I had the pleasure a couple days ago of witnessing a presentation by Attorney Reed Rubenstein on the danger that the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, poses to Western civilization. CAIR is not, as it claims, the “Muslim NAACP.” CAIR is a terrorist organization.
I had suspected this for some time, but the evidence presented by Mr. Rubinstein was overwhelming. I had planned to see his presentation in Atlanta, but I was unable to attend. Luckily, a good friend, Richard Baehr, informed me that he would be in Chicago three days later at the same time as me.
Before getting to the substance of the presentation, a pair of people at the presentation had relevant things to say.
The first gentleman shall remain nameless at his request. There are very few republicans in his neighborhood, and his safety is paramount. He was Barack Obama’s neighbor for several years, and he and Obama chatted about politics many times. While he considers Mr. Obama as “dangerous” for America, he made it crystal clear to me that he would only allow me to publish his comments if I also mentioned that as a human being, he liked Obama very much. I agreed.
He stated that Obama was always polite, gentlemanly, and friendly. Obama never interrupted him when he was speaking, although his wife Michelle did. He found Barack Obama down to Earth, but not Michelle. When offered a $200 credit per child, Ms. Obama sneered at the insignificance of $400 credited back for her two children. For this anonymous man, $600 for his three children was real money. Yet Barack Obama was a pleasant man through their entire interactions. He never got angry, although his wife did.
The statement that Barack Obama made that “chilled” this man was when he stated that “The United States must take a more ‘neutral’ and ‘evenhanded’ view of Israel and the Middle East.” Many do not and cannot understand this, but those are codewords that many see as antisemitic. There is no moral equivalence between the parties. One side is defending its right to exist, and the other side indiscriminately murders civilians.
So Obama is not “dangerous” because he is a bad person. Far from it. He is just naive and uninformed about the dynamics of the conflict. However, this same man made it clear that he wants to go after Obama on issues, which is what I want. He finds attacks on his character, such as the controversy over his middle name, distracting, and wrong.
He did offer one last humorous anecdote about Barack Obama. In 2004 Obama was driving a gas guzzling SUV. After John Kerry got caught driving one, and then trying to pass it off as his wife’s, it hurt his campaign. Two weeks after the Kerry campaign faced this flap, Obama, perhaps by complete coincidence, got rid of his SUV and bought a more environmentally friendly car.
Another person at this presentation in Chicago, as previously stated, was Richard Baehr of American Thinker. Like me, Richard wants to raise the level of political discourse. He is a sound political analyst and a good person, which is why I was troubled when the Daily Kos website took time out to launch a vicious smear against him. They even attacked me as well, although barely. I normally would never link to the Kossacks site, but I want people to see what pure hatred for a good person looks like. Also below is a link to my interview with Richard Baehr.
https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/11/my-interview-with-richard-baehr/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/14/111857/479/438/476537
One comment on that hit piece is my response.
Nevertheless, one reason why men such as Richard Baehr are under attack is because Republican Jews are hated for their religion and their ideology. This hatred is also directed at non-Jewish republicans and Jewish liberals. Many on the far left see real threats where none exist. More importantly, they see no threat where a significant one exists. This brings things back to CAIR.
Reed Rubenstein was the attorney for Andrew Whitehead for the case of CAIR vs Whitehead. A similar case of significance was U.S. vs Holy Land Foundation. Part of Mr. Rubenstein’s presentation included a CD that contained documents in abundance. Mr Rubenstein did not want us to take his word for what he had to say. He challenged the audience in attendance to view every piece of documentary evidence.
He started by pointing out that the (Jayson Blair Times) New York Times, in an article on March 14th, 2007, wrote that “CAIR is partially funded by by donors closely identified with Persian Gulf governments.” The JBT also incorrectly stated that “Chapters of CAIR are franchises.”
The Justice Department sees it differently. Their documents states that “Moreover, from its founding, CAIR conspired with other affilaites of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.”
Additionally, the evidence in the case led Mr. Rubenstein to logically conclude that the National CAIR controls the branches.
The case that led to this lecture began when Andrew Whitehead, a retired military man enraged over 9/11, started a website called “anti-CAIR.”
CAIR then sent Whitehead a cease and desist letter, demanding he take his site down. To his credit, Whitehead refused to back down. He published the letter, and then CAIR sued Whitehead for defamation.
For those who have not figured it out, terrorist organizations try to use America’s tolerant laws against us. Yet in this case, the terrorists have miscalculated. Their strategy worked in Britain because England’s defamation laws put the burden of proof on the defendant. In America the plaintiff must prove their case. The process of discovery allows those accused to turn the tables and bury plaintiffs in document requests.
Mr. Whitehead’s lawyer, Mr. Rubenstein (whose firm took the case pro bono), sent 300 document requests to CAIR, asking for detailed information about every aspect of their operation. CAIR then filed an amended motion for judgment, which dropped most of the claims. The only claims remaining were those that claimed CAIR was a terror supporting front group, and that CAIR sought to overthrow the constitutional government of the United States.
When asked why CAIR quotes directly from the Hamas charter, they stated this was not true. When asked to prove this, CAIR stated that they could not find a single copy of the charter. Apparently CAIR does not know how to use the internet. They also denied that Hamas murdered innocent civilians, and that it was a “foreign jurisdictional issue.”
When CAIR is faced with a motion to compel them to produce more documents linking them to terrorism, they quickly decide to settle the case. Mr. Whitehead’s website is allowed to stay up, and he is not required to apologize for or retract any of his comments. It was a victory for Andrew Whitehead and a defeat for CAIR.
So what did the case turn up that CAIR is so desperate to keep out of court?
CAIR was set up as a cell of the Muslim Brotherhood. They have been intertwined with the Islamic Association for Palestine, which is closely allied with the Muslim Student Association. The Holy Land Foundation played a key role. CAIR encouraged people to donate to the HLF. The HLF then sent the money to Hamas.
The IAP has since been shut down, and the HLF was shut down after 9/11. CAIR handled the media, law, and politics. The IAP were the public relations people, handling education and organizing. The HLF were the money people, bankrolling the organizations. These organizations all have logos with crossed swords, not typical of groups truly committed to peaceful activities.
CAIR has top level people who have expressed that “The loss of Palestine in 1948 is second only to the loss of the Caliphate.” The rationale for CAIR was expressed in October of 1993, that being to “advance the brotherhood agenda, reduce Jewish influence, and mobilize all Muslims to join in anti-Israel activity.” On June 12th, 1995, a New Republic article described a meeting where a young holy warrior asked for a legal ruling with regards to killing Jews. The homicidal elder responded that “Killing Jews is a good deed, and does not require a legal ruling. Just bring the dead body.”
CAIR’s website on September 17th, 2001, listed three websites that people could donate to with regards to helping 9/11 victims. One of the links was the Red Cross, which was legitimate. Another link was the “NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund.” No such fund existed. Clicking on that link took people straight to the HLF website. On September 26th, 2001, slight changes were made to CAIR’s site. The link listed as the fictitious NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund was replaced with a direct listing of the HLF site. The Red Cross site was still linked, as was another site labeled the “Global Relief Fund.” That link led to a place where people could make contributions, which went straight to funding Al Queda and the Taliban.
CAIR Rallies include people waving Hezbollah flags, and CAIR leaders wearing the Keffiyah (head covering) with the insignia of the Al Aqsa Marty’s Brigade.
The way to convict such terrorists living in America is usually by getting them on visa fraud. Many terrorists come here legally but the overstay their visas. Visa fraud is the mobster equivalent of tax evasion.
Also, as part of their aspirations, CAIR on one occasion offered a doctored photo outside the Capitol during their press conferences. Blondes become brunettes, and Muslim women without head coverings are given head coverings. Perhaps they do know how to use the internet, or at least Photo Shop.
CAIR claims that they condemn “terrorist attacks,” but they never once condemned Hamas, Hezbollah, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, the Taliban, or any Muslim country.
CAIR has sued David Frum, National Review Online, and uses liberal media outlets to further their cause. They normally go through the JBT, the ACLU, and the National Council of Churches.
Whenever anybody criticizes any Muslim with either terror connections or suggestions that Jews immolate themselves through “dialogue” with terrorists, those on the wrong side claim anti-Muslim bigotry. For example, Congressman Keith Ellison wants Jews to “talk to CAIR.”
In 1993, worried about being recorded (which they were), CAIR people stated that “We cannot support Samah.” Samah is Hamas spelled backwards. In 1999 the head of CAIR endorsed suicide bombers in the name of Islam. In 2007, CAIR criticized “right wingers and ‘Neozionists.” Neozonionists is a way of confirming that “Neoconservatives,” or “Neocons” for short, are just Jews.
CAIR Action Alert # 508 is a false denial by CAIR that they wish to destroy the holy shrines of other faiths.
Also, CAIR plays the victim card to perfection when they are the ones promoting hatred, bigotry, and intolerance. Examples of this include Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis refusing to accept blind people with guide dogs as passengers because it violates their faith.
CAIR is also insecure. They feel compelled to compete with Jews and non-Muslims on every level. Since there are 6 million Jews in America, CAIR claims there are 7 million Muslims. This is not true. Pew research reflects only 2.5 million Muslims. Yes, there are Persians in Los Angeles, and plenty of Arabs in Dearborn, Detroit, and Minneapolis, but the 2.5 million number is accepted by reputable sources such as Pew.
2006 FBI statistics reflect that in that calendar year, their were 156 anti-Muslim crimes, and 967 anti-Jewish crimes. CAIR claims that Muslims are simply scared to report their crimes. CAIR claims 50,000 members on their website, but only lists 1700 members for IRS reporting purposes. It is unlikely that they are lying to the IRS, since the IRS can punish them in ways the media cannot. If the IRS digs, their operation crumbles. In 2000, CAIR reported $732,000 in dues. In 2007, dues were $58,000. In Maryland, gigantic Mosques are being built. The Mosques are empty. There are no parishioners inside. The Mosques are for appearances, and the illusion of strength in numbers. The bottom line is that CAIR is media savvy, but not a grassroots organization. They are a top down operation.
The problem in America is getting people to face the truth, and act on it.
The U.S. Government sends conflicting information. They label terrorist organizations as such, but then invite CAIR leaders to the White House under the banners of diversity and multiculturalism. The media ignores CAIR entirely. The JBT reporter that wrote the initial erroneous story about CAIR was offered to view the evidentiary documents, but refused. He was “uninterested in a civil issue.” The Washington Post was uninterested in the story.
Media diversity guidelines require referring to Muslim harassment victims in the same vein and proportion as purveyors of overt terrorist attacks that are Muslim. Terrorists are to be compared similarly to white supremacists and anti-abortionists. In keeping with a left wing agenda, environmentalist terrorists such as ELF are exempt from this.
65% of Muslims in America are first generation, most of them having arrived since 1990. This is not foreign infiltration. Homegrown terrorists are living among the Muslims that love America and Western values. The bad have blended in with the good so that an attack on CAIR is an attack on all Muslims.
One organization helping this along is the North American Islamic Trust. This organization is a Saudi front that finances 45-70% of the mosques in America.
“The big problem is political correctness and multiculturalism. In short, we do not have to respect CAIR’s beliefs. The fact that they may have an educational wing that is not into terror is irrelevant. If the Klan wanted to work with people on a clean streets initiative, we would refuse their help because they are still the Klan. This is not about stifling their right to speak. It is about preventing them from stifling the right of others to have free speech and criticize them.” They will use the power of American courts to sue people, hoping that once enough people roll over and surrender, CAIR will gain more power.
“They cannot win, but we can lose. We must demand accountability. We must hear Muslim voices for freedom. We must speak the truth.”
One questioner asked about the Michael Savage case, but Mr. Rubenstein differentiated the cases. Mr. Savage made comments about CAIR, CAIR pressured his advertisers, and the advertisers caved in. From a moral standpoint this is what we must try and prevent, but Mr. Savage’s suit against CAIR was tossed out because advertisers have a legal right to be cowards. Another questioner asked about the Mark Steyn case, but that was more a human rights case.
“The burden is on Moderate Muslims to find us, not the reverse. We must stop the Western guilt. Immigrants today, like all immigrants in decades past, must leave their baggage in the old country.”
“The Muslim per capita income is greater than the average per capita income of other Americans.”
“Jews, especially liberal ones, are part of the problem. They want to keep quiet on this issue. They want no part of it for fear of a backlash.” So CAIR threatens to silence all Jews, and Jews respond by staying silent.
“The Klan, Communists, Nazis, and CAIR are all heinous but legal. The goal is not to get CAIR shut down, but to get the facts out.”
“It is tough to shut down people who support terrorists because it is tough to define the word support. It is illegal to support terrorists financially, but not emotionally.”
Mr Rubenstein offered some final thoughts.
“CAIR is the Sopranos equivalent of the Bada Bing Club.”
“The Patriot Act without a doubt has saved American lives.”
“There is a media war, but only one side is fighting.”
Mr. Rubenstein’s presentation is sobering and disturbing, but less sobering and disturbing than the fact that many people will either remain ignorant of the facts, in some cases through willful blindness.
CAIR does not represent all Muslims. All Muslims are not terrorists.
CAIR are terrorists. For those who offer excuses…I just don’t CAIR.
eric
What does any of this have to do with Obama?
CAIR is a very small group. They have very little power to do much of anything. They are closely scrutinized, and probably rightfully so, but they are no worth worrying much about. There are far bigger problems in the world than CAIR.
As for the ironically titled “Patriot Act,” it is second only to the Iraq war as the spoils of victory for the 9/11 terrorists.
JMJ
Eric was refering to Caires effect on America and how its sublime access to American money being diverted to Radical elements that want to desroy israel is a local issue. I dont think he was addressing any ” far bigger problems in the world”.
And you’re a real great guy for implying that there is any kind of victory in the patriot act or the Iraq war for our enemies.
Thats how you support your country and troops ? With an staement like that ?
Find me one person who cant do anything now that they couldnt do pre patriot act.
I stand by what I said about the Patriot Act. It is about the most unpatriotic act imposed on the American people since the Rockefeller drug laws. It is feces smeared on the Constitution.
Rights are our guarentees as citizens, regardless of when or where we need them, or who needs them at any given time. Rights exist for a purpose, and it’s not the whims of God. Rights protect us from our government. They restrict our government from acting beyond its bounds. The terrorists acheived a great victory with the passage of the Patriot Act – and the Protect America Act, and of course, the greatest folly of our time, the war in Iraq. With these concessions to the terrorists we made ourselves more like them.
JMJ
So you say.
Answer my question.
Heres what came to my mind while reading this.
I’ll lead into it using the latest question about Obamas pastor Wright.
I was thinking the same thing as Newt Gingrich during Obamas speech yesterday trying to explain away his relationship with Wright.
The question that came to mind was that if after 20 years Obama cant identify this guy Wright for what he is , how will he be able to identify an enemy or his motives ?
How is he going to be able to sit down with any one of our less than friendly nations and be able to pick up on ulterior motives or deceptive signs if he cant figure out Wright in 20 years ?
How will Obama identify CAIR ? Will he have the judgement to see them for what they are ? Will he allow them to grow in strength ?
Hes stuck between stupidty and deception here.
If Obama tries to get us to believe that in 20 years he was never hip to his preachers anti American sentiments, he is being less than honest.
If he admits that he truly didnt pick up on this hateful mans feelings, he risks looking like an idiot.
Will he try to play stupid on matters such as CAIR or other foreign policy matters out of some form of favortism. Like say… his family of radicals in Kenya ?
Or is he truly blind to the size of the threat ?
Very interesting post.
How may I get in touch with you? Please reply via email.
“Answer my question.”
Do you mean this request: “Find me one person who cant do anything now that they couldnt do pre patriot act.”?
I thought I was pretty clear with this response: ” Rights are our guarentees as citizens, regardless of when or where we need them, or who needs them at any given time. Rights exist for a purpose, and it’s not the whims of God. Rights protect us from our government. They restrict our government from acting beyond its bounds.”
Perhaps I was too obtuse for you. The point is that the Patriot Act gives the federal government too much power – unconstitutional powwer at that. Such power can and has been abused. This question isn’t “who cant do anything now that they couldnt do pre patriot act?,” but “what can the government now do that it couldn’t before.”
Follow me?
“The question that came to mind was that if after 20 years Obama cant identify this guy Wright for what he is , how will he be able to identify an enemy or his motives?”
That’s a silly question. I’m sure Obama knew where Pastor Wright was coming from. I did. I’m quite familiar with the good pastor and agree with most of his views. His views are common among the African American civil rights generation.
“How will Obama identify CAIR? Will he have the judgement to see them for what they are? Will he allow them to grow in strength?”
grow in strength? CAIR has shrunk every year since 9/11. Tehy aren’t growing again any time soon. People don’t want to be associated with them. As for Obama, he will probably maintain the status quo when it comes to CAIR. He really wouldn’t have much choice. I doubt he’d personally give them much thought, really. They are not a very big deal.
“Will he try to play stupid on matters such as CAIR or other foreign policy matters out of some form of favortism. Like say… his family of radicals in Kenya?”
More adolesecnt nonsense.
“Or is he truly blind to the size of the threat?”
What threat? Have a particular one in mind?
JMJ
You just cant answer the question , can you ?
Name me one person who has lost any rights as a result of the patriot act.
Yea, Newt Gingrich former speaker of the house who is a hell of a lot smarter than you had all the same qiestions.
Adolescent only because you are as blind as the rest of the moonbats who ignorantly dimish the threat of our enemies out of stupidty or an attempt to make our leaders look foolish.
JMJ;
” I’m quite familiar with the good pastor and agree with most of his views. His views are common among the African American civil rights generation.”
Its no more silly a question than the one you still havnt answerd.
Like I said, hes stuck between stupidity or deception.
” Not God bless America, God DamnAmerica”
” The USKKKA of America”
“America introduced Aids into black America to kill off black people ”
“911 was the chickens coming home to roost”
As a matter of fact jersey its not whether his comments are common amongst African american civil rights generation. Its about how the country as a whole feels about those statements.
And the majority of us are not happy about it at all. Obama has lost 20% of his support in the last week.
“You just cant answer the question , can you ?
Name me one person who has lost any rights as a result of the patriot act.”
Firstly, it’s not a question, but rather a demand. Secondly, it shows a true ignorance of what rights are. We have all lost rights to the Patriot Act. All of us.
“Yea, Newt Gingrich former speaker of the house who is a hell of a lot smarter than you had all the same qiestions.”
Newt Ginrich is a sleazy moron. My left thumb is a smarter, better person than him.
It probably is true that this sleazy, underhanded, guilt-by-association attack on Obama will probably hurt him at the polls. It just goes to show that racism is still alive and well.
JMJ
Look Jersey, I’m not some idiot.
If anyone had lost any rights due to the patriot act it would be all over the media like white on rice
What rights have we lost ?
If you think its a demand and not a question I would hate to see you at a stop light.
JMJ;
“Newt Ginrich is a sleazy moron. My left thumb is a smarter, better person than him.”
Yea, thats why you’re on a key board arguing with me and get two readers a month on your blog.
JMJ;
“It probably is true that this sleazy, underhanded, guilt-by-association attack on Obama will probably hurt him at the polls. It just goes to show that racism is still alive and well.”
Yea, Black on White racism
Oh dear, an abused 1/10th of the population is angry over generations of mistreatment, and poor wittle Micky is suffering “black racism.” What a joke.
Here’s a brilliant blogger on the subject of rights lost to the Patriot Act (it took me all of a couple seconds to find it – if you don’t know what rights have been lost to the Patriot Act, then you, Micky, don’t even know what the act is). Ironically, he uses the same argument you cons use to fight “hate crime” legislation against you, quite smarty, I might add…
http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=303351
… First, you need to understand a ‘right’. Let’s take the right to bear arms. If the government banned all private ownership of all firearms but no one tried to buy a firearm, it’d still mean that right was abrogated. It doesn’t take the attempted exercise of a right for that right to exist. Let’s take another example. I’m an agnostic so belong to no church. If church membership were banned, I couldn’t say I didn’t lose any rights because the government didn’t block me from church attendance. My rights would have been violated just the same.
In US PATRIOT, we have a severe abrogation of due process. Having the government accuse you of a certain class of crimes (as with RICO) causes your due process rights to be truncated severely. Under our laws, if you are accused of being a serial rapist or other evil felon, your rights exist unfettered. However, if you are accused of being a drug dealer or a terrorist, your due process rights only exist in so far as the government will allow them.
Thus all of us have lost our rights under PATRIOT as we did under RICO. The Founders never allowed different classes of due process depending upon the accusation – but we have that today thanks to Presidents Reagan and Bush 43 working in perfect accord with a Democrat controlled Congress.
All, and I mean all, deserve to reap what they’ve sewed. I propose that members of Congress and the presidency who countenanced such gross violations of our Constitution themselves have their rights abrogated. All of them all of their rights.
Now that would be funny! However, like the draft, you’ll never get President and the Hill to go along. They get to keep their rights. Real funny, huh?
JMJ
You still have not answerd the question.
What rigts do I not have today that I did not have previous to the patriot act.
Name me one person who has lost any rights due to the patriot act.
“If the government banned all private ownership of all firearms but no one tried to buy a firearm, it’d still mean that right was abrogated.”
Your blogger friend is an idiot.
No one has stopped doing anything they used to do. His example is mute.
What process has been taken away?
What process are you not entitled to anymore ?
If anyone was or has lost any rights due to the patriot act why has it not ever been brought to court or proven ?
What does the patriot stop you from doing today that you could not do yesterday ?
The patriot act has been with us since 911 and since then not one case has been won in court proving any of your whinney little claims.
I deal in facts jersey . AND YOU HAVE NONE !!!!
As far as this assininly and ultimatly foolish remark goes;
“Oh dear, an abused 1/10th of the population is angry over generations of mistreatment, and poor wittle Micky is suffering “black racism.” What a joke.”
You said :
” It just goes to show that racism is still alive and well.”
I am not the one screaming and lying at the top of my lungs like some raving lunatic in the middle of my church how evil the white man and my country is. He isnt talking about mistreatmant, hes lying, hes making unprovable accusations. Just like you do all the time. Learn the difference !
This is what James Cone the first person to create a systematic Black theology whom Pastor Wright looks up to and idolizes and is his mentor has to say:
“Black theology refuses to accept a god who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If god is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community.
Black theology will accept only the love of god which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power. Which is the of black people to destroy their oppresors here and now by any means at their disposal
Unless god is participating in this holy activity we must reject his love.”
You want to tell me this is not racist ! Huh ! Please ?
PLeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese tell me where I said I was suffering from black racism ?
I simply made a point that Obamas Pastor only makes it evident that these shmucks cant give it a rest. And if anyone is playing the race card its Pastor Wright !
Micky, try to follow me here – if the government accuses you of being a terrorist, you will have less rights than a rapist or a murderer. You would be classified as something beyond the scope of your usual constitutional rights. Do you get this?
JMJ
So what ?
First they have to prove you are a terrorist.
Jersey, like most liberals, you have no clue. Your statement: “Firstly, it’s not a question, but rather a demand. Secondly, it shows a true ignorance of what rights are. We have all lost rights to the Patriot Act. All of us. “betrays your ignorance of the facts and of the true danger posed by terrorism. Name one of your constitutional rights that have been eroded! You cannot, because they have not been. Perhaps if the next jet is piloted into the Space Needle, you will wake up and see that the war on terror is the most important battle our country has faced since the fall of the Soviet empire.
And here is a commeny from a guy called rick on the link to that idiot blogger you posted.
IMHO, there are hundred or thousands of “illegal” laws on the federal books. But until they get challenged and make it to the SCOTUS, they are technically legal, if enacted through the normal legislative process. The DC gun ban is a perfect example. No one ever got off on a gun possession charge in DC by claiming the law was illegal. But now a challenge has made its way up the chain to the SCOTUS. Seems to me that’s what would be necessary for PATRIOT to be curtailed or tossed as well. Ditto for the line item veto. That law sailed through Congress and any president would have been happy to sign it. But the SCOTUS tossed it.
So untill then this is how we protect our country.
Because if we get attacked again and these guys get their way the last thing we will have is civil rights.
During WW2 we gave uo a ton of things to help fight the enemy. We couldnt even have lights on at night, aluminum, chocolate , coffee.
Care to touch on the Pastor Wright thing ? ( with facts)
I just found out that Mark Steyn himself linked to this column. He put it on the front page of his website. This is very humbling for me.
So everybody keep the gloves up.
Also, I was not implying an Obama/CAIR direct link. The first fellow was offering his musings, Which were not part of the official presentation on CAIR. Obama has been in the news the last couple days, so comments regarding him were more like, “before we get to our program, here is what is going on today.” Obama was peripheral to this event.
eric
JMJ;
“what can the government now do that it couldn’t before.”
You libs oughta know the answer to that one.
Smoking bans.
Giving special rights to any minority for any stupid reason.
Legalizing murderous abortions.
Enacting hate crime laws.
Taking away employers rights to hire who they want. Saying who they must hire.
Affirmative action.
“So what ?
First they have to prove you are a terrorist.”
No Micky – all they have to do is accuse you of being a terrorist. The levels of proof, and who gets to see that proof, are changed – no habeus corpus, for example. Look, I don’t think you even get my argument. It’s very simple really – the government shouldn’t have that sort pf power as it is very corrupting. That’s all. I don;t trust the government as much as you do.
Smoking bans are only in public places and work areas. You can smoke all you want in your own space. To compare this to the loss of habeus is juvenile.
There are no special rights for minorities that I know of. There are, however, some laws to ensure their targetted safety and protection of opportunities.
Abortion is no more “murder” than stepping on a seed is chopping down a tree.
Hate crime laws do not effect your rights, just sentencing guidelines and targetted law enforcement spending.
Affirmative action does not dictate who you hire, just that you do it fairly for the sake of a peaceful and stable society.
None of your examples compare with the feces on the constitution that is the Patriot Act.
JMJ
[…] be on this one in more detail in a bit, but Jon Ham points out why the Kelo decision was so bad. – Eric doesn’t care about CAIR. – Todd Lohenry talks change. – The Emperor has the Smackdown of the Day™. – Jim […]
JMJ;
“Smoking bans are only in public places and work areas. You can smoke all you want in your own space. To compare this to the loss of habeus is juvenile.”
Its an infringement on my private property to tell me what I can and cant do with it.
The restaurant I own is my own space to do with what I want.
If I put up a sign telling you that we have smoke inside , that should suffice.
But no, the government will make choices for people who can read.
JMJ;
“There are no special rights for minorities that I know of. There are, however, some laws to ensure their targetted safety and protection of opportunities.”
Its selectivism, just like accusing people of terrorism
JMJ;
“Abortion is no more “murder” than stepping on a seed is chopping down a tree.”
The government has dictated when it thinks life begins and ends. This is far worse.than accusing some one of terrorism, far worse.
JMJ;
“Hate crime laws do not effect your rights, just sentencing guidelines and targetted law enforcement spending.”
BS! I can get a far worse sentence if my crime is seen as directed at any minority.
It is the same warped due process you complain of in the PATRIOT.
All they have to do is charge me with a hate crime.
Any crime can be changed to terms of a hate crime if it involves race , gender or religion.
This is a stupid law.
JMJ;
“Affirmative action does not dictate who you hire, just that you do it fairly for the sake of a peaceful and stable society.”
BS again. What does making sure I have a proportionate amount of whatever have to do with my right to run my business as I see fit ?
Who gets to decide what is fair ?
If I want to hire all Asians for my own reasons that’s my business. But a gay guy comes along and says I didn’t make room for him, its not my problem.
JMJ;
“None of your examples compare with the feces on the constitution that is the Patriot Act.
HEY ! You asked what our government could do today that it couldn’t do before and I gave you just s a few examples. The Patriot is not the only rule they make up as they go along.
When it comes to the left and its warped wants , stepping on and amending the constitution is fine , right!!
Give me a break
Our constitution has been warped and bent many ways in the last 200 or so years to enact necessary laws that apply to the times at hand.
The only person so far that even came close to making a case for infringement of civil liberties was Jose Padilla.
And the case got tossed ! Want to know why ?
Because he was prosecuted within the constraints of the law, period.
For almost 200 years now a law that doesn’t allow felons to ever vote again has been on the books. I am disenfranchised and have been handed a small sentence of civil
death. My voice does not matter. Am I running around making a big stink ?
It only seems obvious that if the LOONEY LEFT does not see our enemy for the threat it is they of course would see no reason for the patriot act.
I believe we have chosen to defeat our enemy at a very small risk to anyone’s civil liberties.
As much as you and the rest of your gang bitch about the patriot act I’ve still yet to see one case brought forth that proves a diminishment of any civil liberties.
The process for an accused terrorist should be different in my opinion.
We are fighting an enemy that has cloaked itself in many forms and is not just a soldier on a field wearing a uniform.
But of course you and the LOONEY LEFT will bitch all day long about what’s wrong with America, but never actually come up with a way to defend it from a real and factual , concrete threat.
You think they should be handles like common criminals or unruly children so how could you see the patriot act as necessary ?
——————————————————————————————————————-
On March 9, 2006, President Bush Signed The USA PATRIOT Improvement And Reauthorization Act Of 2005. Since its enactment in October 2001, the Patriot Act has been vital to winning the War on Terror and protecting the American people. The legislation signed today allows intelligence and law enforcement officials to continue sharing information and using the same tools against terrorists already employed against drug dealers and other criminals. While safeguarding Americans’ civil liberties, this legislation also strengthens the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) so that it can better detect and disrupt terrorist threats, and it also gives law enforcement new tools to combat threats. America still faces dangerous enemies, and no priority is more important to the President than protecting the American people without delay.
The Patriot Act Closes Dangerous Law Enforcement And Intelligence Gaps
The Patriot Act Has Accomplished Exactly What It Was Designed To Do – It Has Helped Us Detect Terrorist Cells, Disrupt Terrorist Plots, And Save American Lives.
The Patriot Act has helped law enforcement break up terror cells in Ohio, New York, Oregon, and Virginia.
The Patriot Act has helped in the prosecution of terrorist operatives and supporters in California, Texas, New Jersey, Illinois Washington, and North Carolina.
The Patriot Act Authorizes Vital Information Sharing To Help Law Enforcement And Intelligence Officials Connect The Dots Before Terrorists Strike. The Patriot Act enables necessary cooperation and information sharing by helping to break down legal and bureaucratic walls separating criminal investigators from intelligence officers.
The Patriot Act Eliminates Double Standards By Allowing Agents To Pursue Terrorists With The Same Tools They Use Against Other Criminals. Before the Patriot Act, it was easier to track a drug dealer’s phone contacts than a terrorist’s phone contacts, and it was easier to obtain a tax cheat’s credit card receipts than to trace the financial support of an al-Qaida fundraiser. The Patriot Act corrected these double standards – and America is safer as a result.
The Patriot Act Adapts The Law To Modern Technology. The Patriot Act allows Internet service providers to disclose customer records voluntarily to the government in emergencies involving an immediate risk of death or serious physical injury and permits victims of hacking crimes to request law enforcement assistance in monitoring trespassers on their computers.
The Patriot Act Preserves Our Freedoms And Upholds The Rule Of Law. The legislation signed today adds over 30 new significant civil liberties provisions.
The Patriot Act Reauthorization Safeguards Our Nation
The Patriot Act Reauthorization Creates A New Assistant Attorney General for National Security. By creating a new Assistant Attorney General for National Security, this legislation fulfills a critical recommendation of the WMD Commission. This will allow the Justice Department to bring its national security, counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and foreign intelligence surveillance operations under a single authority.
The Patriot Act Reauthorization Tackles Terrorism Financing. This bill enhances penalties for terrorism financing and closes a loophole concerning terrorist financing through “hawalas” (informal money transfer networks) rather than traditional financial institutions.
The Patriot Act Reauthorization Protects Mass Transportation. This bill provides clear standards and tough penalties for attacks on our land- and water-based mass transportation systems, as well as commercial aviation.
The Patriot Act Reauthorization Combats Methamphetamine Abuse
The Patriot Act Reauthorization Includes The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act Of 2005. This bill introduces commonsense safeguards that will make many ingredients used in methamphetamine manufacturing more difficult to obtain in bulk and easier for law enforcement to track. For example, the bill places limits on large-scale purchases of over-the-counter drugs that are used to manufacture methamphetamines- and requires stores to keep these ingredients behind the counter or in locked display cases. It increases penalties for smuggling and selling methamphetamines.
The positives outweigh whatever it is your crying about.
Because “THE FACT IS” that no one has won a case claiming a breach in our rights or civil liberties. And quite a few have tried.
PLAIN AND SIMPLE
How come you have to be so wordy all the time?
I digress…
Smoking bans protect other people’s rights, Micky. It’s no different than noise or pollution ordinances. It is perfectly constitutional. Your rights end where other people’s begin – constitutional law 101.
There are no “special rights” for minorities, period.
Abortion is legal to protect the rights of women, Micky. The rights of women are more important that the rights of embryos.
Hate crime laws have no impact on your rights. In fact, they are to protect the rights of victimized minorities. As with any mitigating or aggravating factor, they only effect sentencing. This has been a standard in common law for centuries.
Now, I can see you have your copy-and-paste practice in. Perhaps, in your own words you can explain to me how the Patriot Act changes your rights of due process and habeus corpus under the law. Can you do that? And then, can you justify it?
JMJ
JMJ;
“Smoking bans protect other people’s rights, Micky. It’s no different than noise or pollution ordinances. It is perfectly constitutional. Your rights end where other people’s begin – constitutional law 101.”
BS AGAIN.
101 ? Give me a break ! My right to private property was around long before nannys came along
There is no proof that second hand smoke causes cancer in anyone.
It does not protect my right to do what I want with my property.
My right to my property supercieds ones right to come into my property and tell me what to do with it.
Carnivals have signs that say ” you must be this tall to get on this ride”
Plain and simple care for the public health is right there.
JMJ;
There are no “special rights” for minorities, period.
Special rights is a political term originally used by libertarians to refer to laws granting rights to one or more groups which are not extended to other groups, such as affirmative action or hate crime legislation with regard to ethnic, religious or sexual minorities. More recently, social conservatives have used the term to refer to measures that either mirror rights for gays and lesbians that already exist for heterosexuals, such as in the case of same sex marriage, or extend anti-discrimination protections that exist for other minority groups to sexual minorities as well.
Call it what you want Jersey. Certain minorities are givin exceptions in the law, such as labeling a regular crime a hate crime.
It gives a black man the right to claim a crime aginst him was a hate crime.
JMJ;
“Hate crime laws have no impact on your rights. In fact, they are to protect the rights of victimized minorities. As with any mitigating or aggravating factor, they only effect sentencing. This has been a standard in common law for centuries”
JMJ;
“Abortion is legal to protect the rights of women, Micky. The rights of women are more important that the rights of embryos.”
Says who ? How do you know ?
Does it protect the rights of babys who cant speak ?
Who decides what is viable life and is not ?
YOU?
BS AGAIN.
If I run over a gay accidentally but someone like you who thinks i’m a bigot can just go screaming hate crime for extra damages.
Sentencing is the bottom line so what difference does it make ?
Itsa a stupid term.
I robbed a bank because I hate being poor ?.
I gave you my own words smart ass.
We all get our info from somewhere else.
I at least dont profess to know things out of osmossis or some grnad delusion of truth.
I looked at the Jose Padilla case closely. And it is a prime example of someone like you bitching about habeus corpus and the patriot act.
He lost.
I justify the patriot by means justifying ends. That is my belief, I have faith in the patriot, I do not accuse it something I cannot prove.
The question has been on you for two days now, dont turn it around on me.
Answer me.
Has a case been brought forth contesting the Patriot that has won ?
And how many have lost ?
Micky, I answered the question about rights. Now you answer mine. What rights have been abbregated by the Patriot Act? Do you even know?
JMJ
No you havnt.
Who has won a case against the patriot ?
Who has proven in court what you are b*tching about ?
I can read, I know what the patriot act says and the prcess it offers and I have no problem with it . GET IT?
But with all due respect you must answer my question that I asked you 4 times since yesterday.
YOU CANT ! YOU KNOW WHY ?
Because you claims are unfounded.
You don’t really know what the Patriot Act is, do you?
Parts of the Patriot Act have ben overturned. You do know that, right?
You are aware of the controversies that have eminated from the act, right?
JMJ
Oh, and I answered your question. You just don’t understand the answer.
JMJ
Show me where you gave me an example of someone challenging the Patriot and winning or loosing ?
I know that parts have been overturned, I also know about the amendments.I also know about the Protect america act. I can read.
I’m not going to play games.
You are arguing that the patriot act does not afford the same process to those accused of terrorism as other crimes. I get it. And I agree wiith it.
I was very close to the Padilla case which contested the Patriot act more than any case so far and it lost JERSEY !
But you can not and have not answerd the question I have asked you repeatedly because you cant.
You are not being honest by saying that there is no evidence or proof that anyone has lost liberties and rights due to the patriot.
PERIOD !
Now answer the question.
Has a case been brought forth contesting the Patriot that has won ?
And how many have lost ?
Micky, do you know anything about the Patriot Act? Why do you think parts were overturned by the courts? For laughs?
JMJ
Just answer the question jersey, you look like a fool.
Any shmuck cans see you are dodging by trying to make this about something else.
Let me get you up to speed here.
I asked you on March 19, 2008 at 11:42 am
“Find me one person who cant do anything now that they couldnt do pre patriot act.”
I asked you again onMarch 19, 2008 at 12:13 pm
So you say.
Answer my question.
And again onMarch 19, 2008 at 2:14 pm
You just cant answer the question , can you ?
Name me one person who has lost any rights as a result of the patriot act.
One more time on March 19, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Look Jersey, I’m not some idiot.
If anyone had lost any rights due to the patriot act it would be all over the media like white on rice
What rights have we lost ?
And again on March 19, 2008 at 5:39 pm
You still have not answerd the question.
What rigts do I not have today that I did not have previous to the patriot act.
Name me one person who has lost any rights due to the patriot act.
Get it ?
There a re a lot of laws that people percieve as unconstitutional on the books Jersey.
You are entitled to think that.
You are entitled to have the opinion that they diminish your rights.
you are entitled to challenge this view of ineqyuality if you like, some have tried and failed, you know why ?
Because its the law. And now you do not have the same rights you had previous to 911, thats the new law.
And untill the Supreme court of the United states says otherwise, you are blowing nothing but hot air.
I believe its my civil liberty and right to smoke a joint as much as it is to drink a beer.
But the law determined that it is not my right. I do not argue with the law.
Now, answer my question.
It is painfully clear that Jersey McJones has never read the Patriot Act and if he has, he doesn’t understand that using filters on overseas phone calls, funding terrorists and sharing info between various law enforcement offices are not things enshrined in the Constitution as proctected. There is no Direct surveillence in the Act without FISA. How is strengthening our ability to detect terrorism a victory for the enemy unless Jersey McJones believes we are the enemy. In the numerous long winded arguments not once did Jersey ever list a right that had been taken away. Sure he made some stuff up about due process, but that isn’t in the act so I am ignoring it.
The silly blogger post referred to at
http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=303351
does not address these facts, it spews the same silly ass double speak on rights without addressing the activities employed in the Act, eg a technological filter to find patterns. If such patterns are found a judge must issue the feds a court order to allow them to do actual surveillence. So how does that remove due process from the equation? Answer , it doesn’t
As for the guilt-by-association attack on Obama, I don’t think the issues is guilt-by-association, but rather that Obama hates his country and everything is Whitie’s fault at least that what I got out of the speech and racist Wright’s diattibes. Who wants a dimwit like that as President.
As for hate crimes, all Violent crimes are hate crimes of some sort.
My experience today is that most of the racists in America, are in fact, black people. Blacks have received decades of Democratic handouts and instead of improving their lot like the immigrant groups in America, they remain the largerst per capita committers of violent crime. The proportion of White on Black crime is 1/10 that of Black on White crime. However, somehow none of these are considered hate crimes, why is that? Go to school, quit having children out of wedlock and quit having a victim complex and black people will have no problems. All of my black friends are from foreign countries so they don’t have the victim complex. All also have advanced degrees and earn in excess of $100K so the problem isn’t race it is culture and American Black culture is distructive. None of them thinks the US is a racist country.
Micky, you seem not to know the meaning of “rights,” the Patriot Act, or why courts can overturn laws.
You love your big momma government and trust it with your life. I do not.
JMJ
CT,
Regardless of what one may think of Obama, to say he “hates his country” is over the line. There is no evidence of that.
All races have their good and bad apples.
eric
[…] REMEMBER– “CAIR is not, as it claims, the “Muslim NAACP.” CAIR is a terrorist […]
Jersey.
I know my rights and the meaning of them.
This is why I get upset when people cry about loosing rights but cant point to one they have lost, like you.
I just dont see it as a conspiracy to undermine my rights like you do.
As a matter of fact I see it as a tool that has saved lives by the numerous operations it has interupted.
And I’ll bet money your next thought is for me to prove it has saved lives.
Thats what every lib has done so far to me in the Patriot act debate.
And that is chicken crap to do that because its like taking a flu shot and then saying theres no proof it worked.
JMJ;
“You love your big momma government and trust it with your life. I do not.”
But you and every other lib dem moonbat wants the government to run everything.
Health care ? The government would definatly have more effect on your life than the patriot act does.
You guys are such hypocrits and want everything both ways.
You say you dont trust the government to do the single most important thing it is supposed to do. PROTECT ITS CITIZENS !
But you trust them to handle your health care. Get real
As cair terroris points out you are on the wrong side of the facts here.
If we were being monitord in the fashion of WW2 Nazis you could say that the enemy has a victory. But untill you can prove that we have lost any rights or access to our normal lives or have to do anything differently your arguement is ridiculous and baseless.
We have not had an attack on our soil since 911. And its not because we were doing things the way the Dems would have us do them.
As Cair terroris said better than I did;
“If such patterns are found a judge must issue the feds a court order to allow them to do actual surveillence. So how does that remove due process from the equation? Answer , it doesn’t.”
“Find me one person who cant do anything now that they couldnt do pre patriot act.”
You just cant answer the question , can you ?
Name me one person who has lost any rights as a result of the patriot act.
If anyone had lost any rights due to the patriot act it would be all over the media like white on rice
What rights have we lost ?
What rights do I not have today that I did not have previous to the patriot act.
Name me one person who has lost any rights due to the patriot act.
And last but not least.
How have you sufferd because of the patriot act ?
Eric, Was in the audience and thoroughly appreciate your recap posted here!
Well done.
Great post…
After reading the entire post I was a bit taken back by the petty arguments concerning
the Partriot Act…I thought the post was about CAIR. The comments following seemed to drift away from the subject and frankly, I got bored with the non-sensical identifiers as in, “My left thumb is a smarter…” These kind of words only serve to identify the user of such as a child looking for an excuse for something but cannot find his mama to save him from the bogey man.
The read was somewhat long and clearly displays some fundamental research which would make anyone in academia proud to submit such a paper for a grade…in my opinion an A+.
I wasn’t aware that David Frumm was being sued by CAIR…any follow-ups wold be appreciated…
David Frumm is the author of several books inclding, “The Right Man” which I have read and found quite interesting…especially that which goes on behind the scenes.
Keep up the good work…
ps: I would like to cross-post the above onto my website if it’s OK with you.
“Find me one person who cant do anything now that they couldnt do pre patriot act.”
Mickey I can find someone……
Our enemies and people overseas who don’t deserve any protection under our constitution that many Obama and his equally dangerous supporters like to extend to cover just about anyone, just like they try to extend Geneva Convention protections to terrorists wearing no country uniform yet engage our troops on battlefields. Exactly who the Patriot act is designed to cripple.
If any AMerican complains they’ve lost rights then they’re doing something wrong because we normal law abding citizens haven’t lost a damn thing and are not afraid of the Patriot act we’re more afraid of the so called Americans who oppose it.
AS for your post Eric fine work as always, and the link to the Daily Kos writer “TroutMan” is a chilling little piece in itself alright as is his picture. I just don;t even understand where these people were schooled in this country to generate the thoughts and raging anti semetic feelings and views that they possess and espouse.
I can’t understand where any moral equivelancy in humanity can be attached to the Muslims and Islam period. It’s pure unadulterated madness. A mental disorder as Savage so aptly defines and refers to that ideology that defends the murderous Muslims and their activities that all center around violence. Religion of Peace my a**