Judge Roy Moore: Muslim Ellison Should Not Sit In Congress

[Backstop]

Hopefully you recognize the name "Judge Roy Moore."

If not, the last paragraph will remind you.

WorldNetDaily

OUR MORAL FOUNDATION
Judge Roy Moore

Muslim Ellison should not sit in Congress

Posted: December 13, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


Last month Keith (Hakim Mohammad) Ellison of Minnesota became the first Muslim elected to serve in the United States Congress and shocked many Americans by declaring that he would take his oath of office by placing his hand on the Quran rather than the Bible. Can a true believer in the Islamic doctrine found in the Quran swear allegiance to our Constitution? Those who profess a sincere belief in Allah say "no!"

In 1789, George Washington, our first president under the Constitution, took his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God." Placing his hand on the Holy Scriptures, Washington recognized the God who had led our Pilgrim fathers on their journey across the Atlantic in 1620 and who gave our Founding Fathers the impetus to begin a new nation in 1776. Soon after Washington's oath, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which required all judges of the federal courts to "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties" incumbent upon them "agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." Placing their hand on the Bible, the members of Congress had already sworn to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States ... So help me God."

Thus began a long tradition that extended both to state and federal government of acknowledging the Judeo-Christian God as the source of our law and liberty. Today, some believe that it does not matter what we believe or before Whom we take our oath. But as Keith Ellison is demonstrating, it does matter.

To support the Constitution of the United States one must uphold an underlying principle of that document, liberty of conscience, which is the right of every person to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, without interference by the government. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" in 1833, observed concerning the First Amendment that "The rights of conscience are, indeed, beyond the just reach of any human power. They are given by God and cannot be encroached upon by human authority without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural, as well as revealed religion." Justice Story echoed the sentiments of Thomas Jefferson in his Bill for Religious Freedom in 1777 in which he stated that "Almighty God" (El Shaddai in Hebrew) "hath created the mind free and manifested His supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint." It was a specific God who endowed us with a freedom of conscience with which government could not interfere.

The Islamic faith rejects our God and believes that the state must mandate the worship of its own god, Allah. Last week, the Associated Press reported that the Islamic Court in Bulo Burto, a small town in southern Somalia, had ordered that residents would be beheaded "according to Islamic law" if they failed to pray five times a day. Sheik Hussein Barre Rage, chairman of the Islamic court, stated, "As Muslims, we should practice Islam fully ... and that is what our religion enjoins us to do." In other regions of Somalia, Islamic courts have introduced flogging, public execution and other punishments for those who deny Quranic law or refuse to worship Allah.

Islamic law is simply incompatible with our law. Jaafar Sheikh Idris, founder and chairman of American Open University, a radical Islamic school that has received funding from suspected al-Qaida sources and which supports Islamic law, recently stated that "Islam cannot be separated from the state," and that no Muslim elected to Congress or the White House can swear to uphold the United States Constitution and still be a Muslim, because the law of Allah as expressed in the Quran is supreme. Idris was recently deported for his illegal activities. While we certainly disagree with Idris' radical extremism, he at least knows what Islam is all about!

According to a Dec. 6, 2006, WorldNetDaily article, Keith Ellison's campaign was not only backed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which shares the views of American Open University, but he also spoke to the North American Islamic Federation in November in Minneapolis with American Open University on the same program. Perhaps Ellison is confused about what he believes, or else he has another agenda.

In either event, according to Idris, Ellison cannot swear an oath on the Quran and an allegiance to our Constitution at the same time.

Our Constitution states, "Each House [of Congress] shall be the judge ... of the qualifications of its own members." Enough evidence exists for Congress to question Ellison's qualifications to be a member of Congress as well as his commitment to the Constitution in view of his apparent determination to embrace the Quran and an Islamic philosophy directly contrary to the principles of the Constitution. But common sense alone dictates that in the midst of a war with Islamic terrorists we should not place someone in a position of great power who shares their doctrine. In 1943, we would never have allowed a member of Congress to take their oath on "Mein Kampf," or someone in the 1950s to swear allegiance to the "Communist Manifesto." Congress has the authority and should act to
prohibit Ellison from taking the congressional oath today!

Judge Roy Moore is the chairman of the Foundation for Moral Law in Montgomery, Ala., and the author of "So Help Me God." He is the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who was removed from office in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument he had placed in the Alabama Judicial Building to acknowledge God.

[Segestan]

Reads like another clever ploy to see the Bible removed. Of course their can only be One God but to whom will that Oath be given? The cry for civil justice will be heard, it is unjust they will say that others of difffering beliefs should be refused their ..Rights. ACLU anyone? Money .Money ..
The Islamic movement is far bigger than seeing a single member of the creed take an public office with the public statement of religious affiliation.
They , the Muslims , do their work as believers in the name of the God , living as pagans,christians , communists and all idealisms. The undermining of the faith of others through the Halls of Justice the worlds courts and the removal historical truths held by anyother idealisms foundations is the prime directive.The Conquest of the World is done silently with many faces through an idealistic Cancer for the enemies of Allah.The West is without a real defense.Is without a clear understanding of the gigantic struggles global magnitude of the infiltration of the enemies of the Western World.

[Backstop]

Sheesh...Ellison hammered all the others.

From the Minnesota Secretary of State website:

electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20061107/ElecRslts.asp?M=CG&CD=05

Independence TAMMY LEE 51,456 votes - 21.01%

Republican ALAN FINE 52,263 votes - 21.34%

Democratic-Farmer-Labor KEITH ELLISON 136,060 votes - 55.56%

Green JAY POND 4,792 votes - 1.96%

[Sean Osborne]

Demographics

reference: http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/counties/27053_2000.asp

Hennepin County, Minnesota Graph Religious Affiliations, 2000

101,895
Evangelical Protestant 230,328

Mainline Protestant

4,209
Orthodx

260,611
Catholic

47,067
Other

472,090
Unclaimed


In the graph above Other are identified as:

• Bahá'ÃÂ*s
• Buddhists
• Church of Christ, Scientist
• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Hindus
• Jains

• Jewish
• Muslims Estimate
• Sikhs
• Taoists
• Unitarian Universalist Association
• Zoroastrians

In the graph above Unclaimed are defined as:

Unclaimed Population
Explanation

The unclaimed population are those that are not adherents of any of the 188 groups included in the Church & Church Membership Data. This number should not be used as an indicator of irreligion or atheism, as it also includes adherents of many groups not included in the data.


Scroll down this webpage and you will see in the religious breakdown:

Muslim Estimate

6

Congregations (consisting of) 7,878

adherents (i.e.: muslims).



-----------------------------------------------------------

On this webpage below more demographic data is available

http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popIn...locIndex=21272


Minneapolis, MN

City
Population 2000: 382,618
Metro area: Minneapolis-Saint Paul

RACE AND ETHNICITY
		Number		Pct		Pct		Pct
White		249,186		65.1		89.4		75.1
Black or African American		68,818		18.0		3.5		12.3
American Indian and Alaska native		8,378		2.2		1.1		0.9
Asian		23,455		6.1		2.9		3.6
Native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander		289		0.1		0.0		0.1
Some other race		15,798		4.1		1.3		5.5
Two or more races		16,694		4.4		1.7		2.4
Hispanic or Latino		29,175		7.6		2.9		12.5
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census; ePodunk

This data begs the questions:

1. Who in the Minnesota 5th Congressional District voted for Keith Ellison vice the other candidates?

2. Is Keith Ellison truly representaive of the people who live in the 5th District?

3. Does the word "recall" have any meaning to the people of the Minnesota 5th Congressional District?

[Backstop]

Holy cow.

The numbers don't jive - at least to my first read.

[Isaiah40:31]

If the majority of voters who turned out were from major cities and they voted strictly democrat party line then maybe, possibly, plausibly Ellison could have won but it seems like a long shot even then.

The state voted majority democrat in the last 2 pres. elections.

Ellison, no doubt, will begin right away to start changing the state constitution to benefit "Islam" and subversively and overtly work to change the national constitution, twisting it (the same as the qu'ran does) to mean something other than what it was meant to say.

The judge is RIGHT! Ellison should not sit in congress for there is no way he can uphold the constitution as it is without defying allah.

[Backstop]

Well this has possibilities. It'll provide for legal ramifications for those that choose to practice taqiyya.

As Mr. Thomas asked - anyone have a better idea?

www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=chartering_in_unchartered_wat ers&ns=CalThomas&dt=12/14/2006&page=1

Chartering in unchartered waters
By Cal Thomas
Thursday, December 14, 2006

Loyalty oaths in America have their roots in the Civil War era, but in the 50s, they were an ugly product of the "Red Scare." Some people, including university professors, were asked to sign them as testimony to their not being a communist, or a communist sympathizer.

Now comes a proposal for a different type of loyalty oath, which may help answer the question: how do we tell the difference between a peaceful Muslim and a non-peaceful Muslim who wants to kill us? Granting that the majority of Muslims are not terrorists, is there a method by which we can do a better job of exposing those who are?

This week, the "Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding" is being presented to the European Parliament. According to Gerard Batten, a member of the European Parliament from London, who contributed the foreword, and the charter's author, Sam Solomon, a Sharia law expert, the charter will "enable Muslims from all strands of belief to make it plain that they reject those extremist interpretations of their religious texts that promote or excuse violence and bring Islam into conflict with the modern world."

The Charter calls upon Muslims to:
- Respect non-Muslim religions and issue a fatwa (an Islamic religious decree) prohibiting the use of force, violence or threats to their followers.
- Respect all civilizations, cultures and traditions and promote understanding of the precedence of national laws over Sharia law.
- Respect Western freedoms, especially of belief and expression and prohibit violent reaction against people who make use of these freedoms.
- Prohibit the issuing of any fatwa that would result in violence or threat against individuals or institutions.
- Request Islamic institutions to revise and issue new interpretations of Qur'anic verses calling for Jihad and violence against non-Muslims.

Solomon says, "We call on organizations representing the Islamic faith Ã…Â* to endorse and sign this Charter as an example to all European Muslims." By doing so, they will make it clear that "Islam is a religion of peace Ã…Â* and that acts of terrorism committed in its name are the acts of misguided individuals who have misunderstood and misinterpreted its teaching."

In the charter's foreword, Gerard Batten (MEP) writes, "The Western European view of religion, achieved after centuries of bloodshed, conflict and division, is that religion is a matter of private belief and conscience. Islamic fundamentalists do not share this view.

They believe in Islamic theocracy. Such views are simply incompatible with Western liberal democracy. The vast majority of Muslims that non-Muslims meet in everyday life are decent, respectable, law-abiding and hardworking. Western governments and societies have to offer them their support while standing firm against the extremists." The charter is "a great step forward in this process."

It certainly is, but what if someone signs it and doesn't mean it? Some Muslims claim the Koran allows them to lie to "infidels." What happens then?

What would Solomon suggest be done to those who refuse to sign the charter, as many refused to sign earlier loyalty oaths? How does one encourage compliance? Sam Solomon answers that question via e-mail: "This charter is like a passport application.

If someone lies, he will be prosecuted. Once agreed upon, it would give power to the authorities to bring them to justice. Though we know they can lie, this time it would not be an individual, it would be their leaders, and would be like putting their noses in the dust, and accepting it for what it is worth, that the real cause of terrorism is the interpretation of Qur'anic verses by certain factions of their religion. One way or another, they have never been challenged like this ever before."

As the European Parliament is often much slower than the American Congress, the charter begins first as a discussion document. Sponsors hope it will create interest and discussion among the European public, as well as in the European Parliament. They are hoping one of the MEPs, possibly Gerard Batten, will put forward a proposal to introduce this charter as a bill.

Batten and Solomon see this as a "no lose" proposition. If the bill passes with an enforcement mechanism, Muslim leaders who sign would be held accountable under the law for any violation. If they don't sign, the law and public opinion may have something to say about their refusal.
Does anyone have a better strategy for sorting out the violent Muslims from the peaceful ones among us? And be sure, they are among us, as we experienced on 9/11.

[Sean Osborne]

If the majority of voters who turned out were from major cities and they voted strictly democrat party line then maybe, possibly, plausibly Ellison could have won but it seems like a long shot even then.

Isaiah40:31,

The electors of Keith Ellison were only the voters of the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota. This was not a state-wide election, as for a President or Governor.

To explain this in detail... (and this is but the tip of an iceberg)

The major city is Minneapolis in Hennepin County.

The demographics (population breakdown) is in my post above.

I will suggest that had Keith Ellison campaigned under the name he uses as an alias on occasion ( Keith Hakim ) there is NO WAY he would have been elected to Congress representing the Minnestoa 5th District.

You see... as "Keith Hakim" this Muslim convert defended anti-semite Louis Farakhan of the Nation of Islam (NOI), was a NOI spokesman for some time and a member of NOI for about 10 years. He referred to affirmative action programs as "a 'sneaky' form of compensation for slavery," that white American's should pay reparations to blacks because of slavery 130 years prior.

He is a radical, anti-establishment, muslim converted white guy.

I think he is even more. I think he is a slick islamofascist.

[Backstop]

A man is judged by the company he keeps.

Ellison - NOI - CAIR - Awad - Hamas...

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/200...5114-9378r.htm

Democrats' dilemma
TODAY'S COLUMNIST

By Joel Mowbray
September 25, 2006

Heading into November, Democrats potentially have a story that ought to be both feel-good and helpful in appealing to a small, but growing constituency. The Democratic Congressional candidate for Minnesota's very blue Fifth Congressional District is on the verge of becoming the first-ever Muslim elected to Congress.

But embracing the candidate poses enormous risks. Keith Ellison has a disturbing history with the Nation of Islam and has received financial and other help from a self-identified supporter of Hamas.

Over the next two months, the Democrats will need to embrace or distance itself from Mr. Ellison. Democratic credentials on national security could be undermined if they fail to denounce a candidate closely allied with someone that a senior Democrat described as having "intimate connections to Hamas."

Known for months has been that Mr. Ellison was involved in the 1990s with the Nation of Islam, which even he now concedes is racist and anti-Semitic. In a letter of apology to the local Jewish community, Mr. Ellison claimed that he was never a member of the Natio of Islam and thus didn't realize until later the organization's ugly ideology. But according to press accounts at the time, Mr. Ellison served as Nation of Islam spokesman at a 1997 public hearing where he defended -- in his own words -- "the truth" of a government official's supposed comment that "Jews are the most racist white people."

Only learned recently and far more troubling is Mr. Ellison's seemingly tight connection with Nihad Awad, co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), whom he met almost two decades ago at the University of Minnesota.

Mr. Ellison's campaign obviously has downplayed the affiliation with Mr. Awad.
But here are the facts: Mr. Awad headlined a fundraiser last month that the campaign estimates netted $15,000 to $20,000, and in July, and it appears that CAIR's co-founder bundled contributions totaling just over $10,000. (The campaign issued a terse denial on the latter point, though it refused to explain away overwhelming evidence to the contrary.)

The campaign has gone so far as to suggest that Mr. Awad did all this without having any contact with someone he's known since the late 1980s.

The Democrat's supporters have taken a different tack. Rather than defend Mr. Awad or downplay his connections to the candidate, Ellison partisans have attempted to paint attacks on the candidate as overtly partisan or even bigoted. A Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist, for example, recently suggested that Mr. Ellison is under attack solely for being Muslim.

But it is top Democrats who have issued some of the most stinging rebukes of CAIR. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's second-leading Democrat, has said that CAIR "is unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its association with groups that are suspect." Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has stated flatly that CAIR "has ties to terrorism." Mr. Schumer has special disdain for Mr. Awad and CAIR's other co-founder, Omar Ahmad, saying in a 2003 hearing that both men have "intimate connections with Hamas."

The words most critical to CAIR, though, have been uttered by its co-founders. At Barry University in Florida in 1994, Mr. Awad declared, "I'm in support of the Hamas movement." Addressing a youth session at the 1999 Islamic Association of Palestine convention in Chicago, Mr. Ahmad glorified suicide bombers who "kill themselves for Islam": "Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam, that is not suicide. They kill themselves for Islam." (Transcript provided by the Investigative Project.)

Despite representing the Nation of Islam and currently affiliating with Mr. Awad, Mr. Ellison has received the unabashed support of the Minnesota Democrat-Farm-Labor Party and its activists. He won the party's official endorsement in May, then won what was essentially a three-way primary last week with 41 percent. Praise has not yet poured in, however, from national Democrats.

While Democrats need to win every seat possible race in order to take control of the House, distancing the party from Mr. Ellison likely would not cost him the victory in a district John Kerry won with 71 percent. Which means that Democrats could give Mr. Ellison an ultimatum to sever ties with CAIR and Mr. Awad without risking losing the seat.

Even if cold-shouldering Mr. Ellison could result in a win-win, the party would risk alienating Muslims, a small, but potent voting bloc in several key states. Democrats might well prefer to bask in the glow of "first Muslim in Congress" stories that are sure to start running even before November.

Right now, Democrats in Washington appear divided. The Democratic National Committee referred this columnist to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and that organization dodged questions about the candidate, offering only this platitude: "We feel confident that Minnesota families will decide to send him to Congress this November."

At a certain point, especially if controversy surrounding Mr. Ellison and his affiliations mounts, national Democrats likely will respond decisively. But even if they choose to remain silent, his welcome on Capitol Hill, if he wins, particularly what committee assignments he receives, could be scrutinized not just by Republicans, but even many Democrats.

No wonder national Democrats are taking their time.

The following article is also on JihadWatch

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=24619

Keith Ellison, CAIR, and Hamas
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 27, 2006

Keith Ellison (D-MN) is shaping up to be the first-ever Muslim member of Congress, and the mainstream media is treating his candidacy as a huge human-interest story and a triumph of multiculturalism. The Christian Science Monitor gushed that “when Keith Ellison arrives at the Karmel Square, one of Minneapolis’s Somali malls, a rock star might as well be walking by the bustling stalls of bright fabrics, jewelry, phone cards, and videos.� It quoted Larry Jacobs of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota exulting: “You think of the stereotype of Minnesota -- Garrison Keillor and white Norwegian farmers. The first Muslim congressman coming from Minnesota? It says a lot about the changing face of the United States and Minnesota.�

Of course, not all is rosy: the Monitor notes that “conservative bloggers� and Ellison’s Republican opponent, Alan Fine, have raised questions about Ellison’s alleged ties to the Nation of Islam, as well as about a number of unpaid parking tickets that led to the suspension of his drivers’ license. But the Monitor doesn’t mention the most troubling aspect of Ellison’s record: the support he has received from the Council on American Islamic Relations.

Journalist Joel Mowbray has been virtually the only journalist who has pursued this connection, exploring in a recent column “Mr. Ellison’s seemingly tight connection with Nihad Awad, co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), whom he met almost two decades ago at the University of Minnesota.� Mowbray reports that “Mr. Awad headlined a fundraiser last month that the campaign estimates netted $15,000 to $20,000, and in July, and it appears that CAIR’s co-founder bundled contributions totaling just over $10,000. (The campaign issued a terse denial on the latter point, though it refused to explain away overwhelming evidence to the contrary.)� Faced with this evidence, Ellison’s backers have “attempted to paint attacks on the candidate as overtly partisan or even bigoted. A Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist, for example, recently suggested that Mr. Ellison is under attack solely for being Muslim.�

What is so troubling about Ellison’s connection with Awad and CAIR? Mowbray quotes the assessments of two leading Democrats: Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois has declared that CAIR “is unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its association with groups that are suspect.� New York Senator Charles Schumer, once said that CAIR “has ties to terrorism� and that Ellison’s supporter Awad has “intimate connections with Hamas.�

Mowbray establishes the latter point from Awad’s own mouth, quoting his 1994 statement: “I’m in support of the Hamas movement.�

Awad himself responded to this in an AP story about Ellison’s candidacy: “I don’t support Hamas today,� he explained. “My position and CAIR’s position is extremely clear -- we condemn suicide bombings. We are mainstream American Muslims.� AP reporter Frederic Frommer added that a Republican charge that Ellison had received “financial support from a self-identified supporter of Hamas� was a “reference to Awad's 1994 statement that he preferred Hamas to the Palestinian Liberation Organization. In an interview, Awad said that was before the group engaged in suicide bombings and was designated a terrorist organization by the State Department.�

But of course, saying flatly that “I am in support of the Hamas movement� is not simply stating a preference for Hamas over the PLO. In any case, if Awad supported Hamas before 1994, it is useful to examine what that means. I have here preserved the old Hamas website’s “glory record� of attacks against Israelis – the terrorist organization’s own record of its murderous actions. Here are some of Hamas’ self-described exploits from before 1994:
3. Boureen Operation: The militant Hamdan Hussein Al:najar, a member of Hamas, killed the Israeli settler Ya’coub Berey using a big rock as his weapon.

The militant was shot down as a martyr after he had ambushed an Israeli patrol using the dead settler’s weapon....

6. Bus No. 405 Operation: Militant Ahmed Hussein Shukry, a member of Hamas, was able to lead an Israeli soldier to a secluded place in Tel Aviv where the militant hit the soldier with a chisel and killed him on 8 September 1989. The following day, the militant got on bus No. 405 and stabbed the driver to take over the bus; however, the passengers were able to stop the militant....

12. Keryat Youval Operation: The militant Mohammed Mustafa Abu Jalala stabbed four Israelis and injured another at a bus station in Keryat Youval in Jerusalem before he was arrested by the Israeli forces.

13. Askalan Road Operation: While driving a taxi, the militant Jameel Ismail Al:baz, a member of Hamas, ran over a group of Israelis waiting on this road on 19 July 1991....

15. Shailou Operation: A military group belonging to Al Qassam Brigades attacked an Israeli bus carrying some settlers on their way to Tel Aviv to participate in demonstrations organized by the extremist party Likud against the peace process. The bus was completely destroyed; two Israelis were killed and five more were injured....

17. Eid Al-maskhara Operation: The militant Ra’ed Al:reefy attacked an Israeli crowd in Jaffa on 17 March 1992. He was able to kill 2 and injure 21 Israelis who gathered to celebrate Eid Al:maskhara, also known as Al:boureem.

18. Beit Lahya Operation: On the third anniversary of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin's arrest, a group belonging to Al Qassam Brigades attacked an Israeli settler at Beit Lahya and shot him down then withdrew safely....

21. Carlo Factory Operation: Four militants belonging to Al Qassam Brigades broke into a citrus packing factory (Carlo) near Nahal Oaz at 2:30 p.m. on 25 June 1992. Three militants stabbed two Israelis while the other was guarding....

Suicide bombings? No. Terrorist attacks on civilians? Sure. And there are many, many more on the list dating from before 1994. So are we to understand that Awad supported such operations and only stopped supporting Hamas later, although these was no change in its ideology and no change in its taste for victimizing civilians?

When Awad says that he and CAIR do not support Hamas today, it should be recalled that in March 2004, when Hamas leader Sheikh Yassin was killed by Israel, CAIR condemned his killing -- without ever mentioning that Yassin was the mastermind and director of suicide killings for Hamas: “We condemn this violation of international law as an act of state terrorism by Ariel Sharon's out-of-control government. Israel’s extra-judicial killing of an Islamic religious leader can only serve to perpetuate the cycle of violence throughout the region. The international community must now take concrete steps to help protect the Palestinian people against such wanton Israeli violence.�

When did CAIR stop supporting Hamas? On Monday I searched the CAIR website for “Hamas.� There are three possible searches: News Briefs, Action Alerts, and Press Releases. Only News Briefs turned up anything at all: an old article from Haaretz attacking Ariel Sharon.

So if CAIR now condemns Hamas, where is it saying so? Just in the lower paragraphs of articles about other subjects? We can’t even get one press release about it? Not one Action Alert calling on Muslims everywhere to condemn Hamas?

Before Minnesotans elect Keith Ellison to Congress, they need to know the answers to these questions.

[Backstop]

Isaiah40:31,
He is a radical, anti-establishment, muslim converted white guy.

I think he is even more. I think he is a slick islamofascist.

I'm starting to believe the same.

[Isaiah40:31]

Isaiah40:31,

The electors of Keith Ellison were only the voters of the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota. This was not a state-wide election, as for a President or Governor.

Maybe I didn't express myself very well. Since Minneapolis is a major city and major cities tend to be democrat, if people were ignorant of who Ellison really is and they voted democrat for various reasons, although it is really a very loooooooooooooooooong stretch, then possibly the votes would favor him.

However, I agree that this seems very rigged. It makes me wonder how many people were 'bribed' or 'coerced' to vote for him or were 'threatened' not to vote at all.

I couldn't find the breakdown of party votes other than the outcome of last presidential elections.

The demographics give religious and such but doesn't give their party affiliation registration. Were all those votes FOR him all registered democrats?


Ellison, along with a few other politicians are the poster boys for all the seedy "Global Islam coup d' etat" groups.

[Jag]

Question....is there a possibilty a Muslim will be running for President in 2008? He has the name but is he a true American or will he change if he's elected?

Jag

[Backstop]

Question....is there a possibilty a Muslim will be running for President in 2008? He has the name but is he a true American or will he change if he's elected?

Jag

Those are the 10 gazillion dollar questions.

So what do we do - change the law so that Muslims can't be elected? I don't think we'll do that. And frankly, I don't think I want our laws changed. I'm still working on my final decision on that.

A true Muslim has beliefs that aren't compatible with this nation.

Identifying the true Muslims is virtually impossible. I really don't believe many politicians - Ellison can sing an aria about how he supports our Constitution - yet somewhere in his Qaran, it says it's OK to lie, and all non-believers should be converted or killed.

I don't know man, I just don't know.

[Aplomb]

If in 2003 somebody does not remove the basis for law, the ten commandments, and then is removed from office because of that; it shows the world clearly that our citizens in our country are becoming less "religious", more "secular" and for the mostpart trying to kick God out of our lives while simultaneously being politically correct in accepting "wonderous cultural diversity".This makes for a human void likely to be filled with "viewed-as-victim, acceptable Islam"--afterall, it is "the religion of peace".

[frankrm]

Isn't it amazing that even mentioning God would bring such hostility in our nation. You find that paranoia in the most unexpected places. It is the hatred of what he says that is realy the crux of the problem. It's like in this country you are breaking the law if you dare to speak about God, that is the Judeo Christian God.
However if it is a Muslim god or a hindu god, no problem. Interesting.

[Aplomb]

Yes, interesting, indeed; and every bit as frightening.

[Brian Baldwin]

We'll see what happens when windfalls of "soft monies" (aka lobbies) fall into his lap to vote very anti-islam. Then you'll know the truth of it and be able to gauge how much danger we may be in.

[Sean Osborne]

If in 2003 somebody does not remove the basis for law, the ten commandments, and then is removed from office because of that; it shows the world clearly that our citizens in our country are becoming less "religious", more "secular"...

I disagree to a degree, but not for the reason you might think. I disagree for prophetic reasons.

This does not show the world that our citizens are becoming less "religious" and more "secular". What it shows is that the vast majority of our citizens just don't care jack-diddley-squat enough to bother their self-indulgent and self-important lives to stand up to such leftist inspired attacks on the basis of this Constitutional Republic.

And to be quite frank, the "world" cares even less about these things than rank and file America does. Also, what the "world" thinks is completely irrelevant.

QUESTION: Did America give a rats pahtootie what the world thought when our forebears opted to wage a war of independence against the superpower of the day? Short answer: No.


Moving along to the real reason I am making this post...

and for the most part trying to kick God out of our lives while simultaneously being politically correct in accepting "wonderous cultural diversity".

This I agree with, but for a different reason as I stated above.

It is a fact that a couple of people posting to these forums have at one time or another stated that Bible prophecy has no place in todays events or headlines, that it in effect does not exist in any relevant form in this world and thus not within any threads in this forum outside of the Religious Discussion forum - or words to that effect.

I am about to show how incorrect that view is, and at the same time demonstrate how ironically prophetic those words are...




America's roots lie in the conviction held by our Founding Fathers that our inalienable rights derive from those granted to all Mankind by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Judeo-Christian God.

Aplomb notes, as we are witness to every year at this time, and various times all throughout the year, God and Christ are being kicked out of our national lives and assailed. Many, many of those are people who claim to be "Christian". This all the more serves to make the point I am making and moves in the direction of fulfilling Bible prophecy.

This is the apostasy the Bible predicted would occur in the "last days" prior to the return of Jesus Christ. This apostasy is occuring before everyones eyes, yet few understand or recognize it for what it really is... the apostasy of the Christian church.

Not many people recognize the Apostle Paul for being a prophet and issuing prophecy for our day.

Recognize this:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day (the return of Christ) shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition

2 Thessalonians 2:3

The original Greek word Paul used in the above English translation as "falling away" is "apostasia".

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron.”

1 Timothy 4:1-2

"Latter times" and "from the faith". Paul is prophesying about last days Christianity.

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

2 Timothy 4:3-4

Apostasy

noun
1.	the state of having rejected your religious beliefs or your political party or a cause (often in favor of opposing beliefs or causes)
2.	the act of abandoning a party or cause

Anyone try to tell me that Biblical prophecy is not relevant to today's world, that it is not found in our daily headlines throughout a given year... and I'm gonna tell you that you are totally blind to the truth about the situation in which we are all living today.

[Aplomb]

Actually, I see agreement. Well said, Sean.

[Sean Osborne]

Aplomb,

Yes, agreement it is.

Of course this is a decidedly American website, the "Yanks" far outweigh those brothers and sisters posting from OCONUS locations.

Paul's inspired-of-God words which I quoted about are quitely literally to be applied to "Christians" all over the world.

If one is not of the Christian faith, then those words are meaningless and one can freely move along at this point in the discussion.

Here's a recent example which is being cited in an article on the NEIN mainpage today, with direct reference to the problem of "flying while Christian". These events are occuring in the ostensibly Anglican (i.e.: Christian) Jolly olde United Kingdom.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...0/nbible20.xml

Stewardess banned from carrying Bible


By David Millward, Transport Correspondent

Last Updated: 1:57am GMT 20/12/2006

A second airline is embroiled in a religious row after a stewardess decided to take bmi to an employment tribunal because it refused to allow her to carry a Bible on flights to Saudi Arabia. The stewardess, who has not been named, claims that she has been subject to discrimination because of her faith. She is understood to have deep religious convictions and carries a Bible with her at all times. But bmi, which is the only British scheduled carrier to fly to the country after British Airways pulled out of the route, insisted that it was only following Foreign Office advice. The dispute has erupted as British Airways seeks to settle its own dispute with Nadia Eweida, a Heathrow check-in worker, who has been banned from wearing a cross on a necklace while on duty. A spokesman for bmi said the airline was complying with Saudi law and added that the stewardess had been offered the opportunity to switch to working on its short-haul routes. It could not, however, alter its long-haul rosters to accommodate her. The Foreign Office website informs travellers to Saudi Arabia: "The importation and use of narcotics, alcohol, pork products and religious books, apart from the Koran, and artefacts are forbidden." A spokesman said last night that the Saudi authorities would automatically confiscate a Bible from anybody trying to bring one into the country and it would not be returned. A spokesman for Christian Solidarity Worldwide said: "It is worrying that a British company should be instructing its staff to conform to practices which are in violation of international standards on religious freedom. "The Saudi government prohibits the public practice of other religions and the possession of non-Islamic religious objects has often led to arrests."