Update: Bryan has posted after-speech remarks from YAF’s Jason Mattera and Robert Spencer.
Update: LGF has a video clip of Brit Hume’s coverage of the CAIR vs. Spencer/YAF battle.
I’m in D.C. covering the Young America’s Foundation national conservative student conference. Humberto Fontova, Cuban dissident and author of Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him, is taking questions from students. Fontova’s book needs to be on every college campus reading list.
Robert Spencer will be giving the speech CAIR doesn’t want anyone to hear in a few minutes. Stand by.
Washington Times: CAIR vs. YAF.
Round-up at Jihad Watch
Update 4:01pm Eastern. YAF’s Jason Mattera introducing Spencer. Mattera is recounting the CAIR demand to cancel Spencer’s speech. “To CAIR, we have a message for you and your lawyer: We love Robert Spencer (applause) and in fact, we love his book, The Truth about Muhammad…”
This is America, not Saudi Arabia. And in America, we have something called the Bill of Rights. We advise you to review amendments one and two…We are bringing you the speaker that CAIR doesn’t want you to hear…Robert Spencer.
Robert Spencer: They say in the letter that I am a well-known purveyor of hate…with a history of false and defamatory statement…but they do not manage to quote any…this is a common tactic…instructive lesson in bully-boy tactics…that is, to accuse every critic of purveying hatred and bigotry…everyone, no matter what…it’s good to see that you are not intimidated. I am not intimidated…so I’m here to tell you about the Truth about CAIR…
Can they really sue you for telling the truth?
…CAIR is highly successful…Law enforcement officials have received sensitivity training from the group…Mainstream media [has embraced]…There’s another side…it’s a side everyone needs to know about…
“CAIR is unusual in its extreme rhetoric and association with those who are suspect”…I’d like to say to CAIR’s lawyers that that’s not my statement. It was said by
Rep. Richard Durbin.
“CAIR has ties to terrorism…”
That was Rep. Charles Schumer.
“…nothing more than a apologist for groups bent on destroying Israel…”
That was Republican Rep. Bill Shuster.
Spencer reads from NYSun’s report on CAIR being named as unindicted co-conspirator in Hamas funding case.
Federal prosecutors have named three prominent Islamic organizations in America as participants in an alleged criminal conspiracy to support a Palestinian Arab terrorist group, Hamas.
Prosecutors applied the label of “unindicted co-conspirator” to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, and the North American Islamic Trust in connection with a trial planned in Texas next month for five officials of a defunct charity, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.
While the foundation was charged in the case, which was filed in 2004, none of the other groups was. However, the co-conspirator designation could be a blow to the credibility of the national Islamic organizations, which often work hand-in-hand with government officials engaged in outreach to the Muslim community.
A court filing by the government last week listed the three prominent groups among about 300 individuals or entities named as co-conspirators. The document gave scant details, but prosecutors described CAIR as a present or past member of “the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations.”
…Is all this just defamation? False statements?
…Where does CAIR come from? Spencer reviewing founding, Nihad Awad, and IAP/Hamas ties. See here.
Spencer explaining the Hamas “glory record.” CAIR founded by IAP officials. IAP funded with Hamas money…But we’re supposed to believe there is this huge ideological divide between CAIR and Hamas? Where is the evidence for it?
Spencer reviewing CAIR arrest record. CAIR claims the employees didn’t work for CAIR at the time of their jihad activities.
Spencer cites Randall Ismael Royer. See here.
How did he get his job [at CAIR] in the first place? If CAIR is a moderate group that abhors all jhad violence, then how did Randall Royer get his job there?
Spencer reviews conviction of Ghassan Elashi.
This “moderate” group demanded that a billboard be removed that said Osama was the sworn enemy. CAIR said it was offensive to Muslims and demanded it be taken down.
…What is CAIR’s goal in the United States?
San Ramon Valley Herald reported CAIR official Omah Ahmad in 1998 saying, “CAIR is not in America to be equal to any other faith…but to dominate…” Ahmad denied. He lied. See here.
Look at what CAIR does, not what it says…threatening letter to YAF about this very talk…just the latest example of a larger, ongoing campaign to silence critics and those who say things about jihad that they don’t like…Look at the campaign against Paul Harvey, 24, National Review, and others.
Just last Tuesday night, Ibrahaim Hooper quoted a comment on JihadWatch on CNN’s Paula Zahn…falsely attributed to Spencer…see here.
Spencer recounts CAIR’s role in the flying imams lawsuit–lawyer is CAIR’s head of NY chapter.
Notes irony of CAIR’s protest of Koran-flushing case for crossing the line from free speech to intimidation. They speak from experience (laughter).
…CAIR wants us very much to believe they abhor terrorism…I conclude today by asking CAIR–and I know they’ll be listening if they’re not already here.
Set aside legal weapons of intimidation…enter into a public discussion of all I have spoken about here.
Show me where it’s wrong.
Let’s have a dialogue. A debate. Whenever they want. Wherever they want.
Or sue me now. Sue the YAF. Try to silence us. But you can’t silence all theAmericans…those Americans won’t go away.
CAIR can join us now in genuine resistance to…violent jihad and Islamic supremacism. It’s up to them.
Washington Times has excerpts of Spencer’s remarks here.
- Jihadists deported from the US: Do they end up becoming another risk?
RS: Yes. Mentions Imam Fawaz Damra.
- Student asks about Spencer’s new book, Religion of Peace? Will be out August 13.
-What can we do as conservatives to encourage moderate Muslims in our lives?
RS: There are moderates and there are “moderates.” There are people who don’t know the elements of Islam that jihadists use. There are people who are very involved. People who will deny those elements. Honesty is always best. Realism is always best…As a general principle, there will be no viable reform of Islam until there is a rejection of the violent elements.
- We hear a lot of talk in our universities about how jihad is rooted in our foreign policy.
RS: There was jihad before there was a United States. Not about Israel’s existence either. But somehow’s it’s all our fault.
- Question about Iran and the 12th imam.
RS: Yeah, he was supposed to be back by now. (Laughter)
- Would renouncing violent passages compromise Muhammad’s role as prophet?
RS: Mmmyeah…it’s theoretically possible there could evolve a unitarian kind of Islam that does not take texts literally…but do I think it’s likely they will gain a large following? No…goes against so much of the weight and tradition of Islamic beliefs…the group of true reformers are the real “tiny minority.”
- Student asks if Spencer changed his speech as a result of the CAIR threat.
RS: Don’t worry. Same speech.
Mockery, vilification, criticism–things Christians and Jews have to tolerate al the time.
Contrast with Danish cartoons…
Spencer’s last word: “Come and kill me if you want, but I’m not going to submit.”blog comments powered by Disqus
January 7, 2013 08:27 AM by Michelle Malkin
May 24, 2011 05:14 PM by Michelle Malkin
December 1, 2009 09:01 AM by Michelle Malkin
September 28, 2009 05:10 PM by Michelle Malkin
May 19, 2009 04:07 PM by Michelle Malkin