The White House sent out a representative to speak at a mosque in nearby Sterling, VA the other day, with the typical "terrorism crosses different faiths" lie. But Adam Savit, writing at Breitbart's Big Peace, reveals that CAIR's Nihad Awad spoke to the same mosque in 2007, right after the "Flying Imams" controversy.
CAIR's Nihad Awad, speaking at a 2002 "anti-war" rally in Washington DC, with a Hezbollah flag (Palestinian terror group) off to the side
On May 27, 2007 the ADAMS Center hosted Executive Director Nihad Awad of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) to discuss the FBI, hate crimes statistics and Muslims, to an audience he had thought was entirely Muslim. Unknown to Awad, audio of the event was provided to the Center for Security Policy. Awad’s 2007 speech began with complaints about the greater number of hates crimes reported against Jewish victims versus the “very very small percentage” reported against Muslim victims, because it made his job harder as a lobbyist on Capitol Hill:
....Awad went on to advise Muslims to be wary of the FBI and not talk to them except in the presence of a lawyer:
For example, when we advise them not to speak to FBI agents when if they are approached except with the presence of lawyers. Many people take that as a good advice, but they don’t apply it. Also, we remind people that it is very important to cooperate with the government and law enforcement [UNCLEAR] except you have to be very careful that you have rights. These rights are constitutional and you cherish your rights. Many people I know, know these things but in personal application, they don’t do it. So, for example, our organization, [UNCLEAR] in a professional capacity. And I know [UNCLEAR] and others do the same thing. In a professional capacity, we sit down and we discuss issues. We bring complaints. And we ask what have you done for this group, what have you done for that? Let’s move forward. [UNCLEAR] knocks on their doors, this is different in relationship—when you get a knock on your door, you have to be more cautious. You have to be more careful. Because everything you say can be used against you even if you by mistake give false information, that’s criminal.
And it is a crime.
If someone is asking question, for example, “three hours ago, where were you?” And if you give the wrong answer, even innocently that’s considered, technically, false information. And that false information can get you [UNCLEAR] into jail. So in the presence of a lawyer, that [UNCLEAR] legal person puts you on the right track. So you deliver your responsibilities toward law enforcement. But at the same time, you are very careful. Cause some people are nervous. Sometimes they don’t—they don’t know what they mean. And they may land on the ear of the law enforcement as “uh-oh, something’s fishy here.” And they have to say something and have to do something. I know many people who make sometimes stupid jokes. They want just maybe to deflect the attention that they’re anxious or they’re nervous or they’re afraid, so they throw a joke here and there. They don’t mean it. But to the sensitive eye of law enforcement, that is maybe sign of a crime or a criminal or terrorism or a potential suspect that I’m talking to. And sometimes it goes downhill. And people are not trained. So what we do is we tell the community members that we have to be proud, we have to understand the law, be confident, and if you have something—if you have done something wrong, there is a way to deal with it. And if you did not do anything wrong, you should be very confident and don’t get yourself in trouble, you know, by saying unwise things.
There's audio links at the page.
Examples of the moral equivalence argument by liberals illustrated by Sister Toldjah: "Dear Ezra Klein: Would you please name the Christian equivalent of OBL?" and "Moral Relativism Alert: Ellison says “radicalization” seen “across our society”