June 26, 2008

Relating the Dots: Obama …. Soros …. Stewart …. CAIR-OH …. CCR …. and Al-Qaeda

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 6:15 am

On Tuesday, Matthew Vadum at NewsBusters exposed “Al-Qaeda’s law firm,” the so-called Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the group that argued the case that led to the “the U.S. Supreme Court’s lawless, nonsensical decision in Boumediene v. Bush” (yet another Supreme Court opinion that a president would be fully justified in defying in future similar situations in the absence of legislation ratifying the judges’ sentiment).

Vadum noted that:

CCR donors include the Ohio branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Safa Trust Inc., and the International Institute of Islamic Thought, all of which have been accused of connections to Islamist terror groups.

Patrick Poole took it from there concerning CAIR-OH (links are in Poole’s original):

No doubt some of that CAIR-Ohio money funding Al-Qaeda’s law firm came from the fundraiser featuring 1993 World Trade Center bombing unindicted co-conspirator Siraj Wahhaj, who helped raise $100,000 for CAIR-OH as the keynote speaker at their 2006 annual banquet; and the 2007 CAIR-OH annual banquet featuring Governor Ted Strickland.

As a reminder, Ohio’s media appeared to consciously choose not to report Strickland’s CAIR-OH banquet appearance in June 2007, even though (or was it because?) CAIR-OH’s controversial terror connections were already quite well-known.

CCR supported radical lawyer Lynne Stewart, who was convicted in 2005 by a jury of giving aid to Islamic terrorists and was sentenced to 30 years. Stewart was convicted of providing material support to terrorists by serving as a communications funnel between those inside and outside of jail; those communicating from jail were convicted of various terror-related crimes. A judge later inexplicably and outrageously reduced her sentence to 28 months (HT Stop the ACLU). Stewart, thank goodness, was at least disbarred as a result (HT Volokh).

Stewart’s defense was partially funded by (/surprise) Democratic Party go-to money guy George Soros (HT Captain Ed).

In mid-March 2007, per Ed Lasky at American Thinker, Soros called “for the Democratic Party to ‘liberate’ itself from the influence of the pro-Israel lobby and ….. (stated) that America should be dealing with Hamas, the terror group that is now the governing authority of the Palestinians. This was published in the influential New York Review of Books.” Soros has also laughably “equated the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.”

Soros has been a money tree for the presidential candidate I refer to as “Mr. BOOHOO-OUCH” (Barack O-bomba Overseas Hussein ObambiObama – Objectively Unfit Coddler of Haters) since early 2004.

Those are terror-supporting and/or terror-sympathetic relationships you can believe in.

ADDENDUM, 10:30 p.m.: Oh, and how could I forget this (“Video: Hannity on the Obama-Khalidi connection”)?

ADDENDUM II, 11:15 p.m.: You can tell that you’ve written a pertinent post when the people who don’t like what is presented just make stuff up about what you said. There will be no links to disinfo artists; many readers know who the usual suspects are.

ADDENDUM III, June 27, 6:00 a.m.: Good to see that this post made it to LexisNexis.

ADDENDUM IV, June 27, 6:15 a.m.: Patrick Poole’s FrontPageMag.com piece this morning documents the silence of CAIR-OH on the terror-related convictions of Christopher Paul and others. Read the whole thing.

CAIR-OH originally expended all kinds of energy defending Mr. Paul after he was arrested in April 2007, two months before Ted Strickland’s banquet appearance. That Mr. Paul was probably guilty as sin should have been pretty obvious at the time, and besides, governors and politicians usually don’t wait until guilty pleas to dissociate themselves from questionable characters and organizations.

CAIR-OH’s knee-jerk defense of those ultimately convicted of terror-related crimes is nothing new, as this excerpt from an AFP report indicates. The person referred to, Nuradin Abdi, was convicted in July 2007 of “conspiring to provide material support for terrorists,” and was given a 10-year sentence in November.

Are we really supposed to believe that Ted Strickland and his advisers, including Homeland Security types, somehow had no idea that CAIR-OH was, at best, defending the indefensible, or, at worst, attempting to protect fellow travelers, right under their noses in Columbus? Or that they attended the CAIR-OH despite knowing all of this? Either choice is pretty damning.


UPDATE: Hmm — The link to the original report at CAIR’s national site about the June 2007 Ohio banquet no longer works. A search of the national org’s site for “Strickland” comes up empty of anything relating to Ted. That’s interesting, because a page-by-page slog through the site’s press releases shows that the original release is there, but its URL has moved. But even a Google search on the title of the press release, and a key phrase from it, can’t locate it. So are the CAIR site operators programming clods, or deliberately making finding stuff difficult?



  1. you’re off the meds, again, blumer. be careful around your guns.

    Comment by tim russo — June 26, 2008 @ 4:38 pm

  2. Tom –

    “Terror supporting?” If I write a check to CAIR, will you label me terror-supporting? I would suspect that turn of phrase could be actionable, and I am tempted to write a check to CAIR and send you a photo-copy. I do not support terrorists or terrorism. Your post above on Bizzyblog reeks of intolerance and falls short of your usual self-imposed standards. It sounds cheap and shallow, like something I heard as a kid growing up in a small southern town, the kind of stuff that described Martin Luther King as an “outside agitator,” communist and worse. I know you are not the Sheriff Jim Clark of the Ohio Blogosphere, but you are starting to sound like you learned how to write in Selma in 1966.

    Comment by bill sloat — June 26, 2008 @ 6:40 pm

  3. #1, That’s a really bright comment Tim.

    Why don’t you tell me where I’m wrong…..

    Comment by TBlumer — June 26, 2008 @ 9:52 pm

  4. #2, you can decide on which part is “and” and which is “or.” You’re a reporter. Surely you can tell me where I’m wrong…..

    Comment by TBlumer — June 26, 2008 @ 9:59 pm

  5. Oh man, Tom. You are now into the definition of “is.” Have you been taking lessons from Bill Clinton? In the legal world, the clause would be separated by a comma to stand alone, so I will make it clearer to you: terrorists, or terror.

    Comment by bill sloat — June 27, 2008 @ 8:06 am

  6. #5 Bill — terror, with what should be obvious points:

    - “terror-supporting” can be intentional or inadvertent.

    - “terror-sympathetic” can be naively romantic (“oh, these people are aggrieved revolutionaries” or similar claptrap), ignorant (“these are just religious clerics defending their faith”), or eyes-wide-open.

    That doesn’t alter the fact that the relationships, such as they are, exist, and have more troubling implications the more power any of those involved gain.

    Comment by TBlumer — June 27, 2008 @ 1:48 pm

  7. [...] Read this first (sorry, but you have to) [...]

    Pingback by Plunderbund - » 614-TER-RIST — June 30, 2008 @ 6:23 pm

  8. Actually if you do send a check to an organiztion that has been named an unindicted co-conspirator in terrorism then yes you’d be a terrorist supporter.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Comment by Mark McNally — June 30, 2008 @ 9:32 pm

  9. Hmmmm. Mark, have you ever bought any Chiquita bananas? Do you own any stock in that company? I know I have eaten and purchased the bananas, along with other Chiquita products, but I have never, ever supported or condoned terrorists or terrorism in Columbia. Yet Chiquita pleaded guilty to such an activity. A step further — Chiquita pays federal, state and local taxes in Ohio. Thus the recipient agencies have received checks — or money transfers — from a corporation convicted of taking part in terrorist activities in violation of U.S. law following an indictment by a federal grand jury. You say, “Actually, if you do send a check to an organization that has been named an unindicted conspirator in terrorism, then yes, you’d be a terrorist supporter. Why is that so hard to understand?” So the recipients of Chiquita corporate checks are “terrorist supporters” by your defininition, or worse because the company was indicted. By mine, they have no culpability or intent or motive. I think you are on thin ice, my friend. Or maybe I should say you have stepped on a banana peel.

    Comment by bill sloat — July 1, 2008 @ 4:50 pm

  10. #8 and #9, Geez Bill, I hope you’re in a wet suit, because the thin ice is in your comment, and breaks in the following modification of Mark’s comment:

    Actually if you do send a check to an organiztion that YOU KNOW has been named an unindicted co-conspirator in terrorism then yes you’d be a terrorist supporter.

    That really isn’t hard to understand, Bill.

    As to your straw/banana man Chiquita — By the time banana buyers learned of Chiquita’s Colombian misadventures, the company had renounced the activity and those most directly involved were arrested, disciplined, or fired. Banana buyers could then decide if they thought it was a one-off or part of the company culture, and react accordingly from that point forward. If any of them think that Chiquita is consorting with terrorists, then they should, uh, Dole out their banana money on other brands.

    CAIR’s and CAIR-OH’s involvement in defending the indefensible and of some of those associated with it in perpetrating the indefensible is well-known, or should be well-known, to those such as Governor Strickland and his peeps. But yet he gave them legitimacy by speaking at their banquet and doing the kumbaya thing. That’s either craven or unforgivably ignorant. Why is that so hard to understand?

    Comment by TBlumer — July 1, 2008 @ 5:35 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.