Stephen Speicher

Let's Keep Those Religionists From Influencing the Government

68 posts in this topic

Thanks to Brian Smith for this article from little green footballs.

Judicial Watch’s Corruption Chronicles blog has a look at Minnesota’s new Democrat Congressman, former Nation of Islam spokesperson Keith Ellison.
The first Muslim elected to the United States Congress is a Democrat from Minneapolis with ties to an Islamic group that supports terrorism and a radical cult whose leader says God will destroy the entire white race and establish a paradise nation ruled by blacks.

Minnesota’s new Representative in the House, Keith Ellison, was endorsed and partly financed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a massive U.S.-based organization that avidly defends Osama bin Laden and other militant Islamic terrorists and considers U.S. action against terrorists anti-Islamic. In fact, the group demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing bin Laden as “the sworn enemy” because it was “offensive to Muslims.”

Ellison, who converted to Islam as a 19-year-old college student, also has strong ties to the Nation of Islam, the black cult led by renowned anti-Christian and anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan. The group’s doctrine states that black people created white people in a genetic experiment 6,000 years ago and that “Judgment Day” means that the Gods will destroy the entire white race (devils) and establish a paradise nation ruled forever by blacks.

As if this weren’t enough to question the choice of Minnesota voters, as a state legislator Ellison supported and defended a convicted cop-killer and leader of a violent gang. Ellison used thug-like language to attack law enforcement officials as racists saying “we don’t get no justice, you don’t get no peace.” Ellison also supports and demands freedom for another convicted cop-killer named Assata Shakur, who lives in Cuba and remains on the FBI’s most wanted list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the Minnesota voters get exactly what they deserve, I hope they get it right in the neck. Then, maybe, they will be ready for someone worthy of holding the title of U.S. Congressman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Confirmation?

I did a very brief search for information on this fellow and this subject. I found chiefly a Washington Times column and a FrontPageMag.com column. Since they are fairly strong conservative publications, one has to take their statements with a grain of salt and caution.

Looking at his website, particularly his list of endorsements, he has a prominent Jewish organization listed along with two dozen left-leaning organization.

The Wikepedia entry is disputed.

The fellow looks pretty bad, I sure as hell would vote against him, but so far I don't see enough evidence to judge this particular accusation. He states he never was a member of Nation of Islam, only writing a few columns. He apologized for not taking Farrakhan's anti-semitism more seriously sooner. That may well be, very likely is, just political pandering.

But, so far, the jury is out on the specific CAIR connection.

Any updates or further useful info would be appreciated.

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, so far, the jury is out on the specific CAIR connection.

Isn't it a matter of public record that the co-founder and executive director of CAIR, Nihad Awad (see CAIR website), was a speaker at an Ellison fundraiser not too long ago? And my understanding is that the campaign does not deny earlier monetary contributions by Awad.

Assuming we agree on the evil that CAIR, then that would be a bit like having a KKK leader speak at your fundraiser, and then proclaim that you peacefully support rights for all.

I think it is wise in general to question media news stories regardless of their source, awaiting corroborating evidence. Often it takes time to sort out all the details and separate fact from fiction. Many times, just by following a story across a long enough period of time we find that initial reports were not as reliable as we would have hoped for. And for some news events we may never reach certainty as to the veracity of the relevant facts, much less the validity of the inferences drawn by reporters. So with some skepticism in mind we sometimes satisfy ourselves with a confidence predicated on varying degrees of probability, and, depending on the personal importance to us of the event we devote whatever time and effort is possible and deserved in that pursuit. Joel Mowbray is a reporter who is most prominent in this investigation (I suspect he the author of the Washington Times story that Jeff read), but he is not the sole source. For myself, I searched for news stories and glanced through a dozen or so articles from different sources, and while I am far from certain on the CAIR connection, there does seem to be enough evidence to establish a fair possibility. If this were an issue that itself demanded a higher degree of surety, then undoubtedly I would invest a lot more time and effort in pursuit. I'm satisfied to leave my knowledge on this, at least for now, at the level of possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, by 'the jury is out', I was only intending to make a personal statement. Others may well have definitive knowledge about the relationship between this Congressman and CAIR. But whenever someone makes a claim that anyone, even a Democratic politician, is associated with such an evil organization, I like to exercise due caution.

It's been my experience that the sometimes too-ready-to paint-an-opponent-as-black impulse can backfire. If, for example, it were found that Mr. Ellison loathed CAIR, returned their money, and repudiated all their views -- and we had reason to believe him -- making the charge without very good evidence would actually tend to enhance Mr. Ellison's reputation. Not something I would want to do.

As a result, I've learned to forego some of the short-term emotional satisifaction that comes from calling a scumbag evil, in order to avoid having to suffer the more long-term emotional and reputation damage that comes from shooting my mouth off without knowing the facts. In other words, I'm striving to be objective.

So, some of my statements are made more tentatively these days than they would have been in the past. This is not intended as any sort of advocacy of skepticism, in case anyone should wonder.

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To remove all doubt, and illustrate what a Democratic Congress brings to America: CAIR Congressman's Supporters Scream "Allahu Akbar!"

Just in case the link stops working, here is the first paragraph from the story.

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/9/06) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) announced today that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim in Congress, will join other elected officials as a keynote speaker November 18th at the Washington-based civil rights group’s 12th Annual Banquet in Arlington, Va.

This is a clear indication of Ellison's sanction of CAIR. And, for those who may not know much about the evil that is CAIR, here is a short piece on CAIR by Daniel Pipes, from 2002. CAIR has only become worse since then. For a more in-depth perspective, this Anti-CAIR site seems to have a lot of detailed information, but I have only skimmed through it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well. Let's just be sure that he serves on key committees, like those dealing with intelligence, foreign policy, and defense. I mean, it's not like he'd walk over to his local CAIR office with some files in his briefcase. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well. Let's just be sure that he serves on key committees, like those dealing with intelligence, foreign policy, and defense. I mean, it's not like he'd walk over to his local CAIR office with some files in his briefcase. B)

As sad as this Muslim Democrat is, he is not the only ill-wind that the Democratic win blew in. According to this story, these "neo-Dems" include evangelicals in actuality and in spirit.

The forging of a cohesive domestic reform agenda will be complicated by the fact that several of the new intake of Democrats in the Congress are socially conservative and in favour of policies traditionally associated with the Republicans they ousted. Some of them are pro-guns while others are anti-abortion. Some oppose stem cell research using human embryos, and many are on the wing of the Democratic party that believes in fiscal rectitude and tight control on public spending.

The conservative Democrats, or new Democrats as they are sometimes called, were disproportionately represented in the most highly contested races against Republicans, and are likely to form a substantial bloc within the new members.

Heath Shuler, a former American football celebrity who now holds a House of Representatives' seat for North Carolina, is representative of the group. He has an evangelical Christian background and is on the right of the argument on many social issues such as abortion.

Democratic party leaders deny that they had an official strategy to plant right-wing candidates in vulnerable Republican seats as a way of winning over voters. But Rahm Emanuel, the chairman of the campaign to win back the House of Representatives, has said that when they searched for candidates with the best hopes of winning, they ended up with several with a moderate approach. "As a group, they are moderate in temperament and reformers in spirit," he said.

[...]

The new Democratic senator for Pennsylvania, Bob Casey, is against stem cell research involving embryos and made it clear during the campaign that he would oppose any attempt to extend federal funds to support it. On the other hand, Claire McCaskill, the new Democratic senator for Missouri, was elected partly with the help of actor Michael J Fox, who funded TV adverts backing her because of her advocacy for embryonic stem cell research. Other areas of potential disagreement include abortion and the gun laws, with Jim Webb, the winner of the Senate seat for Virginia, being pro-gun.

Mr Shuler and Brad Ellsworth of Indiana are among the new anti-abortion Democrats, which could become an issue if the question of whether to reduce the time limit for terminations comes before Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I emailed some of this to Stephen privately and he suggested I post it myself. Now, whether or not the following comes to fruition, the fact that it is apparently even seriously being considered should make one question the fundamental premises given for voting indiscriminately Democrats. The following is from an brief article at tnr:

A PUTSCH AT THE DNC?:

Some big name Democrats want to oust DNC Chairman Howard Dean, arguing that his stubborn commitment to the 50-state strategy and his stinginess with funds for House races cost the Democrats several pickup opportunities.

The candidate being floated to replace Dean? Harold Ford.

Says James Carville, one of the anti-Deaniacs, "Suppose Harold Ford became chairman of the DNC? How much more money do you think we could raise? Just think of the difference it could make in one day. Now probably Harold Ford wants to stay in Tennessee. I just appointed myself his campaign manager."

--Ryan Lizza

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=56467

Who is Harold Ford? In a FoxNews TV interview he described himself and his campaign thusly:

FORD: What Tennesseans will get will be a Jesus-loving, gun- supporting believer that families should come first, that taxes should be lower and America should be strong.

And, as this site ( http://tinyurl.com/y6s625 ) notes:

"If you watched the debate last night, it is clear that Harold Ford is making a conscious attempt to both placate the fears, and grab the votes, of white evangelicals.

Most of his statements, actions, and positions have gone a long way to that end.

The site provides a video excerpt of part of his speech, which includes this gem:

My friend Lincoln Davis who chairs our campaign says there are, there's one big difference between us and misfortunate Republicans when it comes to our faith: he said that Republicans fear the Lord; he said Democrats fear AND love the Lord.

While the blogger finds this comparison 'divisive', about Fords overall "statements, actions, and positions" the blogger goes on to say:

... the point [Ford] is making is a strong one and does much to assuage the fears of those that believe the Democratic Party to be the one of secularism.

This is the man reportedly being considered for the DNC chair.

Even if one accepted the premise that mysticism is the "only real danger" facing America today (which I do not), this goes to show that voting indiscriminately for Democrats and indiscriminately against Republicans is not the way to prevent mystics from achieving and exercising political power.

Voting contextually for the more rational and against the less rational is what promotes reason and punishes irrationality in politics. Indiscriminate voting only promotes the bad - and does so at the expense of the good (the good being the better politicians and, more importantly, us.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to add insult to injury, we now a Democratic blast from the past advising strategy.

LINCOLN, Neb. — George McGovern, the former senator and Democratic presidential candidate, said Thursday that he will meet with more than 60 members of Congress next week to recommend a strategy to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by June.

In 1972 McGovern caused Ayn Rand to say that an "Anti-Nixonites for Nixon" campaign would name her position. She further noted:

The worst thing said about Nixon is that he cannot be trusted, which is true: he cannot be trusted to save this country. But one thing is certain: McGovern can be trusted to destroy it.

Thirty-four years of relative obscurity has passed, but this Democratic victory brought McGovern the Destroyer back to advise on strategy. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It keeps getting worse. From Investors Business Daily

John Conyers And The Muslim Caucus

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 11/9/2006

Congress: The likely new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee says he's just fighting bigotry in leading a Democrat jihad to deny law enforcement key terror-fighting tools. But he is in the pocket of Islamists.

John Conyers, son of a leftist Detroit union activist, represents the largest Arab population in the country. His district includes Dearborn, Mich., nicknamed "Dearbornistan" by locals fed up with cultural encroachment and terror fears from a steady influx of Mideast immigrants.

Conyers, who runs an Arabic version of his official Web site, does the bidding of these new constituents and the militant Islamist activists who feed off them. They want to kill the Patriot Act and prevent the FBI from profiling Muslim suspects in terror investigations. They also want to end the use of undisclosed evidence against suspected Arab terrorists in deportation proceedings.

And the 77-year-old Conyers has vowed to deliver those changes for them.

"The policies of the Bush administration have sent a wave of fear through our immigrant communities and targeted our Arab and Muslim neighbors," he growls.

He'll soon be in a position to act on his promises. And he has the full backing of the expected speaker of the House. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wants to criminalize FBI and Customs Service profiling of Muslim terror suspects.

"Since Sept. 11, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national origin," she said. "We must make it illegal."

Conyers, a lawyer by trade, last decade pushed through a bill to help stop what he called "DWB," driving while black. He dubs post-9/11 profiling "flying while Muslim."

Pelosi has also promised Muslims she'll "correct the Patriot Act," one of the most valuable tools the FBI has in ferreting out jihadist cells lurking in Muslim communities.

Conyers is one of the top recipients of donations from the Arab-American Leadership PAC. And not surprisingly, he has a long history of pandering to Arab and Muslim voters.

During the first Gulf War, for instance, Conyers fought FBI outreach efforts in the Arab and Muslim community in Detroit that were designed to gather intelligence on potential cells and protect the home front. Conyers and other Detroit-area Democrats at the time, David Bonior and John Dingell, threatened to hold hearings unless the FBI stopped counterterrorism interviews.

The FBI met with them privately to explain the national security benefits of outreach, but could not allay their concerns. In the end, the FBI backed off. Today, Hamas, Hezbollah and the al-Qaida-tied Muslim Brotherhood are all active in the area.

Expect Conyers and Pelosi to kick open the doors of Congress to Islamists from the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other militant groups. They will have unfettered access, even though many of their leaders have been tied to terrorism (some CAIR officials have landed in the big house).

In 2003, Conyers hosted the first dinner on the Hill that celebrated the end of Ramadan for such Muslim leaders. It's now a tradition. Incoming Democrat freshman Keith Ellison, a Louis Farrakhan disciple and first Muslim member of Congress, will no doubt expand the invitation list.

Conyers has also sponsored one of the Islamists' favorite bills in Congress. HR 635, which has 40 co-signers, would create a select committee to investigate President Bush for allegedly manipulating prewar intelligence and torturing al-Qaida detainees. The goal of his bill is to build grounds for impeachment.

Conyers led the defense of Bill Clinton in last decade's impeachment hearings and is clearly out for blood. So are many of the constituents he serves.

The Democrats have been empowered, and they are off and running, giving our enemies an inside shot at hurting us all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Inside" being the key term here.

Sharia Law via Dem multiculturalism anyone?

I'm not worried that we will be living soon under Sharia Law (not to imply that Brian thinks so), though I think it more likely than a Christian theocracy. But these events riding in on the coattails of Democratic victory are a rather ominous sign of what we may have in store. Time will tell just what sort of havoc the Democrats will wreak in the coming years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Objectivists warned that voting indiscriminately for Democrats would help prevent the 'Party of Religion' from establishing laws which suppress our rights (like the essential right of free speech) in the name of promoting religion. Thank goodness their election wish succeeded, otherwise we might have gotten Republicans proposing things like this on behalf of their faith:

http://tinyurl.com/udjy9

All I can say is that I am happy the election of the Democrats is so demonstrably protecting us from the advancement of laws which are 'theocratic' in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

Full text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

I don't have a problem with this per se. If we allow one religious book for an oath, then why not another? Perhaps one is more nonsense than the other, but they are all nonsense nonetheless.

The problem I have is with Ellision himself, not his source for oath. I object to him because of what has been revealed in his relationship with CAIR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we allow one religious book for an oath, then why not another? Perhaps one is more nonsense than the other, but they are all nonsense nonetheless.

True.

However, I don't see Quran as just another religious book. Islamic religion and civilization are hostile to Western values. In my opinion, allowing the bible of Islam to be used for this purpose is taking another step away from clearly identifying Islam as the enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we allow one religious book for an oath, then why not another? Perhaps one is more nonsense than the other, but they are all nonsense nonetheless.

True.

However, I don't see Quran as just another religious book. Islamic religion and civilization are hostile to Western values.

Then why not advocate deporting the several million in the United States who follow the Islamic religion, instead of banning one book for one government oath?

In my opinion, allowing the bible of Islam to be used for this purpose is taking another step away from clearly identifying Islam as the enemy.

Considering the many more substantive failures we have made in "identifying Islam as the enemy," a single book for a single oath is hardly a major issue. Besides, if we permit the Christian bible for oaths in government office, but not other religious books, then aren't we in effect establishing the Christian religion with an official government sanction?

One step closer to that Christian theocracy. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why not advocate deporting the several million in the United States who follow the Islamic religion, instead of banning one book for one government oath?

Because I recognize individual's freedom to worship nonsense privately. Where I draw the line is when people bring their nonsense to the public life. Allowing this gives their nonsense undeserved credibility.

Besides, if we permit the Christian bible for oaths in government office, but not other religious books, then aren't we in effect establishing the Christian religion with an official government sanction?

One step closer to that Christian theocracy. :D

Nobody here is a suporter of using religious texts of any kind for oaths in government office.

But I find this particular book especially offensive for this particular purpose.

I think of it as similar to allowing someone to take an oath to Objectivism using Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

You certainly don't have to agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with this per se. If we allow one religious book for an oath, then why not another? Perhaps one is more nonsense than the other, but they are all nonsense nonetheless.

The problem I have is with Ellision himself, not his source for oath. I object to him because of what has been revealed in his relationship with CAIR.

The problem indeed is with Ellison, but this is only making the situation worse. It is obvious that the Democrats multi-culturalism is holding sway here, not the Constitution's 'recognize no religion' clause.

More importantly, we are not at war with Christians. Should a Congressman in 1944 who was a member of the German Bund have been elected and allowed to take the oath on Mein Kampf?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More importantly, I'd like to know what Al Qaida and the local imams are going to think of a congressman swearing allegance to the US Constitution with his hand on the Koran. Sounds like a double liar (traitor) to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because I recognize individual's freedom to worship nonsense privately. Where I draw the line is when people bring their nonsense to the public life. Allowing this gives their nonsense undeserved credibility.

Okay, but now we are back to the beginning when I said: "If we allow one religious book for an oath, then why not another? Perhaps one is more nonsense than the other, but they are all nonsense nonetheless."

Nobody here is a suporter of using religious texts of any kind for oaths in government office.

But I find this particular book especially offensive for this particular purpose.

So do I. But your comment does not address the point I made, when I said "if we permit the Christian bible for oaths in government office, but not other religious books, then aren't we in effect establishing the Christian religion with an official government sanction?"

I think of it as similar to allowing someone to take an oath to Objectivism using Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

When you grant permission to use the Christian bible for an oath, but deny that permission to the Islamic bible because you find it "especially offensive for this particular purpose," then the proper analogy would be to say it is similar to permitting someone to take an oath to Objectivism using Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, but disallowing Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. For me, I would find both to be offensive. But if one is allowed, then why not allow the other?

You certainly don't have to agree.

Yes, we don't have to agree, but it is interesting to discuss the reasons that is so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites