Tim Sumner

American jihad, CAIR

Why is membership down at CAIR?

by  • 

Audrey Hudson reports today that CAIR (the Council of American-Islamic Relations) is complaining that their membership is down. They are blaming it on the Department of Justice and the Washington Times’ reporting:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) says it’s suffering a decline in membership and fundraising and blames the Justice Department for listing it as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Texas case against a charity accused of ties to terrorists.

CAIR asked a U.S. District Court in Dallas to strike it from the list of more than 300 other Muslim groups named as unindicted co-conspirators in the government’s case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. The case is being tried in Dallas.

“The public naming of CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator has impeded its ability to collect donations as possible donors either do not want to give to them because they think they are a ‘terrorist’ organization or are too scared to give to them because of the possible legal ramifications of donating money to a ‘terrorist’ organization,” CAIR said in an amicus curiae brief filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The brief cites reporting by The Washington Times as evidence of the organization’s declining membership. When this account of declining CAIR membership was published in The Times earlier this summer, CAIR denounced it as a “hit piece.”

The Justice Department shut down the Holy Land Foundation and in 2004 indicted several of its top officers, who are accused of raising $36 million from 1995 through 2001 for the benefit of organizations and persons linked with Hamas, designated as a terrorist organization by the Clinton administration in 1995. The foundation raised $12.4 million after the designation that made such fundraising illegal, prosecutors say.

The 42-count federal indictment accuses the foundation’s officers of conspiracy, providing support to terrorists, money-laundering and income-tax evasion.

On May 29, the Justice Department made public a list naming 307 unindicted co-conspirators — including CAIR — in the case now being tried before U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish.
…
The CAIR brief says “the amount of donations” to CAIR “has dwindled well below their monthly budget and as their associational activity necessarily relies upon donations from the public, the government’s labeling of them as an unindicted co-conspirator has chilled their associational activity.”

While being named an unindicted co-conspirator is a criminal case against an organization accused of raising money for terrorist might explain declining membership and donations, here are a few other things that may also have contributed to CAIR’s decline:

CAIR also sued on behalf of 9/11 dry run terrorists

CAIR plans to interfere in Iraq

CAIR leader knows “violent jihadist”

CAIR and 6 imams need mirror to find bigots

Shut up or CAIR will sue you into poverty

CAIR about South Carolina’s “good ol’ boys”

That is not a full list, just a few things for CAIR to consider.

Haditha, John Murtha

Murtha angry when questioned on pork spending, silent on Haditha

by  • 

John Murtha not happy

During a FoxNews interview by Rich Lowry of Congressman John Campbell (R-CA) they first played a video of this exchange between the latter and Congressman John Murtha (D-PA):

REP. JOHN MURTHA (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Our staff went over every one of these earmarks very carefully. And it’s not in our highest priority list, but I’m sure that the military is interested in this kind of research, because it’s so important to the military.

REP. JOHN CAMPBELL (R), CALIFORNIA: If I may inquire further, Mr. Chairman, you said you’re sure the military. So you’re not aware if, in fact, the military has asked for this kind of technology?

I guess the answer to that is no.

What investigations have been done to determine that this technology could actually even be effective? And I’m happy to yield to the gentleman?

MURTHA: We have a $459 billion bill. We look at every one. We attend — we ask the members to vet them. Our staff vets them. We go over every single earmark.

We don’t apologize for them, because we think the members know as much about what goes on in the district and what needs to be done for the Defense Department as the bureaucrats in the Defense Department.

CAMPBELL: Then I’m sure if the gentleman goes over every single one that he can answer the question. What investigations, what research has been done to determine that this technology could be effective and is worth $2 million of taxpayer funds?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Then Lowry and Campbell discussed the exchange:

LOWRY: There was also a great moment. We weren’t able to play in that clip, but where Congressman Murtha says to you, “Well, I don’t know what paint company you represent,” as though every congressman out there must have some paint company he’s trying to funnel congressional earmarks to.

CAMPBELL: I tell you what, that comment told me a lot. He assumed that the reason I didn’t want this money to go to Sherwin Williams Paint is because I want it to go to some paint company in my district.

I mean, I was shocked by the question. And I told him I don’t know of a paint company in my district or anywhere near me. That’s not why I’m questioning this. I’m questioning this because it’s $2 million that appears to me to be going to something that the Defense Department doesn’t want — technology we haven’t proven that hasn’t been shopped. We don’t know if this is the right supplier.

And in the end, even if it works, the taxpayer will have to pay for it again to buy it back from Sherwin Williams’ paint. So this is part of what’s driving this culture of spending that’s going on in Washington.

LOWRY: Yes. Also, Congressman, Democrats swept to power in November on the pledge to clean up Washington and to change business as usual. And it’s just been amazing how fast they’ve gone back to defending the old rotten practices.

CAMPBELL: This earmark culture is very much ingrained in D.C. and it has a lot of the problems — I mean, there are members of Congress in jail tonight because of earmarks. There are members of Congress being investigated today because of earmarks.

And yet the process continues and continues. And we spend billions of dollars. And it’s not just the money we spend on the earmarks, but it’s the culture of spending that it creates.

The Philadephia Inquirer weighed in yesterday:

The jury is still out on how serious congressional Democrats are about trimming pork from the federal budget.

When they took control of Congress in January, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and other leaders in her party promised to get tough with earmarks. That’s the name for special spending projects that lawmakers insert steathily into bills to benefit companies and institutions back home. Essentially earmarks are no-bid contracts, and taxpayers foot the bill.
…
“Transparency has had some effect,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. “But it remains to be seen. Certain members have, at best, a thinly veiled contempt for the whole process.”

Chief among that group is Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.), chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee. He snared $163 million in pork-barrel projects, the highest total in Congress. It’s about twice as much as Murtha grabbed last year. Pelosi herself obtained about $63 million in earmarks, most of them for recipients in or near her home base of San Francisco.

Meanwhile, John Murtha remains silent about his defamation of Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt.