Archive for the ‘CAIR’ Category
During this campaign, Rick Nolan has tried several scams to boost his popularity. He tried selling his boondoggle Mining Institute as proof that he’s pro-mining. Now he’s peddling lies that Chip Cravaack doesn’t live in Minnesota. We know Nolan’s lying because WDIO wouldn’t let the DFL run their ad with that specific lie.
Here’s what Nolan’s up to now:
When U.S. Rep. Chip Cravaack hears ads by his 8th District opponent Rick Nolan saying “he doesn’t even live here anymore,” he describes them as an attack on his family and a broken promise not to get personal in the hotly contested race.
When Nolan hears that accusation, he responds by calling it hypocrisy and an odd leap by Cravaack to bring his family into the dispute over his residency.
In a week of back-and-forth sparring between the two, Cravaack said publicly for the first time this week that his son Nick has autism, and that an accident involving the 10-year-old at their home in Lindstrom spurred him to move his family to New Hampshire, closer to the Boston company where his wife, Traci, works.
It’s taboo in politics to go after another politician’s family. That’s what Nolan did when he lied about where Chip did. The despicable people in the DFL messaging machine haven’t hesitated in talking about Chip’s wife living in New Hampshire. The DFL thinks it’s a big deal with voters.
Instead, Chip stepped forward to explain why his wife and kids moved to New Hampshire, explaining that their oldest son has autism.
Faced with that explanation, decent people would apologize for lying, then pull the ads with these lies. Finally, a politician with any integrity would wish Chip’s family nothing but the best, then get back to campaigning about the issues. It’s apparent that Nolan isn’t a man of integrity:
But the Nolan camp said it could not confirm any such agreement, and that it was Cravaack who brought his family issues into the dispute.
“They’re trying to distract because they are behind,” Nolan spokesman Mike Misterek said. “There is no talk about his family in that ad.”
First, let’s state that Nolan was caught lying about Chip not living in Minnesota. Because of Mr. Nolan’s blatant lie, Mr. Misterek is sent out to spin away Nolan’s lie.
Next, it’s the worst of spin to say Chip’s trailing. He isn’t. Nolan’s getting his butt kicked with independents, trailing Chip by a 53%-36% margin.
Finally and most importantly, Chip’s done more in 2 years in Congress to create good-paying mining jobs than Jim Oberstar ever did and more than what Rick Nolan would ever do. Nolan isn’t interested in mining. He’s consistently sided with the militant environmentalists who’ve funded his campaign.
No honest person thinks that Nolan would fight the militant environmentalists if there was a fight between the environmentalists and the miners.
Rick Nolan isn’t a man of integrity. The last thing Washington, DC needs is another bought-and-paid-for politician who doesn’t have an ounce of integrity. Secondly, if Nolan was elected, he’d do whatever the special interests told him to. That’s because that’s what he’s always done. Third, Nolan has shown great interest in conning his would-be constituents. In fact, Nolan hasn’t shown any interest in doing what’s right for his constituents, especially with respect to mining.
That, more than anything else, is why Eighth District voters should reject the slick-sounding empty suit known as Rick Nolan. Instead, they should re-elect Chip Cravaack because Chip’s committed to making life better for the blue collar workers of the middle class throughout the Eighth District.
Rep. Keith Ellison and controversy apparently go hand-in-hand. Here’s Rep. Ellison’s retweet:
Rep. Ellison’s communications team immediately distanced their boss from the controversial retweet:
UPDATE at 12:24: Rep. Ellison’s Communications Director Jennifer Porter Gore responds, “As with all Twitter accounts a retweet is not an endorsement. The congressman removed the tweet because it appeared to endorse use of a nasty term, which is not what we wanted.”
UPDATE: Rep. Keith Ellison has distanced himself from a Twitter user who referred to Mitt Romney as a “douche bag.”
If we take Rep. Ellison at his word, the next logical question is this: What message did Rep. Ellison think he was sending in retweeting that disgusting pejorative? This isn’t the first time that Rep. Ellison has shot his mouth off:
During a July 8 speech he gave to a group of atheists in Edina, Ellison compared the Bush administration’s post-9/11 actions to the heavy-handed undertakings carried out by the Nazi government in the wake of the 1933 Reichstag fire—initiatives that fomented Adolf Hitler’s rise to power.
“After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted,” a July 8 Strib article quoted Ellison as saying.
Should Minnesotans accept as fact that Keith Ellison is sincerely apologizing for echoing the thought that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney is a “heartless douchebag”? Let’s remember that Keith Ellison has a history of making explosive comments:
In 2000 he spoke at a fundraiser for longtime fugitive Kathleen Soliah, aka Sara Jane Olson. The text of his speech was posted on a website, www.soliah.com, by Minneapolis resident Greg Lang.
Ellison praised Soliah for “fighting for freedom.” At the time, she faced charges of planting pipe bombs under two Los Angeles police cars as a member of the Symbionese Liberation Army, a paramilitary organization whose slogan was “Death to the fascist insect that preys on the life of the people.” Soliah pleaded guilty in 2001. In 2002 she also pleaded guilty to the murder of Myrna Opsahl, a bank customer shot by another SLA member during a holdup. She’s now serving a long prison sentence.
That’s disgusting. The SLA was a domestic terrorist organization. They killed and kidnapped people. They robbed banks, too. That’s who Keith Ellison thinks are freedom fighters? That’s rather telling, isn’t it?
Now we’re supposed to believe that he didn’t mean it when he retweeted Tammy Talpas’ disgusting tweet? Based on what? Based on Keith Ellison’s history of statesmanship? His leading by example on human rights issues? His history of calling members of domestic terrorist organizations and gangs freedom fighters?
Whether Keith Ellison agreed with Tammy Tilpas or not, the reality is that he’s got a lengthy history of saying repulsive, disgusting things about vile human beings.
That’s before talking about his willing to speak at an anti-semitic organization’s banquet:
It’s been a busy month for Ellison in terms of speaking engagements. He was a featured speaker at the MAS-MN banquet on Memorial Day weekend.
At the time, Joe Kaufman, the chairman of Americans Against Hate, asked Ellison to renounce the anti-semitic remarks found on MAS-MN’s website. Here are the specific anti-semitic statements:
- “The Holy Prophet (and through him the Muslims) has been reassured that he should not mind the enmity, the evil designs and the machinations of the Jews, but continue exerting his utmost to establish the Right Way in accordance with the Guidance of the Quran.”
- “In view of the degenerate moral condition of the Jews and the Christians, the Believers have been warned not to make them their friends and confidants.”
- “If you gain victory over the men of Jews, kill them.”
- “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, ˜O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”
- “May Allah destroy the Jews, because they used the graves of their prophets as places of worship.”
Mr. Ellison still hasn’t renounced MAS-MN for those vile, anti-semitic statements.
It’s time people admitted that Rep. Ellison is wildly controversial, fully capable of saying disgusting things.
Democrats have complained about waterboarding for quite some time, saying that it’s torture and violates the Geneva Conventions. After reading this Washington Post article, it’s apparent now that they’re talking out of both sides of their mouth:
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
“The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,” said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.
Ms. Pelosi, among others, has some explaining to do. John McCain’s stance is sincere because he’s been subjected to torture while he was a POW. Ms. Pelosi, it appears, had a ‘Come to Jesus’ moment well after she sanctioned waterboarding. Perhaps the best explanation for her change of heart isn’t that she had a ‘Come To Jesus Moment’ but rather had a ‘Come to MoveOn Moment’.
Whatever motivated her to change positions, a question remains unanswered: Why the change? It won’t be sufficient to give an evasive answer, either. Specifics are needed as to why the change of heart, if that’s what really happened.
Here’s the most telling quote in the article:
“In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic,” said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. “But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, ‘We don’t care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.'”
Think of how revealing that answer is. The first instincts after 9/11 was to do whatever it took to “protect the American people.” It wasn’t until groups like CAIR and the ACLU took exception that Democrats objected. What does that tell you about Democrats’ ability to prevent terrorist attacks? It tells me that they aren’t using everything that’s available. It says that they’re more worried about a terrorist’s civil rights than about protecting US citizens. That’s unacceptable.
Democrats rely on interest groups like CAIR and the ACLU for financing their campaigns. These organizations are doing everything possible to hamstring our intelligence-gathering capabilities. That’s a scary thought when you consider the fact that we’re fighting against ruthless, nimble foe that’s perfectly willing to wear us down over a long period of time.
We can’t afford to let Democrats, who are that influenced by people who don’t take national security seriously, have the White House levers of control. The thought is downright scary.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
When it comes to telling whoppers, few are as good at it as the people at InFocus Magazine when they’re promoting one of their own. That skill set is on display in this puff piece about Rep. Keith Ellison. Here’s the opening paragraph:
Keith Ellison, 43, is a father, husband, attorney, former Minnesota state legislator, community advocate, and now a United States Congressman. Ellisonâ€™s roots as a community activist and his message of inclusivity through democratic participation resonated throughout the Fifth District. His long career of advocacy is focused on promoting peace, prosperity for working families, and civil and human rights. In 2006, Ellison made history as the first African American elected to Congress from Minnesota and the first member of the Muslim faith elected to Congress. Congressman Ellison took his ceremonial oath ceremony into Congress with the holy Qurâ€™an that was owned by founding father Thomas Jefferson. Originally from Detroit, Michigan, he moved to Minnesota in 1987 to attend the University of Minnesota Law School, where he graduated with a Juris Doctor degree in 1990. Ellison and his wife, Kim, a high school mathematics teacher, have lived on the Minneapolis Northside for the past eighteen years. They are the proud parents of four children. Ellison will be the keynote speaker at the upcoming banquet for the Council on American-Islamic Relationsâ€™ southern California chapter on Nov. 10.
When InFocus says that “his long career of advocacy is focused on promoting peace”, I wonder if they were refering to this:
Ellison praised Soliah for â€œfighting for freedom.â€ At the time, she faced charges of planting pipe bombs under two Los Angeles police cars as a member of the Symbionese Liberation Army, a paramilitary organization whose slogan was â€œDeath to the fascist insect that preys on the life of the people.â€
Forgive me if that isn’t my idea of advocacy “focused on promoting peace.” Fighting for a terrorist’s rights to kill police officers isn’t my idea of promoting peace. Nor does it fit into my notion of civil and human rights.
Let’s not forget this Ellison gem:
But Ellisonâ€™s call to the crowd was broader than a plea to aid Soliah. â€œWe need to come together and freeâ€¦all the Saras,â€ he proclaimed.
Like who? Like Assata Shakur, Ellison told his audience. Shakur is a former member of the Black Liberation Army, a â€œrevolutionary activist organization,â€ who killed a New Jersey state trooper â€œexecution-style at point-blank range,â€ according to the
FBIâ€™s Wanted Fugitives website.
Shakur escaped from prison in 1979, and eventually fled to Cuba. She â€œshould be considered armed and extremely dangerous,â€ says the FBI, which is offering a reward of up to $1 million for information leading to her apprehension.
Ellison, however, lauded Shakur. â€œI am praying that Castro does not get to the point where he has to really barter with these guys over here because theyâ€™re going to get Assata Shakur, theyâ€™re going to get a whole lot of other people,â€ he told the crowd. â€œI hope the Cuba[n] people can stick to it, because the freedom of some good decent people depends on it.â€
It’s obvious that InFocus isn’t a serious magazine. Their view of Keith Ellison is selective at best. What kind of man would be happy that a murderer escaped to Cuba? What kind of magazine would say that a politician who was an activist “focused on promoting peace…and civil and human rights” would omit the fact that this same ‘activist’ applauds the escape of murderers?
Americans Against Hate Chairman Joe Kaufman has issued a press release stating that a former governmental relations intern for the California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations has made some rather incendiary remarks in a blog post. Here’s the opening paragraphs of Kaufman’s press release:
In her piece, entitled, â€˜Ahmadinejad Visits Columbia,â€™ speaking about the President of Iranâ€™s call for the destruction of Israel, she wrote, â€œWiping other countries off the map? Apartheid Israel is not a country, it was created by wiping Palestine off the map; isn’t all fair in love and war?â€ She then remarked, â€œDo we really have the right to be upset at Ahmadinejad for talking about wiping an apartheid â€˜stateâ€™ off the map?â€
Later, Billoo took umbrage with a City Councilman who said that Ahmadinejad had American blood on his hands. She wrote, â€œIran has the blood of [sic] Ameircan soldiers on his hands? Way to pass the buck! The blood of those soldiers is squarely on the hands of Bush and Co.! Excuse the Iraqis for attempting to defend themselves in the midst of an illegal war!â€
Ms. Billoo’s denials notwithstanding, there is American blood on Iran’s hands. Is she justifying Iran’s supplying Sadr’s militias with explosively formed projectiles (EFP’s)? If she is, then she’s implying that it’s ok for Iran to interfere in another country’s war. It’s one thing to say that Iran has the right to defend itself if another country attacked it. It’s quite another to say that Iran has a right to interfere in another sovereign nation’s internal affairs.
Furthermore, notice the gambit she uses in saying “Excuse the Iraqis for attempting to defend themselves…” Sadr’s militias used Iranian-built EFP’s to kill Iraqi and MNF-I troops in direct disobedience of Maliki’s government. How dare a bunch of renegades take the law into their own hands.
That isn’t all she said in that post:
How dare Condee pass judgment while we are spending billions of dollars on a regular basis to ensure Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and countless other countries stay off the map.
Excuse me? Why is Ms. Billoo complaining about the the US military destroying the oppressive regimes of the Taliban and Saddam? Would she prefer seeing these regimes still in power? As for Palestine staying off the map, that’s their choice. President Bush laid out a roadmap to help create two sovereign nations, Israel and Palestine.
According to President Bush’s plan, that won’t happen until each side meets certain benchmarks. Thus far, Hamas won’t even start working on its responsibilities. Thus, they’ve made their choice to not have their sovereign nation.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
That’s the essence of this NY Times article. I’ll respond to that with a question: Is it wrong for non-Muslims to question the actions of Rep. Keith Ellison, who claims that he’s a mainstream Muslim, when he speaks at the MAS-Minnesota convention? Is it a mainstream Muslim belief that they can spew anti-Semitism on their websites but then pretend to be friends of Jews? Is it a mainstream Muslim practice to refuse to denounce the anti-Semitism found on MAS-Minnesota’s website? That’s what Rep. Ellison has refused to do for over 90 days.
According to Dictionary.com, the definition of stereotype is “a too-simple and therefore distorted image of a group, such as “Football players are stupid” or “The English are cold and unfriendly people.” How is it stereotyping when we’re providing specific, accurate reasons for mistrusting specific Muslims? According to the Dictionary.com definition, stereotypes are categorical in nature. The questions I have are specific and directed at specific people and organizations.
Since the definition of stereotyping is essentially oversimplification, doesn’t my referring to specific events and people prove that I’m not stereotyping? For instance, I’m not saying that Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is a terrorist or a terrorist-sympathizer. I won’t make that statement without there being a basis in fact for the statement. Here’s something from the NY Times article that plays into the ‘stereotyping’ meme:
A fresh example cited was an open letter from two Republican House members, Peter Hoekstra of Michigan and Sue Myrick of North Carolina, that attacked the Justice Department for sending envoys to the convention because, the lawmakers said, the Islamic Society of North America was a group of “radical jihadists.”
The lone Muslim in Congress, Representative Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota, the keynote speaker here, dismissed the letter as ill informed and typical of bigoted attacks that other minorities have suffered.
Being lectured by Keith Ellison on the issue of bigotry is insulting. Since Rep. Ellison refuses to denounce the anti-semitic statements found on the MAS-Minnesota website, why should we take his accusations of bigotry seriously?
I’d further challenge Rep. Ellison to provide proof that ISNA isn’t a “group of ‘radical jihadists'”. Here’s my proof that they are:
Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was co-founded by convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) leader Sami Al-Arian. Here’s a list of former ISNA members and their profiles:
Siraj Wahhaj was named by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White as a possible co-conspirator to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and testified as a character witness for convicted terror mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. According to Salon.com, in a 1991 speech before the Islamic Association of North Texas, Wahhaj called Operation Desert Storm “one of the most diabolical plots ever in the annals of history,” and predicted that America will fall unless it “accepts the Islamic agenda.” He has openly expressed his desire to see the American government replaced with a caliphate.
Muzammil Siddiqi is the former president of the board of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Saudi-funded organization that is used by the Muslim World League (MWL) to finance and exercise control over most of the mosques in the United States. Prior to his work at ISNA, Siddiqi was a top figure in the MWL, whose American headquarters in Virginia were raided by a Treasury Department task force in March 2002 on suspicion of ties to terrorism. Siddiqi has also chaired the Religious Affairs Committee of the Muslim Students Association of the U.S. and Canada. In addition, he is a member of the Fiqh Council, another government-raided entity.
Abdullah Idris Ali:
Abdullah Idris Ali served as president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) from 1992-1997. ISNA enforces Wahhabi theological writ in some 1,200 American mosques, determining who will speak at every Friday prayer, and which literature will be distributed there. Ali is a member of the board of trustees for the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), a Saudi Wahhabi financial institution that, according to a CAIR report, owns about 27 percent of the estimated 1,200 mosques in the United States. Wahhabism is the most extreme, intolerant, violent form of Islam. Ali is also on the board of advisors for the American Muslim Council (AMC), whose founder and leader, Abdul Rahman Alamoudi, has publicly proclaimed his support for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Moreover, Alamoudi was arrested in September 2003 for illegally failing to notify the U.S. State Department of his numerous trips to Libya; illegally accepting $10,700 from the Libyan mission to the United Nations; and using two American and one Yemeni passport for at least ten of those trips.
I can further add that Alamoudi was the chief fundraiser for the legal defense funds for Omar Abdel Rahman and Mousa Abu Marzook:
Hillary Clinton has worked particularly closely with the head of the AMC, Abdurahman Alamoudi, who has openly collected funds for the legal defense of Mr Marzook, the Hamas chieftain arrested at JFK Airport, and for Mr. Abdel-Rahman, who organized the World Trade Center bombing.
In other words, ISNA’s leadership over the years was littered with men convicted of terrorist activities. They’ve even raised money for Hamas chieftains and the Blind Sheikh, the mastermind behind the first World Trade Center bombing. Given that type of history, why shouldn’t Rep. Hoekstra and Rep. Myrick call ISNA “a group of ‘radical jihadists'”?
It goes even further than that. Here are the speakers at this year’s ISNA Convention:
- Abdalla Idris Ali
- Abdullah Adhami
- Aisha Al-Adawiyya
- Altaf Husain
- Hamza Yusuf
- Ihsan Bagby
- Ingrid Mattson
- Jamal Badawi
- Maha Hamoui
- Muneer Fareed
- Muzammil Siddiqi
- Sherman Abd al-Hakim Jackson
- Siraj Wahhaj
- Umar F. Abd-Allah
- Zaid Shakir
I find it strange that ISNA invited Siraj Wahhaj, who testified as a character witness for the Blind Sheikh, to be a featured speaker at their 44th annual convention. I find it perplexing that they’d invite Muzammil Siddiqi to be a featured speaker at their convention, especially considering he was the man responsible for enforcing the teaching of extremist Wahhabist teachings in mosques all across the United States. It’s noteworthy that al-Qa’ida practices Wahhabist Islam.
Considering all this information, how can Rep. Ellison say that Rep. Hoekstra and Rep. Myrick are “ill-informed” whose letter was “typical of bigoted attacks that other minorities have suffered”? Rep. Ellison should have to explain why he thinks Rep. Hoekstra and Rep. Myrick are bigots. Their criticism of ISNA isn’t based on this definition of bigotry:
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
Quite the contrary, Myrick’s and Hoekstra’s accusations against ISNA are based on actions, mostly based on the illegal actions of ISNA’s past leadership. Myrick’s and Hoekstra’s accusations don’t come close to fitting the official definition of bigotry. Ellison’s accusations of bigotry should be ignored. Rep. Ellison, like his CAIR friends, use the word bigotry as frequently as they use the word Islamophobia.
Leaders of American Muslim organizations attribute the growing intolerance to three main factors: global terrorist attacks in the name of Islam, disappointing reports from the Iraq war and the agenda of some supporters of Israel who try taint Islam to undermine the Palestinians.
I’ll speak only for myself. The reason I’ve criticized specific Muslims is because of their verified actions. My criticisms don’t have anything to do with “disappointing reports from Iraq.” They certainly don’t have anything to do with what supporters of Israel are saying. Most of the people that I’ve criticized in this post have been convicted of criminal activities relating to terrorists. I’d doubt that the average person would say that my criticisms are bigoted, though I’m certain that Rep. Ellison and other CAIR/ISNA mouthpieces would instantly criticize me as an ill-informed, and possibly bigoted, Islamophobe.
That’s just part of the territory when reporting on people who’ll say anything to draw attention away from their illegal and unsavory behavior.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
AAH Chairman Joe Kaufman has issued a press release condemning the Civil Rights Coordinator of CAIR-Los Angeles (CAIR-California), Affad Shaikh, for calling “Senator Joe Lieberman, Vice President Dick Cheney, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, former head of the CIA James Woolsey, Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation, Lt. General Thomas McInerney, and Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity and Sheppard Smith as ‘Extremist Right Wing Nut cases.'”
I’d never heard of Affad Shaikh before this morning but I don’t think he’ll be used as a spokesman for CAIR again anytime soon, especially if this is the quality of his work product. First of all, using the term “extremist right wing nut cases” isn’t the way to win friends and influence people. Secondly, calling Joe Lieberman, Sheppard Smith, Bill O’Reilly and Jim Woolsey extremist right wing nut cases is wildly inaccurate. I couldn’t tell you how O’Reilly or Sheppard Smith vote. I know that Joe Lieberman isn’t an extremist right wing nut case because he’s still part of the Democratic Party.
I strongly recommend that you read the entire press release.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
That’s the unmistakable message of this Washington Times article by Audrey Hudson.
Republican presidential hopeful Rudolph W. Giuliani yesterday endorsed a provision to protect citizens from being sued for reporting potential terrorism-related activity and criticized congressional Democrats for blocking the legislation.
“Congressional Democrats are once again showing they just don’t get the terrorists’ war on us, by attempting to strip important protections for those who report suspected terrorists on airlines,” said Mr. Giuliani, who was mayor of New York City during the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Rep. Stephen Pearce, (R-NM), initially wrote the bill protecting the John Doe passengers immediately after CAIR filed a lawsuit against US Airways, MAC and John Doe passengers on behalf of the imams.
“Peter King is doing the right thing by putting our national security first and political correctness run amok second,” said Mr. Giuliani, who also criticized Democratic presidential candidates for failing to acknowledge “Islamic terrorism” in public debates, including Monday night’s YouTube gathering. “The terrorists are at war with us, whether or not Democrats in Washington and on the campaign trail choose to acknowledge it. And we must stay on offense to prevail,” Mr. Giuliani said.
Predictably, CAIR’s Parvez Ahmed is denying Islam’s ties with terrorism:
This perception is greatly assisted by a veritable cottage industry of neo-experts pontificating with great certainty about the cause-effect relationship between Islam and terrorism. Such mischaracterization is at odds with the reality that Islam unequivocally condemns terrorism and advocates the preservation of life, honor and dignity of all human life as a supreme endeavor. Thus, terrorism even when carried out in the name or defense of Islam cannot be called jihad but is rather an unholy war. Robert Pape in his seminal work Dying to Win contends that military occupation, not religious ideology, is the primary enabler of terrorism.
That is pure nonsense. It isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. Consider the fact that it’s written by a man with extensive connections with Hamas. That alone disqualifies the editorial. The truth is that CAIR is expert at spinning things. They don’t know the meaning of the word truth.
Thanks Rudy for standing up for good legislation.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
By now, everyone knows that Keith Ellison apologized for his comparing the Bush administration’s response to 9/11 with the Reichstag Fire. In today’s press, that likely means that all is forgiven amongst the Agenda Media. I, however, remain skeptical of Keith Ellison’s apology. Here’s why:
Anyone that co-sponsors a bill that calls for the impeachment of an administration’s vice president tells me that he doesn’t just disagree with that administration; he’s loathe to it.
If you read H. RES 333, you’ll immediately recognize that the first two articles of impeachment accuse Vice President Cheney of lying outright. The third article of impeachment accuses Vice President Cheney of “openly threaten[ing] aggression against Iran” despite “no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States…”
This isn’t just an exercise in venting one’s frustrations; it’s an article-by-article declaration that the vice president is evil. I don’t arrive at those conclusions simply out of disgust with Keith Ellison’s comparing President Bush to Hitler.
I’m also factoring in Keith Ellison’s statements comparing violent gangs like the Bloods with ‘civil rights advocates':
“The people who govern this society,” he suggested, are “incarcerating all these young black men” in some kind of retribution for the victories of â€™60s civil rights activists, and those who campaigned to “free Nelson Mandela.” For the powerful, he said, the “very idea ofâ€¦black people having civil rights has got to be obliterated with [obviously] the criminal justice system and incarceration.”
Anyone that thinks that violent gangsters are victims that need special civil rights protections, it isn’t a stretch to think that he’s got an authority complex.
In other words, it isn’t unreasonable to think that Keith Ellison (a) said exactly what he meant and (b) that he’s now apologizing without meaning it. Frankly, I think it’s quite likely that Keith Ellison was ordered to apologize to get a PR disaster off the front page.
My opinions of Keith Ellison aren’t made in a vacuum. This is someone who doesn’t show the least bit of remorse after speaking at an anti-semitic organization’s annual convention, something for which he still hasn’t apologized.
He also hasn’t apologized for his comments about cop-killer Kathleen Soliah. Instead, he’s praised her:
Ellison praised Soliah for “fighting for freedom.”
Here’s another Ellison quote about Soliah:
“We need to come together and freeâ€¦all the Saras,” he proclaimed.
Here’s one of the “Saras” that Ellison was thinking of:
Like Assata Shakur, Ellison told his audience. Shakur is a former member of the Black Liberation Army, a “revolutionary activist organization,” who killed a New Jersey state trooper “execution-style at point-blank range,” according to the FBIâ€™s Wanted Fugitives website.
Shakur escaped from prison in 1979, and eventually fled to Cuba. She “should be considered armed and extremely dangerous,” says the FBI, which is offering a reward of up to $1 million for information leading to her apprehension.
Ellison, however, lauded Shakur. “I am praying that Castro does not get to the point where he has to really barter with these guys over here because theyâ€™re going to get Assata Shakur, theyâ€™re going to get a whole lot of other people,” he told the crowd. “I hope the Cuba[n] people can stick to it, because the freedom of some good decent people depends on it.”
Frankly, I don’t think that I’m stepping out on a limb when I say that Keith Ellison has an anti-authority attitude. I think I’m stepping on solid ground. I think Keith Ellison was instructed by Nancy Pelosi to apologize so they could get this incident in their rearview ASAP. I’ll just leave you with this question:
Can a person with a history of supporting the vilest criminals in society really feel remorse for comparing President Bush with Adolph Hitler? You know my answer.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Just when you thought things couldn’t get more absurd, Keith Ellison proves that absurdity knows no limits. That’s the conclusion I reached after reading this article in the Twin Cities Daily Planet. Here’s where the absurdity starts:
Some people say the attempt to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney isn’t anything more than a charade by far-left Democrats.
That’s not the case for U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, who gets animated about the subject. The freshman Democrat from Minneapolis has joined a dozen or so lawmakers as co-sponsors of a bill to impeach Cheney for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
I couldn’t stop laughing after reading the line about Cheney’s impeachment being a charade by far-left Democrats, then seeing the Daily Planet ‘reporter’ not classify Keith Ellison as a far-left Democrat. If you read the list of co-sponsors, it reads like a who’s who of the anti-war far left. Collectively, the group is so far left that it isn’t unreasonable to think that they occasionally worry about Howard Dean’s conservative streak.
The alleged crimes are yet to be spelled out by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who sponsored the bill late last month. But Ellison accuses Cheney of “abusing his powerâ€¦and abstracting information.”
Ellison expects us to take impeachment seriously when they don’t spell out any alleged high crimes or misdemeanors? This isn’t anything but another political witch hunt sponsored by the far left base of the Democratic Party.
When the House impeached Bill Clinton, everyone and their mother knew that Clinton had lied under oath. It was indisputable.
The current impeachment bill contains lots of disputed items but nothing that’s indisputable. It’s mostly a ‘Bush lied, people died’ thing. In fact, there’s several things that are utterly laughable because they’re based on the Downing Street Memo, a fiction that only holds sway with the fringest of the fringe lefties.
President Bush’s recent decision to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby, Cheney’s former chief of staff, “broke the camel’s back for me,” said Ellison. “Cheney had everything to do with that decision.”
Rep. Ellison has proof that Dick Cheney “had everything to do with” President Bush commuting Scooter Libby? Playing devil’s advocate for a minute, let’s stipulate that he does. So what? Presidential pardons and commutations can’t be disputed as a matter of law because the Constitution gives the President the final say in those matters.
What Keith Ellison’s statement does is it spotlights the principle Keith Ellison is basing this on: political differences. Keith Ellison had better return to law school for a refresher course in Constitutional Law because having political differences with the president isn’t grounds for impeaching the vice president.
Finally, hearing Keith Ellison say that impeachment is a matter of principle is laughable. He doesn’t have a principled bone in his body. He’s ignored traffic tickets with regularity. He’s avoided filing the campaign finance reports on time, even getting reprimanded for that. He’s delivered the keynote speech to the Minnesota chapter of Muslim American Society’s 4th annual convention. What he hasn’t done is renounce the anti-semitic remarks on MAS-MN’s website. (What principle does Rep. Ellison justify that with?)
Based on a long history of ignoring the laws of the land and speaking at events sponsored by hateful anti-semitic organizations, it’s difficult imagining Keith Ellison being a principled man. At the end of the day, it’s impossible to take him seriously when he says that principles drove him to co-sponsoring an impeachment resolution.
Cross-posted at California Conservative