Thursday, November 29, 2012

Federal lawsuit exposes massive fraud and cover-up by Hamas-linked CAIR

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

The American Freedom Law Center is on the case: "Federal Lawsuit Exposes Massive CAIR Fraud and Cover-up," from the AFLC:
Last Friday, the Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. and the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed a devastating legal brief supported by hundreds of pages of evidence, asking a federal judge to find the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) liable to five of its former clients for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The legal brief demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that CAIR is a criminal organization that deceptively holds itself out to the public as the nation’s largest Muslim-American civil rights organization. 
The brief and supporting evidence were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in two companion cases, Saiyed v. CAIR and Lopez v. CAIR, in which David Yerushalmi is lead counsel. The brief and supporting evidence overwhelmingly demonstrate that CAIR was involved in a massive criminal fraud and cover-up that injured numerous client-victims who had looked to CAIR for legal assistance, yet the CAIR “attorney” allegedly handling their cases was in fact not an attorney.
Yerushalmi, who is also Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented, “The evidence has long suggested that CAIR is an organization set up by the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas to further its aims of stealth Jihad in the United States,” referring to the fact that CAIR was named by the federal government as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial.
“According to the facts that are carefully laid out in our legal brief and fully supported by the record evidence,” Yerushalmi explained, “CAIR has engaged in a massive criminal fraud in which numerous CAIR clients have been victimized, and because of the CAIR cover-up many still don’t realize it. The fact that CAIR has victimized Muslims and non-Muslims alike demonstrates that it is only looking out for itself and its ongoing efforts to bilk donors out of millions of dollars of charitable donations thinking they are supporting a legitimate organization.”
Five former clients of CAIR filed the two lawsuits in federal court alleging common law and statutory fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against CAIR. These two lawsuits followed an earlier lawsuit which had also alleged that CAIR’s fraudulent conduct amounted to racketeering, a federal RICO crime. In that case, the court dismissed the RICO counts, concluding that CAIR’s conduct as alleged was fraudulent but not a technical violation of RICO. The two civil lawsuits were filed by Yerushalmi on January 6, 2010, and because they arise out of the same facts, the cases were consolidated.
The supporting evidence, which was compiled after more than a year and a half of contentious discovery that involved numerous document requests, motions to compel the production of documents that CAIR was concealing, and multiple depositions of high-ranking CAIR officials, shows that Morris Days, the “Resident Attorney” and “Civil Rights Manager” at the now defunct CAIR-MD/VA chapter in Herndon, Virginia, was in fact not an attorney and that he failed to provide legal services for clients who came to CAIR for legal representation. The evidence also shows that CAIR knew of this fraud and purposefully conspired with Days to keep the CAIR clients from discovering that their legal matters were being mishandled or not handled at all. While Yerushalmi and AFLC represent the five plaintiffs in these two lawsuits, three of whom are Muslim Americans, according to CAIR’s internal documents, there were many more victims of the CAIR fraud scheme.
As set forth in the court filings, CAIR knew or should have known that Days was not a lawyer when it hired him. But, like many organizations accused of wrongdoing, things got worse when CAIR officials were confronted with clear evidence of Days’ fraudulent conduct. Rather than come clean and attempt to rectify past wrongs, CAIR conspired with Days to conceal and further the fraud. To this end, CAIR officials purposefully concealed the truth about Days from the clients, law enforcement, and the media. When CAIR did receive calls from irate clients about Days’ failure to provide competent legal services, CAIR fraudulently deceived them about Days’ relationship with CAIR, suggesting that he was never actually employed by CAIR.
Robert Muise, co-counsel in the lawsuit and Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented: “The overwhelming evidence marshaled in this case will finally put to rest the myth fabricated by CAIR’s PR machine and perpetrated by a complicit media that this is a legitimate Muslim-American civil rights organization. This lawsuit strips away CAIR’s veil of legitimacy.”

Reverend Rubio? The Media Begins Its Attack on Marco Rubio 

By: Paul Kengor / Townhall Columnist

In a recent interview, Senator Marco Rubio, effectively the Republican front-runner for 2016, was asked, “How old do you think the Earth is?”
 It’s a question of utter irrelevance to the country’s status and whether Marco Rubio would be a good president. Rubio’s answer was excellent: “I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that.”

To any sensible person, this was a perfect response. Who could object?

Well, an editor for the New York Times—that flagship of faith and reason—judged Rubio’s response “ludicrous.” A writer at the liberal Slate, who no doubt Googled first, claimed authoritatively: “Our planet was formed 4.54 billion years ago. If Rubio suggested otherwise, it’s because he’s uninformed or stupid.”

Ah, yes. I’m sure everyone at Slate knows the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.

As for myself, if someone asked me that question out of the blue, I couldn’t answer. I’ve been a scientist, an agnostic/borderline atheist, and ultimately a Christian. I’ve taught Sunday School, lectured at colleges, collected data at top research labs, and everything in between. I’ve published in scientific and political journals. I know, as Marco Rubio does, that theologians dispute this.

In fact, anyone with a serious, sincere interest in this question knows this. But, of course, the question wasn’t asked to Rubio out of serious, sincere interest; it never is when posed to a Republican.

Marco Rubio needs to understand two things at play here: 1) these types of questions will only get worse as he continues to campaign for president; and 2) these are not earnest questions. No, these are political booby-traps set by political partisans who work as journalists. They are used to try to caricature conservatives as extremists.

I recall a painful example when George W. Bush first became Texas governor. Bush was known as a committed Christian who had a late-in-life conversion. For the secular liberal media, this meant that Bush was a “fundamentalist.” For liberal journalists, it also meant an opportunity.

And so, one journalist asked the governor if Jews get into heaven. Taken by complete surprise, Bush fumbled his answer. Afterward, he thought long and hard about it, and consulted Billy Graham. The next time Bush got the question he was ready. It was December 1999, when he was running for president, and when his opponent, Al Gore, wasn’t (of course) getting asked any such questions by the liberal media. Bush’s answer was a good one:

[I] understand that people communicate with God and reach God in dif­ferent ways…. Obviously there’s the big issue between the Christian and the Jew, the Jewish person. And I am mindful of the rich traditions and history of the Jewish faith. And I am mindful of what Billy Graham one time told me: for me not to try to figure out—try to pick and choose who gets to go to heaven…. Billy Graham said, “Don’t play God.” I don’t get to determine who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. That’s not me. Governors don’t do that.

That’s a really good response: “Governors don’t do that.” They “don’t play God.” They don’t decide who goes to heaven.

Marco Rubio wasn’t asked that same question, at least not yet, but his answer might be the same: “Sorry, man, I’m not playing God.”

In fact, here’s a further response Rubio might consider more generally: “Look, let’s be honest: We both know what you’re trying to do. You’re trying to trip me up. I’m not a theologian. I’m not a minister. I don’t want to be one, and the American public doesn’t want me to be one. Let’s stick to issues that concern people. And one more thing: Are you asking these same questions to any Democrats? Are you?”

Rubio should say it calmly, gently, and with a smile—but emphatically. He is running for president, and not running for reverend. He wants to be President Rubio, not Reverend Rubio.

Unfortunately, for Rubio, like all conservative Republicans who seek the presidency, it will be open season on his beliefs. Republicans are badgered on their faith in ways that liberal Democrats plainly are not. For the media, it’s the same old double standard. I hope Marco Rubio refuses to tolerate it.
Make the Democrats Own the Obama Economy

Make the Democrats Own the Obama Economy 

By: Ann Coulter  / Townhall Columnist

Democrats are proposing to reinstate the Bush tax cuts for everyone ... except "the rich." (Why do only tax cuts come with an expiration date? Why not tax increases? Why not Obamacare? How about New York City's "temporary" rent control measures intended for veterans returning from World War II?)

Raising taxes only on the top 2 percent of income earners will do nothing to reduce the deficit. There's not enough money there -- even assuming, contrary to all known history, that the top 2 percent won't find ways to reduce their taxable income or that the imaginary increased government revenue would be applied to deficit reduction, anyway.

Apart from Obamacare, it's difficult to think of a more effective method of destroying jobs than raising taxes on "the rich." This isn't a wealth tax on useless gigolos like John Kerry -- it's an income tax on people who are currently engaged in some profitable enterprise. Their business profits, which could have been used to hire more employees, will instead be used to pay the government.

But Republicans are over a barrel. Unless Republicans and Democrats reach an agreement, the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year. By pushing to extend the tax cuts for everyone except "the rich," Democrats get to look like champions of middle class tax cuts and Republicans can be portrayed as caring only about the rich.

And when the economy tanks, the Non-Fox Media will blame Republicans.

The economy will tank because, as you will recall, Obama is still president. Government rules, regulations, restrictions, forms and inspections are about to drown the productive sector. Obamacare is descending on job creators like a fly swatter on a gnat. Obama has already managed to produce the only "recovery" that is worse than the preceding recession since the Great Depression. And he says, "You ain't seen nothing yet."

The coming economic collapse is written in the stars, but if Republicans "obstruct" the Democrats by blocking tax hikes on top income earners, they're going to take 100 percent of the blame for the Obama economy.

You think not? The Non-Fox Media managed to persuade a majority of voters that the last four years of jobless misery was George W. Bush's fault, having nothing whatsoever to do with Obama.

The media have also managed to brand Republicans as the party of the rich, even as eight of the 10 richest counties voted for Obama. And that doesn't include pockets of vast wealth in cities -- Nob Hill in San Francisco, the North Shore of Chicago, the Upper East Side of Manhattan and the Back Bay of Boston -- whose residents invariably vote like welfare recipients. Seven of the 10 richest senators are Democrats. The very richest is the useless gigolo.

Republicans have a PR problem, not an economic theory problem. That doesn't mean they should cave on everything, but seeming to fight for "tax cuts for the rich" is a little close to the bone, no matter how tremendously counterproductive such taxes are.

Yes, conservatives can try harder to get the truth out, but as UCLA political science professor Tim Groseclose has shown, media bias already costs Republicans about 8 to 10 points in elections. Try arguing a year from now that Republicans' refusal to agree to tax hikes on the top 2 percent of income earners -- resulting in an expiration of all the Bush tax cuts -- had nothing to do with the inevitable economic disaster.
Republicans have got to make Obama own the economy.

They should spend from now until the end of the congressional calendar reading aloud from Thomas Sowell, Richard Epstein, John Lott and Milton Friedman and explaining why Obama's high tax, massive regulation agenda spells doom for the nation.

Then some Republicans can say: We think this is a bad idea, but Obama won the election and the media are poised to blame us for whatever happens next, so let's give his plan a whirl and see how the country likes it.

Republicans need to get absolute, 100 percent intellectual clarity on who bears responsibility for the next big recession. It is more important to win back the Senate in two years than it is to save the Democrats from their own idiotic tax plan. Unless Republicans give them an out, Democrats won't be able to hide from what they've done.

Even Democrats might back away from that deal.
Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: C:\Users\JP44292\AppData\Local\Temp\Senate_RubioHeader_periods.jpg

We still need answers on Benghazi 
By Marco Rubio, Special to CNN

Buildings and cars burn after the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked on September 11. 
Editor's note: Marco Rubio represents Florida in the United States Senate. A Republican, he is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

(CNN) -- Eight weeks after the terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, it is encouraging that Congress is finally serious about examining the events surrounding that day.

As the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, said on "Meet the Press" recently, this was not an intelligence failure. But failures clearly happened elsewhere, particularly in the State Department.

State Department documents revealed that slain Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and others had warned several times of "growing problems with security" and violence in eastern Libya, where Benghazi is located, after the fall of Moammar Gadhafi and after the Transitional National Council moved its governing headquarters from Benghazi to Tripoli in September 2011. Stevens' predecessor Ambassador Gene Cretz had also sent cables to the State Department warning of the deepening security crisis in Libya.

Marco Rubio
Well before the Benghazi attack, our intelligence agencies, Department of Defense and State Department cables from the U.S. Embassy in Libya all warned of a growing security crisis. They said terrorists from across the region, including al Qaeda elements believed to be associated with al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, were able to travel freely into the country to recruit, organize, plan attacks and procure weapons.

This is not to suggest these attacks were planned months in advance. We don't know, but we do know that they were premeditated. We also know that the CIA believed the Benghazi tragedy on September 11 was the work of terrorists within hours of the attacks.

Conducting diplomacy on behalf of the United States is not without risks. U.S. foreign service officers and members of the diplomatic corps understand this. I think it is important that the U.S. continue to show the flag in far-flung corners of the world, some of which may often be dangerous.
Diplomats like Stevens thrive on engaging with the local population. That important work must continue in Libya, Pakistan, Egypt and other countries that pose difficulties. However, the U.S. government has a responsibility to ensure that our posts overseas are properly fortified and defended, based on the security situation on the ground.

We know that the security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi and the CIA annex was woefully inadequate. It should have been fortified, and more reliable security forces were clearly needed to defend those facilities. Immediate access to heavier weapons may have saved lives.

It is important to decide which elements of the U.S. national security structure should be available to support the defense and extraction of U.S. diplomats and personnel if they come under fire.

The State Department needs a clear procedure, understood by all, to communicate with the Department of Defense or the CIA in emergencies. We need to resolve why the nearest defense rescue team was six hours away and why teams weren't deployed that might have been able to save the lives of the two Americans at the CIA annex who died in the early hours of September 12. Although there are no obvious targets for fighter jets, the mere presence of an American or allied F-15 nearby could strongly deter attackers.

Because the uppermost purpose of any inquiry is to prevent such a tragedy from happening again, we need to know what measures Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has taken to ensure that decisions about security and requirements of U.S. diplomatic missions are given the highest priority.

We understand from congressional testimony that the deputy assistant secretary for international programs in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security has broad authority over the allocation of security resources, with life and death consequences for our diplomats. Given the vulnerability of nontraditional posts like Benghazi, we should determine whether higher-level officials should oversee security issues. If not, we must be sure that anyone assuming such a position is adequately qualified in overseas security operations and threat analysis.

We must also ensure that clear mechanisms are in place to enable a seamless emergency response among the different agencies that share responsibility. On all these counts, we have more questions right now than answers.

It is very important to establish how far the U.S. commitment to Libya extends. While the U.S. played a role in helping the Libyans overthrow Gadhafi, we need to assess how this attack affects our plan for a post-Gadhafi Libya.

I believe the U.S. has a responsibility to help the Libyans develop their defense services through the expansion of the Defense Department's Section 1206 training and equipment programs. The U.S. must also support the Libyans in forging a new constitution that respects the rights of all and begins to restore governance to their country.

Americans have watched recent developments in Libya with great sadness and concern. We have a strong interest in helping a secular, pro-American government that rejects Islamic extremism take root. 

Unfortunately, this attack and the confusion stemming from the administration's response have led some to conclude that Libya is more trouble than it's worth. But our interests in Libya are worth pursuing, and getting answers and developing solutions to prevent future tragedies are critical to our national interest.
Standing on the edge of the fiscal cliff
By: Diane Sori

In between talk about Benghazi, ObamaCare, and voter fraud the words 'fiscal cliff' loom large.

Fiscal cliff...the monetary nightmare we'll face on December 31st when the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 are scheduled to go into effect.

Among those changes are the end of last year’s temporary payroll tax cuts, the end of certain tax breaks for businesses; the end of the tax cuts from 2001-2003; reductions in both defense and non-defense spending; major cuts to NASA; the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts; the end of a payroll tax holiday and extended unemployment benefits; and the onset of reimbursement cuts to Medicare doctors. And let's NOT forget the beginning of the mother of all taxes related to the God-awful monstrosity known as ObamaCare.

Thanks've screwed 'We the People' yet again.

And unless the White House and Congress come to a bipartisan deal to stop our economy from going over that cliff, on January 1st over we go to the tune of $7+ TRILLION worth of tax increases and spending cuts over this decade. And to add insult to injury, the debt ceiling will need to be raised by early next year leading to what experts are saying could be another recession.

Oh what a happy day this all is...NOT!

And to make this even worse is the fact that the Republicans just might have to agree to a marginal income tax increase to stop the fall off the cliff along with agreeing to concessions on both the revenue and entitlement ends even though Obama has said he will veto any fiscal cliff package that extends the Bush Tax Cuts for top earners, something the Republicans insist upon.

It's 'read my lips...NO new taxes' all over again.

And while both parties are at least paying lip-service to agreeing that the most important thing is to kick start the economy, the reality is that if we do go over the fiscal cliff it will not only affect our economy but would also likely result in a credit rating downgrade in 2013, and add to our debt burden as well.

But how did this nightmare all start you's really very simple...the fiscal cliff was created when the command decision was executed to switch US currency from 'treasure' backed bills to federal reserve notes with no backing. Essentially, bills show the possession of 'treasure' (as in gold or silver), meaning something of value is backing it, notes are money owed, credit turning into debt over time, with NO tangible backing.

Basically, this is what's known as 'fiat money.' Fiat money distorts the real time value of money and destroys both the money and the economies that use it, our economy included. 'Real money' like gold and silver retains value over time, the greater its value and the longer it endures, the more likely it will be accepted as money thus strengthening any economy that uses it.

This is the 'establishment's' (the government's) dirty little secret that's hidden in plain sight.

This is why 'savers' are penalized in our credit based economy while spenders are heralded. Spenders put bills (treasure) back into the economy, savers take those bills (treasure) away.  And here's an interesting the 95 years since the creation by the Federal Reserve of credit based money, the US dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power...that's 95% of 'treasure' lost.

So what will happen as the fiscal cliff looms one can be certain but it's possible that all players will agree to postpone the fiscal cliff until March, giving themselves more time to work out a deal and to keep the economy from sliding into recession in January...and to pass the buck to the new Congress...agreeing to NOTHING and doing NOTHING...par for the course and something we know is the most likely scenario.