02-19-2019 07:26:59 AM -0800
02-18-2019 09:36:51 AM -0800
02-18-2019 07:35:39 AM -0800
02-17-2019 12:39:26 PM -0800
02-17-2019 08:18:34 AM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.

Islamist Campaign Donors Overwhelmingly Back Democrats

This pro-Democratic tilt has continued to the present. Based on contributions now cataloged by IMIP, Democrats outraised Republicans by a factor of 4.8 from 2003 to 2006, 29.7 from 2007 to 2010, and 17.5 from 2011 to 2014. The two most recent blocks reflect the impact of Islamist enthusiasm for Obama’s White House runs. As for the last three Republican presidential nominees, IMIP has located no contributions to Bush’s 2004 campaign, none to John McCain’s in 2008, and just one to Mitt Romney for $1,000 ahead of the 2012 primaries. Overall, the people in IMIP’s sample have donated 12 times as much to Democrats since September 11, 2001.

Islamist-affiliated individuals presumably support Democrats for the same reason that other subsets of Americans throw their weight behind certain politicians and parties: they expect Democrats to support them, at least at the level of providing the best political landscape in which to pursue their objectives. But as Daniel Pipes points out, we are not dealing here with professionals attempting to “tweak the tax code” to their advantage or even a minority population striving to secure equal rights. Islamists intend to alter the fabric of the liberal democratic system, a goal characterized by the Muslim Brotherhood, in a memorandum outlining its North American strategy, as “a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within,” culminating in Islamic rule.

Each of the six groups analyzed by IMIP is connected to the Brotherhood or its dream of institutionalizing Shari‘a. ICNA, ISNA, and the Islamic Association for Palestine, CAIR’s immediate predecessor, appear on the Brotherhood’s 1991 “list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” Both CAIR and ISNA were designated as unindicted co-conspirators in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a charity convicted of bankrolling Hamas, the Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing. Prosecutors classified CAIR among the “individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations”; they named ISNA as one of the “individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.” Furthermore, according to a brief filed by the government in a separate case, “MAS was founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” Two Muslim Brothers also formed MPAC. Finally, MANA is helmed by radical cleric Siraj Wahhaj, who has spoken of replacing the Constitution with Islamic law.

Because the various board members and staffers researched by IMIP have participated in defining and executing the ideological agendas of the above groups, their campaign contributions are a matter of concern. This is not to suggest that the dollar amounts uncovered thus far — quite small by American standards — are tipping any elections. But even in modest quantities, money can purchase political access and open the doors of influence. When it comes to the agents of radical Islam, these doors must be barred shut.

No remotely mainstream politician would knowingly accept, let alone get away with accepting, contributions from a leader of a white supremacist organization. Why should it be any different for a leader of an Islamic supremacist organization? Those who represent the American people or seek to do so, especially in federal offices that oversee counterterrorism and foreign affairs, need to begin saying no to funds from these problematic sources. Islamist Money in Politics is a first step in nudging candidates and parties toward the right decision — and, where that fails, empowering voters to make informed choices of their own about politicians who wittingly or unwittingly legitimize, enable, or embolden America’s enemies.