cares about CAIR, either but they should because it will continue to bite us as it has been all along (See 4 below.)

Holier than thou will only take Obama so far and then cometh the backfiring boomerang effect. Only a matter of time. (See 5 below.)

Impossible to believe government does not have the solutions to everything under the sun. Ah, but history reveals the New Deal was more of a prolonging one than a solving one. (See 6 below.)

Jimmy Carter interviewed regarding his thoughts on the Middle East. He writes a new book and remains convinced that peace is obtainable - if those pesky rockets would just stop coming! Jimmy will die before peace comes to the Middle East or anywhere else this pitiful bumbler goes. (See 7 below.)

Dick


1)Taxes At first I thought this was funny...then I realized the awful truth of
it. Be sure to read all the way to the end!

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries, then
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his a..

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers,
Tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin ,
Tax his grave & Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.

Put these words
upon his tomb,
" Taxes drove me
to my doom..."

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Let's count 'em:

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (Federal 42 cents per gallon plus the states cut)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

There's also Bridge Use Tax and Toll Road Tax.

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What the hell happened? Can you spell "politicians!"

2) An Elephant Never Forgets
By Matthias Reynolds

The past two weeks have featured at least three violations of President Obama's promise to limit the influence of lobbyists within the executive branch. Despite all this, Robert Gibbs maintains that "The policy we have is the strongest that any administration in the history of our country has had." Putting aside Gibb's obvious nonsense, you might be left wondering how an administration so unparalleled in "brain power" (to quote George Stephanopoulos) could act so unwisely. I believe the answer is simple, they think that people will forget. They are counting on the short memory of the American voter. Sound cynical? Maybe, but some of us are not so quick to forget. Some will remember. I will remember.


It is not the only thing I will remember either. I will remember Speaker Pelosi's idea of immediate stimulus being a decrease in human population, evidenced by the hundreds of millions of dollars she supported including in the stimulus for family planning services. I will remember all the other wasteful spending and pork that has no place in an immediate stimulus plan, such as the $200 million for sod on the National Mall, $44 million for a facelift to the exterior of the Department of Agriculture, and the $5.2 billion headed for the Community Development Block Grants, a chief financier of ACORN. I will remember and be thankful that as of this moment, no Republican has voted for the package and that a similar scenario is likely in the Senate.


I will not forget the reckless steps President Obama has taken with regard to the War on Terror. I will remember his executive orders to defang the war on terror by closing Gitmo and CIA Black Sites. And I will not forget his appointment of Leon Panetta to the CIA, a man who has no experience in the intelligence field and whose only qualification seems to be his opinion on what does and does not constitute torture.


I will also remember what the President thinks of me. I will remember what he said in San Francisco about rural voters when he believed his comments were being made in private. I will remember being lectured about the importance of understanding Jeremiah Wright's comments in context and Obama's twenty year relationship with a racist that no white man could ever have and retain public office.


And while it's now considered an anachronism to be aware of the threat of radical Islam, I will remember that it still exists. I will remember 9/11. I will remember the leadership of former President Bush and his justified and necessary invasion of Iraq. I will remember how the far left treated our former president and their mindless comparisons of him to fascist dictators. I will remember what they would like me to forget.


If the GOP wants to recover, it will need to remember as well. It must explain why the stimulus will result in failure and bloated government. The GOP must understand that it is a broad tent and despite what the Peggy Noonans and the Georgetown cocktail party crowd say, the full strength of the conservative spectrum will be required to face the juggernaut the Democrats have created. They must remember the folly of putting forward candidates that are pro-amnesty, pro-bailout, and anti-free market. They must realize that they still live in a center-right nation, a nation that still largely sees the government as the problem and not the answer.


Republicans must remember and learn from a key mistake of the Bush administration. Too often Bush was content with letting history be his final judge. Ultimately, this is the case with many presidents, but it was not wise to merely leave it at that when full throated and compelling policy defense could and should have been made to the American people. Letting the opposition define him is what led to his abysmal approval rating. If you let someone lie long and loudly and long enough without opposition, people will regard it as reality.


Republicans must remember to do what they can to control and shape the perception of what is happening. If President Obama and his cohorts continue with their reckless appointments, dangerous executive orders and out of control spending Republicans may just remember who they are and what they stand for. I know I do.

2a) Beltway animal behavior
By Dick Polman

Barack Obama has billed himself as a new broom in Washington, but some of the town's rituals apparently endure. For instance, there's the venerable tradition of releasing embarrassingly bad news at Friday twilight, presumably when few people are paying attention. Such was the case as darkness fell last Friday, when we suddenly learned that Tom Daschle, the ex-Democratic Senate leader and current Obama sidekick, had failed for three years to pay any taxes on his free limousine (which, of course, came with a driver).

It's instructive just to watch the clock on this one: ABC News had the story at 6:29 p.m. Politico had it at 9:05. The Associated Press had a fuller version at 11:21. And the major broadsheet newspapers had to run their stories on Saturday, which every White House knows to be a low-readership day.

The problem, however, is that the Daschle story is too substantively embarrassing to simply live and die in one news cycle. It's alive and well today, because Daschle - the Obama team's choice to be the Health and Human Services secretary - is being compelled to explain himself behind closed doors on Capitol Hill; and because Daschle is already circulating a mea culpa. His letter to the Senate Finance Committee reads: "I am deeply embarrassed and disappointed by the errors that required me to amend my tax returns. I apologize for the errors and profoundly regret that you have had to devote time to them."

But that admission only prompts me to wonder: What was this guy thinking in the first place? And how badly has he embarrassed the new administration?

Here's a sophisticated Washington player, with decades of political know-how, presumably well schooled in the power of perception, presumably well aware (from the numerous incidents he has witnessed) that ambitions can be dashed overnight by revelations of past errant behavior...and yet Daschle still played fast and loose with the tax man, gaming the system in ways that are foreign to the average working stiff.

While earning big money in the private sector over the past few years (following his '04 Senate defeat), Daschle clearly envisioned returning to government in a position of influence. He authored a book, released one year ago, entitled "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health Care Crisis," and he signed on early to the Obama campaign as a national chairman. Last year, he dropped hints to the press that he was interested in universal health care and that he'd gladly serve as HHS secretary in a Democratic administration.

So, given the fact that Daschle was pondering public-service options, and that 2008 was shaping up to be a strong Democratic year, why wouldn't he have sought to ensure that his private sector record was spotless when the public spotlight swung his way? Wouldn't that have been the logical course of action?

Instead, he took a free car and driver from one of his many private-sector patrons (a private equity firm), and used it for personal pursuits 80 percent of the time. That's a violation of the IRS code, which requires that the value of transportation services provided for personal use has to be reported as income. Daschle's unreported income, with respect to the limo, totaled roughly $255,256 in the three years from 2005 to 2007.

He didn't pay the back taxes and interest on that income (totaling about $140,000) until Jan. 2 of this year - after Obama had tappped him to be HHS secretary, and therefore after it became clear that he needed to clean up fast, in advance of his confirmation hearing.

A few other tax issues are dogging Daschle at the moment (such as $88,000 in unreported consulting income in 2007), but the limo episode gives us a window into the psyche of an ex-pol living life in the fast lane, paying scant heed to the tax laws, and facing up to the political ramifications only when there was no avenue of escape.

The Democratic-run Senate Finance Committee, in a report on Daschle released Friday, included this gem of a sentence: "Senator Daschle told staff that in June 2008, something made him think that the car service might be taxable, and disclosed the arrangement to his accountant."

Something made him wake up...Well, it's not hard to determine what that something was. On June 3, 2008, Obama clinched the Democratic nomination. That same week, Daschle told the press that he was "interested" in being "helpful" to an Obama administration on the health care issue. Translation: With his dream of an influential Obama post becoming more real by the day, with his ambitions on the line, he suddenly developed religion about the tax laws.

Reportedly, however, he didn't share his new-found religion with the Obama transition team until mid-December, after he was tapped for the HHS job; only then did he share the news about the car-and-driver matter.

The result today, of course, is that he has badly embarrassed Obama. The new president has set a high bar on ethics and accountability, yet here's another prominent Cabinet nominee (with baggage worse than Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner) who can't seem to hurdle it.

On the other hand, it was Obama's decision to nominate Daschle in the first place; presumably, he knew all along that this guy was a classic Beltway animal. Scads of lawmakers have left Capitol Hill and promptly cashed in on their connections and expertise by signing up with the deep-pocket companies that they once regulated. Daschle epitomizes that traditional Washington two-step. He has taken in roughly $5.3 million in the last two years alone - including $300,000 from health-care companies that he would have to regulate if he is confirmed as HHS secretary. And he was savvy enough to elude the strictures that are imposed by lobbyists, because, while he has been giving "policy advice" to private sector clients, he has never registered as a lobbyist.

Will Daschle be confirmed? A Senate Democratic spokesman said yes, citing Daschle's "long and distinguished career and record in public service." Translation: Daschle is a member in good standing of the Senate club, and it's hard to imagine that club members will sandbag one of their own, for the behavior that they too would indulge in the private sector if given the chance.

Obama has signaled that he is sticking with Daschle. No doubt Daschle believes that the president is sincere. Last June, Daschle offered this praise for his patron: "Those who accomplish the most are those who don't make perfect the enemy of the good. Barack is a pragmatist."

Daschle, demonstrably less than perfect, appears to be reading Obama correctly.



3) H.R.1: The House's Pig Pen
By Lee Cary

The pork-laden American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 passed by Democrats in the House is a huge pig pen.


Thanks to the staff of Congressman Michael Burgess (TX-R., 26th Dist.), I waded through a hardcopy of Division A - Appropriations Provisions of H.R.1. It's painful and it's ugly. (My reading of "Division B - Other Provisions," pages 251-647, which contains the bill's Tax provisions, will require OTC painkillers not currently in my possession.)


There's enough pork in Division A to rename the Washington D.C. Reflecting Pool the Bay of Pigs.


At the risk of hurting you, I list the bill's appropriations below. You can consult the entire bill for details, where there are any. And there are few. Most of the explanations for how the money is to be spent are as brief as fortune cookie notes, and opaque as peanut butter. I left the zeros in for impact and highlighted several of the larger numbers. It's possible there's a mistake in transcription, but you'll get the drift.


Department Of Agriculture


$44,000,000 - Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments; $209,000,000 - Agricultural Research Service Buildings and Facilities; $245,000,000 - Farm Service Agency Salaries and Expenses; $350,000,000 - Natural Resources Conservation Service Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations; $50,000,000 - Watershed Rehabilitation Program; $5,838,000,000 - Rural Development Programs, Rural Community Advancement Program; $22,129,000,000 - Rural Housing Service, Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account; $2,825,000,000 - Rural Utilities Service, Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program; $100,000,000 - Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; $150,000,000 - Emergency Food Assistance Program" (This includes grants for Puerto Rico and American Samoa); $300,000,000 - Administrative Expenses ($150,000,000 each in '09 & '10); $650,000,000 - Forest Service, Capital Improvement and Maintenance; $840,000,000 - Wildland Fire Management


Department Of Commerce


$250,000,000 - Economic Development Administration, Economic Development Assistance Program; $1,000,000,000 - Bureau of the Census, Periodic Censuses and Programs (additional funding); $350,000,000 - National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Salaries and Expenses; $2,825,000,000 - Wireless and Broadband Deployment Grant Programs; $650,000,000 - Digital-To-Analog Converter Box Program; $100,000,000 - National Institute of Standards and Technology Scientific and Technical Research and Services; $100,000,000 - Industrial Technology Services


$300,000,000 - Construction of Research Facilities; $400,000,000 - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Operations, Research and Facilities; $600,000,000 - Procurement, Acquisition and Construction (includes not less than $140,000,000 for "climate data modeling")


Department Of Justice (DoJ)


$3,000,000,000 - State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance; $1,000,000,000 - Community Oriented Policing Services


National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)


$400,000,000 - Science (not less than $250,000,000 "shall be solely for accelerating the development of the tier 1 set of Earth science climate research missions); $150,000,000 - Aeronautics; $50,000,000 - Cross Agency Support Programs (restoration and mitigation of NASA infrastructure and facilities damaged during 2008 disasters)


National Science Foundation


$2,500,000,000 - Research and Related Activities; $100,000,000 - Education and Human Resources; $400,000,000 - Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction


Department Of Defense


$4,500,000,000 - Facility Infrastructure Investments; $350,000,000 - Energy Research and Development; $920,000,000 - Military Construction, Army; $350,000,000 - Military Construction, Navy & Marine Corps; $260,000,000 - Military Construction, Air Force; $3,750,000,000 - Military Construction, Defense-Wide; $140,000,000 - Military Construction, Army National Guard; $70,000,000 - Military Construction, Air National Guard; $100,000,000 - Military Construction, Army Reserve; $30,000,000 - Military Construction, Navy Reserve; $60,000,000 - Military Construction, Air Force Reserve; $300,000,000 - Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990


Department Of Veterans Affairs (VA)


$950,000,000 - Veterans Health Administration, Medical Facilities; $50,000,000 - National Cemetery Administration


Energy And Water


$2,000,000,000 - Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Construction; $250,000,000 - Mississippi River and Tributaries; $2,225,000,000 - Operation and Maintenance; $25,000,000 - Regulatory Program


Department Of Energy


$18,500,000,000 - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; $4,500,000,000 -; $1,000,000,000 - Advanced Battery Loan Guarantee Program; $500,000,000 - Institutional Loan Guarantee Program; $8,000,000,000 - Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program; $2,400,000,000 - Fossil Energy; $2,000,000,000 - Science (weird science?)


Environmental And Other Defense Activities


$500,000,000 - Defense Environmental Cleanup


Borrowing Authorities


$3,250,000,000 - Western Area Power Administration; $3,250,000,000 - Bonneville Power Administration


General Services Administration


$7,700,000,000 - Federal Buildings Fund; $600,000,000 - Energy Efficient Federal Motor Vehicle Fleet Procurement (no mention of buying only American cars)


Small Business Administration


$426,000,000 - Business Loans Program Account


Department Of Homeland Security


$100,000,000 - U.S. Customs and Border Protection (non-intrusive detection technology at sea ports of entry); $150,000,000 - Repair and Construct Inspections Facilities (at land border points of entry); $500,000,000 - Aviation Security; $150,000,000 - Coast Guard, (alteration of bridges); $200,000,000 - FEMA, Emergency Food & Shelter


Department Of The Interior


$500,000,000 - Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources; $325,000,000 - Bureau of Land Management, Construction (for priority road, bridge and trail repair or decommissioning); $300,000,000 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Construction (for priority road and bridge replacement and repair); $1,700,000,000 - National Park Service Construction; $200,000,000 - National Mall Revitalization Fund (half of that requires matching private funds); $100,000,000 - National Park Service Centennial Challenge (signature projects and programs); $200,000,000 - U.S. Geological Survey for Surveys, Investigations and Research; $500,000,000 - Bureau of Indian Affairs, Construction; $800,000,000 - Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Hazardous Substance Superfund; $200,000,000 - EPA, Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program; $8,400,000,000 - State and Tribal Assistance Grants ($6 bln, Clean Water State Revolving Funds; $2 bln, Drinking Water State Revolving Funds; $300 mil, Title VII, Subtitle G, Energy Policy Act of 2005; $100 mil, Comprehensive environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980)


Department Of Health And Human Services (HSS)


$550,000,000 - Indian Health Service; $2,188,000,000 - Health Resources and Services; $462,000,000 - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Disease Control, Research and Training; $1,500,000,000 - National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Center for Research Resources; $1,500,000,000 - NIH, Office of the Director; $500,000,000 - NIH, Buildings & Facilities; $700,000,000 - Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; $400,000,000 - Discretionary Funds, Secretary of HHS (Tom Daschle won't have to pay taxes on this); $1,000,000,000 - Administration for Children and Families, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance; $2,000,000,000 - Payments to States for the Child Care and Development Block Grant; $3,200,000,000 - Children and Families Services Program; $200,000,000 - Administration on Aging, Aging Services Programs; $2,000,000,000 - Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology; $900,000,000 - Public Health & Social Services Emergency Fund (three parts for advanced R&D, prepare for influenza pandemic, improve IT at the Department of HHS); $3,000,000,000 - HHS Prevention and Wellness Fund


Department Of Education


$13,000,000,000 - Education for the Disadvantaged; $100,000,000 - Impact Aid (Title VII of the elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965); $1,000,000,000 - School Improvement Program; $200,000,000 - Innovation and Improvement; $13,000,000,000 - Special Education (ref. IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act); $16,126,000,000 - Student Financial Assistance; $50,000,000 - Student Aid Administration; $100,000,000 - Higher Education; $250,000,000 - Institute of Education Sciences; $14,000,000,000 - School Modernization, Renovation, and Repair; $6,000,000,000 - Higher Education Modernization, Renovation, and Repair; $79,000,000,000 - State Fiscal Stabilization Fund


Corporation For National And Community Service


$160,000,000 - Operating Expenses; $40,000,000 - National Service Trust


Social Security Administration


$900,000,000 - Limitation on Administrative Expenses


Smithsonian Institute


$150,000,000 - Facilities Capital


National Foundation For The Arts And The Humanities


$50,000,000 - National Endowment for the Arts


Department Of Labor


$4,000,000,000 - Employment and Training Administration; $120,000,000 - Community Service Employment For Older Americans; $500,000,000 - State Unemployment Insurance and Employment Service Operations; $80,000,000 - Departmental Management; $300,000,000 - Office of the Job Corps


Department Of State


$276,000,000 - Administration of Foreign Affairs, Capital Investment Fund; $224,000,000 - International Boundary and Water Commission, U.S. and Mexico, Construction


Department Of Transportation


$3,000,000,000 - Federal Aviation Administration, Grants-in-Aid for Airports;


$30,000,000,000 - Federal Highway Administration, Highway Infrastructure Investment; $300,000,000 - Federal Railroad Administration, Capital Assistance for Intercity Passenger Rail Service; $800,000,000 - Capital and Debt Service Grant to the Railroad Passenger Corporation; $6,000,000,0000 - Federal Transit Administration, Transit Capital Assistance; $2,000,000,000 - Fixed Guideway Infrastructure Investment; $1,000,000,000 - Grants at the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation


Department Of Housing & Urban Development


$5,000,000,000 - Public & Indian Housing, Public Housing Capital Fund; $2,500,000,000 - Elderly, Disabled, and Section 8 Assisted Housing, Energy Retrofit; $500,000,000 - Native American Housing Block Grants; $1,000,000,000 - Community Planning & Development, Community Development Fund; $4,190,000,000 - Neighborhood Stabilization Activities (ACORN money here?); Community Development Fund; $1,500,000,000 - Home Investment Partnerships Program; $10,000,000 - Self-Help & Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program; $1,500,000,000 - Homeless Assistance Grants; $100,000,000 - Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control, Lead Hazard Reduction


Whew! Boar-a-rama. Hog heaven.


Rest assured, though, that all these expenditures will be closely monitored to prevent fraud and wasteful spending. There's 198,400,000 allocated for Inspector Generals of federal departments and agencies. The Government Accounting Office will have another $25,000,000 to follow the money flowing from the swinery.


And, in case you're concerned about such things, breathe easy because, according to Sec. 1109. PROHIBITED USES:


None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in the Act may be used for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, or swimming pool.


This, of course, does not apply to later mentioned "pools of first lien position 504 [SBA] loans sold to third-party investors." Only swimming pools.


In H.R.1 there is even a Blago Clause (SEC. 1112). No money is to be spent in Illinois as long as Blago is governor except by separate expressed approval from the State legislature. But that's a mute issue now. No Blago - no problem.


As for transparency, it's assured by SEC. 1221. "ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY BOARD." The Chief Performance Officer appointed by the President will chair the above mentioned Board and serve with six inspector generals and deputy secretaries of the Departments of Energy, HHS, Transportation, "and from other Federal departments and agencies to which funds are made available in the Act."


The Board's budget is $14,000,000. Their office space will be provided within the Executive Office of the President. There'll also be an Independent Advisory Panel (SEC. 1229) with five members chosen by President Obama. All on the up-n-up.

4) CAIR's True Colors
By Steven Emerson


Though it represents itself to be a Muslim civil rights organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) devoted most of its resources earlier this month to mobilizing opposition to Israel's attempt to neutralize Hamas militarily. It organized petition drives and bus caravans from chapters across the country to a protest held January 10th in Washington, D.C.

CAIR has cultivated sympathetic coverage in everything from local newspapers to the New York Times, nurtured alliances with members of Congress, including Democrats Jim McDermott of Washington, Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, all of whom have spoken at CAIR events.

In the past six months the mayors of Houston and Tampa have issued proclamations designating "Council on American Islamic Relations day" in their cities. Not bad for a group labeled as a front group by an FBI agent during sworn testimony in a successful terror-finance prosecution in which CAIR is an un-indicted co-conspirator.

The following report shows the consistent support CAIR officials have shown for Hamas, Hizballah and other radicals and their refusal to condemn terrorist attacks and suicide bombings by those groups.


IN THEIR OWN WORDS: THE COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS (CAIR)


I. In Support of Hamas and Hizballah


CAIR incorporator and current executive director Nihad Awad has publicly expressed his support for Hamas. At a symposium at Barry University in Florida on March 22, 1994, he said: "After I researched the situation inside and outside of Palestine, I am in support of the Hamas movement ."[1] [emphasis added]

Again, on CBS' 60 Minutes in November 1994, when Mike Wallace asked him what he thought "of the military undertakings of Hamas," Awad responded, "Well, I think that's — that's for the people to judge," avoiding the question. He then spoke in support of Hamas and armed resistance:

"the United Nations Charter grants people who are under occupation [the right] to defend themselves against illegal occupation."[2]

Awad has sought to justify these clear statements of support for Hamas in terms of their timing. In Senate testimony, he wrote, "You will never find a CAIR statement supporting Hamas after the commencement of suicide bombings and United States government's designation of them as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) on January 24, 1995."[3] Similarly, Awad commented on the context of his Barry University remarks, "It [Hamas] has not attacked civilians then, and it was not designated by the United States government as a terrorist organization."[4]

However, CAIR officials have gone back on Awad's statements, criticizing the U.S. government for listing Hamas as a FTO. At the 2007 ISNA 44th Annual Conference in Rosemont, Illinois, then CAIR-National Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed defended Hamas and Hezbollah by criticizing those who refuse to separate their roles as terrorist organizations and their roles as parts of democratic governments:

"Hamas and Hezbollah are both on the U.S. State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations. But Hamas and Hezbollah are also part of their democratic governments. They're elected representatives of their own people. So this presents a problem. And the challenges that often the detractors, who have a vested interest in perpetuating a situation of conflict in the Middle East try to use simple language and simple broad brush to lump them into the same category . And I call this 'Islamic exceptionalism.' In other words that while the discourse among people of influence, people of knowledge, are able to distinguish between the subtleties of different things for other groups, that subtlety of differences are not applied towards Muslims."[5] [emphasis added]

In a May 2008 at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., Ahmed encouraged cooperation with Hamas, painting the organization as a legitimate and benevolent entity:

"Our posture of diplomacy, our policies have to be significantly altered from where we are today so that we address all issues. If we look at the State Department's list of terrorist organizations, it lists many groups that are part of political processes, like Hamas and Hezbollah. They're part of the political processes in their societies, just like the IRA was part of political process in their society. And part of Al Qaeda's rage come from the un-interest or the lack of progress towards peace in the Middle East."[6]

Mustafa Carroll of the Dallas Fort Worth Chapter of CAIR said the following in support of Hamas in response to the late 2008, early 2009 Gaza crisis:

"I think you can only blame Hamas for so long. It takes two to tango. And I think, you know, that what we've heard for a number of years is this terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, was not just Hamas."[7]

CAIR has also come out in support of Hamas by vocally protesting the killing of Hamas leaders.

On March 22, 2004, Israel assassinated Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin. "CAIR Condemns Israeli Assassination of Religious Leader,"[8] the organization announced in a press release that day. It criticized Israel for killing a "wheelchair-bound Palestinian Muslim religious leader."[9] Similarly, after an Israeli missile killed Abdel Aziz Rantisi, Yassin's replacement as head of Hamas,[10] CAIR issued an April 17, 2004 press release blasting Israel for killing a "political leader."[11]

CAIR's 1997 report, "The Status of Muslim Civil Rights in the United States," characterized the failure of the U.S. government to respond to pressure by the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) to investigate and "to seek justice" for the death of Ahmed Hamida, an Arab-American terrorist killed in Jerusalem, as an act of discrimination.[12] In its description of the incident, CAIR depicted Ahmed as an innocent "Palestinian-American Muslim" visitor "gunned down by armed Israelis." [13] CAIR also implied that the shooting was committed in retaliation for a Tel Aviv bus bombing that occurred a day prior to Hamida's killing.[14]

CAIR failed to mention that Hamida was shot by civilians while attempting to flee after deliberately driving his car into a group of Israelis waiting at a Jerusalem bus stop.[15] In the attack, he killed a mother of two and injured 22 other Israelis.[16] The subsequent investigation left no doubt that the car crash was not an accident, but rather a terrorist attack. Eyewitnesses heard Hamida yell "Allahu Akbar!" as he jumped out of his car.[17] Also, he had indicated to friends on the morning before the attack that they would see him on television that night.[18] Hamas later took credit for the attack.[19]

Also of note is the fact that in 1994, IAP posted a CAIR press release that closely mirrored language in Hamas' Covenant. The press release, which discussed the Hussein-Rabin Summit, was quickly modified to remove this text.[20] The covenant says Hamas "believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf [endowment] throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it."[21]

CAIR's original release described the Cairo and Oslo peace agreements as a chance "for all those who met secretly with the Zionists behind the scenes to come out in public and take their masks off."

"We have affirmed repeatedly the danger of such agreements lies in abandoning the basic legitimate Palestinian rights, and it is a way to penetrate economically, politically, and culturally the ME region where Arab states are in their worst conditions. Thus, we affirm the followings:

1. Palestine is an Islamic and Arabic land which no one has the right to trade, sell, or give up

2. The current situation of the Arab states is at a weakness stage that must end sooner or later, and rights can't be lost with signing agreements."

Also notable in talking about CAIR support of Hamas is that Hamas has itself posted CAIR information and activities updates on its official web site (http://www.palestine-info.net), including a June 5, 2001 article in which Nihad Awad called for a demonstration at the U.S. State Department to protest American support for Israel.[22]


II. Refusing to condemn by name, when asked, Hamas or Hizballah


An October 27, 2001 National Journal article reported, "Asked to describe CAIR's view of Hamas, spokesman Ibrahim Hooper declined to comment."[23] A November 18, 2001 Washington Post article quoted Hooper as saying, in response to an Anti-Defamation League (ADL) request to condemn Hamas and Islamic Jihad by name:

"It's not our job to go around denouncing, that when they say jump, we say how high."[24] [emphasis added]

Asked by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in February 2002 to condemn Hamas, Hooper called such questions a "game" and declared, "We're not in the business of condemning."[25]

Asked in a May 27, 2003 deposition, "Do you support Hamas," CAIR co-founder and Chairman Emeritus Omar Ahmad responded, "It depends. Qualify 'support.'"[26] Similarly, he was asked whether he had "ever taken a position with respect to ,,, [Hamas'] 'martyrdom attacks.'" Ahmad responded, "No."[27]

In 2007, CAIR-Chicago's Ahmed Rehab pulled the conversation in another direction when asked if he "condemned organizations which use terrorism as an action." Rehab, instead of addressing the question, turned the question around to blame Israel for killing innocent civilians:

"then you would condemn the IDF and the Israeli army... because they also use..[speaking over other guests] civilians."[28]

Following the example Hooper set years earlier, CAIR national legislative affairs director Corey Saylor refused to directly respond to a challenge to condemn Hamas when pressed to do so during an August 2008 interview with Fox News:

Reporter David Lee Miller:

"Can you sit here now and in just one sentence tell me- CAIR condemns Hamas and CAIR condemns Hezbollah?"

Corey Saylor:

"I'm telling you in a very clear fashion — CAIR condemns terrorist acts, whoever commits them, wherever they commit them, whenever they commit them."

David Lee Miller:

"That's not the same thing as saying you condemn Hamas and you condemn Hezbollah."

Corey Saylor:

"Well I recognize that you don't like my answer to the question, but that's the answer to the question."

David Lee Miller: "It's not no, it's not whether I like it or dislike it. I was asking whether or not you can sit here now and say- CAIR condemns Hamas or Hezbollah. If you don't want to, just say that. If that is a position your group doesn't take, I certainly accept that. I just want to understand what your answer is." [emphasis added]

Corey Saylor:

"The position that my group takes is that we condemn terrorism on a consistent, persistent basis, wherever it happens, whenever it happens." [29]

In an interview following the Gaza Crisis which began at the end of 2008, CAIR spokesman Hooper avoided commenting on whether the Palestinian people would like Hamas to lose power in the region:

Newscaster:

"In your view tending to the aspiration desires of the Palestinian people, does that also include making Hamas irrelevant in the region ?" [emphasis added]

Hooper:

"Well what you want to do is give the Palestinians an idea that their future can be better. That their children can actually eat. Can you imagine right now, in the twenty first century, that we have a situation where there is a blockade keeping children from eating in any part of the world and America is supporting that blockade. It's outrageous, it's illegal, it's immoral and it's against international law. At a minimum we have to end the siege of the Gaza ghetto."[30]

As reported in October 2008 by NBC News Senior Investigative Producer Jim Popkin, Ibrahim Hooper once again refused to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah when asked in an interview. According to the report, Hooper asserted that CAIR has always condemned acts of terrorism, but then "would not answer whether CAIR condemns those designated terrorist groups themselves." The report then quotes Hooper as having ended the conversation saying, "I've already answered your questions."[31]


III. In support of armed resistance and refusing to condemn suicide bombings


CAIR officials often speak out in support of armed resistance in response to occupation and, in doing so, justify and excuse the occurrence of suicide bombings.

Speaking at a 2001 event at the New York Interfaith Center, Ghazi Khankan, who served as executive director of CAIR-NY from at least April 2001[32] through September 2004,[33] said:

"The people of Hamas who direct their attacks on the Israeli military are in the correct position."[34]

When pressed on his definition of a "civilian," Khankan revealed his view that anyone over 18 was a legitimate target:

"Who is a soldier in Israel and who is not? Anyone over eighteen is automatically inducted into the service and they are all reserves. Therefore, Hamas in my opinion looks at them as part of the military. Those who are below 18 should not be attacked."[35]

Also in 2001, Nihad Awad made a strong statement in support of armed resistance against Israel during a press conference and sit-in outside the State Department:

"We are not shy to support the Palestinian resistance against the occupation. It is a legitimate G-d-given right."[36]

Awad continued on during this 2001 press conference to advocate the reduction of violence only if it aids the Palestinian cause or in his words if it "produces a result."

"What we urge, we urge the reduction of violence if it produces a result. But we should not pressure and blame the victims for resisting the occupation. Remember, it is the Israeli forces who come to the Palestinian neighborhoods and Palestinian towns and cities, and they provoke response ,,, The aggression is coming from the Israeli side, not the Palestinians. The Palestinians are only responding to the root cause of the issue, which is the occupation. "[37]

In August of 2006, Nihad Awad excused suicide bombings as legitimate results of occupations and attempts to fight injustice during a C-SPAN Program while quoting Hamas apologist University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape:

"[Robert Pape] found out that [suicide terrorism] has more to do with occupations and fighting injustice than religion. And he pointed out that most of these suicide bombings have been done at the hands of the Tamil Tiger in Sri Lanka than by Muslims. I have not fully read that book, but whatever I have read from it I found very interesting and it really responds to the myth and the known notion now that has been used by several commentators and some politicians .."[38]

At ISNA's 44th Annual Conference in Rosemont, Illinois in 2007, then CAIR National Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed justified "suicide terrorism" as a response to occupation:

"Another problem when talking about this question of suicide terrorism, suicide bombings, especially in the Middle East, especially in the occupied territories, you know people use a circular logic. It was not the suicide terrorism led to occupation; it was occupation led to suicide terrorism."[39]

At a CAIR Dallas Banquet in 2007, Mustafa Carroll of CAIR- Dallas/Fort Worth excused terrorism as a result of oppression:

"..look at the true cause of the terrorism. It's not somebody is reading a book, reading a Qu'ran, and then go out and say, 'Well, the Qu'ran told me to blow this up. I'm gonna blow it up.' The cause, the root cause of terrorism is oppression. The root cause of terrorism is oppression. "[40] [emphasis added]

In January 2004, at a Muslim Students Association of UCLA Islamic Awareness Week event in Los Angeles, CAIR-Southern California Executive Director Hussam Ayloush affirmed the

"legitimate right of the Palestinians to defend themselves against the Israeli occupation."[41]

The Cleveland Plain Dealer summarized the attitude of Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR's chief spokesman like this in 2003:

"While the Islamic council says it has denounced suicide bombings against Israeli civilians, spokesman Ibrahim Hooper yesterday would not criticize suicide attacks against Israeli soldiers. Instead, he spoke of Palestinians exercising 'the right to resist military occupation.'"[42]

At the National Press Club in Washington D.C. in May of 2008 then-CAIR chairman Parvez Ahmed downplayed the motivations behind suicide bombings:

"Suicide bombings are the product of modern political violence. Suicide bombings by Muslims are not the result of any Islamic ideology, but rather they are the result of social political conditions of occupations."[43]

This wasn't Ahmed's first attempt at suicide bombing apologetics. At an event at the Islamic Center at NYU in October of 2007 Ahmed said:

"Our going to Iraq caused terrorism the same way terrorism by some Palestinians is not the reason Israel keeps Palestine occupied. But it is the occupation that breeds resentment and enables terrorism to fester."[44]

One of the most significant ways in which CAIR has supported suicide bombings is in its support of Yusuf Qaradawi.


IV. Defending Muslim Brotherhood leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi


Qaradawi is a prominent and vehemently anti-Semitic leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Qatar. The Muslim Brotherhood is an 80-year-old Egyptian religious movement that seeks the global spread of Islam and establishment of a Shariah, or religious law, in nations with Muslim populations. It is the ideological underpinning for

all modern Islamic terrorist groups, including Hamas and Al Qaeda.[45] In his award-winning 1994 documentary Jihad in America, Investigative Project on Terrorism Executive Director Steven Emerson showed Qaradawi at a 1989 conference in Kansas City predicting "On the hour of judgment, Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them." CAIR claimed that Qaradawi actually had "often spoken out against religious extremism."[46]However — as documented below — Qaradawi defends suicide bombings, is hostile to Jews, and has called for attacks on U.S. civilians in Iraq.

In January 1998, the Associated Press quoted Qaradawi as writing, "There should be no dialogue with these people [Israelis] except with swords. "[47][emphasis added] And in April 2001, commenting on suicide bombings, he said, "They are not suicide operations ,,, These are heroic martyrdom operations ."[48][emphasis added]

In September 2004, Qaradawi ruled it a religious duty for Muslims to fight Americans in Iraq, including U.S. civilians.[49]

And yet, at the 2002 Orange County CAIR fundraiser, Hussam Ayloush referred to Qaradawi as a "scholar:"

"Several people were asking about the eligibility claim for CAIR. And according to many scholars including Yusuf Qaradawi, basically this is one of the venues of Zakat for your money as vis a vis basically educating about Islam in America and the West."[50]

On July 26, 2005, in an interview on MSNBC,[51] CAIR's legal director Arsalan Iftikhar said:

"For example, if you look at Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the — one of the most famous Muslim scholars in Cairo, Egypt , he has said unequivocally that people who commit suicide bombings and — and acts of terror are completely outside the bounds of Islam."[emphasis added]

In 2006 Nihad Awad mentioned Qaradawi as a "prominent and known scholar" in condemning the Jill Carroll kidnapping:

"Even the prominent and known scholar who always appears on Al-Jazeera, Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, he conveyed the same message."[52]


V. In denying the legitimacy of Israel

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad also echoed Hamas' absolute rejection of Israel's legitimacy. In an April 1994 letter to the editor of The Message, an American-Muslim publication, he criticized the magazine for using the term "Israel."

"I hope," he wrote, "that the use of 'Israel' in your news briefs was the result of an oversight and not intentional...Furthermore I hope you will return to the terminology 'Occupied Palestine' to refer to that Holy Land ."[53] [emphasis added]

At a Right of Return rally in front of the White House on September 16, 2000, Awad rejected coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians, stating:

"they [the Jews] have been saying 'next year to Jerusalem,' we say 'next year to all Palestine.'"[54]

During CAIR's 13th Annual Banquet in San Jose, California in 2007, Awad denied the legitimacy of Israel by saying that the U.S. is wrong in supporting Israel:

"..our government is blindly, unlimitly and unconsciously supporting the state of Israel, oppressing the Palestinian people. This is wrong, and we have to stand up and we have to tell our government, 'Enough is enough.'"[55]

In March of 2008 Hussam Ayloush, Secretary of CAIR-California, characterized Israel with the aim of delegitimizing it and condemned the United States for "act[ing]" like a terrorist state:

"It's a struggle for an America that respects and humanizes religion. It's an America that if free to act on its values and not on the interests of any foreign lobby. It's an America that rejects all forms of collective punishment on the Palestinians of Gaza and West Bank, an America that genuinely supports justice, peace and democracy in Palestine, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Pakistan, in Lebanon, in Somalia and all over the world, rather than supporting occupation, instability, the interests of defense and war companies and the corrupt allies and puppet regimes that we keep supporting ,,, an America that can defeat terrorists without having to act like one."[56] [emphasis added]

Awad made a similar statement, calling Israel an occupational state, in August of 2008, during an American Muslim Association (AMA) Civil Rights Forum:

"America should take care of its own interests and should not prosecute case on behalf of the state of Israel, because it is an occupational state."[57][emphasis added]

A December 2008 Associated Press article quoted CAIR Michigan Executive Director Dawud Walid downplaying the danger of the more than 5000 Hamas rockets fired at Israel in attempting to delegitimize Israel's defensive attacks:

"Today's attack -- which amounts to a massacre -- was definitely a disproportionate response to a few cheap, homemade, makeshift rockets being fired across the border."

CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad echoed this same sentiment as quoted in a CNN article:

"We demand that our government, the U.S. government, take immediate steps to end the immoral and illegal Israeli bombardment of Gaza and its population."[58]

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.






Comment by clicking here.

JWR contributor Steven Emerson is an internationally recognized expert on terrorism and national security and considered one of the leading world authorities on Islamic extremist networks, financing and operations. He now serves as the Executive Director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, one of the world's largest archival data and intelligence institutes on Islamic and Middle Eastern terrorist groups.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] "Conference on the Middle East — The Road to Peace: The Challenge of the Middle East," Barry University, Miami Shores, FL, March 22, 1994.

[2]"60 Minutes," CBS, November 13, 1994.

[3] Supplemental Testimony of Nihad Awad Before the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, Terrorism: Two Years After 9/11, Connecting the Dots, September 10, 2003, at 5.

[4]Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute, CA 00C-2905, "Deposition of Nihad Awad," 58 (E.D. October 22, 2003).

[5] Parvez Ahmed, ISNA 44th Annual Conference in Rosemont, Illinois, Aug. 31 - Sep. 3, 2007.

[6]Parvez Ahmed, "Separating Religion From Terror: Implications for U.S. Policy," National Press Club, Washington, D.C. May 6, 2008.

[7] Mustafa Carroll interview, Fox News Dallas, January 5, 2009.

[8]"CAIR Condemns Israeli Assassination of Religious Leader," CAIR Press Release, March 22, 2004, http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=1051&page=NR (accessed July 6, 2007).

[9] "CAIR Condemns Israeli Assassination of Religious Leader," CAIR Press Release, March 22, 2004, http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=1051&page=NR (accessed July 6, 2007).

[10]"Abdel Aziz Rantisi," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, April 18, 2004, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terror+Groups/Abdel+Aziz+Rantisi.htm?DisplayMode=print (accessed July 8, 2004).

[11] "Muslims will see Bush 'Green Light' for Assassination," CAIR Press Release, April 17, 2004, http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=1066&page=NR (accessed July 7, 2004).

[12]The Status Of Muslim Civil Rights In The United States: Unveiling Prejudice, Council on American-Islamic Relations, 1997, 48.

[13] The Status Of Muslim Civil Rights In The United States: Unveiling Prejudice, Council on American-Islamic Relations, 1997, 48.

[14]The Status Of Muslim Civil Rights In The United States: Unveiling Prejudice, Council on American-Islamic Relations, 1997, 48.

[15]Bill Hutman, "Police: J'lem Crash Almost Certainly A Terror Attack," Jerusalem Post, February 28, 1996.

[16] "Police: Jerusalem Crash Almost Certainly A Terror Attack," Jerusalem Post, February 28, 1996

[17] "The Truth Must Be Told," Jerusalem Post, March 3, 1996.

[18] "The Truth Must Be Told," Jerusalem Post, March 3, 1996.

[19] "HAMAS Claims Bus Stop Killing in Jerusalem," Agence France Presse, February 28, 1996.

[20] http://web.archive.org/web/20010429224537/http://www.iap.org/politics/peace/cair-jr.html (accessed July 11, 2004).

[21] Hamas Charter 1988, Part III, Strategies and Methods, http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html (accessed July 5, 2006).

[22] http://www.palestine-info.net, June 5, 2001.

[23]Neil Munro, "Wild Ride for US Muslim Community," National Journal, October 27, 2001.

[24]Hanna Rosin and Thomas Edsall, "Bush's Courting of Some Muslims Criticized," The Washington Post, November 18, 2001.

[25]Rachel Smolkin, "Muslim Lobbies Fully Mobilized Since Sept. 11," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, February 10, 2002.

[26] Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute, CA 00C-2905, "Deposition of Omar Ahmad," 267 (E.D. May 27, 2003).

[27] Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute, CA 00C-2905, "Deposition of Omar Ahmad," 267 (E.D. May 27, 2003).

[28] Ahmed Rehab, Panel Discussion moderated by John Hockenberry, "Islam vs. Islamists," July 30, 2007.

[29]Corey Saylor, Interview by David Lee Miller, "Where Are the Moderate Muslims in America?" Fox News Live Desk, Fox News, August 8, 2008.

[30] Interview of Ibrahim Hooper on CNN. "Protesting the War," January 2, 2009.

[31] Jim Popkin, "Obama concedes mistake over Muslim outreach meeting," MSNBC News, October 9, 2008

http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/09/1525564.aspx?p=1. [32]CAIR NY Staff, Webarchive of CAIR NY http://web.archive.org/web/20010312005942/www.cair-ny.com/about.shtml (accessed July 5, 2007).

[33]Webarchive of CAIR-NY citing article on fundraising dinner where Executive Director of CAIR NY, Ghazi Khankan was quoted, http://web.archive.org/web/20040523184107/http:/www.cair-ny.com/ (accessed July 5, 2007).

[34] Walter Ruby, "Keeping Up a Hard Line," The Jewish Week, October 12, 2001. Note: The Washington Post cited The Jewish Week piece. See: Hanna Rosin and Thomas Edsall, "Bush's Courting of Some Muslim Groups Criticized," The Washington Post, November 18, 2001.

[35] Walter Ruby, "Keeping Up a Hard Line," The Jewish Week, October 12, 2001.

[36] Nihad Awad, "Press Conference and Sit-In Outside State Department," Washington, D.C., June 5, 2001.

[37] Nihad Awad, "Press Conference and Sit-In Outside State Department," Washington, D.C., June 5, 2001.

[38] Nihad Awad, Interview by Peter Slein, "Arab Americans and Law Enforcement," Washington Journal, C-SPAN, August 19, 2006.

[39] Parvez Ahmed, ISNA 44th Annual Conference in Rosemont, Illinois, Aug. 31 - Sep. 3, 2007.

[40] Mustafa Carroll, CAIR-Dallas Banquet, Renaissance Dallas Hotel, August 18, 2007.

[41]MSA-UCLA Islamic Awareness Week, Los Angeles, California, January 28, 2004.

[42]Stephen Koff, "Kucinich Now Plans to Return Hamas Supporter's Gift," Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 3, 2003.

[43] Parvez Ahmed, "Separating Religion From Terror: Implications for U.S. Policy," National Press Club, Washington, D.C., May 6, 2008.

[44] Parvez Ahmed, "Islamophobia: Institutionalized Racism?" The Islamic Center at NYU, October 21, 2007.

[45] Richard Clarke, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, October 22, 2003.

[46] CAIR Press Release, "`Jihad in America' Not Worthy of PBS Sponsorship," November 22, 1994.

[47] "Leading Muslim Cleric Under Fire for Meeting Israeli Chief Rabbi," AP Worldstream, January 7, 1998, quoting a January 6, 1998, article by Qaradawi in the Arab newspaper Al-Shaab.

[48] Al Raya, April 2001, quoted in Michael Slackman, "Islamic Debate Surrounds Mideast Suicide Bombers," The Los Angeles Times, May 27, 2001.

[49] "Prominent Muslim Cleric Says Fighting American Civilians In Iraq Is A Duty For Muslims," Associated Press, September 2, 2004.

[50] CAIR Fundraiser, Orange County, California, October 19, 2002.

[51] MSNBC, "The Situation with Tucker Carlson," July 26, 2005, transcript. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8728122/ (accessed July 27, 2005).

[52] Nihad Awad, Arab Voices radio interview, January 25, 2006, http://www.arabvoices.net/archives/av-012506-awad.mp3.

[53]Nihad Awad, Letter to the Editor, The Message, April 1994.

[54] Palestinian Right of Return Rally, Washington, D.C., September 16, 2000.

[55] Nihad Awad, CAIR San Francisco Bay Area 13th Annual Banquet, "American Muslims: Shaping Our Future," San Jose, CA, November 11, 2007.

[56] Hussam Ayloush, CAIR- 2nd Annual Banquet, "Let the Conversation Begin," San Diego, CA, March 15, 2008.

[57] Nihad Awad, AMA Civil Rights Forum: The Case of Dr. Sami Al-Arian, Historical Society of Washington, D.C. August 12, 2008.

[58] Jonathan Helman, "Muslim coalition requests more inclusion in new administration," CNN, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/29/muslim-coalition-requests-more-inclusion-in-new-administration/.

5) Obama's Moralizing Tone May Not Wear Well:
How often do Americans want to hear how misguided they were before his arrival?
By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

Two days into his presidency, Barack Obama delivered on his most celebrated and ardently pledged campaign promise -- the imposition of stringent limitations on the ways in which U.S. agents can question terror suspects, an executive order mandating the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, and the freezing of all detainee prosecutions.

That last request brought an eloquent reply from Col. James Pohl, Guantanamo's chief military judge, who promptly said no. He declared the directive to freeze all trials "not reasonable" -- a description that could as well apply to the whole of the administration's program for our moral cleansing and reformation in intelligence gathering. Col. Pohl refused, specifically, to delay the Feb. 9 arraignment of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri -- accused Saudi master-planner of the USS Cole bombing that killed 17 American sailors and a cause célèbre for the American Civil Liberties Union. In its characteristically nuanced style, the ACLU declared, through executive director Anthony Romero, that the judge's ruling was the work of "Bush hangers-on in the Defense Department."

Mr. Obama, of course, isn't likely to be deterred by an insurrection from a military court judge. His view of America's new position in the world -- following the announcement of those orders -- was amply clear, its tone familiar. America had entered upon a new day -- we once were lost and now we're found, a people restored to the paths of principle and honor. Hillary Clinton, speaking as secretary of state, would a few days later add her voice to the general thanksgiving for our rebirth, declaring, "There is a great exhalation of breath going on in the world."

To hear Mr. Obama speak now on matters like the national defense is to recognize that the leader now in the White House is in every respect the person he seemed on the campaign trail: a man of immense moral certitude, prone to an abstract idealism, and pronouncements that range between the rational and the otherworldly.

That's not counting the occasional touches of pure rubbish. Having, on the second day of his presidency, issued executive orders effectively undermining efforts to extract (from captured al Qaeda operatives) intelligence essential to the prevention of terror attacks -- and in addition seriously hampering the prosecution of terrorist detainees -- Mr. Obama argued that it was just by such steps that we strengthened our security. In his own words: "It is precisely our ideals that give us the strength and the moral high ground to be able to effectively deal with the unthinking violence that we see emanating from terrorist organizations around the world."

What can this mean? What moral high ground, exactly, would have enabled us to deter the designs of the religious fanatics in search of martyrdom and the slaughter of as many Americans as possible on September 11?

So much had happened in Washington that week -- so much speechifying and celebration -- it was easy to tune out that pronouncement, particularly since we'd heard its like so often during Mr. Obama's presidential run. It was of a piece with those assertions, emphasized the length of his campaign, that it was not our strength in arms but our principles that had made us a great nation.

During his grim inaugural address -- never has the promise of a nation's rebirth sounded so cheerless -- he was similarly emphatic as he touched on the issue of our defense, proclaiming that "we will not give up our ideals for expediency's sake." It was a line that evoked a loud upsurge of applause from his audience.

They had heard in it again, Mr. Obama's most dramatic and familiar campaign charge, delivered now in shorthand that needed no spelling out: The day of the Bush administration's machinations against our sacred ideals, against democracy itself, all in the name of our security, was now over. In this new day of our national salvation, then -- in a post 9/11 America that had seen 3,000 of its inhabitants murdered by terrorists -- it was now acceptable to characterize strenuous efforts to avert more such catastrophes as "expediency." It was not only acceptable, but proof of a higher moral intelligence.

The generation of Americans who had faced down fascism and communism understood, Mr. Obama further explained on Inauguration Day, that power alone could not protect us. They understood that our security came not just from missiles and tanks but from "sturdy alliances" and "enduring convictions" -- it emanated from "the tempering quality of humility and restraint."

It's impossible to know what kind of history Mr. Obama has been reading but this much at least is true -- the generation he describes knew the importance of sturdy alliances all right. There was that one, for instance, between the American leader, Franklin Roosevelt, and the British, Winston Churchill. Both of them, along with their countrymen, were driven by one enduring conviction -- that fascism should be eradicated from the face of the earth and a total war of destruction waged on Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany until their surrender. It would be hard to find, in their pursuit of that purpose, any hint of that tempering quality of humility and restraint. Not that it isn't entertaining to imagine Roosevelt extending the hand of friendship and conciliation to Hirohito, or Churchill proposing to raise a glass and talk things over with Hitler.

It's been tempting to ascribe Mr. Obama's orders on terrorist detentions, interrogations and Guantanamo to his campaign promises. Not to mention the pressure of that political constituency whose chief enterprise has been these many years to portray the war on terror as an illicit enterprise, conducted by agents of government bent on robbing innocent Americans of their constitutional rights and instilling baseless fears -- and that has succeeded, with the invaluable aid of a like-minded quarter of the media, in presenting a picture of Guantanamo as a hell on earth akin to Auschwitz.

Mr. Obama, who has always been much better than his vocal supporters on the far left, better than the cadres in MoveOn.Org, is no extremist. Still, there is no reason to think that his views on security issues and Guantanamo and interrogations, his tendency to minimize the central importance of armed might, are not deeply rooted. They are clearly core beliefs.

And that, along with those trumpeting declarations to the world that new leadership had now come to the United States, that we were now a nation worthy of the world's trust -- those speeches suggesting that after years of darkness America had now been rescued, just barely, from the abyss -- will be in the end this president's Achilles' heel. Those are not, Mr. Obama may discover, tones that wear well in the course of a presidency.

6)How Government Prolonged the Depression: Policies that decreased competition in product and labor markets were especially destructive.
By HAROLD L. COLE and LEE E. OHANIAN

The New Deal is widely perceived to have ended the Great Depression, and this has led many to support a "new" New Deal to address the current crisis. But the facts do not support the perception that FDR's policies shortened the Depression, or that similar policies will pull our nation out of its current economic downturn.


The goal of the New Deal was to get Americans back to work. But the New Deal didn't restore employment. In fact, there was even less work on average during the New Deal than before FDR took office. Total hours worked per adult, including government employees, were 18% below their 1929 level between 1930-32, but were 23% lower on average during the New Deal (1933-39). Private hours worked were even lower after FDR took office, averaging 27% below their 1929 level, compared to 18% lower between in 1930-32.

Even comparing hours worked at the end of 1930s to those at the beginning of FDR's presidency doesn't paint a picture of recovery. Total hours worked per adult in 1939 remained about 21% below their 1929 level, compared to a decline of 27% in 1933. And it wasn't just work that remained scarce during the New Deal. Per capita consumption did not recover at all, remaining 25% below its trend level throughout the New Deal, and per-capita nonresidential investment averaged about 60% below trend. The Great Depression clearly continued long after FDR took office.

Why wasn't the Depression followed by a vigorous recovery, like every other cycle? It should have been. The economic fundamentals that drive all expansions were very favorable during the New Deal. Productivity grew very rapidly after 1933, the price level was stable, real interest rates were low, and liquidity was plentiful. We have calculated on the basis of just productivity growth that employment and investment should have been back to normal levels by 1936. Similarly, Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas and Leonard Rapping calculated on the basis of just expansionary Federal Reserve policy that the economy should have been back to normal by 1935.

So what stopped a blockbuster recovery from ever starting? The New Deal. Some New Deal policies certainly benefited the economy by establishing a basic social safety net through Social Security and unemployment benefits, and by stabilizing the financial system through deposit insurance and the Securities Exchange Commission. But others violated the most basic economic principles by suppressing competition, and setting prices and wages in many sectors well above their normal levels. All told, these antimarket policies choked off powerful recovery forces that would have plausibly returned the economy back to trend by the mid-1930s.

The most damaging policies were those at the heart of the recovery plan, including The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which tossed aside the nation's antitrust acts and permitted industries to collusively raise prices provided that they shared their newfound monopoly rents with workers by substantially raising wages well above underlying productivity growth. The NIRA covered over 500 industries, ranging from autos and steel, to ladies hosiery and poultry production. Each industry created a code of "fair competition" which spelled out what producers could and could not do, and which were designed to eliminate "excessive competition" that FDR believed to be the source of the Depression.

These codes distorted the economy by artificially raising wages and prices, restricting output, and reducing productive capacity by placing quotas on industry investment in new plants and equipment. Following government approval of each industry code, industry prices and wages increased substantially, while prices and wages in sectors that weren't covered by the NIRA, such as agriculture, did not. We have calculated that manufacturing wages were as much as 25% above the level that would have prevailed without the New Deal. And while the artificially high wages created by the NIRA benefited the few that were fortunate to have a job in those industries, they significantly depressed production and employment, as the growth in wage costs far exceeded productivity growth.

These policies continued even after the NIRA was declared unconstitutional in 1935. There was no antitrust activity after the NIRA, despite overwhelming FTC evidence of price-fixing and production limits in many industries, and the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 gave unions substantial collective-bargaining power. While not permitted under federal law, the sit-down strike, in which workers were occupied factories and shut down production, was tolerated by governors in a number of states and was used with great success against major employers, including General Motors in 1937.

The downturn of 1937-38 was preceded by large wage hikes that pushed wages well above their NIRA levels, following the Supreme Court's 1937 decision that upheld the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act. These wage hikes led to further job loss, particularly in manufacturing. The "recession in a depression" thus was not the result of a reversal of New Deal policies, as argued by some, but rather a deepening of New Deal polices that raised wages even further above their competitive levels, and which further prevented the normal forces of supply and demand from restoring full employment. Our research indicates that New Deal labor and industrial policies prolonged the Depression by seven years.

By the late 1930s, New Deal policies did begin to reverse, which coincided with the beginning of the recovery. In a 1938 speech, FDR acknowledged that the American economy had become a "concealed cartel system like Europe," which led the Justice Department to reinitiate antitrust prosecution. And union bargaining power was significantly reduced, first by the Supreme Court's ruling that the sit-down strike was illegal, and further reduced during World War II by the National War Labor Board (NWLB), in which large union wage settlements were limited by the NWLB to cost-of-living increases. The wartime economic boom reflected not only the enormous resource drain of military spending, but also the erosion of New Deal labor and industrial policies.

By 1947, through a combination of NWLB wage restrictions and rapid productivity growth, we have calculated that the large gap between manufacturing wages and productivity that emerged during the New Deal had nearly been eliminated. And since that time, wages have never approached the severely distorted levels that prevailed under the New Deal, nor has the country suffered from such abysmally low employment.

The main lesson we have learned from the New Deal is that wholesale government intervention can -- and does -- deliver the most unintended of consequences. This was true in the 1930s, when artificially high wages and prices kept us depressed for more than a decade, it was true in the 1970s when price controls were used to combat inflation but just produced shortages. It is true today, when poorly designed regulation produced a banking system that took on too much risk.

President Barack Obama and Congress have a great opportunity to produce reforms that do return Americans to work, and that provide a foundation for sustained long-run economic growth and the opportunity for all Americans to succeed. These reforms should include very specific plans that update banking regulations and address a manufacturing sector in which several large industries -- including autos and steel -- are no longer internationally competitive. Tax reform that broadens rather than narrows the tax base and that increases incentives to work, save and invest is also needed. We must also confront an educational system that fails many of its constituents. A large fiscal stimulus plan that doesn't directly address the specific impediments that our economy faces is unlikely to achieve either the country's short-term or long-term goals.

7) Carter on the Middle East
By Storer H. Rowley


Former President Jimmy Carter calls on the Obama administration in a new book to take early and strong action to try to negotiate a peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Despite the recent violence in Gaza, Carter says he is convinced peace is still possible.

His book, "We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land: A Plan That Will Work," hit bookshelves the day of President Barack Obama's inauguration. Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for decades of efforts to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights and to promote economic and social development. His negotiations as president with the leaders of Israel and Egypt led to the 1978 Camp David Accords, and a peace treaty the following year between those two nations.

An edited transcript follows:



QWhat was your goal for this book?

AWell, this one spells out my confidence that we can have peace over there and it spells out an exact formula with a lot of options in it, all of which would be acceptable to both Israelis and their neighbors. And I was hoping when I wrote the book that we would have a president who would put the Middle East peace process at a top level of priority as far as international affairs go, and obviously, Barack Obama has done so.

QWhat do you think of Obama's new Mideast envoy, former Sen. George Mitchell?

AI was overwhelmed with joy, yes. I have known George Mitchell all of his public life and, as a matter of fact, his career and mine have been intertwined. When I was president, I appointed him [to various federal jobs] ... I was also hoping, without much expectation, that we would have a Mideast envoy this time that would look at both sides of the issue, and not just represent the Israeli side, and we have that in George Mitchell.

QGiven the storm of criticism over the title of your last Mideast book, "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid," do you have any regrets, was that a mistake?

ANo. That's not true. There's no expression of regret or correction, 'cause the book is completely accurate and the title was quite appropriate. I wrote the book at a time when there was no debate at all in this country on both sides of the issue, and I wanted to present both sides. Secondly, there hadn't been a single day of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians in 51/2 years. I wanted to help precipitate interest in the Bush administration.

QDid you write the new book to jump-start debate and to advise the new president?

AAs a matter of fact, I went to meet with President-elect Obama, I think Jan. 6. It was the night before we had the meeting of the five presidents' lunch. I explained to him the work that I had been doing at the Carter Center and he particularly wanted to talk about the Middle East. I gave him the first copy of the book that I had, one that they sent me just as the author to look over.

QWhat is your strongest piece of advice for President Obama?

AWell, I wouldn't want to comment on that, but the thing that I noticed about him was that early in the campaign he told me that he was going to put the Mideast situation up as a top priority as soon as he became president, and not wait until the last year he was in office.

QIn fact, that was what you say in the current book, that it was a flaw with the Bush administration, that they didn't get work started soon enough on the Middle East.

ACorrect. They didn't get started until about six months after my first book came out [2006]. I started on the Mideast situation as soon as I was elected.

QAfter nearly a decade of violence, do you think peace is really possible?

AI'm convinced now, since what happened after the Israelis attacked Gaza, that a lot of European leaders who had been staying aloof actually have become involved, which, of course, President Bush did not. The president of France went over there. The prime minister of Great Britain went over. The head of the European Union went over—to work side by side with the Egyptians in trying to negotiate or orchestrate a cease-fire.

So I think that the newly aroused interest of the European community is an encouraging factor. And you can't discount the horrible suffering of the Gaza people.

But I would say the most important factor by far is the new president we have and his chosen envoy.

QHas your view evolved since you wrote the last book?

AWell, in a way, because I've embellished thoughts. One is, when I wrote the previous book, I wasn't thinking about letting Israeli settlers stay in the West Bank, and that came with the Geneva Accord [a 2003 draft agreement between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators]. And I've also gotten to know for the first time the top leaders in Hamas, both those who are in the politburo, those are the ultimate leaders, and also those who govern the Gaza area.

QIn your talks with Hamas, did you find it hard to get them to make commitments? They are vague sometimes in their answers.

AThat's true. I tried to pin them down, and I negotiated on this issue 29 years before I met with them, so I was a little bit more difficult to circumvent when I was questioned.



But one of the things that they committed to me that was very significant, and they announced it publicly, by the way, to Al Jazeera and others, was that they would accept any agreement that's negotiated between the Israelis and the Palestinians if it's submitted to a referendum in the West Bank and Gaza, and the Palestinians approve it. That means they would accept Israel's right to exist if that's in the agreement and so forth. So that's really very significant. And I don't have to tell you about their willingness to have a cease-fire for 40 years if it's mutual.

QHow do you respond to criticism from some who think you should not meet with Hamas and others on the U.S. terrorist list?

AI don't let that bother me. I'm not representing the U.S. government. I'm just representing the Carter Center and myself. There's no way in the world that you can ever have peace in the Middle East without Hamas being deeply involved.

QDo you see a role for yourself in the current administration?

ANo I don't. I would much rather be completely without authority so I have total freedom to go where I wish and meet with whom I choose and say what I believe.

QCan I ask you to share your thoughts on seeing the nation's first black president; did you ever think you'd see the day?

AI'm overwhelmed with joy and pleasure. My wife and I have 24 descendants who are voters, and Barack Obama got 26 Carter family votes in the primary and in the general election. That's all the Carter votes there are in my family: 26.