Election ’08 Backgrounder

  

Financial Crisis | Iraq | Defense | Background & Character | Judges & Courts | Energy

 

FINANCIAL CRISIS

Quick Facts:

  • Democrats created the mortgage crisis by forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them.
  • In 2006, McCain sponsored a bill to fix the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Barney Frank and other Democrats successfully opposed it.
  • Obama was one of the highest recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac donations in Congress.

Related Editorials

 

IRAQ


Quick Facts:

  • When the U.S. was on the verge of losing in Iraq, McCain chose to stand and fight.  Obama chose retreat.
  • Even after the surge succeeded, Obama told ABC’s Terry Moran he would still oppose it if he had the chance to do it all over again.

Related Editorials

 

DEFENSE

Quick Facts:

  • Obama has promised to significantly cut defense spending, including saying “I will slow our development of future combat systems.”
  • John McCain has vowed: “We must continue to deploy a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent, robust missile defenses and superior conventional forces that are capable of defending the United States and our allies.”

Related Editorials

Obama Video: Watch Now

 

 

BACKGROUND & CHARACTER

Quick Facts:

  • Obama voted “present” 135 times as a state senator, and according to David Ignatius of the Washington Post, “gained a reputation for skipping tough votes.”
  • McCain has taken stances unpopular with his own party and/or the public on controversial issues, including immigration, campaign finance reform, judicial nominations, the Iraq War and more.

Related Editorials

 

 

JUDGES & COURTS


Quick Facts:

  • In a 2001 interview, Obama said he regretted that the Supreme Court “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”
  • In the same interview, Obama criticized the Supreme Court because it “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”
  • Obama has focused on empathy, rather than legal reasoning and restraint, as his basis for appointing judges, saying, “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy…to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.”
  • McCain opposes judicial activism, saying, “my nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power.”

Related Editorials

Obama 2001 Interview: Listen Now

 

ENERGY


Quick Facts:

  • McCain has proposed building 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 and is in favor of drilling in sectors of the Outer Continental Shelf.
  • Obama has refused to take a stand, saying only “we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix” and he will “look at” drilling offshore.

Related Editorials

»
McCain: The Energy Candidate

» McCain On Nukes: Yes We Can
» Breaking The Back Of High Oil

 

Posted in ABC, Abortion, Accountable America, ACLU, ACORN, Ahmadinejad, Al Gore, Alinsky, American Civil Liberties Union, American Fifth Column, American Friends of Peace Now, American values, anti-American, Anti-Semitic, anti-war movement, antisemitism, ANWR, ANWR oil, AP, AP/CNN, Associated Press, Atomic Islam, B Hussein Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank, Barry Soetoro, Bill Ayers, Bill Clinton, Black Nationalism, border security, CBS, CBS evening news, CBS news, Charlie Rangel, CHAVEZ, Chavez-Castro, Christian Voices, christian vote, Cindy McCain, CNN muslim sympathizers, CNN pro islam, Congress, Credit Crunch, Democrat Communist Party, Democrat corruption, Democrat george soros, democrat half truth, democrat lies, democrat muslim, democrat polls, Democrat Presidential debate, democrat scandals, Democrat Shadow Government, democrat socialists, Democratic Corruption, Democratic majority, democratic morals, Democratic socialism, Democratic Socialists of America, Democratic traitors, Democrats and drilling, Democrats and Earmarking, democrats and global Warming, democrats and illegal immigration, Democrats and Subprime mortgages, Democrats and talk radio, Earmarking, earmarks, Fairness Doctrine, Fannie Mae, Fatah, Freddie Mac, free speech, George Bush, George Soros, GOP, GOP leadership, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Hollywood liberals, Howard Dean, Hugo Chavez, human trafficking, Hussein Obama, Iran, Iran revolt, Iran threat, iraq, Iraq jihadists, Iraq Oil, Iraq surge, Iraq War, Islam, islam fundamentalist, Islam sympathizers, Islamic Fifth Column, Islamic immigration, Israel, Israel Defense Forces, Israeli Jets, Jeremiah Wright, Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Joe the Plumber, John Conyers, John Kerry, John McCain, John Murtha, Katie Couric, Keith Ellison, left-wing hatred for George W. Bush, left-wing ideologues, Leftist Claptrap, Liberal Churches, liberal jihad, liberal media, McCain, McCain Palin, Mexican migrants, Michelle Obama, middle east, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Nancy Pelosi, nation of islam, Nazi Pelosi, NY Times, Obama, Obama Jackboots, Obama Tax Plan, Sarah Palin. Leave a Comment »

Arab League Visit to Israel Reflects Fear of Iran

Arab League Visit to Israel Reflects Fear of Iran

There is no denying that Wednesday’s frst-ever visit to Israel by Arab League representatives was symbolically significant. The newsmaking trip may have also been politically significant, even though (a) it was only a one-day visit to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem; (b) the two envoys, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit and Jordanian FM Abdelelah al-Khatib, hail from countries that have already signed peace pacts with Israel; (c) the diplomats avoided making their dramatic, pro-peace statement on behalf of the Arab League; and (d) the head of the League, Secretary-General Amr Moussa, immediately dampened hopes for peace by saying the men had no mandate to speak on behalf of the 22-member group.

But the envoys did speak; and their message clearly reflected a growing fear among many Arab leaders that the Iranian-backed Islamizing of the Middle East threatens themselves as well as Israel. Secular Syria’s alliance with non-Arab, Islamist Iran and its Shiite Lebanese Arab proxy, Hezbollah, is regarded as a dangerous deviation, caused partly by America’s failure to lure Damascus away from Tehran and partly by the failed policies of a weak but cunning ruler, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. In sharp contrast with his late father, Hafez, who ruthlessly crushed the Muslim Brotherhood when it threatened his regime, the present president has unsuccessfully sought to appease Syrian Islamists, who have risen in strength and influence to an alarming degree. (The younger Assad actually accelerated a budding Islamist alliance that his father began in a cynical attempt to counter American influence and plans for a so-called New Middle East. After years of battling and suppressing rightwing political Islam, the pseudo-socialist Baath Party surprisingly succumbed to the temptation of trying to use and manipulate its ideological foe.)

The survival of many Arab governments–and Arab identity itself–is increasingly called into question in ways never before seen. Hence, the historic visit to Israel.

“We are extending a hand of peace on behalf of the whole region to you, and we hope that we’ll be able to create the momentum needed to resume fruitful and productive negotiations” between Israel, the Palestinians and Arab states, al-Khatib said in Jerusalem.

The envoys urged Israel to consider the Saudi-sponsored Arab League peace plan, which calls for Jerusalem to cede all land captured during the Six-Day War of 1967 in exchange for full Arab recognition of the Jewish state. Israel would also have to agree to creation of a Palestinian state and a “just solution” for the Palestinian refugee problem.

“Time is of the essence,” Gheit told Israeli President Shimon Peres.

Gheit and al-Khatib also met Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni ahead of talks with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

The delegation also met today with Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of the Likud opposition. Israeli news reports quoted Netanyahu as saying he rejected the Arab initiative and told the envoys that he does not believe withdrawals are a basis for peace, instead emphasizing closer economic cooperation.

China Confidential has learned that the envoys hinted that Israel could also be granted Arab League observer status as part of a land-for-peace accord, joining Eritrea and India as the organization’s observers.

Crooked John Conyers

Get out the garlic and wooden stake

Get out the garlic and wooden stake

Clarice Feldman
A few days ago the Washington Times reported sighting Ambassador Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame  lunching together in a downtown D.C. restaurant.
Thursday night, Fox news reported they were moving to New Mexico to help Governor Richardson in his presidential campaign, a campaign that he now insists is non-existent.
And yesterday, this bit of news:

Dangerous Intersection of Conyers and Wilson [Jack Fowler]

Heady times at last night’s House Judiciary Committee Christmas party – a pal says Joe Wilson was there, at the invitation of panel Democrats, and was the sole individual recognized by incoming Dem chairman Rep. John Conyers. “Whoever said impeachment is off the table obviously hasn’t told Conyers and wasn’t at the party,” sneered my friend, who said this is the first year Wilson has been at panel’s holiday fete (it’s primarily attended by Committee Members, staffs, and families). “[Outgoing GOP chairman Rep. Jim] Sensenbrenner said a few words as did Conyers, who thanked Wilson for attending and led a round of sporadic applause for him. . . . Wilson arrived early, stayed late, and spent a lot of time chatting with the top Democratic staff.” Strap yourself in – it’s going to be a bumpy 2007″

The last time Conyers and Wilson were together was at the former’s playhouse hearings which broke up when Wilson’s VIP pal Ray McGovern launched into his anti-semitic tirade and the more sentient members of the Congressional delegation headed for the exits.

The Pelosi and Conyers Team: Helping Terrorists and Illegal Aliens

The Pelosi and Conyers Team: Helping Terrorists and Illegal Aliens
by

Jim Kouri, CPP

 

It didn’t take long before the new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Rep. John Conyers started making noises on how they can further undermine efforts to protect Americans from terrorist attacks.

Speaker-elect Pelosi (D-CA) is co-sponsoring the “End Racial Profiling Act”, according to syndicated columnist Sher Zieve. The proposed bill is said to have been prompted by the recent removal of six Muslim imams, who are reported to have acted in a decidedly provocative manner, from a US Airways’ flight. The problem with using this act to curb so-called profiling is that the persons who demanded the removal of the suspicious Muslims do not work for the US government.

Pelosi and Conyers are calling for the end of all racial profiling, additional severe limits placed on the Patriot Act and the implementation of broad-based US citizenship for illegal aliens.

Pelosi said, “Since September 11th, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national origin, without any credible information linking individuals to criminal conduct. Racial and religious profiling is fundamentally un-American and we must make it illegal.”

However, she didn’t appear to care that millions of American travelers are routinely being inconvenienced by long lines, intrusive questioning and subjection to searches. In the world of Pelosi, in order prevent terrorists from commandeering a plane, airport security should allow Muslims to board unencumbered while grannies from Wisconsin are strip-searched and manhandled.

The other co-sponsor of the bill is Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), who is also reportedly preparing documents that would to lead to Articles of Impeachment against President Bush He is an interesting man.

Conyers’ congressional office manages an Arabic version of his official website. Reportedly he does the bidding of these inner-city constituents and the militant Islamist activists who feed off them.

They want to squash the Patriot Act and put a leash on the FBI agents, including stopping them from profiling Muslim suspects in terror investigations. They also want to end the use of undisclosed evidence against suspected Arab terrorists in deportation proceedings even if they are in the country illegally. And the 77-year-old Conyers has vowed to deliver those changes for them.

In January 2003 he was the only member of Congress to speak before, and lend his prestige to, an anti-war rally organized by the Marxist-Leninist, pro-North Korean front group International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Rep. Rangel also addressed the rally but not in person – via a letter read by another speaker.) Conyers embraced his comrades in this group with the same enthusiasm and support he gave during the Cold War to the Soviet-backed World Peace Council.

In a New York Times opinion piece he co-authored with Marcus Raskin, co-founder of the extreme left-wing think-tank the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), Conyers asserted that “government’s responsibility is to revitalize the nation’s economy through creative forms of public ownership” – in other words, through socialism.

As I reported earlier on these pages, Rep Conyers is the highest ranking politico working to free Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted murderer of a Philadelphia police officer. Conyers has been a National Executive Board member of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), which was originally created as a Soviet front and still embraces its Communist heritage.
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, according to Investors Business Daily.

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-Qaeda-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.

Syndicated columnist Debbie Schlussel reported that on June 13, during the Muslim American Society fundraising dinner for Islamic Relief, a charity with links to the Muslim Brotherhood, Conyers and his wife were the guests of honor.

They watched and clapped as the Sanabel Al-Quds “dancing” troop from Milwaukee—featuring boys as young as seven—sang in Arabic of martyrdom and jihad for Allah and Palestine. They didn’t need to understand Arabic, as the young boys used a rifle to simulate killing and pistol-whipping, simulated throat-slittings and beheadings, and dishonored the American flag.

Another contributor to the Pelosi-Conyers Fifth Column is the mainstream news media who constantly told Americans prior to the November 7 elections that people such as Pelosi, Conyers and others are really moderating their positions. They are moderates compared to Mao Zedong.
 


Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com.  He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.  His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at
http://jimkouri.us

Folks this isn’t the way.

Well the Dems trotted out the OFD (Old fart democrats). The republicans quicly retaliated by trotting out the OFR (Old fart republicans) . So here we sit at status quo. We need to get tough with the left. Folks this isn’t the way.

Bud Simmons https://bsimmons.wordpress.com

ISLAMIC ASSEMBLY OF NORTH AMERICA (IANA)

ISLAMIC ASSEMBLY OF NORTH AMERICA (IANA)
PMB #270
3588 Plymouth Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI
48105
Phone :734-528-0006
URL :http://www.iananet.org/

  • Michigan-based Islamic organization which has been described as a “glorified al Qaeda recruitment center”

The Islamic Assembly of North America (IANA) was created in 1993 by American and Canadian representatives of various Muslim centers and organizations. Its mission is to “unify and coordinate the efforts of North America’s dawah-oriented organizations” [groups that perform missionary work for Islam]; to spread the “correct knowledge of Islam … and to assist its dissemination among Muslim Americans and immigrants”; to analyze current events in the Muslim world; to assist oppressed Muslim workers and scholars; to produce “a serious and effective media institute to serve the Islamic presence in North America”; and to “create a dawah program … that will protect the Islamic presence in North America.” To achieve these objectives, as well as its “final goal of reviving the Islamic nation to its proper state and condition,” IANA uses conventions, general meetings, dawah-oriented institutions and academies, books, magazines, and youth programs. 

In February 2003, four individuals associated with IANA were indicted for illegally sending millions of dollars to Iraq through a Syracuse,
New York charity called Help the Needy. In addition, a
University of
Idaho student named Sami Omar Al-Hussayen (who was a member of IANA’s Technical Committee) was arrested for knowingly failing to mention his affiliation with IANA on his visa application when he entered the
United States. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer quotes one federal source saying that Al-Hussayen was “in touch with people who could pick up the phone, call UBL [Usama bin Laden], and he would take the call.”

According to court papers filed by
Idaho prosecutors in 2003, IANA’s mission included the “dissemination of radical Islamic ideology, the purpose of which was indoctrination, recruitment of members, and the instigation of acts of violence and terrorism.” In National Review Online, IANA has been described as a “glorified al Qaeda recruitment center.” 

IANA’s Vice Chairman, Rafil Dhafir, in 2005 was convicted of illegally laundering money to
Iraq. Moreover, Sami Omar Al-Hussayen was indicted for routing to IANA thousands of dollars he had received from overseas sources, and for providing computer expertise and website services to the organization. 

According to Dore Gold’s book Hatred’s Kingdom, in May 2001 — four months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks — IANA’s main website featured justifications for “martyrdom operations,” including crashing an airplane “on a crucial enemy target.” In 2003 the IANA website posted the fatwas, or religious rulings, of two radical Saudi sheiks who maintain close ties to al Qaeda and provide religious justification for acts of Islamic terrorism. Radical proselytization, both written and spoken, was a common theme on the website. Considerable attention was given, for instance, to the teachings of Osama bin Laden’s mentor Abdullah Azzam

The IANA website also hosts recruitment videos for jihad, with clips displaying the corpses of mujahedeen warriors killed in terrorist operations. One such video shows deceased al Qaeda-funded “martyrs” from
Chechnya, eulogizing them as heroes who had given their lives in service to Allah. 

IANA has created additional websites to disseminate its message. One such site, Azzam.com, was named for the aforementioned Abdullah Azzam, and was shut down by the FBI in 2002. Another IANA website, Islamway.com, promoted the Saudi charity Al-Haramain, whose Bosnia and
Somalia branches supported al Qaeda and in 2002 were raided by American and Saudi government authorities. The link to al-Haramain never appeared on the English-language version of the website. As a rule, IANA has published its most radical content — glorifying suicide missions and jihad — solely in Arabic; its English products and publications do not contain terrorist propaganda.

Since 2002, IANA’s Inmates Program has shipped at least 530 packages of Islamic indoctrination materials to prisons across the
United States. Each package consists of seven different Islamic books, twelve audio cassettes, one copy of the Koran, and a videotape on Muslim prayers and rituals. 

According to a New York Times interview with former IANA Director Mohammed al-Ahmari, approximately half of the organization’s funding derives from the Saudi government, and the other half from mostly Saudi private donors.

CAIR’s Congress — Very scary

CAIR’s Congress
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 13, 2006

With the Democratic victory in the midterm elections, one big winner was the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). The American Islamic pressure group now has a chance to advance its agenda in numerous ways, with energetic water-carrying by, among others, the Speaker of the House, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and the first Muslim member of Congress.

Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, who is likely to be the next House Speaker, has announced her intention to “correct the Patriot Act” and wants to criminalize scrutiny of Muslims at airports and elsewhere: “Since September 11, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national origin. We must make it illegal.” Since religion is the one factor that the jihadists themselves invariably point to as the motivation for their violent actions, Pelosi is calling upon investigators to ignore the single most important key to understanding jihadist strategy and goals. If she gets her way, any Muslim who is searched at an airport at any time will be able to claim that he is being illegally profiled; a law criminalizing searches of Muslims at airports would have a chilling effect upon any effort to investigate jihad terror activity in the Muslim community.

 

Helping pass such a law will be John Conyers, D-MI, the probable new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “The policies of the Bush administration,” he has declared, “have sent a wave of fear through our immigrant communities and targeted our Arab and Muslim neighbors.”

 

Conyers has also masterminded House Resolution 288, which condemns “religious intolerance” but clearly singles out Islam as needing special protection from such criticism. It states that “it should never be official policy of the United States Government to disparage the Quran, Islam, or any religion in any way, shape, or form,” and “calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith.” The bill was referred to the House subcommittee on the Constitution in June 2005, but Conyers, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, could rescue it from legislative oblivion.

 

Such a bill, of course, would do a great deal to stifle honest discussion of the elements of Islam that give rise today to violence and fanaticism. William Gawthrop, former program manager for the Joint Terrorism Task Force of the Defense Department’s Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), has noted: “There is evidence to support the contention that sources of terrorism in Islam may reside within the strategic themes of Islam,” including “the example of Muhammad, the Quran, the hadiths, Islamic law, the pillars of faith and jihad.” However, “as late as early 2006, the senior service colleges of the Department of Defense had not incorporated into their curriculum a systematic study of Muhammad as a military or political leader. As a consequence, we still do not have an in-depth understanding of the war-fighting doctrine laid down by Muhammad, how it might be applied today by an increasing number of Islamic groups, or how it might be countered.” Conyers’ resolution would effectively end any hope that the Department of Defense or any other agency would begin such study, as vitally needed as it is.

 

Nothing would please CAIR more, of course, as that agency routinely tars as “bigotry” any attempt to discuss such matters. And now Pelosi and Conyers will be joined in the House by the first-ever Muslim Congressman, Keith Ellison, D-MN. CAIR energetically boosted Ellison’s candidacy: according to journalist Joel Mowbray, CAIR co-founder and executive director Nihad Awad “headlined a fundraiser last month that the campaign estimates netted $15,000 to $20,000, and in July, and it appears that CAIR’s co-founder bundled contributions totaling just over $10,000. (The campaign issued a terse denial on the latter point, though it refused to explain away overwhelming evidence to the contrary.)”

 

Ellison, meanwhile, will be the keynote speaker at CAIR’s Annual Banquet in Arlington, Virginia next week. In a dispiriting sign of the times, the FBI will also send a representative. None of the thousand or so guests expected to attend are likely to ask any CAIR representative about the organization’s troubling history or associations, or about the propriety of a Congressman speaking at an event sponsored by such a group. For CAIR is an offshoot of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), a group that was in turn founded by Mousa Abu Marzook of the terrorist group Hamas. Shortly after 9/11, CAIR’s website called for donations for the Holy Land Foundation (under a photo of the burning World Trade Center towers). The Holy Land Foundation has since been shut down for funding Hamas. Terror expert Steven Emerson says on the basis of this and other evidence that CAIR is “a radical fundamentalist front group for Hamas.”

 

Consistent with these origins, CAIR’s former Board Chairman Omar Ahmad told a Muslim audience in 1998: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant…The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.” Although Ahmad now denies saying this, the reporter who witnessed his speech stands by the accuracy of her story. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper has himself said: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

 

Several CAIR officials, including its Community Affairs Director, Bassem Khafagi; a Board member of CAIR’s Texas chapter, Ghassan Elashi; a communications specialist and civil rights coordinator for CAIR, Randall Todd Ismail Royer; and fundraiser Rabih Haddad have been convicted of various terrorism-related offenses. No current CAIR official has ever explained how these people were able to work with the organization in the first place if it is really the moderate civil-rights organization it claims to be.

 

Of course, CAIR officials have met with Presidents Clinton and Bush, and have long had the ear of the mainstream media. But instead of being subjected to increasing public scrutiny as it should be, CAIR will be able to use the new Congress to expand its reach and influence even farther than it has up to now.

 

At Ellison’s victory party, some of his supporters shouted “Allahu akbar!” while the candidate looked on with obvious embarrassment. But he had no need to be concerned. In a gushing piece on his victory, the New York Times never mentioned CAIR once – and dismissed concerns about his record, and likely request to be sworn in on the Qur’an, as coming from “Muslim-bashers in the blogosphere.” It noted that some “Muslim American activists” have compared Ellison’s candidacy to “John F. Kennedy’s breaking the taboo against a Roman Catholic’s being president.”The big difference, of course, is that in Kennedy’s case he addressed those concerns – which were in any case baseless, since the Pope had in fact no plans to rule the United States through a Catholic president. But concerns about Ellison’s views on terror groups and Islamic supremacism are hardly baseless: they stem from amply documented statements and activities of the CAIR officials with whom he will soon be enjoying a banquet, as well as the declared intentions of Islamic groups around the world. Nevertheless, these concerns are dismissed as “bigotry” and left unanswered. And if Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers get their way, it may soon be illegal even to ask them.

“Expect Conyers and Pelosi to kick open the doors of Congress to Islamists from the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other militant groups”

“Expect Conyers and Pelosi to kick open the doors of Congress to Islamists from the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other militant groups”

As noted here at Jihad Watch before the election.

“John Conyers And The “Expect Conyers and Pelosi to kick open the doors of Congress to Islamists from the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other militant groups”,” from Investor’s Business Daily, with thanks to all who sent this in:

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).

Conservatives to Spike the Supreme Court? — For several months we’ve been hearing the mantra that most Republican congressmen don’t deserve to be reelected because the party’s record in Congress is far from a conservative one, especially when one considers runaway spending, huge deficits, ignored scandals, successful filibusters, pro-terrorist legislation, and more.

Conservatives to Spike the Supreme Court?
By Henry Mark Holzer
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 31, 2006

For several months we’ve been hearing the mantra that most Republican congressmen don’t deserve to be reelected because the party’s record in Congress is far from a conservative one, especially when one considers runaway spending, huge deficits, ignored scandals, successful filibusters, pro-terrorist legislation, and more.At the same time, we’ve heard sincere pleas from conservative leaders and commentators that, nevertheless, Republican voters should “hold their noses” and return GOP majorities, no matter how narrow, to the House and Senate.

The principal justification given for what some consider to be a compromise with conservative values (but in reality is not), is that no matter how bad the Republican legislative performance has been, the Democrats are going to be far worse. For conservatives, that’s certainly true. Inevitably, the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi domestic agenda will be disastrous, especially for the economy (e.g., rescinding tax cuts). Their foreign affairs policies will surely endanger national security (e.g., abruptly pulling the plug on Iraq).

But even worse is that if Harry Reid becomes Senate majority leader, and if 87-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens leaves the bench (actuarially, a real possibility), conservatives can kiss goodbye – for at least two years and maybe longer – any chance of obtaining that one crucial seat on the Supreme Court which, with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, could have a profound effect on both domestic and foreign policy for years to come.

If this double whammy occurs – Reid running the Senate, and Stevens leaving the bench – there will be a battle for Stevens’s seat (and thus for the soul of the Court), that will make the Clarence Thomas confirmation fight of 15 years ago look like a walk in the park.

Like the Thomas fight, the one to fill Stevens’s Supreme Court seat will be a battle that conservatives must win if they don’t want to see more decisions like the following – for which Stevens was largely responsible:

  • Upholding the McCain-Feingold law’s suppression of political speech;
  • Abolishing the death penalty for young killers;
  • Seizing private property for “public purposes” through eminent domain;
  • Approving the use of race as a criterion for higher education admissions;
  • Providing enemy combatants with habeas corpus, due process, and court access; and
  • Invalidating President Bush’s Guantanamo military tribunals.It is a cliché to observe that we live in perilous times. But cliché or not, the fact is that we do. Pakistan’s unstable government already has atomic weapons. Despotic North Korea may be close to having atomic weapons. The Iranian theocracy is feverishly seeking atomic weapons. Al-Qaeda is trying to buy or steal atomic weapons.

    The military and foreign policy implications of atomic proliferation are almost too scary to contemplate. They will present colossally important and difficult questions of constitutional law for the Supreme Court to resolve – such as in meeting atomic threats, how far the president’s Article II powers extend without consultation with Congress.

    Also on the table are other questions of presidential power, of congressional power, and – always – of judicial power, especially in America’s current battle with Islamic terrorists.

    Indeed, the preliminary judicial skirmishes in that battle – the Hamdi, Rasul, Padilla, and Hamdan cases, dealing with enemy combatants, habeas corpus, due process, access to courts, and military tribunals – have been just a warm up for what’s to come.

    Those cases presented questions of presidential power to wage war under Article II of the Constitution, and although the President won a few rounds, he lost a few as well. The cases also examined the power of Congress, and its constitutional role in modern, asymmetrical warfare. And some lawyers believe, with good reason, that the Court’s tilt in those four cases was, on balance, away from presidential power and in favor of Congressional power.

    Now, with the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, new constitutional questions have arisen, chief among them whether the “due process” that Congress has provided enemy combatants is adequate. While there are those of us who believe the Act provided too much – see

“Khalid Sheik Mohammed is Not O.J. Simpson: Military Commissions Act of 2006” – not surprisingly, there are those like the ACLU who believe it provided too little, and that Islamic terrorist murderers should be treated with the kid gloves afforded defendants in the American criminal justice system.America’s national security has already suffered enough from Justice Stevens. We cannot afford another such appointment. Especially with national security constitutional questions such as warrantless surveillance still to be resolved.

If Stevens leaves the bench in the next two years, even if the president wants to make quality appointments like his of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, George H.W. Bush’s of Justice Thomas, and Reagan’s of Justice Scalia, the president will be stymied if Harry Reid controls the Senate. Indeed, even if Reid doesn’t, the Republicans will need a majority leader who, unlike Bill Frist, has the spine to break an inevitable Democratic filibuster if the nominee is a strong conservative.

That’s why this notion that conservatives should “punish” right-leaning leaders for their real and imagined shortcomings is akin not merely to political suicide, but invites at least one Supreme Court appointment that in national security cases like warrantless surveillance could tip the already closely balanced scales against the country’s war with Islamic terrorists and seriously endanger the survival of the United States.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.