Friday, November 10, 2006
Liberals Come to the Rescue...of al Qaeda Fundraisers
Remember Susan Estrich, the extremely ugly liberal who was Michael Dukakis' campaign manager? How about Harvey Silvergate, the disgusting liberal who defended child murderess Louise Woodward so she could escape being sent to prison for life for killing a small child? Well, these two lowlifes have gotten together to defend the right of 2 al Qaeda sympathizers to raise money for terrorists worldwide - because, as they argue, it is part of their Muslim duty.
What evil will liberals not defend?
Jihadists and Jews
Just imagine the number of liberals who would line up to defend Usama bin Laden if he were captured and put on trial.
Remember Susan Estrich, the extremely ugly liberal who was Michael Dukakis' campaign manager? How about Harvey Silvergate, the disgusting liberal who defended child murderess Louise Woodward so she could escape being sent to prison for life for killing a small child? Well, these two lowlifes have gotten together to defend the right of 2 al Qaeda sympathizers to raise money for terrorists worldwide - because, as they argue, it is part of their Muslim duty.
What evil will liberals not defend?
Jihadists and Jews
Democratic strategist and former Michael Dukakis campaign manager Susan Estrich, and the former American Civil Liberties Union president in Massachusetts, Harvey Silvergate, recently joined the attorneys representing two alleged Boston al Qaeda funders.
Emadeddin Z. Muntasser and Muhammed Mubayyid face charges in U.S. District Court of Massachusetts for the soliciting and expenditure "of funds to support and promote the mujahideen and jihad, including the distribution of pro-jihad publications." Their Care International "charity," a now-defunct Boston-based al Qaeda front organization, published, among other things, the English version by al Qaeda co-founder Abdullah Azzam of "Join the Caravan," which states: "[t]he obligation of Jihad today remains [individually required] until the last piece of land, which was in the hand of the Muslims, but has been occupied by disbelievers, is liberated."
In their Oct. 5 request for a dismissal, the defendants effectively -- and unwittingly -- explain all the reasons why the federal government should outlaw Islamic charitable giving in the United States.
In their motion, attorneys Mrs. Estrich, Malick Ghachem, Norman Zalkind and Elizabeth Lunt, argue that the defendants merely exercised their religious freedom and obligation to give "zakat" (Islamic charity).
Their motion cites Chapter 9, verse 60 of the Koran, which describes "those entitled to receive zakat." According to the definition of zakat in The Encyclopedia of Islam, "category 7" of eligible recipients are "volunteers engaged in jihad" for whom the zakat cover "living expenses and the expenses of their military service (animals, weapons)."
Incredibly, the suspects' attorneys also argue that such charitable giving, to support the jihad and mujahideen, is rightfully tax-exempt under U.S. constitutional protection of religious freedom. Moreover, they compare their support of Islam's "holy war" to the Jewish National Fund (JNF) appeals for tax-deductible "donations to finance the purchase of bulletproof vests, helmets and firetrucks in connection with the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict."
Equating the supply of bulletproof vests to defend Israeli civilians from Hezbollah's jihad with the funding of weapons and martyrs (holy warriors) for the jihad is preposterous. The JNF does not promote religiosity. Rather, it was incorporated in the United States in 1926 to develop the ancient Jewish homeland and to maintain and encourage the connection of the Jewish people to it. In contrast, Care was established to promote and advance al Qaeda's version of Islam.
Just imagine the number of liberals who would line up to defend Usama bin Laden if he were captured and put on trial.
