Tag Archives: Council on American-Islamic Relations

CAIR Answers Hamas Question With Dishonesty, Bullying

Steven Emerson

Cornered by a straightforward question he did not want to answer, the head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Los Angeles office chose instead to misrepresent his organization’s actions and feign outrage that the question itself was bigoted.

“Will CAIR-Los Angeles or CAIR-National – will you condemn Hamas?” Hussam Ayloush was asked outside his chapter’s annual fundraising banquet Saturday evening.

Initially, Ayloush tried CAIR’s standard response, saying he condemns “any group … who engages in the harming of civilians, innocent people.” That sounds like an answer to the question, but avoids specifically addressing whether Hamas is included.

Then the deception and intimidation kicks in.

“But as a civil rights organization we’re not here in the business of being dragged into the Middle East affairs and the conflicts of the Middle East,” Ayloush said. “We are an American organization.” The question itself is “not acceptable” and “proves that you have nothing but bigotry in you.”

You can see the full encounter here.

Ayloush’s claim that CAIR is “not here in the business of being dragged into the Middle East affairs and the conflicts of the Middle East” is beyond disingenuous, given how often CAIR chooses to weigh in on Middle East issues. Its statements on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict always condemn Israeli actions. If Hamas is referenced at all, it is to minimize the threat of attacks by Hamas, a group which rejects any peaceful settlement to the conflict and which vows to destroy Israel.

For example, CAIR held a news conference in Washington to condemn Israel’s 2008 “Cast Lead” incursion into Gaza aimed at stopping rampant Hamas rocket attacks targeting Israeli civilians. CAIR co-founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad didn’t need to be “dragged into the Middle East” debate. He demanded “that our government, the U.S. government, take immediate steps to end the immoral and illegal Israeli bombardment of Gaza and its population.”

Hamas is never mentioned.

Ayloush made a nearly identical statement during a Southern California press conference, demanding that “our government take immediate steps to end the immoral and illegal Israeli bombardment of Gaza.”

When the rocket fire continued unabated, Israel again took military action last year to protect millions of civilians who continually were sent scurrying into bomb shelters. Ayloush seemed more than happy to get into the business of Middle East conflicts, appearing on a Los Angeles television station to place the blame solely on Israel and minimize Hamas’ culpability.

In 2004, CAIR issued a press release condemning Israel’s targeted killing of Hamas founder Ahmed Yassin. The statement never mentions Hamas or Yassin’s role as a Hamas founder and leader at a time when Hamas conducted waves of suicide bombings. Rather, CAIR “condemned the assassination of a wheelchair-bound Palestinian Muslim religious leader, calling it an act of ‘state terrorism.’”

The Roots of CAIR’s Hamas Support

The question about CAIR’s attitude toward Hamas is more than fair game given the organization’s roots in a Muslim Brotherhood-created Hamas support network in the United States. Internal documents seized by the FBI show that Awad participated in a key meeting of support-network members, known as the Palestine Committee, which was called to discuss ways to “derail” U.S.-led peace efforts between Israelis and Palestinians. The meeting, secretly recorded by the FBI, included talk of how a new accord would marginalize Hamas and lead to Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to exist.

CAIR was created after that meeting, and quickly appeared on an agenda among the Palestine Committee’s other branches. Awad also was listed in a Palestine Committee telephone list.

“[U] ntil we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS,” an FBI official wrote in 2009, “the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner.”

Ayloush is not a stupid man. He knows this history, and he knows that a federal judge in Texas found “ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, with NAIT, the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas.”

His options, therefore, are to acknowledge that record and perhaps try to claim that CAIR has changed, or to bluster his way into changing the subject. On Saturday, he chose the latter.

Ayloush pretended those court exhibits simply don’t exist and claimed the FBI’s decision to shun CAIR is “just part of the politics of civil rights in America.”

“For you to ask that question,” he said, “it’s almost there is an assumption that an American Muslim somehow accepts terrorism or condones terrorism.”

The question does nothing of the sort. It’s clear from the video that the questioner was asking specifically about whether Ayloush and his organization condemn Hamas for its terrorist acts. At no time was Ayloush asked to answer for the broader Muslim community.

We’ve shown how bogus accusations of “Islamophobia” are used as a shield by CAIR and other Islamist groups to duck difficult questions. Ayloush’s response offers the latest example of a technique CAIR officials have used for years. In 2001, journalist Jake Tapper spotlighted the dodge:

Questions about whether CAIR would condemn organizations by name unequivocally, instead of qualifying the condemnations, were just “word games from the pro-Israel lobby,” Hooper said. Instead, Hooper said that the very questions were the problem, and part of a Zionist conspiracy. “This is a game they play,” Hooper said, referring to the pro-Israel lobby. “They give me a long list of people to condemn and if you don’t give sufficient condemnation you’re a terrorist. We would condemn any person or any group that kills innocent civilians. But it’s not my duty that when the pro-Israel lobby says ‘Jump’ I say ‘How high?’”

In 2011, CAIR legislative director Corey Saylor tried to dance around the same direct question from Fox News reporter David Lee Miller:

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.”

Miller: “That’s not the same thing as saying you condemn Hamas and you condemn Hizballah.”

Saylor: “Well I recognize that you don’t like my answer to the question, but that’s the answer to the question.”

And this is standard behavior for Ayloush. In January, he criticized “Jihad in America: The Grand Deception,” the documentary I made as executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, claiming that it promoted intolerance of Islam. I responded by pointing out that “Ayloush failed to make a single reference to [the film’s] content” but chose instead to make ad hominem attacks. I even proposed a public meeting in which Ayloush could discuss the film’s actual content.

Eleven months later, we’re still waiting for a response. But the question of whether CAIR condemns Hamas as a terrorist group is one that likely will never be answered.

CAIR Impeded FBI Probe of Somali Terrorist Group in Kenya Attack


Figures Hamas gets involved..

The Al Qaeda affiliate that terrorized a Kenyan shopping center and murdered scores of innocent people has a powerful and influential advocate in the United States, the Muslim “civil rights” group known as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

It’s unlikely that the mainstream media will mention the connection, but it’s deep and it involves interfering in federal probes involving the radicalization of young Somali men in the U.S., like the ones carrying out the attack at the Westgate Shopping Mall in Northern Nairobi. CAIR has also wielded its power to silence critics of the Al Qaeda offshoot—Somalia’s Al Shabaab—that stormed into the mall, murdered at least 68 and took dozens of hostages.

Several of the jihadists involved in the attack are Somalis from Minnesota, according to a mainstream news report. They include 22-year-old Ahmed Mohamed Isse of St. Paul and 24-year-old Abdifatah Osman Keenadiid of Minneapolis. In the last few years the FBI and Congress have launched probes into the radicalization of the Somali American community in Minnesota. Al Shabaab recruits young men in local mosques and ships them off to train and fight in Somalia.

CAIR, an Islamic terrorist front group that reportedly raises money for Hamas, has interfered with the U.S. government’s investigation into this operation. A few years ago it actually hampered an FBI probe into the disappearance of dozens of Twin Cities Somali men. Many in the local Somali community denounced CAIR’s actions, saying that the group was actually discouraging them from cooperating with the FBI.

During congressional testimony, the uncle of one of the missing men—recruited and radicalized by Al Shabaab—blasted CAIR for instructing the Somali American community not to cooperate with law enforcement and standing blindly behind the mosque that radicalized his nephew. “CAIR held meetings for some members of the community and told them not to talk to the FBI, which was a slap in the face for the Somali American Muslim mothers who were knocking on doors day and night with pictures of their missing children and asking for the community to talk to law enforcement about what they know of the missing kids,” Abdirizak Bihi told the House Committee on Homeland Security.

CAIR has also tried to silence critics of Al Shabaab in parts of Minnesota that have been impacted by the Al Qaeda affiliate. A few years ago CAIR blasted two Minneapolis Muslim activists for participating in a seminar (“Al Shabaab: An Islamic Extremist Terrorism Organization”) about the Islamic terrorist group in Somalia. Among other things CAIR said the seminar failed to distinguish between Islam and terrorism and that it offered inaccurate and biased information about Muslims and Somalis.

During the Obama administration we’ve seen CAIR gain tremendous power and influence, which is incredibly alarming considering the group has extensive links to foreign and domestic Islamists. It was founded in 1994 by three Middle Eastern extremists (Omar Ahmad, Nihad Awad and Rafeeq Jaber) who ran the American propaganda wing of Hamas, known then as the Islamic Association for Palestine. In 2008 CAIR was a co-conspirator in a federal terror-finance case involving the Hamas front group Holy Land Foundation. Read more in a Judicial Watch special report that focuses on Muslim charities.

Yet last year President Obama’s deputies held hundreds of closed-door meetings with CAIR officials. Little information was discussed publicly about the secret sessions, but the news organization that broke the story quoted a White House director saying that government departments and agencies discussed a “range of issues.”

Around the same time, the FBI purged its anti-terrorism training curricula of material determined to be “offensive” to Muslims. Judicial Watch uncovered this scandal and obtained the FBI records just a few weeks ago. CAIR is not specifically named but the records show that an undisclosed group of “Subject Matter Experts” (SME) determined the federal training material was offensive to Muslims. Just last month, several police departments in Illinois cancelled their anti-terrorism training because CAIR complained that the instructor was blatantly anti-Muslim.

FBI Instructed to Break Rules Banning Interactions With Hamas aka CAIR

by J. Christian Adams

Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) pulled out a Sharpie marker and wrote in big block letters at the bottom of a letter: ”THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. THE FBI MUST COMPLY WITH THE LAW.”

The letter was addressed to FBI Director James Comey:


Wolf was referring to the FBI’s violation of the ban on cooperation with the unindicted co-conspirator terrorist organization CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), according to a just-released DOJ Inspector General report. CAIR was determined to be related to the web of terrorist financing during the Holy Land Foundation trials in Dallas, a trial which resulted in guilty verdicts. Afterwards, the FBI issued a blanket policy: no cooperation in the field with CAIR.

But the FBI’s Office of Public Affairs issued instructions to ignore the policy.

Why are DOJ press flunkies in Washington, D.C. issuing directives to FBI field offices about how to deal with CAIR? The answer to this question lies at the heart of the scandal, demonstrating that the politicized lawlessness of the Eric Holder Justice Department now is affecting the FBI.

From the DOJ Inspector General’s report:

Instead, a different headquarters entity, the Office of Public Affairs (OPA), provided policy interpretation and advice to FBI field offices on potential interactions with local CAIR chapters, without consulting [NAME REDACTED].

I suspect the redacted name is a national security component that would have objected to the interaction.

Following the directive, the FBI brought in CAIR to teach “diversity training” to FBI officials in New Haven, Connecticut, in October 2010, and in Chicago in December 2010. Yet the rules specifically prohibited CAIR from participating in an “FBI Citizens Academy” community outreach program:

Nevertheless, based on guidance it received from OPA, the Philadelphia Field Office allowed a local CAIR official to attend as an invited guest. A few days later, CAIR-Philadelphia posted an article on its website describing its participation in the training program, with a link to the FBI’s website.

The DOJ Inspector General report only pertains to five documented instances of CAIR being brought into the DOJ family.  Mr. Wolf correctly notes in his letter that this probably “only represents a fraction” of everything else going on.

The insertion of the FBI press office into political and policy affairs is similar to the behavior of former DOJ OPA head Tracy Schmaler. Schmaler pushed leaked information to left-wing websites like Media Matters, and managed a campaign to smear Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and other Fast and Furious whistleblowers. In the Holder Justice Department, OPA doesn’t merely provide information to reporters. Instead, they are top political operatives driving department policy.

Such is the state of the nation: the institutions responsible for enforcing the law are instead in need of bold capital letter lectures from a congressman just to remind them to comply with the law.

Will anything happen to the officials who broke the rules? Not likely. The only remedy the Constitution provides is a significant defunding of OPA operations, so that there is no funding for the salaries of the people responsible. Consider: Schmaler landed a high-dollar gig at David Axelrod’s shop. Rewards await those who push the ideological boundaries inside the DOJ and FBI.

Pay attention. This crowd rewards their lawless fighters, like the Chicago gangsters of old. The response from conservatives and the GOP must be more than shock and outrage at their behavior, or else it will continue.


UPDATE: This post was updated to reflect that the FBI Office of Public Affairs intervened in the national security policy, not the DOJ OPA. The summary of the still-secret report by the DOJ Office of Inspector General made reference to the “Office of Public Affairs (OPA)” without any specificity as to which office of public affairs was involved. It required Congressional inquiries this morning to obtain an answer as to which OPA was at issue. The updated post clarifies that previously unclear question.

Does the Qur’an Teach Hate?

terrkorOn September 11, 2013, a public information officer for Palm Beach County, Florida named John Jamason posted a message on his personal Facebook page: “Never forget. There is no such thing as radical Islam. All Islam is radical. There may be Muslims who don’t practice their religion, much like others. The Quran is a book that preaches hate.”

The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) immediately complained, and demanded that the county turn over to them everything that Jamason had written from a county computer over the previous month. County Administrator Bob Weisman assured CAIR that Jamason had not written the offending Facebook message from a county computer, and stated that county officials were determining whether or not to discipline him.

Left unexamined in the controversy was whether or not what Jamason said was true. In light of the Qur’an’s teachings about jihad and the subjugation of non-Muslims, he certainly had a case that “there is no such thing as radical Islam” and “all Islam is radical,” for there is no mainstream sect of Islam or school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not teach that the Muslim community must wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them under its rule.

Jamason was also correct that “there may be Muslims who don’t practice their religion, much like others.” Indeed, there are many people who identify themselves as Muslims who have no interest in waging jihad against unbelievers, but would prefer to hold down their jobs and take care of their families in peace in the same way as there are millions of people who identify themselves as believers in other religions who are not particularly concerned with living out every teaching of the religion with which they identify.

But what CAIR was most outraged about was not that, of course, but Jamason’s contention that the Qur’an teaches hate. They did not, however, provide any evidence showing that it doesn’t.

So does it?

The Qur’an teaches that Muslims must fight and kill unbelievers “wherever you overtake them” until “religion is Allah’s,” i.e. Islamic law rules all societies (2:190-193). They must fight unbelievers “until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah” (8:39). Muslims are to fight unbelievers and “prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows” (8:60).

Allah tells Muhammad to “fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination” (9:73). The followers of Muhammad should imitate him in this: “O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness” (9:123). For “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves” (48:29).

Muslims should not befriend non-Muslims, unless, as we have seen, it is to deceive them to save oneself from danger: “Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence” (3:28).

Allah says he will “cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve” (3:151). He tells his prophet: “[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, “I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.”


Among “those who have disbelieved” are the Christians, who have made themselves into disbelievers by worshipping Christ as God: “They have certainly disbelieved who say, ‘Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary’” (5:17; 5:72). In worshipping Christ, they have associated a partner with Allah, thereby becoming polytheists, and “the polytheists are unclean” (9:28). Both Jews and Christians have ascribed a son to Allah, for which Allah should destroy them: “The Jews say, ‘Ezra is the son of Allah’; and the Christians say, ‘The Messiah is the son of Allah.’ That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?” (9:30).

Chief among those are the Jews. The Muslim holy book also contends that Allah transformed disobedient Jews into “apes, despised” (2:65; 7:166), and “apes and pigs” (5:60). It says that they’re accursed for rejecting the Qur’an, which they should have recognized as confirming their own Scriptures: “And when there came to them a Book from Allah confirming that which was with them – although before they used to pray for victory against those who disbelieved – but [then] when there came to them that which they recognized, they disbelieved in it; so the curse of Allah will be upon the disbelievers” (2:89).

The Qur’an says that while Muslims are “the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind,” the People of the Book (primarily Jews and Christians) are mostly “defiantly disobedient” (3:110). The Jews “have been put under humiliation [by Allah] wherever they are overtaken, except for a covenant from Allah and a rope from the Muslims” – that is, except those who have accepted Islam or submitted to Muslim rule. “And they have drawn upon themselves anger from Allah and have been put under destitution. That is because they disbelieved in the verses of Allah and killed the prophets without right. That is because they disobeyed and [habitually] transgressed” (3:112). They killed the prophets because they disliked their messages: “Whenever there came to them a messenger with what their souls did not desire, a party [of messengers] they denied, and another party they killed” (5:70).

Not only have they disbelieved in revelations from Allah and killed the prophets, but they even dare to mock Allah himself: “And the Jews say, ‘The hand of Allah is chained.’ Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say.” They “strive throughout the land [causing] corruption, and Allah does not like corrupters” (5:64).

Allah gave food laws to the Jews because of their “wrongdoing,” and “for their averting from the way of Allah many [people]” (4:160), and by doing so, “repaid them for their injustice” (6:146). Some Jews are “avid listeners to falsehood” who “distort words beyond their [proper] usages.” These are “the ones for whom Allah does not intend to purify their hearts,” and they will be punished not just in hellfire but in this life as well: “For them in this world is disgrace, and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment” (5:41).

Jews dare to deny divine revelation, claiming that “Allah did not reveal to a human being anything,” to which Muhammad is told to respond, “Who revealed the Scripture that Moses brought as light and guidance to the people? You [Jews] make it into pages, disclosing [some of] it and concealing much” (6:91).

In light of all this, it is understandable that Muslims should not get close to such people: “O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people” (5:51). What’s more, the Jews are “the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers” (5:82).

While Muslims are the “best of people” (3:110), “they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures” (98:6). They are “like livestock” (7:179). “Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are those who have disbelieved, and they will not [ever] believe” (8:55).

But when John Jamason called the Qur’an “a book that preaches hate,” in the eyes of CAIR it was he who was the one who was preaching hate, not the holy book of Islam. The hypocrisy of their harassment of Jamason was self-evident, but only to those familiar enough with the Qur’an and honest enough to acknowledge the nature of all too much of its contents. That was a small group that did not include officials of Palm Beach County, who were – like so many other officials of all kinds in the United States and elsewhere in the staggering but still marginally free world – all too ready to entertain the complaints about Muslim pressure groups despite being woefully ill-equipped to evaluate those complaints properly. They knew, like Fort Hood jihad mass murderer Nidal Hasan’s superiors, that what was important above all was to avoid being labeled “bigoted” and “Islamophobic.”

How grand that they had their priorities straight. All it cost was thirteen dead and thirty wounded.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here

CAIR-Canada hides its roots

Hamas Unchecked is more like it..

By Muneeb Nasir
Canada, umbrella, Muslim, name

The Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations has changed its name to reflect its Canadian heritage

TORONTO – In an effort to better reflect its Canadian heritage, a prominent Muslim civil liberties organization has changed its name to be a prominent voice for the country’s diverse Muslim community.

“For 13 years, CAIR.CAN has had a successful track record as a grassroots advocate for civil liberties and civic engagement and for mutual understanding between Canadian Muslims and their fellow citizens,”Amira Elghawaby, Human Rights Coordinator of the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), told OnIslam.net

The Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations changed its name on July 6 into NCCM or the Conseil National des Musulmans Canadiens (CNMC).

“CAIR.CAN felt that we needed to look to the future – far ahead in fact – to meet the growing needs and aspirations of Canadian Muslim communities from coast to coast.”

Founded in 2000, CAIR.CAN was modeled after the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the United States which has distinguished itself as a pioneering civil liberties advocacy organization for American Muslims.

However, the CAIR.CAN felt it was time for it to reflect its Canadian roots and brand itself as an organization that is a leading voice for the country’s Muslims.

“This change represents a natural evolution for the organization,” said NCCM Board Chair Kashif Ahmed.

“Our new name better reflects the Canadian heritage and focus of the organization as well as its ongoing vision to be a leading voice that enriches Canadian society through Muslim civic engagement and the promotion of human rights,”

Since coming on the scene 13 years ago, CAIR.CAN has been a leading civil liberties group advocating for Canada’s Muslims and has been known for promoting civic engagement and mutual understanding between the nation’s Muslims and their fellow citizens.

Same Vision

While the organization is re-branding itself under a new name, its vision, mission and work will remain the same.

“We remain the same organization our constituents and partners have come to rely on to represent a broad and diverse spectrum of Canadian Muslims,” said NCCM Executive Director Ihsaan Gardee.

“Under our new name, we will both continue and widen our work as successful advocates for civil liberties and champion the role of diverse communities in upholding Canadian pluralism.”

Over the next few months, NCCM is hoping to redouble its efforts to engage with Muslims across the country.

“NCCM will be working diligently in the coming days, weeks and months to engage and work with local Muslim communities across Canada on issues of human rights and civil liberties, active citizenship, anti-discrimination efforts and overcoming Islamophobia,” Elghawaby said.

“We are committed to expanding our services and listening to and working with mosques, Islamic centers, and community associations to ensure that the concerns of Canadian Muslims are given a fair hearing on the national stage.”

Muslims are the fastest growing religious community in Canada, according to the country’s statistical agency, Statistics Canada.

Canada’s Muslim population increased by 82 percent over the past decade – from about 579,000 in 2001 to more than 1 million in 2011,

Muslims represent 3.2 percent of Canada’s total population.

AND not to be trusted…

CAIR has hijacked Michigan school system



The Council on American-Islamic Relations apparently believes in freedom of religion for itself, but freedom from religion for all other faiths, and has the audacity to impose this cockeyed reasoning on Michigan’s public schools.


In April, CAIR’s Michigan chapter demanded that a Detroit-area school district essentially advocate one particular religion — Islam — over all others.


CAIR lodged its complaint against the Dearborn School District,
claiming that the school system didn’t accommodate Muslim students
wishing to participate in prayer on school grounds.


After CAIR staff met with Dearborn Public Schools Superintendent
Brian Whiston, the district “implemented a policy which fully
accommodates student-led prayer in all the schools,” according to the Arab-American News.


After the Dearborn public school system rolled over to its demands,
CAIR is expanding its efforts. “CAIR-MI is currently in discussion with
Melvindale Public Schools to get similar accommodations for students
that are now in place for Dearborn Public Schools,” according to the
same report.


Making CAIR’s demands to allow for in-school prayer especially hypocritical was an even that took place in October.


The very same Michigan chapter of CAIR sent a letter to the Roseville
Public School system complaining that permission slips were being
handed out so that students could attend Bible classes, according to a CAIR press release.


The classes were not held on school property, but rather at a local
Baptist church. In addition. the school didn’t provide transportation to
or from the Bible classes, and attendance didn’t excuse the students
from keeping up with their regular school work.


Nonetheless, CAIR-MI Executive Director Dawud Walid found the practice objectionable, and wrote:



School staff and teachers are not to serve as advocates
for one particular religion or congregation within a religion by passing
out slips inviting parents to give permission for their children to
attend religious instruction. . . According to the United States Supreme
Court, the First Amendment clearly requires that public school students
and their parents are never given the impression that their
school/school district prefers a specific religion over others or
sanctions religion in general.

Just like Dearborn would do six months later, the Roseville Public
School system backed down to CAIR’s demands. It “apologized to CAIR-MI
for the distribution of the permission slips and said district
principals will discuss the issue at an upcoming meeting,” as CAIR


What’s more CAIR’s argument that “school staff and teachers are not
to serve as advocates for one particular religion” should have come back
to bite the organization in the backside six months later. That was
precisely what it demanded Dearborn do — advocate for a particular


Townhall’s Kyle Olson observed, “Muslims can conduct religious
activities within a public school, but Christians can’t go off-site to
receive voluntary Bible lessons? What’s wrong with this picture?”


There’s plenty wrong, I’d say.


H/T Townhall.