Who The Terror Apologists Support

Thursday, September 14, 2006

By Rob on September 14, 2006 at 07:15 am

Some of you may be familiar with a group called the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR. This is a group that describes itself as the "Muslim NAACP." Some of its leaders stood by President Bush and Colin Powell as those men spoke out against backlash against Muslims in the wake of 9/11. CAIR spokespeople are routinely quoted as authorities on the Muslim-American community and the relationship between Islam and the American population in general.

To many this group may sound benignly positive, even necessary, in this age of extreme tension between westerners and practitioners of Islam. The truth about this group, however, will probably shock a lot of people.

To quote Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha:

...there is another side to CAIR that has alarmed many people in positions to know. The Department of Homeland Security refuses to deal with it. Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat, New York) describes it as an organization "which we know has ties to terrorism."[3] Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat, Illinois) observes that CAIR is "unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect."[4] Steven Pomerantz, the FBI's former chief of counterterrorism, notes that "CAIR, its leaders, and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups."[5] The family of John P. O'Neill, Sr., the former FBI counterterrorism chief who perished at the World Trade Center, named CAIR in a lawsuit as having "been part of the criminal conspiracy of radical Islamic terrorism"[6] responsible for the September 11 atrocities. Counterterrorism expert Steven Emerson calls it "a radical fundamentalist front group for Hamas."[7]

Of particular note are the American Muslims who reject CAIR's claim to speak on their behalf. The late Seifeldin Ashmawy, publisher of the New Jersey-based Voice of Peace, called CAIR the champion of "extremists whose views do not represent Islam."[8] Jamal Hasan of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance explains that CAIR's goal is to spread "Islamic hegemony the world over by hook or by crook."[9] Kamal Nawash, head of Free Muslims Against Terrorism, finds that CAIR and similar groups condemn terrorism on the surface while endorsing an ideology that helps foster extremism, adding that "almost all of their members are theocratic Muslims who reject secularism and want to establish Islamic states."

CAIR's fostering of extremist Islam varies from the laughable - like their photoshopping of hijabs onto the bare heads of women pictured at a photo-op - to the horrifying, like their blatant antisemitism and support for Muslim supremacy. To this observer, it seems as though CAIR is little more than a well-funded propaganda group aimed at downplaying and whitewashing the danger of Islamic terrorism and extremism.

In 1998 the group demanded the removal of a billboard in Los Angeles which depicted Osama bin Laden as "America's sworn enemy."

In April of 2005 the founder of a Texas chapter of CAIR was convicted of supporting terrorism.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks CAIR was caught misdirecting funds they were allegedly gathering for 9/11 relief to Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a group that later had its funds frozen by the Treasury Department because the group was funding Hamas. Later, in 2004, the Holy Land Foundation was indicted for conspiracy, providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization, tax evasion and money laundering (a case that is still in the works).

Just this year CAIR was pressuring schools to white wash the events of 9/11 in school textbooks in order to avoid giving students a bad impression of Islam.

I could go on and on about CAIR's connections to international terrorism and their efforts to downplay the threat of terrorism here in America, but those examples should tell you pretty much all you need to know about this group.

So why am I telling you all of this about CAIR? Certainly America has its fair share of radical, extremist, racist groups...so what does it matter that CAIR represents one more entry in that category? It matters because we are in the midst of a war against the very ideology CAIR supports, and many of our elected leaders seem to have political agendas that match up much too closely with CAIR's for comfort.

Check out this list of Representatives in the House who "support the interests" of CAIR as ranked by the organization itself (Democrats on the left, Republicans on the right):

Democrats	Rating	Republicans	Rating	Independents	Rating
Victor F. 'Vic' Snyder	100	Donald E. 'Don' Young	100	Bernard 'Bernie' Sanders	100
Ed Pastor	100	Richard W. Pombo	100
Raúl M. Grijalva	100	Ileana Ros-Lehtinen	100
C. Michael 'Mike' Thompson	100	Lincoln Diaz-Balart	100
Lynn C. Woolsey	100	Mario Diaz-Balart	100
George Miller	100	Christopher H. 'Chris' Smith	100
Nancy Pelosi	100	Heather A. Wilson	100
Barbara J. Lee	100	Ronald E. 'Ron' Paul	100
Ellen O. Tauscher	100
Tom Lantos	100
Fortney H. 'Pete' Stark	100
Zoe Lofgren	100
Sam Farr	100
Lois Capps	100
Brad J. Sherman	100
Howard L. Berman	100
Adam B. Schiff	100
Henry A. Waxman	100
Xavier Becerra	100
Hilda L. Solis	100
Diane E. Watson	100
Lucille Roybal-Allard	100
Maxine Waters	100
Jane Harman	100
Juanita Millender-McDonald	100
Grace Flores Napolitano	100
Linda T. Sánchez	100
Joe Baca	100
Bob Filner	100
Susan A. Davis	100
Diana L. DeGette	100
Mark E. Udall	100
John B. Larson	100
Rosa L. DeLauro	100
Corrine Brown	100
Kendrick B. Meek	100
Robert Wexler	100
Debbie Wasserman Schultz	100
Alcee L. Hastings	100
Cynthia Ann McKinney	100
John R. Lewis	100
Neil Abercrombie	100
Leonard L. Boswell	100
Bobby L. Rush	100
Jesse Louis Jackson	100
Luis V. Gutierrez	100
Rahm Emanuel	100
Danny K. Davis	100
Janice D. 'Jan' Schakowsky	100
Lane A. Evans	100
Peter J. Visclosky	100
Julia M. Carson	100
Dennis Moore	100
William J. Jefferson	100
John W. Olver	100
Richard E. Neal	100
James P. 'Jim' McGovern	100
Barney Frank	100
Martin T. 'Marty' Meehan	100
John F. Tierney	100
Edward J. 'Ed' Markey	100
Michael E. Capuano	100
Stephen F. Lynch	100
William D. 'Bill' Delahunt	100
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger	100
Benjamin L. Cardin	100
Albert R. Wynn	100
Steny H. Hoyer	100
Elijah E. Cummings	100
Christopher 'Chris' Van Hollen	100
Thomas H. Allen	100
Michael H. Michaud	100
Dale E. Kildee	100
Sander M. Levin	100
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick	100
John Conyers	100
John D. Dingell	100
Betty McCollum	100
Martin Olav Sabo	100
James L. Oberstar	100
William Lacy Clay	100
John Russell 'Russ' Carnahan	100
Emanuel Cleaver	100
Bennie G. Thompson	100
Bob R. Etheridge	100
David Eugene Price	100
Melvin Luther 'Mel' Watt	100
R. Bradley 'Brad' Miller	100
Earl Pomeroy	100
Robert Menendez	100
Robert E. 'Rob' Andrews	100
Frank J. Pallone	100
William J. 'Bill' Pascrell	100
Steven R. Rothman	100
Donald M. Payne	100
Rush D. Holt	100
Tom S. Udall	100
Shelley Berkley	100
Timothy H. Bishop	100
Steve J. Israel	100
Carolyn McCarthy	100
Gary L. Ackerman	100
Gregory W. Meeks	100
Joseph Crowley	100
Jerrold L. Nadler	100
Anthony David Weiner	100
Edolphus 'Ed' Towns	100
Major R. Owens	100
Nydia M. Velázquez	100
Carolyn B. Maloney	100
Charles B. 'Charlie' Rangel	100
José E. Serrano	100
Eliot L. Engel	100
Nita M. Lowey	100
Brian M. Higgins	100
Louise McIntosh Slaughter	100
Marcy Kaptur	100
Dennis J. Kucinich	100
Stephanie Tubbs Jones	100
Sherrod C. Brown	100
David Wu	100
Earl Blumenauer	100
Robert A. 'Bob' Brady	100
Chaka Fattah	100
John P. 'Jack' Murtha	100
Allyson Y. Schwartz	100
Michael F. 'Mike' Doyle	100
Patrick Joseph Kennedy	100
James R. 'Jim' Langevin	100
John Spratt	100
John Spratt	100
Al Green	100
Silvestre Reyes	100
Sheila Jackson Lee	100
Charles A. 'Charlie' Gonzalez	100
Lloyd A. Doggett	100
Solomon P. Ortiz	100
Eddie Bernice Johnson	100
Robert C. 'Bobby' Scott	100
James P. Moran	100
Jay Inslee	100
Rick Larsen	100
Brian N. Baird	100
Norman D. 'Norm' Dicks	100
James A. 'Jim' McDermott	100
Adam Smith	100
Tammy Baldwin	100
Ronald James 'Ron' Kind	100
Gwendolynne S. 'Gwen' Moore	100
David Ross Obey	100
Alan B. Mollohan	100
Nick Joe Rahall	100

By my count, there are 154 Democrats in the House of Representatives who get a 100% rating from the terror apologists at CAIR. Currently there are 201 Democrats total in the House, which means that a full 76%, more than 3/4's, of them get the CAIR stamp of approval.

On the flip side, there's only 8 Republicans who get CAIR's approval out of the 231 GOP'ers in the House. That's 3.5%.

I can't find where CAIR has issued rankings like this for the Senate, but I think you get the drift as to the sort of politicians CAIR lends its support to.

So what do we say about this? Well, maybe we should consider why it is that a terror-apologizing, terror-connected group like CAIR overwhelmingly supports one political party over the other. It just makes sense that CAIR should support the Democrats. The Dems oppose aggressive anti-terror techniques like NSA call monitoring, Treasury Department finance tracking (which has tripped up CAIR in the past as I pointed out above), and aggressive interrogation of terror detainees. They oppose fighting the war on terror in the middle east. They seem to think that we can hide out within our own borders and just react to terror attacks as they happen.

Even the Republicans CAIR supports are woefully weak on terrorism. As I type this NM Rep. Heather Wilson, who got a 100% rating in the list above, has proposed legislation that would require our government to wait until after a terror attack before authorizing an electronic surveillance program under FISA laws. What good does electronic surveillance do in the aftermath of a terrorist attack? If you say that it will help us round up those responsible, you may be right but most of those responsible for these attacks usually die in them because they're suicide attacks. And that point aside, our goal should be to protect ourselves from terror attacks, not round up those responsible for the attacks after several thousand of our fellow citizens have already been killed.

As far as I'm concerned, CAIR's list of recommendations works as a list of people Americans concerned about the war on terror shouldn't vote for under any circumstances. I think the people on this list, and the people who agree with the people on this list, need to consider the fact that they're finding themselves on the same side of our foreign policy as the allies of our enemies. I won't go so far as to say that they actively support terrorism, or that they are happy about receiving CAIR's endorsement, but the fact remains that their policy choices line up with CAIR's interests...and that's not a good thing.

Update: Some are wondering why CAIR's ratings are either 100% or 0%, which is something Rusty is questioning.

This bit of information from the Vote Smart website (where the data above was pulled from) may explain it:

Project Vote Smart collects performance evaluations from special interest groups who provide them, regardless of issue or bias. Most ratings reflect how often members of Congress or state legislators have voted with the organization's preferred position on legislation that the group considers key in their area. In general, ratings from special interest groups represent a biased or partisan stance. Some groups may select votes that tend to favor members of one political party over another, rather than choosing votes based solely on issue-related concerns.

Despite their bias, special interest group ratings can help indicate where an incumbent has stood on a particular set of issues in the past few years. They can be especially useful when ratings by groups on all sides of an issue are compared. Web site links, if available, and descriptions of the organizations offering ratings are accessible by clicking on the name of the group.

Most performance evaluations are displayed in a percentage format. However, some organizations present their ratings in the form of a letter grade or endorsement based on voting records, interviews, survey results and/or sources of campaign funding. For consistency, Project Vote Smart converts their scores into a percentage when possible.

It could be that CAIR did a "for or against" ranking of House politicians and Vote Smart converted it to percentages.

Update: Just got this email from Project Vote Smart:

Hi Rob,

The ratings from CAIR came in that percentage form i.e. We did not convert them. That said, they were - as you suspected - based upon a single vote (The Real ID Act). This is rare. But, nonetheless, that's where the figures came from.

Please feel free to contact Project Vote Smart again if you have additional factual questions or concerns.

Thank you,
Trevor Kluckman
vote-smart.org

Would have been nice had they put that little tid-bit of information with the rankings on their website.

Information on the Real ID Act.

Does this tick you off? Click here to email your elected representatives right here on Say Anything, or comment below.

Comments

Thanks for posting this information, Rob.

Kim Priestap on September 14, 2006 at 09:00 am

Rob if I were a zillionaire I’d buy a few pages in a few Newspaper and post this story.

The facts are simply amazing, I nearly fell off my chair when I saw how many Democrats were on that list!

Everyone should know about that list and what CAIR is really about.

Friend of USA on September 14, 2006 at 09:42 am

Ron Paul is a Libertarian in every sense of the word.

Are you sure what they rank as “supporting CAIR” isn’t Ron just voting against government involvement entirely?

FreeRepublicans.com on September 14, 2006 at 09:47 am

Rob
22123 comments
Send a private message

I don’t care if Ron Paul is a libertarian, if CAIR is giving hima 100% rating then he’s dead wrong on foreign policy…at least so far as the war on terror goes.

Which isn’t surprising because the people making the “we should just declare victory in the war on terror” argument lately are all libertarians.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob on September 14, 2006 at 09:56 am

Which isn’t surprising because the people making the “we should just declare victory in the war on terror” argument lately are all libertarians.

Libertarians were split on the war since Day 1. (It’s how I ended up associating with the GOP because I supported the war and most LPers didn’t)

Libertarians don’t support war in general, certainly not war in the name of Global Democratic Revolution. This is where Libertarians and Buchananites do see eye to eye.

FreeRepublicans.com on September 14, 2006 at 10:02 am

It’s interesting, if not terribly surprising, that the same Heather Wilson noted here earlier for her attempts to outlaw electronic surveillance except for a 45 day period AFTER and attack, shows up as one of the few Republicans endorsed by CAIR.

Along with John Murtha, Cynthia McKinney, and nearly all the Democrats’ House leadership.

Bat One on September 14, 2006 at 10:25 am

Where do we find out the issues or votes on which CAIR based its rankings? I mean, we can all guess, but it would be nice to see specifics.

Just wondering, because I know Robert Wexler (D-FL) is strongly pro-Israel, which ought to count against him in CAIR’s eyes, and I believe a bunch of the others are, too, including Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL).

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on September 14, 2006 at 11:24 am

I’m surprised to see Howard Berman (who’s from my neck of the woods) on the list. He’s a staunch supporter of Israel.
Could there be some mistake?

gregdn on September 14, 2006 at 12:13 pm

Yeah, I was kinda surprised to see Ileana Ros-Lehtinen on there too. And considering the scores are either 0 or 100, it leads me to believe the ratings are based on one vote. I wonder what that vote was?
I don’t get it. None of these are my people, but I’m not sure that one vote of theirs would make me change my vote (although that depends, of course).

Maybe it’s something to do with immigration? (Just guessing.)

Beth on September 14, 2006 at 12:14 pm

OK, I looked at some of the other groups, like the ones that are against Israel (for all practical purposes). Ros-Lehtinen and the two Diaz-Balarts are fine with those ratings, but Ron Paul? He’s voted consistently with the dhimmis on the foreign policy issues (per Vote Smart). And here’s another little thing I found that he wrote—published at Counterpunch. This too. UGH. Why the f*ck does this asshole call himself a “Republican?” He’s NOT. His opponent in the election is more of a friggin Republican than he is. (At least he calls himself a “conservative Democrat!”) F Ron Paul. I don’t even care about his other issues when he’s like this with national security/foreign policy.

Beth on September 14, 2006 at 12:33 pm

Uh Oh! Richard Pombo is my Congressman. I was considering not voting for him because one, he is an incumbant and two, he is tainted by Abramoff money. But, his Democratic challenger is soft on the war on terrorism. I was under the impression that Pombo wasn’t. I guess I’ll have to do some research on the other candidates.

Doug Purdie on September 14, 2006 at 01:36 pm

Rob
22123 comments
Send a private message

I wish I had more information on how CAIR came up with these rankings, but it just doesn’t seem to be out there.

Though, from what I can tell looking at the list, stance on American foreign policy seems more important than support for Israel. CAIR seems to be supporting the politicians who would have us pull out of the middle east and be less aggressive about fighting against the war on terror.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob on September 14, 2006 at 01:37 pm

Democrats that are on CAIR’s list who are also in the Progressive Caucus: Abercrombie, Baldwin, Becerra, C. Brown, S. Brown, Capuano, Carson, Clay, Cleaver, Conyers, Cummings, Davis, DeLauro, Evans, Farr, Fattah, Filner, Frank, Grijalva, Gutierrez, Jackson, Jackson-Lee, Jones, Kaptur, Kilpatrick, Kucinich, Lantos, B. Lee, Lewis, Markey, McDermott, McGovern, McKinney, Miller, G. Moore, Nadler, Olver, Owens, Pastor, Payne, Rangel, Rush, Sanders, Schakowsky, Serrano, Slaughter, Solis, Stark, B. Thompson, Tierney, T. Udall, Waters, Watson, Watt, Waxman, Woolsey.

Not on CAIR’s list: Bordallo, Christensen, DeFazio, Hinchey, Holmes-Norton, Velazquez.

Not surprising, as these people would likely vote together as a bloc.

It is surprising how many Progressives there are in the House. More than the last time I looked, last year. Currently sixty-two, or 14%.

Also interesting, that CAIR’s ratings are either 0% or 100%. Sounds like a case of “you’re either with us or against us”.

ZZMike on September 14, 2006 at 01:57 pm

Read The Letter at the end from Project Vote

Hi Rob,
The ratings from CAIR came in that percentage form i.e. We did not convert them. That said, they were - as you suspected - based upon a single vote (The Real ID Act). This is rare. But, nonetheless, that’s where the figures came from.

Charles on September 14, 2006 at 03:21 pm

Oh God! My congressman, Timothy Bishop is on the 100% list.

Babs on September 14, 2006 at 03:42 pm

Sorry to cross post with another blog but I think it very important we cross check these rankings before we go voting off some maybe good people.

I only had time to check one person; Congressman Benjamin Cardin (D) who wants my vote for Senator. According to CAIR he is 100%! But when I checked at AIPAC http://www.aipac.org… he voted the way I wanted him to vote on several occasions as a supporter of Israel. In fact I think he spoke at the Stand with Israel rally in DC over the summer.

Shifra on September 14, 2006 at 05:27 pm

Wow, CAIR really knows how to help their friends! I wants me some friends like CAIR!

2Hotel9 on September 14, 2006 at 05:53 pm

Well, the Real ID thing explains the three from Florida, considering it covers asylum-seekers as well (including Cubans). I can see why they would oppose it for that reason alone, even if they’re strongly anti-terror (anti-CAIR). I’d give Ros-Lehtinen and the two Diaz-Balarts a pass on this one. The other five, though, can kiss my ass.

Beth on September 14, 2006 at 06:44 pm

Well, good post and it points out that kitman is alive and weel in the US. The supporters of Islam in this country do not realise their peril.

That being said, Heather Wilson is in my district. I will vote for her. The alternative, NM Atty Gen Patricia Madrid IS a bleeding heart libtard. I wouldn’t vote her in as dog catcher in a town filled with rabid rottweilers (well, on second thought)......

On all other issues Wilson is solid. She votes the party consistently.

The Hobo

Robohobo on September 14, 2006 at 07:35 pm

So the CAIR rating is based entirely on a single vote. A vote against the Real ID Act put a person on the 100% side of the CAIR list. While I agree that the Democrats generally are less alarmed by the muslim problem, I have to say that I don’t think that one vote means all those people are in favor of CAIR. I’m willing to bet that by now, a year after that vote, that most if not all of them are well aware of just exactly what a crew of scumbags CAIR is. The same applies to the few Republicans that voted Nay.

This is the problem with party partisanship. People will follow the leader like lemmings and look to their party bosses to tell them which way to vote instead of using their own common sense and being concerned with how their vote will affect America and their home-state constituents. Which tells me that maybe a lot of them actually don’t have any common sense.

Anyway, while I’m not nuts about a lot of stuff the Democrats like, I have problems with a few items on the Republican Love List too. No one has a hammerlock on all the truth. All Republicans are not conservatives, all Democrats are not liberals. Most Democrats unfortunately tend to be liberals, so of course CAIR would rather align with them, but I bet most Democrats would rather not align with CAIR. Liberal doesn’t necessarily mean stupid…. At least not always.

So I take that CAIR list with a grain of salt, since it’s only based on a yea or nay vote one time, a year ago. Who knows where all those peoples heads are at now?

Bottom line is that Liberalism is affordable in peacetime but this isn’t peacetime. The liberals on both sides need to get with it or be voted out. The world has changed and a lot of freedoms have to be given up if we’re to win. Either bite the bullet or buy a prayer rug. That’s the choice.

Rastaman
http://www.islamanazi.com

Rastaman on September 14, 2006 at 09:14 pm

Let’s not call liberals PROGRESSIVES! That’s horrendous! Liberals are in the habit of destroying every thing that is beautiful. Liberals destroy babies before they’re born. They destroy our schools. They destroy minds. They are purveyors of destruction! They, too, should be called terrorists. So let us never call them progressives. THEY ARE LIBERALS! Period!

Philip Saenz on September 15, 2006 at 03:14 am

The ratings from CAIR came in that percentage form i.e. We did not convert them. That said, they were - as you suspected - based upon a single vote (The Real ID Act).

Jeez. It reminds me of that “John Kerry is the most liberal senator meme!”, a ranking that was based on like 17 votes from just one year. Why do people take this seriously?

Dave on September 15, 2006 at 04:43 am

Kerry’s entire political record labels him a liberal and a leftard. You think not, davey?

2Hotel9 on September 15, 2006 at 05:44 am

Kerry’s entire political record labels him a liberal and a leftard. You think not, davey?

I can think of a few senators with more liberal records than Kerry. I can think of a lot with more liberal records than his running mate, John Edwards. Senators vote on thousands of thousands of bills a year; these type of rankings that grade everyone based on how they voted on 20 issues in just one year are very flawed, as we’ve seen with these CAIR rankings.

And it’s fucking “whom.”

Dave on September 15, 2006 at 08:03 am

Denial Dave:

All rankings show Kerry as a very liberal Senator.

The Whistler on September 15, 2006 at 08:09 am

I agree. Just one showed him as the most liberal senator. There’s no possible way he’s more liberal than Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer. The National Journal admitted to the ways in which their “famous” rankings were wrong. The accurate rankings are here: (http://www.alternet.org/election04/19507/)

Kerry came in at No. 11, behind my aforementioned Kennedy and Boxer, as well as “Say Anything” regulars like Durbin and Leahy. Edwards was, not surprisingly for a southern senator, actually in the moderate wing of the party.

Dave on September 15, 2006 at 08:22 am

There’s no possible way he’s more liberal than Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer

He’s got that going for him. He’s also not as big a liar as Bill Clinton.

The Whistler on September 15, 2006 at 08:25 am

He’s got that going for him.

So you agree with what I wrote, and have just been pointlessly arguing for the sake of arguing. Lovely.

Dave on September 15, 2006 at 08:27 am

So you agree with what I wrote,

No I was using Sarcasm to make a point that it doesn’t make a difference between the liberalism of Kerry and Kennedy. Sorry it was over your head.

and have just been pointlessly arguing for the sake of arguing. Lovely.

No, I just joined the conversation to make a point that you had no point.

The Whistler on September 15, 2006 at 08:32 am

Inane circular arguments are all davey has. Notice he avoids addressing the actual topic, just expressing a fake concern for his hero, JFKerry.

2Hotel9 on September 15, 2006 at 08:40 am

This is not a “fake” concern you fucking idiot. CAIR released a ranking that wasbased on insufficient date and inaccurate. I pointed out that the National Journal had done the same thing back in ‘04. Then Whistler started arguing for the sake of arguing.

Whistler:

it doesn’t make a difference between the liberalism of Kerry and Kennedy.

If a lazy ranking based on insufficient evidence states that Kerry is more liberal than Kennedy (and, in fact, that Kerry is the most liberal of all), and the more accurate rankings state that Kerry is NOT the most liberal senator (and that Kennedy is more liberal than him), we have seen that the first rankings are flawed.

Don’t you have a fucking job or something?

Dave on September 15, 2006 at 08:57 am

Dave seems tense. Too much coffee or (insert Airplane II line here).

It’s a simple fact that Kerry and Kennedy are nearly identical. One group might see Kennedy 100% liberal and Kerry 99% liberal. Another group may see Kerry 100% liberal and Kennedy 99% liberal.

I fail to see any distinction.

The Whistler on September 15, 2006 at 09:02 am

robert108
33756 comments
Send a private message

Blog (RSS)

TW: In fact, it is the epitome of “a distinction without a difference.”

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 15, 2006 at 09:05 am

davey gonna squeeze a tear out for us now. I have a job, doing it between posting here. Why? Because it pisses you off, davey.

2Hotel9 on September 15, 2006 at 09:09 am

Dave seems tense. Too much coffee or (insert Airplane II line here).

Maybe he’s just sick of dealing with idiots.

Dave on September 15, 2006 at 09:17 am

robert108
33756 comments
Send a private message

Blog (RSS)

Ah, the Peaceful, Tolerant Vegan speaks.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 15, 2006 at 09:25 am

Then you best seperate you from yourself damn quick, davey.

2Hotel9 on September 15, 2006 at 09:28 am

Dave seems tense. Too much coffee

Maybe he’s just sick of dealing with idiots.
Dave on September 15, 2006 at 12:16 PM

He’s with himself 24/7/365

Dirty Jack Cash on September 15, 2006 at 09:52 am

An African American friend of mine stated to me once in a political debate over the NAACP that they were in his words ” the most racist group the world has ever seen”. When speaking to him the other day about the CAIR he stated. “The NAACP has some competition.”

And he is a US gov. employee

Mike on September 15, 2006 at 10:03 am

Mike, he is a wise man. If he gives you advice you should probably listen.

2Hotel9 on September 15, 2006 at 01:59 pm

A friend of mine alerted me to this outstanding article. Well done!

CAIR and its subversiveness of our culture is what made me jump into the blogosphere. I found a book placed by their library project—a book so filled with lies that I almost had a stroke reading it.

Why is CAIR even allowed to have any offices here in the United States? Must we promote the subversion of our nation?

Always On Watch on September 16, 2006 at 04:57 am

Bottom line is that Liberalism is affordable in peacetime but this isn’t peacetime. The liberals on both sides need to get with it or be voted out. The world has changed and a lot of freedoms have to be given up if we’re to win. Either bite the bullet or buy a prayer rug. That’s the choice.

Hardly. This “war” we are in consists of what? 9/11? This hardly compares to the incessant bombings of London by the Germans—day after day. May more killed. AND GUESS WHAT? They showed backbone. We act like little girls afraid of spiders. These “terrorists” suck. They have got nothing. Quit being so afraid of them. When did Americans become such wimps?

Bite the bullet. Yeah, bite the bullet and grow a backbone.

Jokerman66 on September 16, 2006 at 07:41 am

Interesting post. I’ve passed this on to Andrew Whitehead of Anti-CAIR. Hopefully he will post a comment.

Steve Harkonnen on September 16, 2006 at 05:32 pm

Now that you guys have sucessfully diverted attention away from the datum that the CAIR rating was based on a single vote out of hundreds, or thousands, you can deal with Davey.
I suggest you put on your brown shirts, hunt him down, and give him a good thrashing. Afterwards, you can enjoy a few beers and a good song. Here, I’ll get you started:

Die Fahne Hoch, die Reihen fest geschlossen
Die Strasse frei, den braunen Batallionen

you know the rest of the words, don’t you? Join in anytime!

michael on September 17, 2006 at 08:30 am

Rastaman

I’m willing to bet that by now, a year after that vote, that most if not all of them are well aware of just exactly what a crew of scumbags CAIR is. The same applies to the few Republicans that voted Nay.

I’m not so sure about this Rastaman. It’s easy to find out who is still in bed with them!

Bezu Fache on September 17, 2006 at 08:42 am

AOW presents two interesting questions:

Q: Why is CAIR even allowed to have any offices here in the United States?

A: Thanks to tolerance and pandering, it’s allowed. Thanks to the inactions of our president, it’s allowed. Thanks to the old world league of nations method of thought, it’s allowed.

Q: Must we promote the subversion of our nation?

A: We’ve been promoting that since the end of WWII. We’ve allowed our borders to be opened up so that virtually anyone can cross it. We’ve been promoting “multi-culturalism,” which is a total joke; all that does is dilute our security and our national pride.

Steve Harkonnen on September 17, 2006 at 08:45 am

Michael

Now that you guys have sucessfully diverted attention away from the datum that the CAIR rating was based on a single vote out of hundreds, or thousands….brown shirts…Nazis…singing german folksongs..beerhalls…and more liberal vomit etc

The ratings indicate the degree that each elected official supported the interests of the CAIR in that year.So it wasn’t hundreds or thousands.

Michael’s remark is just another example of exagerated emotional hyperbole in place of facts.

Here’s CAIR’s rating list of politicians friendly to their cause.

LIST

Bezu Fache on September 17, 2006 at 09:00 am

Bezu

The ratings indicate the degree that each elected official supported the interests of the CAIR in that year.So it wasn’t hundreds or thousands.

Stunning affirmation of my original thesis, i.e., one vote. Real ID is a stinker no matter which side of the aisle you’re on, and for that chance coincidence to be used to condemn reps as “supporting CAIR” is moronic, at best.
As someone who ecstatically supported Reagan, I’ll let your “liberal vomit” slide. I can recognize a brown-shirting when I see one, though. I’m sure Dave has a history here that provokes such reaction; his point about skewed statistics was dead-on.

michael on September 17, 2006 at 09:32 am

the CAIR rating was based on a single vote out of hundreds, or thousands,
michael on September 17, 2006 at 11:30 AM

Good try!

Your faulty assumption that led to your flawed conclusion is that there were hundreds maybe even thousands of votes on CAIR that year, and out of those, the politicians only voted once to support CAIR.
How many votes on this issue were there that year?
Do you even know?

If there was only “ONE” vote, and the politician voted in favor of CAIR, would you concede that the level of support was 100%?

Stunning affirmation of my original thesis

More arrogant liberal vomit!!

Bezu Fache on September 17, 2006 at 09:55 am

The ratings indicate the degree that each elected official supported the interests of the CAIR in that year.So it wasn’t hundreds or thousands.

How many votes does the Senate cast a year? According to you, it’s fewer than 100.

Dave on September 17, 2006 at 10:07 am

How many votes does the Senate cast a year? According to you, it’s fewer than 100

Sorry Davey boy- the question is not how many votes the senate casts a year but rather how many did they cast about support of CAIR in a year.

Bezu Fache on September 17, 2006 at 11:11 am

Would you characterize a vote against the patriot act as a vote in support of CAIR?

Bezu Fache on September 17, 2006 at 11:13 am

One vote (that happened to be on a bill CAIR was ineterested in) out of hundreds cast (on all bills) by the House. Your willful refusal to understand speaks volumes.
If a representative voted in favor of a bill that by coincidence was one favored by, oh, say Opus Dei, would that mean he voted to “support” Opus Dei?
If you say yes, you are irretrievably stupid and further discussion is pointless. Bills are voted for and against for all sorts of reasons. Real ID is a hideous invasion of privacy, and should have been voted down. The fact that there was a tangential interest in the bill by CAIR, and that they chose to trumpet opposition to the bill as “support” of their cause, was a propaganda ploy intended to suck in the gullible and stupid.
Obviously, it worked like a charm.
We who look at bills on their own merits and not on what fringe group might “support” or “oppose” the bill are able to bring a somewhat more mature perspective to the table.

michael on September 17, 2006 at 11:21 am

Would you characterize a vote against the patriot act as a vote in support of CAIR?

Would you characterize a vote against gay marriage rights as a vote in support of CAIR? It demonstrably is something they would support. That puts a big chunk of the Republican members “in support of CAIR”.

michael on September 17, 2006 at 11:28 am

One vote (that happened to be on a bill CAIR was ineterested in) out of hundreds cast (on all bills) by the House…. a representative voted in favor of a bill… by coincidence

OK…coincidence then. I’ll accept that. A far cry from “Stunning affirmation of my original thesis”

Bezu Fache on September 17, 2006 at 11:34 am

Bezu, True or False:

The CAIR rankings Rob posted in this story are based on exactly one vote.

Dave on September 17, 2006 at 11:47 am

The headline says “who the terror apologists support”. Rob’s got a list of who they gave money to for whatever their reasons. By the way, it’s maddening that they support Rob’s congressman, Earl Pomeroy.

The Whistler on September 17, 2006 at 11:51 am

By the way, I (and almost every conservative on this blog) agree with the Ku Klux Klan on affirmative action. This does not mean we agree with them on, say, lynching black people.

Dave on September 17, 2006 at 11:51 am

Rob’s got a list of who they gave money to for whatever their reasons.

Where is this list? My spidey sense isn’t working today.

Dave on September 17, 2006 at 11:54 am

Ummm, right above the comments.

The Whistler on September 17, 2006 at 11:56 am

Oh Whistler, it’s never too late to learn how to read.

Dave on September 17, 2006 at 12:08 pm

It’s not a matter of it being a true or false question about one vote Dave but a question about the degree of support.
Since you and Michael wanted to split hairs over numbers I asked:
“If there was only “ONE” vote, and the politician voted in favor of CAIR’s interests, would you concede that the level of support was 100%?

So, if there were 5 votes on bills that supported CAIR’s interest and a Senator voted 5 times in favor of it, that would also be 100%.

Please, by all means, take Rob’s list and break it down for us by Representaive and then by vote.

Then tell us why you feel that their support or lack of support for a prticular bill proves or disproves your assertion.

Bezu Fache on September 17, 2006 at 12:10 pm

Time to go to work…
Don’t miss me too much Dave
Sincerely,
Bezu “Dave’s Best Friend” Fache

Bezu Fache on September 17, 2006 at 12:16 pm

Bezu: All this list tells us is how our Congressmen voted on the Real ID act. That’s it. Nothing else. Rob’s even dropped it, and he started the damn thread. Give it up.

Dave on September 17, 2006 at 12:16 pm

1. Terror Apologists oppose the Real ID Act.
2. 160 Congressmen opposed the Real ID Act.
3. Therefore, these 160 Congressmen support the terror apologists.

——————————————————-

1. Hitler rode a bicycle.
2. George Bush rides a bicycle.
3. George Bush supports Hitler!!!

These are fun! It’s amazing what you can say when you abandon entirely the rules of logic.

Dave on September 17, 2006 at 12:20 pm

robert108
33756 comments
Send a private message

Blog (RSS)

Dave: Tell us about it; you do it all the time.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 17, 2006 at 12:49 pm

Or maybe they have additional reasons to give money to those congressmen.

The Whistler on September 17, 2006 at 01:32 pm

Whistler:

Or maybe they have additional reasons to give money to those congressmen.

What money, when did they give it, how do you know this? Buck the trend and state a fact.

dave on September 17, 2006 at 02:20 pm

I misread, my mistake those Congressmen did not take money from these folks.

Sorry.

Once again I learn to read carefully before I jump in.

The Whistler on September 17, 2006 at 03:42 pm

davey don’t, why should you?

2Hotel9 on September 17, 2006 at 03:47 pm

Cause I like to think I’m better than that.

The Whistler on September 17, 2006 at 03:51 pm

1. Hitler rode a bicycle.
2. George Bush rides a bicycle.
3. George Bush supports Hitler!!!

I like this game. let me try,

1. American leftists hate the USA as it is now.
2. Islamic terrorists hate the USA as it is now
3. They support each other!!!

Ok I admit it I needed an excuse to show my new
“G” rated Gravatar…

Friend of USA on September 17, 2006 at 04:12 pm

Come on, Toot. This is davey we are talking about. Remeber? Infanticide boy? And when people held his feet to the fire on that one he blew it off with"I did not really mean that.” So anything you say to him is fine, cause he really does not mean or believe anything he posts.

2Hotel9 on September 17, 2006 at 04:17 pm

And when people held his feet to the fire on that one he blew it off with"I did not really mean that.”

You’ve made this claim in like 3 different threads now (am I that fascinating to you?). Can you at least link to it so I can see how exactly you’re twisting it? Thanks. (If you’re not twisting my words, you have nothing to hide.)

Dave on September 17, 2006 at 04:57 pm

So now you are saying you do support infanticide?

2Hotel9 on September 17, 2006 at 06:24 pm

You’ve quoted me as saying “I did not really mean that” without A)Telling me what “that” means or B)Providing a link to this quote.

I have always supported infanticide. You are the one making the positive claim here: provide proof that I’ve changed my mind on this issue.

It looks like your feet are on the fire now. Will you pussy out again?

Dave on September 17, 2006 at 06:39 pm

I have always supported infanticide.

I hope you get a chance to debate the issue in your next job interview.

The Whistler on September 17, 2006 at 06:45 pm

Round and round and round,,,,,,,

2Hotel9 on September 17, 2006 at 07:17 pm

I wrote:

Will you pussy out again?

2hotel9 responds with:

Yes! Because I never have proof of my allegations, because I just make shit up all the time!

Dave on September 17, 2006 at 07:20 pm

“Democrats: Striving Every Day to Protect the Rights of Terrorists, from Evil Americans Who Might Do Them Harm.”

Alexander Alt on September 21, 2006 at 12:34 am

Good design!
My homepage | Cool site

Don on September 21, 2006 at 06:35 pm

Now davey gonna cry? WAAAAA! Your such a self absorbed hoser.

2Hotel9 on September 22, 2006 at 04:30 pm

Good investigating report, rob.

CAIR is nothing but a Wolf in Sheeps clothing.

I only had time to check one person; Congressman Benjamin Cardin (D) who wants my vote for Senator. According to CAIR he is 100%! But when I checked at AIPAC http://www.aipac.org… he voted the way I wanted him to vote on several occasions as a supporter of Israel. In fact I think he spoke at the Stand with Israel rally in DC over the summer.

Ben Cardin is also a Jew.

aNONOMISLY on September 22, 2006 at 04:47 pm

robert108
33756 comments
Send a private message

Blog (RSS)

Dave: Since you are known to be unable to do simple logic, I will school you.

1. Hitler rode a bicycle. 2. George Bush rides a bicycle. 3. George Bush supports Hitler!!!

The missing step: Everybody who rides a bicycle supports everyone else who rides a bicycle in everything.
If you had said that, your syllogism might have added up, except that the statement is obviously untrue. Try again.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 22, 2006 at 04:51 pm

Page 1 of 1

Kenny: [quote]But bush could have vetoed a spending bill, even ONE while the republicans were spending...

Bat One: [quote]Bush was too busy shoveling the money to his friends to veto anything.[/quote] Even if...

Anna: Ahhh... thank you dogman. It's so refreshing to get away from all the Michael Jackson...

Kenny: [quote]The context in this case matters not.[/quote] I can't imagine any case in which context...

Bat One: [quote]The advertising for 401ks touted the idea that if you put money in regularly you’d...

DINO: Employment lags a recovery. That said, I didn't say I agreed with the assessment, I...

DINO: But bush could have vetoed a spending bill, even ONE while the republicans were spending...

Sandy: Dino, where has the recesstion peaked? One out of every ten Americans have lost their...

realitybasedbob: ...

realitybasedbob: Hey My Pet Turd? What kept you so long? You're slipping on you stalking duties...

Neiman: [quote]Oh and Neiman, the treasury was not increasing its income when you consider that the...

Jackass Jimmy: And therefore gays are automatically pedophiles. This is no better than the false logic pushed...

robert108: [quote]The context in this case matters not.[/quote] Not to an arrogant, ignorant liar like you,...

robert108: [quote]Oh and Neiman, the treasury was not increasing its income when you consider that the...

DINO: [quote] It seem like the SEC chair appointed by Bush turned his head to what...

Name
Email
URL
Human?

Say Anything Blog

Thursday, September 14, 2006