PDA

View Full Version : Pelosi to Name First Muslim Lawmaker to House Intelligence Committee



protectionist
01-14-2015, 04:53 PM
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi announced in a closed-door meeting Tuesday she would name the first Muslim lawmaker to the House’s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. A senior Democratic aide said Rep. André Carson of Indiana would be named in the “coming days” to the key national security-focused panel. Pelosi (D-Calif.) told lawmakers of the appointment during the members’ weekly caucus meeting.

Carson would be the first Muslim to serve on the committee and was the second Muslim to be elected to Congress. He already serves on the Armed Services Committee and worked for the Department of Homeland Security’s Fusion Center — the clearinghouse established by the federal government to streamline data sharing between the CIA, FBI, Department of Justice and the military.

I guess (I hope) there is a thorough vetting process that is undertaken, before someone is put on this extremely important committee. If and whenever that occurs, I hope we don't see a bunch of smiley-faced Congressmen greeting Carson with synthetic questions, all designed to insulate them from the possibility of being labeled "bigot", "Islamaphobe" or some other dumbass jab, designed to silence the criticism and scrutiny we the American people are paying them to engage in.

If Nancy flake Pelosi does make this appointment, Carson should be scrutinized carefully, and taken on very toughly by both fellow members of that committee and the media.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/andre-carson-muslim-intelligence-committee-114213.html#ixzz3Ope2VDKs

Common Sense
01-14-2015, 04:55 PM
He's probably an ISIS member...think I saw him at Ramadan with Obama.

Green Arrow
01-14-2015, 04:56 PM
He already worked for our intelligence agencies, and this is just a Congressional committee anyway. I don't see an issue.

Common Sense
01-14-2015, 04:58 PM
He already worked for our intelligence agencies, and this is just a Congressional committee anyway. I don't see an issue.

No rational person would.

del
01-14-2015, 05:35 PM
they made him check his suicide vest at the door.

Redrose
01-14-2015, 05:47 PM
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi announced in a closed-door meeting Tuesday she would name the first Muslim lawmaker to the House’s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. A senior Democratic aide said Rep. André Carson of Indiana would be named in the “coming days” to the key national security-focused panel. Pelosi (D-Calif.) told lawmakers of the appointment during the members’ weekly caucus meeting.

Carson would be the first Muslim to serve on the committee and was the second Muslim to be elected to Congress. He already serves on the Armed Services Committee and worked for the Department of Homeland Security’s Fusion Center — the clearinghouse established by the federal government to streamline data sharing between the CIA, FBI, Department of Justice and the military.

I guess (I hope) there is a thorough vetting process that is undertaken, before someone is put on this extremely important committee. If and whenever that occurs, I hope we don't see a bunch of smiley-faced Congressmen greeting Carson with synthetic questions, all designed to insulate them from the possibility of being labeled "bigot", "Islamaphobe" or some other dumbass jab, designed to silence the criticism and scrutiny we the American people are paying them to engage in.

If Nancy flake Pelosi does make this appointment, Carson should be scrutinized carefully, and taken on very toughly by both fellow members of that committee and the media.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/andre-carson-muslim-intelligence-committee-114213.html#ixzz3Ope2VDKs


I agree. All of them need to vetted thoroughly, all of them, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, all of them. We can get a radical subversive from any group. Obama wasn't vetter properly (fear of being called racist) and look what's happened.

protectionist
01-14-2015, 06:18 PM
He's probably an ISIS member...think I saw him at Ramadan with Obama. Could very well be.
Are you sure you didn't mean the Ramada Inn ? :rollseyes:

protectionist
01-14-2015, 06:19 PM
He already worked for our intelligence agencies, and this is just a Congressional committee anyway. I don't see an issue.

Key words are "I don't see" Some people see. Some don't. :slap2:

protectionist
01-14-2015, 06:20 PM
No rational person would. Who is an Islamapologist (or even an Islamist)

protectionist
01-14-2015, 06:22 PM
they made him check his suicide vest at the door.

Hearings have started yet. If you're going to attempt satire, at least be accurate.

exotix
01-14-2015, 06:23 PM
If you wanna infiltrate muslim jihadism you hire a muslim ... say for instance, you would fire Issa because of his incompetent failures to find one instance of a corrupt Obama dictatorship.

protectionist
01-14-2015, 06:24 PM
I agree. All of them need to vetted thoroughly, all of them, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, all of them. We can get a radical subversive from any group. Obama wasn't vetter properly (fear of being called racist) and look what's happened.

I disagree, and I think your post is stupid. Christians, Jews, and Hindus, aren't knocking down tall buildings, and massacring people with guns and bombs, without provocation.

del
01-14-2015, 06:27 PM
Hearings have started yet. If you're going to attempt satire, at least be accurate.

fuck off

tia

protectionist
01-14-2015, 06:28 PM
If you wanna infiltrate muslim jihadism you hire a muslim ... say for instance, you would fire Issa because of his incompetent failures to find one instance of a corrupt Obama dictatorship.

There are a dozen+ instances of corrupt Obama dictatorship, which the whole country (And whole world) has found. So ?

Howey
01-14-2015, 06:28 PM
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi announced in a closed-door meeting Tuesday she would name the first Muslim lawmaker to the House’s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. A senior Democratic aide said Rep. André Carson of Indiana would be named in the “coming days” to the key national security-focused panel. Pelosi (D-Calif.) told lawmakers of the appointment during the members’ weekly caucus meeting.

Carson would be the first Muslim to serve on the committee and was the second Muslim to be elected to Congress. He already serves on the Armed Services Committee and worked for the Department of Homeland Security’s Fusion Center — the clearinghouse established by the federal government to streamline data sharing between the CIA, FBI, Department of Justice and the military.

I guess (I hope) there is a thorough vetting process that is undertaken, before someone is put on this extremely important committee. If and whenever that occurs, I hope we don't see a bunch of smiley-faced Congressmen greeting Carson with synthetic questions, all designed to insulate them from the possibility of being labeled "bigot", "Islamaphobe" or some other dumbass jab, designed to silence the criticism and scrutiny we the American people are paying them to engage in.

If Nancy flake Pelosi does make this appointment, Carson should be scrutinized carefully, and taken on very toughly by both fellow members of that committee and the media.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/andre-carson-muslim-intelligence-committee-114213.html#ixzz3Ope2VDKs


Is he an American?

protectionist
01-14-2015, 06:29 PM
$#@! off

tia

Quit talking to your bathroom mirror.

Howey
01-14-2015, 06:29 PM
he already worked for our intelligence agencies, and this is just a congressional committee anyway. I don't see an issue.

but he's a moooslim!!!

exotix
01-14-2015, 06:30 PM
There are a dozen+ instances of corrupt Obama dictatorship, which the whole country (And whole world) has found. So ?
This is your thread ... certainly you have a point ... LOL

protectionist
01-14-2015, 06:36 PM
Is he an American?

Actually he IS NOT. That's because Muslims are not anywhere people of a continent or country. They have only one nation. The Umma (worldwide community of Muslims). This is the basic reason for denying all Muslim immigration.

Examples> A Canadian Muslim has more affinity with a Polish Muslim than a non-Muslim Canadian. A Danish Muslim has more alliance to an Australian Muslim than to a non-Muslim Dane. etc. etc.

Keep asking questions. This is how you learn. And you'll never learn from MSNBC, Media Matters, NPR, etc

protectionist
01-14-2015, 06:41 PM
This is your thread ... certainly you have a point ... LOL

Nice that you acknowledge.

protectionist
01-14-2015, 06:41 PM
but he's a moooslim!!!

Form does not trump content. Try again.

protectionist
01-14-2015, 06:44 PM
Actually, I suggest that he be interrogated by Jack Bauer. And I want a ringside seat. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

Mr. Right
01-14-2015, 06:55 PM
I'm really intrigued by the fact that these liberals are ok with Islamic people when they openly advocate killing gays.

silvereyes
01-14-2015, 06:57 PM
Does this guy advocate killing gays?

Redrose
01-14-2015, 06:59 PM
I disagree, and I think your post is stupid. Christians, Jews, and Hindus, aren't knocking down tall buildings, and massacring people with guns and bombs, without provocation.


I don't think it's stupid to vett ALL our politicians. That is what my post was saying. If we properly vetted all of them, these worries would be reduced. I don't think we can totally eliminate all possible internal threats. Powerful forces can manipulate documents. I agree with you, the problem today is a radical Muslim issue, but again I say, vett ALL of them, we trust these politicians with our lives, they ALL need to be vetted.

hanger4
01-14-2015, 07:05 PM
He's probably an ISIS member...think I saw him at Ramadan with Obama.

I laughed

PolWatch
01-14-2015, 07:06 PM
I laughed

uh oh...is a sense of humor allowed?

hanger4
01-14-2015, 07:11 PM
If you wanna infiltrate muslim jihadism you hire a muslim ... say for instance, you would fire Issa because of his incompetent failures to find one instance of a corrupt Obama dictatorship.

aaaaaah yes sweet sweet ​delirium.

exotix
01-14-2015, 07:20 PM
aaaaaah yes sweet sweet ​delirium.
No sweat ... you've been see'ng the Muslim Brotherhood around every corner since Obama took office ... so I don't see where one more is gonna improve your attitude ... *snicker*

hanger4
01-14-2015, 07:30 PM
No sweat ... you've been see'ng the Muslim Brotherhood around every corner since Obama took office ... so I don't see where one more is gonna improve your attitude ... *snicker*

You ever consider painting houses for a living ??

With that broad brush of yours, you'd be done in no time.

Cigar
01-14-2015, 07:35 PM
Andre Carson was Born and Raised in Indianapolis Indiana :laugh:

http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/cartoonuploads/accountability_363_265.jpg

hanger4
01-14-2015, 08:29 PM
Andre Carson was Born and Raised in Indianapolis Indiana :laugh:

http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/cartoonuploads/accountability_363_265.jpg

Like the cartoon, but one little problem. the 700 Club doesn't

advocate the killing of Jews or terrorists acts killing innocents or

or death to unbelievers.

Howey
01-14-2015, 08:36 PM
Actually he IS NOT. That's because Muslims are not anywhere people of a continent or country. They have only one nation. The Umma (worldwide community of Muslims). This is the basic reason for denying all Muslim immigration.

Examples> A Canadian Muslim has more affinity with a Polish Muslim than a non-Muslim Canadian. A Danish Muslim has more alliance to an Australian Muslim than to a non-Muslim Dane. etc. etc.

Keep asking questions. This is how you learn. And you'll never learn from MSNBC, Media Matters, NPR, etc

So you're saying we have a non-American citizen in Congress?

Interesting.

Safety
01-14-2015, 08:46 PM
Like the cartoon, but one little problem. the 700 Club doesn't

advocate the killing of Jews or terrorists acts killing innocents or

or death to unbelievers.

Actually, there isn't a problem. For the cartoon isn't saying the 700 club is reasonable for killing innocents or the death to unbelievers, what it is saying is people don't hold all Christians responsible for the 700 club views, but they hold all Muslims responsible for the extremists's views....

In other words....a double standard, which so many "conservatives" say they hate....

hanger4
01-14-2015, 09:16 PM
Actually, there isn't a problem. For the cartoon isn't saying the 700 club is reasonable for killing innocents or the death to unbelievers, what it is saying is people don't hold all Christians responsible for the 700 club views, but they hold all Muslims responsible for the extremists's views....

In other words....a double standard, which so many "conservatives" say they hate....

Read the Quran

Safety
01-14-2015, 09:43 PM
Read the Quran

Then?

hanger4
01-14-2015, 09:45 PM
Then?

You'll understand the fallacy of your statement.

Mister D
01-14-2015, 09:50 PM
Actually, there isn't a problem. For the cartoon isn't saying the 700 club is reasonable for killing innocents or the death to unbelievers, what it is saying is people don't hold all Christians responsible for the 700 club views, but they hold all Muslims responsible for the extremists's views....

In other words....a double standard, which so many "conservatives" say they hate....

That's probably because the 700 Club's views simply don't matter to most people (aside from the goofy anti-religious types) or affect their lives in any way. If those views entailed murder or violence people might feel differently. The analogy is retarded but I see who posted it so...

Safety
01-14-2015, 09:50 PM
You'll understand the fallacy of your statement.

Don't see how the Quran will explain how you failed to see the mistake in your assessment of the cartoon.

Common
01-14-2015, 09:53 PM
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi announced in a closed-door meeting Tuesday she would name the first Muslim lawmaker to the House’s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. A senior Democratic aide said Rep. André Carson of Indiana would be named in the “coming days” to the key national security-focused panel. Pelosi (D-Calif.) told lawmakers of the appointment during the members’ weekly caucus meeting.

Carson would be the first Muslim to serve on the committee and was the second Muslim to be elected to Congress. He already serves on the Armed Services Committee and worked for the Department of Homeland Security’s Fusion Center — the clearinghouse established by the federal government to streamline data sharing between the CIA, FBI, Department of Justice and the military.

I guess (I hope) there is a thorough vetting process that is undertaken, before someone is put on this extremely important committee. If and whenever that occurs, I hope we don't see a bunch of smiley-faced Congressmen greeting Carson with synthetic questions, all designed to insulate them from the possibility of being labeled "bigot", "Islamaphobe" or some other dumbass jab, designed to silence the criticism and scrutiny we the American people are paying them to engage in.

If Nancy flake Pelosi does make this appointment, Carson should be scrutinized carefully, and taken on very toughly by both fellow members of that committee and the media.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/andre-carson-muslim-intelligence-committee-114213.html#ixzz3Ope2VDKs


Pelosi is the left version of Michele Bachman. They both have perfect timing

Safety
01-14-2015, 09:54 PM
That's probably because the 700 Club's views simply don't matter to most people (aside from the goofy anti-religious types) or affect their lives in any way. If those views entailed murder or violence people might feel differently. The analogy is retarded but I see who posted it so...

That is true, however, like I'm explaining to hanger, the point was not to try and compare two religions, but how people choose to view Muslims based upon the extremists.

protectionist
01-14-2015, 10:00 PM
Does this guy advocate killing gays?

Maybe that's one of the questions they should ask him when he is questioned. Only problem there though is that, unlike Christianity and Judaism, lying is not forbidden in Islam. In Islam, lying (taqiyya) is OK (and even encouraged) as long as it is something to further the cause of the spread of Islam.

protectionist
01-14-2015, 10:03 PM
I don't think it's stupid to vett ALL our politicians. That is what my post was saying. If we properly vetted all of them, these worries would be reduced. I don't think we can totally eliminate all possible internal threats. Powerful forces can manipulate documents. I agree with you, the problem today is a radical Muslim issue, but again I say, vett ALL of them, we trust these politicians with our lives, they ALL need to be vetted.

Well, yeah, they should all be vetted for any of their important jobs. I meant, in this case, Carson should be specifically vetted for Islamic beliefs that could endanger America.

protectionist
01-14-2015, 10:06 PM
No sweat ... you've been see'ng the Muslim Brotherhood around every corner since Obama took office ... so I don't see where one more is gonna improve your attitude ... *snicker*

The Muslim Brotherhood is, and has been in the White House for years now, didn't you know ? Stunning to discover how little liberals are aware of. Ever hear of Huma Abedin, Hussein Rashad, Dalia Mogahed, Mohamed Magid, et al ?

del
01-14-2015, 10:07 PM
:rolleyes:

get back under your bed

protectionist
01-14-2015, 10:07 PM
Andre Carson was Born and Raised in Indianapolis Indiana :laugh:

http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/cartoonuploads/accountability_363_265.jpg

They maybe would be IF his Bible advocated (if not commanded) > mass genocide, wife- beating, severe discriminations against women, rape, pedophilia, slavery, torture/mutilation, killings gays & apostates, animal cruelty, etc

Mister D
01-14-2015, 10:08 PM
That is true, however, like I'm explaining to hanger, the point was not to try and compare two religions, but how people choose to view Muslims based upon the extremists.

That's just it though. Some folks, including several on this forum, do that all the time with Christians. Our handlers, on the other hand, are always reminding us not to do so in the case of Islam. They even made up a term (i.e. Islamophobia) to castigate us. In the case of Christians, who aren't chopping off heads or stoning homos, that's usually not how our press and elite react. Why is that?

hanger4
01-14-2015, 10:11 PM
Don't see how the Quran will explain how you failed to see the mistake in your assessment of the cartoon.

It's apples to oranges Safety Muslims should be held

responsible because their Quran teaches open ended death

to the unblievers.

The Christian bible does not teach such atrocities

protectionist
01-14-2015, 10:12 PM
So you're saying we have a non-American citizen in Congress?

Interesting. That is EXACTLY what I'm saying, and if you didn't know that, you're not ready for this thread.

PS - Same goes for Keith Ellison.

protectionist
01-14-2015, 10:14 PM
Actually, there isn't a problem. For the cartoon isn't saying the 700 club is reasonable for killing innocents or the death to unbelievers, what it is saying is people don't hold all Christians responsible for the 700 club views, but they hold all Muslims responsible for the extremists's views....

In other words....a double standard, which so many "conservatives" say they hate....

It's NOT a double standard at all. The Koran contains the "extremists views". The Christian Bible doesn't. You don't get this ?

Safety
01-14-2015, 10:16 PM
It's apples to oranges Safety Muslims should be held

responsible because their Quran teaches open ended death

to the unblievers.

The Christian bible does not teach such atrocities

You forgot about the crusades or does that not count because that was then and this is now?

protectionist
01-14-2015, 10:16 PM
Don't see how the Quran will explain how you failed to see the mistake in your assessment of the cartoon.

YOU made the mistake about the cartoon, not hanger4, so fess up.

protectionist
01-14-2015, 10:19 PM
That is true, however, like I'm explaining to hanger, the point was not to try and compare two religions, but how people choose to view Muslims based upon the extremists.

It's not a matter of choosing, and the jihadists aren't really extremists. They are acting on commands from a treacherous book that they foolishly believe is the word of God.

protectionist
01-14-2015, 10:20 PM
:rolleyes:

get back under your bed

No not a lot of light under there, to read all the well-researched books that you haven't read (+ thousands of their footnotes)

Safety
01-14-2015, 10:20 PM
That's just it though. Some folks, including several on this forum, do that all the time with Christians. Our handlers, on the other hand, are always reminding us not to do so in the case of Islam. They even made up a term (i.e. Islamophobia) to castigate us. In the case of Christians, who aren't chopping off heads or stoning homos, that's usually not how our press and elite react. Why is that?

I guess that's because when a fundamentalist bombs a clinic or shoots up a mosque, there is enough Christians to stifle any discontent. The same doesn't apply for Muslims or any other minority group. That's the advantages of being in a majority....support.

protectionist
01-14-2015, 10:23 PM
I guess that's because when a fundamentalist bombs a clinic or shoots up a mosque, there is enough Christians to stifle any discontent. The same doesn't apply for Muslims or any other minority group. That's the advantages of being in a majority....support.

Muslims have made stifling discontent into an art form. Read 1) Stealth Jihad and 2) Muslim Mafia.

Safety
01-14-2015, 10:26 PM
YOU made the mistake about the cartoon, not hanger4, so fess up.

You made the mistake of thinking your opinion mattered to me.

protectionist
01-14-2015, 10:27 PM
You forgot about the crusades or does that not count because that was then and this is now?

The Crusades were a moral RESPONSE to 477 years of Muslim aggressive, mass genocide all over southern Europe, Asia Minor, and North Africa. Only question is what took them so long to react ? It was similar to the minimal response that Obama is giving to ISIS, Boko Haram, et al right now.

protectionist
01-14-2015, 10:30 PM
You made the mistake of thinking your opinion mattered to me.

You made the mistake of thinking that my post was only for you. (in addition to not valuing the lessons I'm teaching you now) :icon_biggrin:

hanger4
01-14-2015, 10:32 PM
You forgot about the crusades or does that not count because that was then and this is now?

The Quran is now and there are no verses in the Bible

commanding open ended death to the unbeliever.

Of course you're welcome cite chapter and verse of the Bible

commanding Christians to take up arms and kill Muslims

Safety
01-14-2015, 10:32 PM
You made the mistake of thinking that my post was only for you. (in addition to not valuing the lessons I'm teaching you now) :icon_biggrin:

Who else was it for? I mean, it was a pretty direct statement.

del
01-14-2015, 10:34 PM
No not a lot of light under there, to read all the well-researched books that you haven't read (+ thousands of their footnotes)

<buuuuuuuuurp>

Redrose
01-14-2015, 10:37 PM
Well, yeah, they should all be vetted for any of their important jobs. I meant, in this case, Carson should be specifically vetted for Islamic beliefs that could endanger America.


I have very strong opinions on this matter. Some agree with me, others don't. IMO based on a lot of research I read in my dealings with my GOP, Barack Obama going back decades, has always been a Muslim sympathizer. It was never a secret. He has made references as being a "son of Islam" in his writings. Michelle was raised a Christian, Obama was not. The "Christian" image he has tried to portray, and not well mind you, is for political gain. His actions speak much louder than his empty words defending Christianity. His attack on the Catholic Church and Little Sisters of the Poor is shameful. Yet, not one word against blood thirsty barbarians in the name of Allah.
He flat out refuses to criticize these radicals who are committing their crimes in the name of Allah.

I truely believe, in his heart of hearts, he identifies himself with Islam. He bowed to the Sheik. He said the call to Islam's morning prayer was "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth". All "religious" ornaments were packed away and not used on any Christmas in the WH. He has never chosen a Christian church in DC, has missed the Christian "National Prayer Breakfast" in DC, but celebrated Muslim Iftar's in the WH. There are dozens of other examples. In "Audacity of Hope" he says he'll side with the Muslims if the winds change......

He defends them at all costs, and it's probably understood throughout his inner circle and Administration, that no one is to advance the theory that Islam....even radical Islam is the problem.

He has insulated himself with people who have his ideology. Fine, all presidents do that, but this president is allowing his very deeply held idology to hurt the USA. That is not fine.

What worries me with a Muslim in high political office is the belief we are being told, they will all stick together should a confrontation happen. Blood is thicker than water. My Muslim neighbor has said that many times. He's made his millions here on US soil, but will side with radical Islam if necessary. He has told me and I'll quote "my religion is more important than my American citizenship." I can quote it, I've heard it enough times from him.

That scares me.

We cannot expect this Administration to be honest as to vetting those they want in key positions. If he gets a Muslim on the Supreme Court, we will definitely see CHANGE.

They set a precedent with Barack Obama's nomination, with little to no vetting, and sealed background files and records. We, who complained, were called racist. That precedent was established for a reason, to be tested over and over. Now if we complain about Carson, we are bigotted or Islamaphobes.

We are being manipulated by a corrupt Administration. IMHO.

nic34
01-14-2015, 10:44 PM
Beware the provocateurs.....

hanger4
01-14-2015, 10:56 PM
Beware the provocateurs.....

Beware ignorance even tho it's bliss.

domer76
01-14-2015, 11:59 PM
Like the cartoon, but one little problem. the 700 Club doesn't

advocate the killing of Jews or terrorists acts killing innocents or

or death to unbelievers.

No, they just claim that natural disasters that do kill people are sent by God because of homosexuals.

Howey
01-15-2015, 12:15 AM
That is EXACTLY what I'm saying, and if you didn't know that, you're not ready for this thread.

PS - Same goes for Keith Ellison.
In all the forum's I've participated on over the past fifteen years, that qualifies as one of the most preposterous and inane statements I've ever read.
The fact that you are stating that the people of not one, but TWO, congressional districts elected non-citizens to Congress because you personally are hate-filled for their religion makes you crazier than any birther I ever replied to.

Would you, protectionist, please post the specific part of the Constitution that states these two men are non-citizens and therefore ineligible to be members of Congress because of their religion?

Howey
01-15-2015, 12:17 AM
The above statement was made with full knowledge that I may be thread banned for making it.

Howey
01-15-2015, 12:20 AM
I have very strong opinions on this matter. Some agree with me, others don't. IMO based on a lot of research I read in my dealings with my GOP, Barack Obama going back decades, has always been a Muslim sympathizer. It was never a secret. He has made references as being a "son of Islam" in his writings. Michelle was raised a Christian, Obama was not. The "Christian" image he has tried to portray, and not well mind you, is for political gain. His actions speak much louder than his empty words defending Christianity. His attack on the Catholic Church and Little Sisters of the Poor is shameful. Yet, not one word against blood thirsty barbarians in the name of Allah.
He flat out refuses to criticize these radicals who are committing their crimes in the name of Allah.

I truely believe, in his heart of hearts, he identifies himself with Islam. He bowed to the Sheik. He said the call to Islam's morning prayer was "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth". All "religious" ornaments were packed away and not used on any Christmas in the WH. He has never chosen a Christian church in DC, has missed the Christian "National Prayer Breakfast" in DC, but celebrated Muslim Iftar's in the WH. There are dozens of other examples. In "Audacity of Hope" he says he'll side with the Muslims if the winds change......

He defends them at all costs, and it's probably understood throughout his inner circle and Administration, that no one is to advance the theory that Islam....even radical Islam is the problem.

He has insulated himself with people who have his ideology. Fine, all presidents do that, but this president is allowing his very deeply held idology to hurt the USA. That is not fine.

What worries me with a Muslim in high political office is the belief we are being told, they will all stick together should a confrontation happen. Blood is thicker than water. My Muslim neighbor has said that many times. He's made his millions here on US soil, but will side with radical Islam if necessary. He has told me and I'll quote "my religion is more important than my American citizenship." I can quote it, I've heard it enough times from him.

That scares me.

We cannot expect this Administration to be honest as to vetting those they want in key positions. If he gets a Muslim on the Supreme Court, we will definitely see CHANGE.

They set a precedent with Barack Obama's nomination, with little to no vetting, and sealed background files and records. We, who complained, were called racist. That precedent was established for a reason, to be tested over and over. Now if we complain about Carson, we are bigotted or Islamaphobes.

We are being manipulated by a corrupt Administration. IMHO.

Wow.
Just wow.

Green Arrow
01-15-2015, 12:46 AM
The above statement was made with full knowledge that I may be thread banned for making it.

For making what statement? I don't see nothin'.

silvereyes
01-15-2015, 01:11 AM
Maybe that's one of the questions they should ask him when he is questioned. Only problem there though is that, unlike Christianity and Judaism, lying is not forbidden in Islam. In Islam, lying (taqiyya) is OK (and even encouraged) as long as it is something to further the cause of the spread of Islam.
Lmao. Its cute that you think christians dont lie.

hanger4
01-15-2015, 01:25 AM
No, they just claim that natural disasters that do kill people are sent by God because of homosexuals.


oooooooooooooooo that's scary !!

And when "they" start killing and subjugating the infidel (unbelievers)

because of commandments in their Bible you'll have a point until then

enjoy your bliss of the ignorant variety.

protectionist
01-15-2015, 01:50 AM
Who else was it for? I mean, it was a pretty direct statement.

It was for everyone and anyone, as are all my posts.

protectionist
01-15-2015, 02:06 AM
In all the forum's I've participated on over the past fifteen years, that qualifies as one of the most preposterous and inane statements I've ever read.
The fact that you are stating that the people of not one, but TWO, congressional districts elected non-citizens to Congress because you personally are hate-filled for their religion makes you crazier than any birther I ever replied to.

Would you, @protectionist (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1054), please post the specific part of the Constitution that states these two men are non-citizens and therefore ineligible to be members of Congress because of their religion?

More display of ignorance on your part. As often happens in forums, disagreements occur because of different definitions for particular words. You can de jure call Carson a "citizen" if you like, based on his birth in America, or you can de facto call him a non-citizen (regardless of his place of birth) based on his Muslim loyalty, which in effect, puts his loyalty (the important factor here) directly to the Umma, and not to the USA.

Did you understand a word of what I told you earlier. So you think I'm "crazier than any birther", huh ? Well it's obvious to me that you are 1) ignorant of Islam and 2) a lousy student of it.

PS- You need not speak the word religion to me regarding Islam, because I don't accept it as a religion. Did you fail to pick up on that too ?
In case, I can see they've got you programmed, and blind to the real jist of all this. :shakeshead:

protectionist
01-15-2015, 02:09 AM
The above statement was made with full knowledge that I may be thread banned for making it.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm not offended in the slightest. You'd have to be saying something substantial for that.

protectionist
01-15-2015, 02:11 AM
Wow.
Just wow.
You mean this is news to you ? Who hasn't known this stuff Redrose posted, for years now ?

protectionist
01-15-2015, 02:13 AM
Lmao. Its cute that you think christians dont lie.

No it's not, because 1) I don't think that, and 2) I never said that.

Howey
01-15-2015, 04:09 AM
More display of ignorance on your part. As often happens in forums, disagreements occur because of different definitions for particular words. You can de jure call Carson a "citizen" if you like, based on his birth in America, or you can de facto call him a non-citizen (regardless of his place of birth) based on his Muslim loyalty, which in effect, puts his loyalty (the important factor here) directly to the Umma, and not to the USA.

Did you understand a word of what I told you earlier. So you think I'm "crazier than any birther", huh ? Well it's obvious to me that you are 1) ignorant of Islam and 2) a lousy student of it.

PS- You need not speak the word religion to me regarding Islam, because I don't accept it as a religion. Did you fail to pick up on that too ?
In case, I can see they've got you programmed, and blind to the real jist of all this. :shakeshead:

How about answering the question?

Would you, protectionist, please post the specific part of the Constitution that states these two men are non-citizens and therefore ineligible to be members of Congress because of their religion?

Peter1469
01-15-2015, 06:16 AM
You forgot about the crusades or does that not count because that was then and this is now?

The Crusades started as a counter attack to prevent a Muslim attempt to take over Western Europe. Nevertheless, the Crusaders were not acting outside of the mainstream in warfare of the day. The Jihadists are. In fact their conduct violates all norms in the conduct of war.

Common
01-15-2015, 06:50 AM
I was raised a roman catholic, but I havent practiced it since the day I joined the military. I have invoked the name of god many times since, hoping for help.

I do find it laughable that everytime a muslim thread comes up no matter how Horrific the act theyve committed. Somehow christianity gets brought in to "justify" insane muslim murderous fanatics.

To be honest I blow past those posts and dont pay them any attention. Americans of all persusasions need to recognize CHRISTIANS are not our enemy right now and its terrorist muslims and theres not just a FEW. Christians didnt just commit mass murder in france over their religion.

Safety
01-15-2015, 09:40 AM
It's apples to oranges Safety Muslims should be held

responsible because their Quran teaches open ended death

to the unblievers.

The Christian bible does not teach such atrocities


You forgot about the crusades or does that not count because that was then and this is now?


The Crusades were a moral RESPONSE to 477 years of Muslim aggressive, mass genocide all over southern Europe, Asia Minor, and North Africa. Only question is what took them so long to react ? It was similar to the minimal response that Obama is giving to ISIS, Boko Haram, et al right now.


The Crusades started as a counter attack to prevent a Muslim attempt to take over Western Europe. Nevertheless, the Crusaders were not acting outside of the mainstream in warfare of the day. The Jihadists are. In fact their conduct violates all norms in the conduct of war.


Peter1469 look at the dialog history above, I am not defending Islam nor am I trying to bash Christanity. All I'm trying to prove is how some want to judge 1.5 billion people over the actions of a handful. That's the reason I brought up the Crusades, not because I was trying to equate it to what extremists are doing today, but to show that there is no group without blood on their hands.

nic34
01-15-2015, 09:43 AM
@Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) look at the dialog history above, I am not defending Islam nor am I trying to bash Christanity. All I'm trying to prove is how some want to judge 1.5 billion people over the actions of a handful. That's the reason I brought up the Crusades, not because I was trying to equate it to what extremists are doing today, but to show that there is no group without blood on their hands.

....or that have had the actions of a handful misrepresent all Christians.

Safety
01-15-2015, 09:46 AM
....or that have had the actions of a handful misrepresent all Christians.

It's interesting how that doesn't apply for....blacks, hispanics, gays, police....

Captain Obvious
01-15-2015, 09:47 AM
He already worked for our intelligence agencies, and this is just a Congressional committee anyway. I don't see an issue.

It just hit Reactionist's radar causing his Islamophobia knee-jerk spasms.

Mister D
01-15-2015, 09:57 AM
....or that have had the actions of a handful misrepresent all Christians.

The irony being that you do so all the time, nic. This was an incredibly shameless post.

Mister D
01-15-2015, 09:58 AM
It's interesting how that doesn't apply for....blacks, hispanics, gays, police....

What's good for the goose...

nic34
01-15-2015, 11:08 AM
The irony being that you do so all the time, nic. This was an incredibly shameless post.

What, that I'm not afraid to point out hypocrisies?

You're welcome.

Mister D
01-15-2015, 11:11 AM
What, that I'm not afraid to point out hypocrisies?

You're welcome.

When you're a hypocrite...well hence the irony.

protectionist
01-15-2015, 01:28 PM
How about answering the question?

Would you, @protectionist (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1054), please post the specific part of the Constitution that states these two men are non-citizens and therefore ineligible to be members of Congress because of their religion?

I gave you the answer that is BIGGER than your Constitution question, If you aren't big enough to understand, ...not my problem.

silvereyes
01-15-2015, 02:35 PM
So, you wont/cant admit that they are citizens? Got it. Youre the worst kind of bigot. Trying to twist the words of our constitution to say what you want (wish) it says. Shame on you.

protectionist
01-15-2015, 04:53 PM
@Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) look at the dialog history above, I am not defending Islam nor am I trying to bash Christanity. All I'm trying to prove is how some want to judge 1.5 billion people over the actions of a handful. That's the reason I brought up the Crusades, not because I was trying to equate it to what extremists are doing today, but to show that there is no group without blood on their hands.

There is immoral/criminal blood, and there is self-defense blood. The Crusades were self-defense blood as is the self-defense blood on the hands of US soldiers today. (and the Kurds, Afghan police, Nigerian army, etc)

protectionist
01-15-2015, 04:55 PM
It just hit Reactionist's radar causing his Islamophobia knee-jerk spasms.

There is no such thing as "Islamaphobia". http://thepoliticsforums.com/images/smilies/newsmilies/geez.gif (javascript:void(0))

protectionist
01-15-2015, 04:58 PM
So, you wont/cant admit that they are citizens? Got it. Youre the worst kind of bigot. Trying to twist the words of our constitution to say what you want (wish) it says. Shame on you.

So you can't deal with the de jure / de facto essence of the issue. Your problem, not mine. And I didn't say anything about the Constitution. And you wont/cant admit that they are citizens of the Umma. Got it. :rolleyes21:

The Sage of Main Street
01-15-2015, 05:12 PM
Pelosi is the left version of Michele Bachman. They both have perfect timing Far more important is that this sheltered self-obsessed snob was the daughter of the Mayor of Baltimore. What could such a creature have in common with real Americans? What could any spoiled brats have to offer us, whether they pretend to be Liberal or Conservative? Why are HeirHeads so disproportionately represented in politics? Why are they allowed to inherit their parents' rank there? If they have a future, the rest of us don't.

Howey
01-15-2015, 05:18 PM
I gave you the answer that is BIGGER than your Constitution question, If you aren't big enough to understand, ...not my problem.


So, you wont/cant admit that they are citizens? Got it. Youre the worst kind of bigot. Trying to twist the words of our constitution to say what you want (wish) it says. Shame on you.

It's incredible that someone like protectionist, who actually appears to have a modicum of intelligence, would spew such bigoted, ridiculous bile out of his mouth.

Like I said, I thought I'd heard it all until now. And now we know why the Founding Fathers were so intent on leaving religion out of the Constitution.

The Sage of Main Street
01-15-2015, 05:23 PM
The Crusades started as a counter attack to prevent a Muslim attempt to take over Western Europe. Nevertheless, the Crusaders were not acting outside of the mainstream in warfare of the day. The Jihadists are. In fact their conduct violates all norms in the conduct of war. It's helping them win, and that's all that matters. Wise people shouldn't criticize their tactics, only their goal, which is to make evolution run backwards to reach their natural time.

protectionist
01-15-2015, 08:32 PM
It's incredible that someone like @protectionist (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1054), who actually appears to have a modicum of intelligence, would spew such bigoted, ridiculous bile out of his mouth.

Like I said, I thought I'd heard it all until now. And now we know why the Founding Fathers were so intent on leaving religion out of the Constitution.

So you are saying that Article 6, Section 2 of the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers who wrote it, were "bigoted, ridiculous bile" ? Your words, not mine. And you're saying that US Codes 2384 & 2385 of Title 18, U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES, and the US Congress that enacted them were "bigoted, ridiculous bile" ?

Bob
01-15-2015, 09:47 PM
That is true, however, like I'm explaining to hanger, the point was not to try and compare two religions, but how people choose to view Muslims based upon the extremists.


Watch this video from CSPAN She gives a powerful talk and some good stuff is around minute 39

http://www.c-span.org/video/?319734-1/islam-west

Howey
01-15-2015, 11:03 PM
So you are saying that Article 6, Section 2 of the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers who wrote it, were "bigoted, ridiculous bile" ? Your words, not mine. And you're saying that US Codes 2384 & 2385 of Title 18, U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES, and the US Congress that enacted them were "bigoted, ridiculous bile" ?

Neither of which have anything to do with two American-born citizens and mentors of Congress elected by their peers.

Although the second could apply to your bigoted, ridiculous bile.

Howey
01-15-2015, 11:06 PM
"...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Article 6, Section 2 of the Constitution.

protectionist
01-16-2015, 12:18 AM
Neither of which have anything to do with two American-born citizens and mentors of Congress elected by their peers.

Although the second could apply to your bigoted, ridiculous bile.

So you DO think the Constitution is "bigoted, ridiculous bile" OK. I just wanted to get that admission out of you.

protectionist
01-16-2015, 12:22 AM
"...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Article 6, Section 2 of the Constitution.

FALSE!

THIS is Article 6, Section (Clause) 2 of the Constitution (the Supremacy Clause), which clearly outlaws Islam, due to its supremacism.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Howey
01-16-2015, 02:35 AM
FALSE!

THIS is Article 6, Section (Clause) 2 of the Constitution (the Supremacy Clause), which clearly outlaws Islam, due to its supremacism.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Oh I quoted Sect 3. What's your comment on it?

Howey
01-16-2015, 02:39 AM
Methinks protectionist has little understanding of the word "supreme" as used in the Constitution.

Ethereal
01-16-2015, 03:58 AM
Methinks @protectionist (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1054) has little understanding of the word "supreme" as used in the Constitution.

I think it could be interpreted either way, depending on your legal theories. Sometimes, ambiguity in the law can serve a valid purpose, but in the case of the federal government, it seems to have ruined the entire document by allowing increasingly expansive and ridiculous interpretations of language like "regulate", "general welfare", "reasonable", "supreme", etc. The problem is that too many people have differing interpretations of what those terms mean, so nobody is technically "correct" in their interpretation, just more numerous than their opposition.

protectionist
01-16-2015, 04:48 AM
I think it could be interpreted either way, depending on your legal theories. Sometimes, ambiguity in the law can serve a valid purpose, but in the case of the federal government, it seems to have ruined the entire document by allowing increasingly expansive and ridiculous interpretations of language like "regulate", "general welfare", "reasonable", "supreme", etc. The problem is that too many people have differing interpretations of what those terms mean, so nobody is technically "correct" in their interpretation, just more numerous than their opposition.

HA HA. I've been dealing with Islamapologists ever since I became a specialist on Islamization (2001). I must have heard their talking point keywords 10,000 times. One of the most common ones is "interpretation" It's used for any word they don't like, and have some fear of. The idea is to tear the word into various different definitions, so that the real definition will be obscured, and be less available for less informed people to use.

I sure hate to spoil what you thought you had going for you Howey and Ethereal, but there is no more impossible word in the English language to interpretationize than the word "supreme". It means ONE thing and ONE thing only > HIGHEST in rank or degree. And that which is highest can be only ONE thing. It is impossible for two things to both be highest. If there were 2, then neither would be the highest (or "supreme")

In the case of the US Constitution, as the Supremacy clause clearly states > "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land..." which, of course, means that no other supremacism may exist in the US (example: > Islam) Elementary, my dear posters.

Posts 104 and 105 are as wrong as any 2 posts have ever been in this forum. :flag:

Green Arrow
01-16-2015, 04:52 AM
HA HA. I've been dealing with Islamapologists ever since I became a specialist on Islamization (2001). I must have heard their talking point keywords 10,000 times. One of the most common ones is "interpretation" It's used for any word they don't like, and have some fear of. The idea is to tear the word into various different definitions, so that the real definition will be obscured, and be less available for less informed people to use.

I sure hate to spoil what you thought you had going for you Howey and Ethereal, but there is no more impossible word in the English language to interpretationize than the word "supreme". It means ONE thing and ONE thing only > HIGHEST in rank or degree. And that which is highest can be only ONE thing. It is impossible for two things to both be highest. If there were 2, then neither would be the highest (or "supreme")

In the case of the US Constitution, as the Supremacy clause clearly states > "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land..." which, of course, means that no other supremacism may exist in the US (example: > Islam) Elementary, my dear posters.

Posts 104 and 105 are as wrong as any 2 posts have ever been in this forum. :flag:

The thing is, if your interpretation is correct, then following any religion would violate the constitution, because most religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all included) demand that their followers follow a higher, moral law over the laws of man, and always choose to follow said high moral law even when it conflicts with the laws of man.

protectionist
01-16-2015, 04:54 AM
Oh I quoted Sect 3. What's your comment on it?

What's there to comment on ? Has nothing to do with Carson or his Islam ideology (masquerading as a religion)

protectionist
01-16-2015, 05:05 AM
The thing is, if your interpretation is correct, then following any religion would violate the constitution, because most religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all included) demand that their followers follow a higher, moral law over the laws of man, and always choose to follow said high moral law even when it conflicts with the laws of man.

FALSE! As I just clearly explained, there IS NO INTERPRETATION. There is only ONE meaning of the word "supreme". That is HIGHEST in rank. Nothing to interpret. I'd say nice try, but you used a ploy that has been refuted over 1,000 times over the past 14 years by me alone. Millions of times, by all protectionists. Back to the drawing board for you.

But you won't find any way to get around the Supremacy Clause. what you described about religions, is not supremacism. Islam is not a religion. It is a political ideology, that demands to be NUMBER 1, which unfortunately for Islam, the USA Founding Fathers said a very distinct NO to that, 226 years ago. It was the strongest part of the Constitution then, and still is today. Unlike the first amendment, which has many exceptions, the Supremacy Clause has NO EXCEPTIONS.

A lot better Islamapologists than you (and Islamists) have given up on that interpretation ploy, long ago. To see you now trying it, is nothing more than slightly humorous.

Green Arrow
01-16-2015, 05:47 AM
FALSE! As I just clearly explained, there IS NO INTERPRETATION. There is only ONE meaning of the word "supreme". That is HIGHEST in rank. Nothing to interpret. I'd say nice try, but you used a ploy that has been refuted over 1,000 times over the past 14 years by me alone. Millions of times, by all protectionists. Back to the drawing board for you.

But you won't find any way to get around the Supremacy Clause. what you described about religions, is not supremacism. Islam is not a religion. It is a political ideology, that demands to be NUMBER 1, which unfortunately for Islam, the USA Founding Fathers said a very distinct NO to that, 226 years ago. It was the strongest part of the Constitution then, and still is today. Unlike the first amendment, which has many exceptions, the Supremacy Clause has NO EXCEPTIONS.

A lot better Islamapologists than you (and Islamists) have given up on that interpretation ploy, long ago. To see you now trying it, is nothing more than slightly humorous.

1) I'm neither an Islamist nor an Islamopologist. I simply hate ignorance and make it my mission to point it out, wherever it may be found.
2) Again, no religion allows its followers to put man-made laws above the laws of their god or gods. None. I challenge you to name any.
3) The word "supreme" means "highest in rank or authority." The laws of G-d are always of higher authority than the laws of man, ergo, such teaching (which can be found in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) would violate the supremacy clause of the constitution.

Every point I have made here is logically sound and accurate. Your inability to refute them is evidence of this.

The Sage of Main Street
01-16-2015, 12:28 PM
So you are saying that Article 6, Section 2 of the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers who wrote it, were "bigoted, ridiculous bile" ? Your words, not mine. And you're saying that US Codes 2384 & 2385 of Title 18, U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES, and the US Congress that enacted them were "bigoted, ridiculous bile" ? Desperate surrender-monkeys have to stretch every undeserved historical persecution and apply it to their latest pet victim group, the Nazislamis.

protectionist
01-18-2015, 10:31 PM
1) I'm neither an Islamist nor an Islamopologist. I simply hate ignorance and make it my mission to point it out, wherever it may be found.
2) Again, no religion allows its followers to put man-made laws above the laws of their god or gods. None. I challenge you to name any.
3) The word "supreme" means "highest in rank or authority." The laws of G-d are always of higher authority than the laws of man, ergo, such teaching (which can be found in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) would violate the supremacy clause of the constitution.

Every point I have made here is logically sound and accurate. Your inability to refute them is evidence of this.

There is no need to even ADDRESS them, let alone refute them. Islam is not a religion. You are talking off the subject.

PS - even if Islam was a religion, that does not allow it to be supreme above the Constitution, and the religions existing in America are not supremacist. They do not seek supreme political power. Article 6, Section 2 does not say "except for religions". And do you see the Pope demanding to be above the govt of Italy and its laws ? Or above the laws of any country ? (as Islam does). You refuted your "points" yourself.
Please discontinue this. I don't have the time to attend to the problem of you making a fool of yourself.
NO ONE has been able to refute what I've said here for 14 years, and you thought you were going to ? :shakeshead:

protectionist
01-18-2015, 10:34 PM
Carson and Ellison should never have even been accepted into the US govt, much less this committee in the House of Reps.