September 5, 2007
Sep 05 04:01 Muslims Say "Stop Stereotyping Us" Sep 05 04:54 Couric Sees Encouraging Signs In Iraq Sep 05 11:57 What Took Them So Long? Sep 05 17:20 What Will Ciresi Do? Sep 05 17:38 Arne Carlson Contributes to Ellison Campaign
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006
Muslims Say "Stop Stereotyping Us"
That's the essence of this NY Times article. I'll respond to that with a question: Is it wrong for non-Muslims to question the actions of Rep. Keith Ellison, who claims that he's a mainstream Muslim, when he speaks at the MAS-Minnesota convention? Is it a mainstream Muslim belief that they can spew anti-Semitism on their websites but then pretend to be friends of Jews? Is it a mainstream Muslim practice to refuse to denounce the anti-Semitism found on MAS-Minnesota's website? That's what Rep. Ellison has refused to do for over 90 days.
According to Dictionary.com, the definition of stereotype is "a too-simple and therefore distorted image of a group , such as "Football players are stupid" or "The English are cold and unfriendly people." How is it stereotyping when we're providing specific , accurate reasons for mistrusting specific Muslims? According to the Dictionary.com definition, stereotypes are categorical in nature. The questions I have are specific and directed at specific people and organizations.
Since the definition of stereotyping is essentially oversimplification, doesn't my referring to specific events and people prove that I'm not stereotyping? For instance, I'm not saying that Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is a terrorist or a terrorist-sympathizer. I won't make that statement without there being a basis in fact for the statement. Here's something from the NY Times article that plays into the 'stereotyping' meme:
A fresh example cited was an open letter from two Republican House members, Peter Hoekstra of Michigan and Sue Myrick of North Carolina, that attacked the Justice Department for sending envoys to the convention because, the lawmakers said, the Islamic Society of North America was a group of "radical jihadists."Being lectured by Keith Ellison on the issue of bigotry is insulting. Since Rep. Ellison refuses to denounce the anti-semitic statements found on the MAS-Minnesota website, why should we take his accusations of bigotry seriously?
The lone Muslim in Congress, Representative Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota, the keynote speaker here, dismissed the letter as ill informed and typical of bigoted attacks that other minorities have suffered.
I'd further challenge Rep. Ellison to provide proof that ISNA isn't a "group of 'radical jihadists'". Here's my proof that they are:
Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was co-founded by convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) leader Sami Al-Arian. Here's a list of former ISNA members and their profiles:
Sirhaj Wahhaj:
Siraj Wahhaj was named by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White as a possible co-conspirator to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and testified as a character witness for convicted terror mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. According to Salon.com, in a 1991 speech before the Islamic Association of North Texas, Wahhaj called Operation Desert Storm "one of the most diabolical plots ever in the annals of history," and predicted that America will fall unless it "accepts the Islamic agenda." He has openly expressed his desire to see the American government replaced with a caliphate.
Muzammil Siddiqi:
Muzammil Siddiqi is the former president of the board of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Saudi-funded organization that is used by the Muslim World League (MWL) to finance and exercise control over most of the mosques in the United States. Prior to his work at ISNA, Siddiqi was a top figure in the MWL, whose American headquarters in Virginia were raided by a Treasury Department task force in March 2002 on suspicion of ties to terrorism. Siddiqi has also chaired the Religious Affairs Committee of the Muslim Students Association of the U.S. and Canada. In addition, he is a member of the Fiqh Council, another government-raided entity.
Abdullah Idris Ali:I can further add that Alamoudi was the chief fundraiser for the legal defense funds for Omar Abdel Rahman and Mousa Abu Marzook:
Abdullah Idris Ali served as president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) from 1992-1997. ISNA enforces Wahhabi theological writ in some 1,200 American mosques, determining who will speak at every Friday prayer, and which literature will be distributed there. Ali is a member of the board of trustees for the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), a Saudi Wahhabi financial institution that, according to a CAIR report, owns about 27 percent of the estimated 1,200 mosques in the United States. Wahhabism is the most extreme, intolerant, violent form of Islam. Ali is also on the board of advisors for the American Muslim Council (AMC), whose founder and leader, Abdul Rahman Alamoudi, has publicly proclaimed his support for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Moreover, Alamoudi was arrested in September 2003 for illegally failing to notify the U.S. State Department of his numerous trips to Libya; illegally accepting $10,700 from the Libyan mission to the United Nations; and using two American and one Yemeni passport for at least ten of those trips.
Hillary Clinton has worked particularly closely with the head of the AMC, Abdurahman Alamoudi, who has openly collected funds for the legal defense of Mr Marzook, the Hamas chieftain arrested at JFK Airport, and for Mr. Abdel-Rahman, who organized the World Trade Center bombing.In other words, ISNA's leadership over the years was littered with men convicted of terrorist activities. They've even raised money for Hamas chieftains and the Blind Sheikh, the mastermind behind the first World Trade Center bombing. Given that type of history, why shouldn't Rep. Hoekstra and Rep. Myrick call ISNA "a group of 'radical jihadists'"?
It goes even further than that. Here are the speakers at this year's ISNA Convention:
- Abdalla Idris Ali
- Abdullah Adhami
- Aisha Al-Adawiyya
- Altaf Husain
- Hamza Yusuf
- Ihsan Bagby
- Ingrid Mattson
- Jamal Badawi
- Maha Hamoui
- Muneer Fareed
- Muzammil Siddiqi
- Sherman Abd al-Hakim Jackson
- Siraj Wahhaj
- Umar F. Abd-Allah
- Zaid Shakir
Considering all this information, how can Rep. Ellison say that Rep. Hoekstra and Rep. Myrick are "ill-informed" whose letter was "typical of bigoted attacks that other minorities have suffered"? Rep. Ellison should have to explain why he thinks Rep. Hoekstra and Rep. Myrick are bigots. Their criticism of ISNA isn't based on this definition of bigotry:
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.Quite the contrary, Myrick's and Hoekstra's accusations against ISNA are based on actions, mostly based on the illegal actions of ISNA's past leadership. Myrick's and Hoekstra's accusations don't come close to fitting the official definition of bigotry. Ellison's accusations of bigotry should be ignored. Rep. Ellison, like his CAIR friends, use the word bigotry as frequently as they use the word Islamophobia.
Leaders of American Muslim organizations attribute the growing intolerance to three main factors: global terrorist attacks in the name of Islam, disappointing reports from the Iraq war and the agenda of some supporters of Israel who try taint Islam to undermine the Palestinians.I'll speak only for myself. The reason I've criticized specific Muslims is because of their verified actions. My criticisms don't have anything to do with "disappointing reports from Iraq." They certainly don't have anything to do with what supporters of Israel are saying. Most of the people that I've criticized in this post have been convicted of criminal activities relating to terrorists. I'd doubt that the average person would say that my criticisms are bigoted, though I'm certain that Rep. Ellison and other CAIR/ISNA mouthpieces would instantly criticize me as an ill-informed, and possibly bigoted, Islamophobe.
That's just part of the territory when reporting on people who'll say anything to draw attention away from their illegal and unsavory behavior.
Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2007 4:02 AM
No comments.
Couric Sees Encouraging Signs In Iraq
Yes, you read that right. At a time when Democrats seem to have adopted a 'See Only Evil' approach, Katie Couric is reporting that there's an abundance of positive things happening in Iraq. Here's a sample of what she's saying:
Now Fallujah is "considered a real role model of something working right in Iraq," Couric said. Many more Iraqis have joined the Iraqi Security Forces in the overwhelmingly Sunni Anbar province. Despite mutual distrust, stemming from the power shift after Saddam Hussein's Baathist government fell, Sunnis and Shiites are working together in the ISF to fight al Qaeda in Iraq.That isn't news that Harry Reid wanted to hear but it's information that we've seen elsewhere. That's why I got a kick out of Danielle Knight's article. She made it sound like the outcome was in doubt as to whether Democrats could get 60 votes to start bringing the troops home. With so much positive news now getting reported, I suspect that some of the Democrats facing re-election in 2008 will side with Republicans. Talk about whether Republicans will abandon President Bush is pure political theater.
Katie Couric's reporting is just another shot in the arm to the Bush administration. Here's another bit of information from Couric's trip that has the Bush administration smiling:
"The spike in police has really been significant," Couric said. "The incidents in Iraq have gone down dramatically." Security and stability have improved in Iraq, but basic services remain in disrepair. "I think everyone I talk to agrees that restoring basic services is really an imperative step in bringing stability and some kind of sense of society to Iraq," Couric said.Unless I miss my guess, the American people will be sufficiently impressed with what's happening in Iraq to side with President Bush keeping the surge going. That doesn't mean that all worries have faded into oblivion. Clearly, there's still much progress to be made.
One thing that's undeniable is the effect that Gen. Petraeus has had on the improving conditions in Iraq. Without his surge strategy in Anbar Province, regional reconciliation wouldn't be happening. Without regional reconciliation, Sunnis would likely still be helping AQI terrorists. It's doubtful that Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri would've switched sides without proof that the surge is working.
Democrats have already decided to hitch their star to the lack of political progress in the Iraqi Parliament. I'd bet that the American people will be more focused on the military progress that's being made.
I've chided Katie Couric more than a few times but I'll give her her due. She went to Iraq; she found progress happening there and she reported what she saw. For that, she should be given credit.
Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2007 4:55 AM
Comment 1 by jay k. at 05-Sep-07 09:02 AM
I'm sorry - I don't see the quote were she says she is seeing only what the military wants her to see. when your argument is based on half the story, then how good is your argument?
Comment 2 by ME at 05-Sep-07 09:05 AM
"I've chided Katie Couric more than a few times but I'll give her her due. She went to Iraq; she found progress happening there and she reported what she saw. For that, she should be given credit."
Yeah, but only because she reported progress. Just imagine what you;d be saying if she courageously went there, only to report disaster in Iraq?
Comment 3 by fred at 05-Sep-07 10:38 AM
Wow, Katie Couric says it, so it must be true. Grasping at straws anyone?
Comment 4 by Philadelphia Steve at 05-Sep-07 11:31 AM
Does this mean we give the Bush Administratin another "Friedman" because ther are signs that, perhaps, Bush's occupation might work, someday, maybe?
There is only one thing going on here: That is George W. Bush is going to run out the clock to January 2009, so he can "get out of Dodge" while dedclaring that "we were on the road to Victory when I was President."
And all the lives that will be lost, bodies maimed, in the mean time? Well, that is just the price they will have to pay to preserve the Bush ego.
Shame on everyone who is abeting Bush's stalling tactics. The "war" in Iraq was lost the first month that Rumsfeld botched the occupation. All that is left is for some other president to clean up the mess, while Conservatives protect one of their own, at the cost of thousands of lives and a nation's treasure.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 05-Sep-07 12:03 PM
"I've chided Katie Couric more than a few times but I'll give her her due. She went to Iraq; she found progress happening there and she reported what she saw. For that, she should be given credit."
Yeah, but only because she reported progress. Just imagine what you;d be saying if she courageously went there, only to report disaster in Iraq?
I'm giving her credit for not automatically spewing the DNC talking points. Anyone who's read this blog knows that I've posted frequently about Anbar province turning against AQI terrorists.
Just because you deny that progress is being made doesn't mean that you're right.
I'm basing my opinions on verifiable facts, not allegations.
Comment 6 by Robert at 05-Sep-07 12:13 PM
So, you're saying The Surge didn't work, but this new "way" of getting Iraqi's in the country to fight AQ will work.
Is this Iraq war plan v4.0?
"6 days or 6 weeks, but certainly not 6 months"
Comment 7 by gil at 05-Sep-07 02:12 PM
Is nice that things are improving in Fallujah. But can any Right Winger please point to me from where do they find the relation between a Sunni-US Army agreement in the Anbar province and the surge in Baghdad???
And furthermore, do you Right Wingers understand that your new found Sunni friends are the same "Dead-enders" Rummsfeld made reference in 2003?? Now they are not "dead enders" any more????
Frankly Right WIngers you are full of it.
Comment 8 by gil at 05-Sep-07 02:34 PM
I don't believe that any one Left or Right can point to one single instance where our U.S. Army has not accomplished it's mission in Iraq. Operation after operation, and surge after surge our Army has done it all.
So for you Right Wingers to point to the success of this latest surge as some "evidence" that progress is been made in Iraq misses the point. Progress always happens when our troops are around.
PROGRESS STOPS WHEN OUR ARMY LIVES THE FIELD.
And our Army can't be in Iraq forever. And this latest surge, like all the other ones will have to end..... At the end of the Bush Presidency of course.
Your good-for-nothing "Leader" can say that he was always good for one more surge, and one more operation, and "progress" lot's and lot's of "progress" trough the many years .... But nothing more. Hell, after Bush the word "progress" will be retired from the English Language in his honor.
So please Right WIngers, stop trying so hard to be such smart asses will you? We all know what your end game is by now.
Live the mess to the next President.... Hopefully a Democrat so that you can blame him/her for loosing the war you could never win.
By then in a Democratic Administration, you will finally turn around to ask for ACCOUNTABILITY not, never ending "PROGRESS" that misteriously under Republicans never translated to darn thing.
Sorry Republicans but you can't spin a victory, that's why you never got yours.
What Took Them So Long?
According to this Strib article, Larry Pogemiller and Maggie Kelliher have agreed to a limited session. Needless to say, King and Michael are delighted with this outcome. Meanwhile, Andy asks whether Gov. Pawlenty got played. Andy, the simple answer to your question is no. Here's how King sees things:
If that happens, and the DFL doesn't get the gas tax, or LGA/property tax, or a bonding bill, or all the other things Pogie says he didn't say but his uncontrollable caucus does, that looks like a victory for the governor's office. Those who have doubted him from the conservative ranks will have egg on their faces. Those from the liberal ranks who thought they were getting their untimed down will curse the fates.The minute that Gov. Pawlenty put together that Minnesota Recovers website and the relief packages came online, the dynamic of the special session changed. Had Sen. Pogemiller and Speaker Kelliher (mostly Pogemiller) stuck to their guns, the DFL would've been seen as irrelevant to southeastern Minnesota's recovery, which would've made DFL candidates vulnerable in 2008.
That the DFL caved doesn't mean that they didn't take any shots at Gov. Pawlenty:
"It is unfortunate that you are unable to act decisively and comprehensively to the transportation challenge, either due to philosophy or politics," the letter said. "However, we agree the emergency needs from the bridge collapse and the flooding remain and must be dealt with immediately."Gov. Pawlenty didn't let that cheapshot go unanswered:
In his response Tuesday, Pawlenty wrote back that any special session on bridge reconstruction could wait until after federal funding responses have been tallied.He also said he will announce a series of executive actions shortly to deal with short-term issues related to the flooding, effectively bypassing the Legislature.
Gov. Pawlenty is essentially saying that special sessions shouldn't be used for refighting the last session's battles, a position that most GOP activists and political independents agree with. The final outcome is positive politically for the GOP, too, because Pogemiller and Kelliher will want to revisit the tax increases next session, thus giving Republicans a campaign issue for 2008.
In fact, if the DFL returns to the issue of tax increases, the GOP should remind people that the DFL is the party of reflexive tax increases of all shapes and sizes. Frankly, I'd be surprised if taxes isn't the dominant issue in next year's campaign for the Minnesota legislature. The only way it wouldn't be is if the DFL suddenly became the tax-cutting party, which we know ain't gonna happen this generation.
Previously, DFLers had indicated that such issues as property tax relief and a bonding bill would be part of a special session's agenda. Now, they are suggesting that Pawlenty call the special session for Tuesday and that it end no later than next Wednesday. House and Senate committees could begin meeting as early as Friday and Monday to complete a package, the letter suggested.The DFL's tune has changed because they're at risk of looking irrelevant in the recovery process. If they don't agree to Gov. Pawlenty's plans for a special session, they DFL will have not played a significant role in the recoveries. That's political suicide anytime but especially heading into an election year in which they're already behind the 8 ball.
They're behind the 8 ball because the DFL leadership passed massive tax increases when we had a surplus. I'll guarantee that small business owners weren't pleased with that stunt. I'll guarantee that they won't forget that next fall, either.
Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2007 11:57 AM
No comments.
What Will Ciresi Do?
In light of the fact that Mike Ciresi contributed $750 to Keith Ellison's warchest this year, will Mr. Ciresi apologize for contributing to the campaign of an anti-Semite? Something tells me that they won't.
This raises some questions about Mr. Ciresi. The first question I have is whether Ciresi bothered to look into Keith Ellison's anti-semitic history. Another question I'd ask is whether he knew about it and still contributed to Ellison's campaign. Another question I'd have is what type of man would contribute to an anti-Semite's warchest.
I'm fairly certain that Ciresi will try explaining it away by saying that it's just a case of him contributing to the campaign of another Democrat. If he were contributing to any other candidate, that explanation would work. Since Rep. Ellison still hasn't criticized the Minnesota chapter of MAS for the anti-semitic remarks on their website, that explanation doesn't work. Here are some of the anti-semitic statements taken from the MAS-Minnesota website:
- "The Holy Prophet (and through him the Muslims) has been reassured that he should not mind the enmity, the evil designs and the machinations of the Jews, but continue exerting his utmost to establish the Right Way in accordance with the Guidance of the Quran."
- "In view of the degenerate moral condition of the Jews and the Christians, the Believers have been warned not to make them their friends and confidants."
- "If you gain victory over the men of Jews, kill them."
- "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.'"
- "May Allah destroy the Jews, because they used the graves of their prophets as places of worship."
This is a serious test of Mr. Ciresi's character. We'll all be watching.
Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2007 5:20 PM
No comments.
Arne Carlson Contributes to Ellison Campaign
According to Keith Ellison's FEC report, former Gov. Arne Carlson contributed this year to Ellison's campaign. This is appalling news considering Ellison's anti-semitic history. I just posted something about how disgusted I was at finding out that US Senate candidate Mike Ciresi contributed to Ellison's campaign. Since I wouldn't cut Mr. Ciresi any slack, I certainly won't be inclined to cut a former GOP governor any slack for contributing to Ellison's campaign.
As a private citizen, Gov. Carlson can do anything he wants as long as he doesn't violate the law. That said, Minnesotans should expect more from their elected officials. Why would anyone contribute to an anti-Semite like Rep. Ellison? The thought that a former GOP governor, albeit a RINO, would contribute to Rep. Ellison gnaws at me to the core.
Frankly, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that we should let Gov. Carlson know that we find his actions are disgusting. It's bad enough that he was just barely a Republican. It's even worse that he'd contribute to a partisan Democrat. It's utterly repulsive to think that he'd contribute to a reactionary liberal with a nasty anti-semitic streak in him.
Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2007 5:38 PM
No comments.
