Voter Fraud 'Minimal'...Oh, Really?

In the wake of Attorney General Eric Holder's declaration of war speech against voter ID laws, a number of the usual suspects stepped in to try to backup his claim that voter fraud was negligible, including, of course, Pravda-on-the-Hudson. They even have a demonstrably cooked 'study' or two to cite.

After my article yesterday on Eric Holder's racist and hypocritical rant, I decided to look through the spam filter and found a number of e-mails from the usual trolls citing the same nonsense. Since none of them met guidelines, being either obscene or containing ad hominem attacks on me or my readers (ones from these particular URLs never meet guidelines, trust me) and since none of them seriously tried to debate the points I raised, I didn't even bother publishing them since they added nothing to the mix.

However, since the 'negligible' argument is being megaphoned by their bylined pals on the Left, I think it's worth addressing.

First of all, 'negligible' is a subjective judgment, based on who's counting. For instance, in 2009 there were a total of 13,257 new cases of AIDS originating from heterosexual contact reported in the US. As a percentage of the US population, that works out to about .000043%, something most mathematicians would call negligible. However, the government spends millions of dollars each year promoting the safe sex message and urging condom use, and if you notice, the ads almost always feature heterosexual couples or females, who have an even lower incidence of AIDS from heterosexual contact then do males. Of course, if you or one of your loved ones is part of the statistic, it's tremendously important to you and if you were to ask someone from the Department of Health and Human Services, they'd undoubtedly tell you that even one case is too many and justifies the most stringent methods at prevention.

Since voter fraud is an infection of our democracy, shouldn't we be as concerned about preventing it?

Actually, the incidents of voter fraud, particularly when it comes to fraudulent registration are rampant and easy to find with a simple internet search. And the interesting thing you find as you get into it is that the reported instances are a lot lower than they might be simply because elected officials and their appointees charged with enforcing the laws on this ( almost always Democrats) frequently fail to investigate and prosecute.

An example I'm personally familiar with involves Bob Dornan, a long time conservative California Republican congressman whose district was redrawn by the Democrat majority in Sacramento. In 1996, Dornan was defeated for re-election by Democrat Loretta Sanchez by a mere 984 votes.

Congressman Dornan charged that there had been massive election fraud in his district involving non-citizens. Dornan did his own investigation and said that that there were at least 1,789 illegal voters, and perhaps more. According to John Funds' book Stealing Elections, the INS did an investigation on its own in 1996 into alleged Motor Voter fraud in California's Forty-sixth Congressional District and found that based on registrations that didn't match up: "4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in the disputed election between Republican Robert Dornan and Democrat Loretta Sanchez." (p. 24).

The House Contested Elections Committee in the Spring of 1997 did a cursory investigation of its own and came up with proof that 547 non-citizens voted in Orange County and that 303 more had been registered to vote in the 46th District by Hermandad Nacional Mexicana, a non profit funded with government grants that actively registered non-citizens to vote and instructed them
on how to mark their absentee ballots.

So at the least, you could say that Dornan had a case and that this called for a thorough investigation by the Department of Justice.

The end result? Democrat Attorney General Janet Reno formally declined to investigate, based on her subjective judgment that 'not enough fraud occurred' to change the results and of course, possibly unseat a Democrat member of Congress.

Want more? One of the most recent well-publicized voter fraud cases occurred in the Washington State governor’s race in November 2004 in which Democrat Christine Gregoire allegedly defeated Republican Dino Rossi by just 129 votes after weeks of vote counting.

Later, the Washington State Superior Court found that 1,400 felons voted illegally, along with illegal votes cast by 53 dead people, two non-citizens and 27 double votes. Since Washington State does not have party voter registration, there was no way of proving exactly how they voted, so the judge ruled there was not enough proof to void the election. However, it's worth mentioning that almost all of the violations occurred in the Democrat stronghold of King County. You might remember that one,because it involved a number of voters claiming the address of the State Democrat party headquarters in Seattle their 'residence'. A similar tactic seems to have been used in this recent case in Wisconsin.

There are numerous other incidents I could cite. For instance, you could spend hours reading about President Obama's old friends at ACORN.

The core of the problem stems from a really bad piece of legislation, passed,of course by a Democrat-dominated Congress. President Clinton's National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) known as the Motor-Voter law makes voter registration virtually automatic when you apply for a driver's license and called for distributing registration applications in state welfare offices. Under this law, the information supplied by the applicant for a license doubles as information for voter registration unless the applicant indicates that he/she doesn't want to be registered. It also has restrictions that prevent states from culling the rolls in a timely manner to eliminate dead people and people whom may no longer be residents in the area or whom have lost their voting rights due to felony convictions.

Since several states now issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens, the voting rolls have become clogged with a number of people who are not entitled to vote. There was a move in Congress to change the law to not include voter registration for non-citizens in 1998. It was narrowly defeated, with nearly every Democrat in Congress voting against.

It's also worth mentioning that for illegal aliens, a voter registration card is one of the proofs of citizenship legally allowed to be used to help establish identity for the purposes of 'legal' employment. That and a social security card are all you need.

And then, there's my own experience. When I drove my elderly mother to the polls in California to vote I stood in line next to her. After my mom finished signing in, the poll worker asked me my name, to which I responded jokingly 'Chauffeur'. My mom told the pol worker "That's my son", after which the poll worker responded "I'll mark him down as living at the same address' and handed me a ballot. I was not even asked for an ID. And yes, I gave it back to the poll worker.

The other side to voter fraud is vote suppression. Again, the chief culprits seem to be Democrats and the chief victims military voters stationed overseas.

It's pretty well known that Al Gore and his team used technicalities and friendly Democrat appointed officials to disqualify the ballots of almost 2,000 members of our military serving overseas in the 2000 Florida presidential election.

What's less well known is that this process wasn't limited to Florida, and was so egregious by the 2008 election that Congress passed the Federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (the MOVE Act), which among other things mandated that ballots be in the hands of our military no less than 45 days prior to elections.

Eric Holder and the Obama Department of Justice dealt with that prior to the 2010 midterms by by engaging in a systematic campaign to encourage states to seek waivers not to comply with the laws and suppress the military vote, a constituency that was perceived by them as largely Republican.As you might expect,Congress found out in a subsequent investigation when it was too late to do anything about it that the worst offenders were states and counties run by Democrats. In fact, the Justice Department employee who was the chief contact person in encouraging jurisdictions not to comply with the law was actually promoted.

Voter fraud 'negligible'? Again, I guess it depends on who's counting. And of course, who benefits.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Voter Fraud 'Minimal'...Oh, Really?

In the wake of Attorney General Eric Holder's declaration of war speech against voter ID laws, a number of the usual suspects stepped in to try to backup his claim that voter fraud was negligible, including, of course, Pravda-on-the-Hudson. They even have a demonstrably cooked 'study' or two to cite.

After my article yesterday on Eric Holder's racist and hypocritical rant, I decided to look through the spam filter and found a number of e-mails from the usual trolls citing the same nonsense. Since none of them met guidelines, being either obscene or containing ad hominem attacks on me or my readers (ones from these particular URLs never meet guidelines, trust me) and since none of them seriously tried to debate the points I raised, I didn't even bother publishing them since they added nothing to the mix.

However, since the 'negligible' argument is being megaphoned by their bylined pals on the Left, I think it's worth addressing.

First of all, 'negligible' is a subjective judgment, based on who's counting. For instance, in 2009 there were a total of 13,257 new cases of AIDS originating from heterosexual contact reported in the US. As a percentage of the US population, that works out to about .000043%, something most mathematicians would call negligible. However, the government spends millions of dollars each year promoting the safe sex message and urging condom use, and if you notice, the ads almost always feature heterosexual couples or females, who have an even lower incidence of AIDS from heterosexual contact then do males. Of course, if you or one of your loved ones is part of the statistic, it's tremendously important to you and if you were to ask someone from the Department of Health and Human Services, they'd undoubtedly tell you that even one case is too many and justifies the most stringent methods at prevention.

Since voter fraud is an infection of our democracy, shouldn't we be as concerned about preventing it?

Actually, the incidents of voter fraud, particularly when it comes to fraudulent registration are rampant and easy to find with a simple internet search. And the interesting thing you find as you get into it is that the reported instances are a lot lower than they might be simply because elected officials and their appointees charged with enforcing the laws on this ( almost always Democrats) frequently fail to investigate and prosecute.

An example I'm personally familiar with involves Bob Dornan, a long time conservative California Republican congressman whose district was redrawn by the Democrat majority in Sacramento. In 1996, Dornan was defeated for re-election by Democrat Loretta Sanchez by a mere 984 votes.

Congressman Dornan charged that there had been massive election fraud in his district involving non-citizens. Dornan did his own investigation and said that that there were at least 1,789 illegal voters, and perhaps more. According to John Funds' book Stealing Elections, the INS did an investigation on its own in 1996 into alleged Motor Voter fraud in California's Forty-sixth Congressional District and found that based on registrations that didn't match up: "4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in the disputed election between Republican Robert Dornan and Democrat Loretta Sanchez." (p. 24).

The House Contested Elections Committee in the Spring of 1997 did a cursory investigation of its own and came up with proof that 547 non-citizens voted in Orange County and that 303 more had been registered to vote in the 46th District by Hermandad Nacional Mexicana, a non profit funded with government grants that actively registered non-citizens to vote and instructed them
on how to mark their absentee ballots.

So at the least, you could say that Dornan had a case and that this called for a thorough investigation by the Department of Justice.

The end result? Democrat Attorney General Janet Reno formally declined to investigate, based on her subjective judgment that 'not enough fraud occurred' to change the results and of course, possibly unseat a Democrat member of Congress.

Want more? One of the most recent well-publicized voter fraud cases occurred in the Washington State governor’s race in November 2004 in which Democrat Christine Gregoire allegedly defeated Republican Dino Rossi by just 129 votes after weeks of vote counting.

Later, the Washington State Superior Court found that 1,400 felons voted illegally, along with illegal votes cast by 53 dead people, two non-citizens and 27 double votes. Since Washington State does not have party voter registration, there was no way of proving exactly how they voted, so the judge ruled there was not enough proof to void the election. However, it's worth mentioning that almost all of the violations occurred in the Democrat stronghold of King County. You might remember that one,because it involved a number of voters claiming the address of the State Democrat party headquarters in Seattle their 'residence'. A similar tactic seems to have been used in this recent case in Wisconsin.

There are numerous other incidents I could cite. For instance, you could spend hours reading about President Obama's old friends at ACORN.

The core of the problem stems from a really bad piece of legislation, passed,of course by a Democrat-dominated Congress. President Clinton's National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) known as the Motor-Voter law makes voter registration virtually automatic when you apply for a driver's license and called for distributing registration applications in state welfare offices. Under this law, the information supplied by the applicant for a license doubles as information for voter registration unless the applicant indicates that he/she doesn't want to be registered. It also has restrictions that prevent states from culling the rolls in a timely manner to eliminate dead people and people whom may no longer be residents in the area or whom have lost their voting rights due to felony convictions.

Since several states now issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens, the voting rolls have become clogged with a number of people who are not entitled to vote. There was a move in Congress to change the law to not include voter registration for non-citizens in 1998. It was narrowly defeated, with nearly every Democrat in Congress voting against.

It's also worth mentioning that for illegal aliens, a voter registration card is one of the proofs of citizenship legally allowed to be used to help establish identity for the purposes of 'legal' employment. That and a social security card are all you need.

And then, there's my own experience. When I drove my elderly mother to the polls in California to vote I stood in line next to her. After my mom finished signing in, the poll worker asked me my name, to which I responded jokingly 'Chauffeur'. My mom told the pol worker "That's my son", after which the poll worker responded "I'll mark him down as living at the same address' and handed me a ballot. I was not even asked for an ID. And yes, I gave it back to the poll worker.

The other side to voter fraud is vote suppression. Again, the chief culprits seem to be Democrats and the chief victims military voters stationed overseas.

It's pretty well known that Al Gore and his team used technicalities and friendly Democrat appointed officials to disqualify the ballots of almost 2,000 members of our military serving overseas in the 2000 Florida presidential election.

What's less well known is that this process wasn't limited to Florida, and was so egregious by the 2008 election that Congress passed the Federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (the MOVE Act), which among other things mandated that ballots be in the hands of our military no less than 45 days prior to elections.

Eric Holder and the Obama Department of Justice dealt with that prior to the 2010 midterms by by engaging in a systematic campaign to encourage states to seek waivers not to comply with the laws and suppress the military vote, a constituency that was perceived by them as largely Republican.As you might expect,Congress found out in a subsequent investigation when it was too late to do anything about it that the worst offenders were states and counties run by Democrats. In fact, the Justice Department employee who was the chief contact person in encouraging jurisdictions not to comply with the law was actually promoted.

Voter fraud 'negligible'? Again, I guess it depends on who's counting. And of course, who benefits.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

AG Holder Declares War On Photo ID Voting Laws

In a speech in Texas today, Attorney General Eric Holder essentially declared war on new laws requiring a photo ID to vote.He claims the new laws, passed in Texas and a number of other states disenfranchise poor and minority voters...by which he essentially means blacks, Hispanics and convicted felons whose voting rights have been taken away.

Holder claimed these laws violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act and pledged that the Justice Department will oppose the law in Texas and a dozen other states vigorously.

Holder also spoke out against the new proposed map in Texas of new congressional districts, claiming they under-represent Hispanics. Under the new census,Texas gained 4 congressional seats and Holder's reasoning is that since they account for most of the population growth in that state, by rights the new districts should be drawn so that the new congress members are mostly Hispanic.

The naked partisanship, racism and hypocrisy present in Holder's remarks makes it difficult to believe that someone like this could actually be the nation's top law enforcement official.

What the new photo ID laws really discriminate against is voter fraud, particularly widespread in Blue States but not limited to them. You see, in order to get a state issued photo ID or driver's license, one needs to present a birth certificate or other proof of citizenship. Since illegal aliens are perceived by the Obama Administration as a Democrat constituency, the last thing someone like Eric Holder wants is for them be denied a vote over a silly issue like citizenship.

His argument about the need for a photo ID discriminating against 'the poor' is likewise fallacious. Virtually every state in the Union has a program allowing American citizens in financial need to obtain a state-issued photo ID free of charge.

Holder's blast at the proposed map of the new Texas congressional districts likewise reveals exactly what kind of man we have as attorney general. He claims to be fighting against what amounts to the redrawing of the new districts by the elected representatives of the people of Texas, but what he's really saying is that he wants the new districts gerrymandered on racial lines to insure more Hispanic congress members..who he assumes, with the benefit of voters whose actual identification and citizenship hasn't been checked will likewise be Democrats. It should also be noted that the census on which this is based likewise does not take citizenship or immigration status into account.

Underlying this argument of Holder's is the outright racism that assumes that 'only a Hispanic' should represent Hispanics. because of course, all non-Hispanics are inherently racist and thus incapable. This resembles a similar argument used for years by the majority of black social workers in California and elsewhere that kept orphaned or unwanted black children from being adopted by otherwise qualified and loving non-black families because 'they couldn't properly raise a black child'.

The Attorney General's pretense about caring about voting rights for all Americans might have a lot more credence if it wasn't for his enforcement of voter intimidation laws on racial lines, and for the systematic and despicable efforts by the Obama Department of Justice to deny votes to our military serving overseas.

But then, our serving military is perceived as a largely Republican constituency, and Holder would rather those voters were disenfranchised. After all, why enforce the laws he swore to uphold if there are some votes to be had? And others to be suppressed?

Such an attitude merits the deepest contempt towards a public official so obviously unfit to serve.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

AG Holder Declares War On Photo ID Voting Laws

In a speech in Texas today, Attorney General Eric Holder essentially declared war on new laws requiring a photo ID to vote.He claims the new laws, passed in Texas and a number of other states disenfranchise poor and minority voters...by which he essentially means blacks, Hispanics and convicted felons whose voting rights have been taken away.

Holder claimed these laws violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act and pledged that the Justice Department will oppose the law in Texas and a dozen other states vigorously.

Holder also spoke out against the new proposed map in Texas of new congressional districts, claiming they under-represent Hispanics. Under the new census,Texas gained 4 congressional seats and Holder's reasoning is that since they account for most of the population growth in that state, by rights the new districts should be drawn so that the new congress members are mostly Hispanic.

The naked partisanship, racism and hypocrisy present in Holder's remarks makes it difficult to believe that someone like this could actually be the nation's top law enforcement official.

What the new photo ID laws really discriminate against is voter fraud, particularly widespread in Blue States but not limited to them. You see, in order to get a state issued photo ID or driver's license, one needs to present a birth certificate or other proof of citizenship. Since illegal aliens are perceived by the Obama Administration as a Democrat constituency, the last thing someone like Eric Holder wants is for them be denied a vote over a silly issue like citizenship.

His argument about the need for a photo ID discriminating against 'the poor' is likewise fallacious. Virtually every state in the Union has a program allowing American citizens in financial need to obtain a state-issued photo ID free of charge.

Holder's blast at the proposed map of the new Texas congressional districts likewise reveals exactly what kind of man we have as attorney general. He claims to be fighting against what amounts to the redrawing of the new districts by the elected representatives of the people of Texas, but what he's really saying is that he wants the new districts gerrymandered on racial lines to insure more Hispanic congress members..who he assumes, with the benefit of voters whose actual identification and citizenship hasn't been checked will likewise be Democrats. It should also be noted that the census on which this is based likewise does not take citizenship or immigration status into account.

Underlying this argument of Holder's is the outright racism that assumes that 'only a Hispanic' should represent Hispanics. because of course, all non-Hispanics are inherently racist and thus incapable. This resembles a similar argument used for years by the majority of black social workers in California and elsewhere that kept orphaned or unwanted black children from being adopted by otherwise qualified and loving non-black families because 'they couldn't properly raise a black child'.

The Attorney General's pretense about caring about voting rights for all Americans might have a lot more credence if it wasn't for his enforcement of voter intimidation laws on racial lines, and for the systematic and despicable efforts by the Obama Department of Justice to deny votes to our military serving overseas.

But then, our serving military is perceived as a largely Republican constituency, and Holder would rather those voters were disenfranchised. After all, why enforce the laws he swore to uphold if there are some votes to be had? And others to be suppressed?

Such an attitude merits the deepest contempt towards a public official so obviously unfit to serve.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Holy Land Foundation Convictions Upheld On Appeal

There are some very sad jihadis in Texas today...

The convictions in the Holy Land Foundation trial have been upheld by the Fifth Circuit and the appeals denied:

Ghassan Elashi, of Richardson, a Holy Land Foundation founder, received 65 years for support of Hamas, money laundering and tax fraud. Shukri Abu Baker, of Garland, who was Holy Land's CEO, received 65 years for support of Hamas, money laundering and tax fraud. Mufid Abdulqader, of Richardson, was a top volunteer fundraiser and sang about Hamas in a Palestinian band that played at fundraising rallies, received 20 years for conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization; conspiracy to provide funds, goods and services to a specially designated terrorist; and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Abdulrahman Odeh, who started Holy Land's office in New Jersey, received 15 years in prison for conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization; conspiracy to provide funds, goods and services to a specially designated terrorist; and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Mohammad El-Mezain, an imam who ran Holy Land's office in California, received 15 years in prison for providing support to Hamas.

The HLF, once the largest Muslim charity in the United States, had been under investigation for years before it was shut down by the Bush administration months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In their appeals, defense attorneys argued that the government's use of anonymous Israeli witnesses and other issues resulted in an unfair outcome for their clients, two of whom are serving 65-year sentences.

In today's opinion, Fifth Circuit Judge Carolyn Dineen King, writing on behalf of colleagues Emilio M. Garza and James E. Graves, Jr., noted:

"While no trial is perfect, this one included, we conclude from our review of the record, briefs, and oral argument, that the defendants were fairly convicted. For the reasons explained below, therefore, we affirm the district court's judgments of conviction of the individual defendants. We dismiss the appeal of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development."

Those 'anonymous Israeli witnesses' were Shin Bet and other security personnel whose personal safety and the secrecy involved in other ongoing investigations might have been compromised had they been identified.

These cockroaches helped fund the murder of countless civilians, including a number of American citizens. However, I agree that they didn't merit these kind of sentences.

A rope and a pigskin burial would have been more in line with what they merited.

It should be noted that this was the trial in which CAIR,ISNA and a number of other organizations people associated with these Muslim Brotherhood fronts were named as unindicted conspirators. This was supposed to be only the first round of trials associated with the HLF, and a second round of trials was scheduled to go after the 'unindicted co-conspirators'.

That trial would have been a slam dunk, because the Islamist group's attorneys appealed to have their names removed and not only lost the appeal but ended up causing government evidence to be unsealed that connected them even more directly with the Hamas fundraising and material support for a terrorist group.However, the Obama Department of Justice filed Disinclination to Prosecute briefs in these cases, letting the Islamists walk free. So today's verdict is just a partial victory.

It isn't just Fast and Furious Eric Holder is covering up for.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Holy Land Foundation Convictions Upheld On Appeal

There are some very sad jihadis in Texas today...

The convictions in the Holy Land Foundation trial have been upheld by the Fifth Circuit and the appeals denied:

Ghassan Elashi, of Richardson, a Holy Land Foundation founder, received 65 years for support of Hamas, money laundering and tax fraud. Shukri Abu Baker, of Garland, who was Holy Land's CEO, received 65 years for support of Hamas, money laundering and tax fraud. Mufid Abdulqader, of Richardson, was a top volunteer fundraiser and sang about Hamas in a Palestinian band that played at fundraising rallies, received 20 years for conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization; conspiracy to provide funds, goods and services to a specially designated terrorist; and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Abdulrahman Odeh, who started Holy Land's office in New Jersey, received 15 years in prison for conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization; conspiracy to provide funds, goods and services to a specially designated terrorist; and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Mohammad El-Mezain, an imam who ran Holy Land's office in California, received 15 years in prison for providing support to Hamas.

The HLF, once the largest Muslim charity in the United States, had been under investigation for years before it was shut down by the Bush administration months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In their appeals, defense attorneys argued that the government's use of anonymous Israeli witnesses and other issues resulted in an unfair outcome for their clients, two of whom are serving 65-year sentences.

In today's opinion, Fifth Circuit Judge Carolyn Dineen King, writing on behalf of colleagues Emilio M. Garza and James E. Graves, Jr., noted:

"While no trial is perfect, this one included, we conclude from our review of the record, briefs, and oral argument, that the defendants were fairly convicted. For the reasons explained below, therefore, we affirm the district court's judgments of conviction of the individual defendants. We dismiss the appeal of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development."

Those 'anonymous Israeli witnesses' were Shin Bet and other security personnel whose personal safety and the secrecy involved in other ongoing investigations might have been compromised had they been identified.

These cockroaches helped fund the murder of countless civilians, including a number of American citizens. However, I agree that they didn't merit these kind of sentences.

A rope and a pigskin burial would have been more in line with what they merited.

It should be noted that this was the trial in which CAIR,ISNA and a number of other organizations people associated with these Muslim Brotherhood fronts were named as unindicted conspirators. This was supposed to be only the first round of trials associated with the HLF, and a second round of trials was scheduled to go after the 'unindicted co-conspirators'.

That trial would have been a slam dunk, because the Islamist group's attorneys appealed to have their names removed and not only lost the appeal but ended up causing government evidence to be unsealed that connected them even more directly with the Hamas fundraising and material support for a terrorist group.However, the Obama Department of Justice filed Disinclination to Prosecute briefs in these cases, letting the Islamists walk free. So today's verdict is just a partial victory.

It isn't just Fast and Furious Eric Holder is covering up for.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Obama DOJ Bows To Islamists, Pulls References To Islam From Security Training Manuals

This would be pathetic if it weren't so dangerous. The Obama Department Of Justice is pulling back all training materials used for law enforcement and national security communities in order to eliminate all references to Islam:

“I recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security,” Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole told a panel at the George Washington University law school.

The move comes after complaints from advocacy organizations including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others identified as Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the 2004 Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial.

In a Wednesday Los Angeles Times op-ed, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) president Salam al-Marayati threatened the FBI with a total cutoff of cooperation between American Muslims and law enforcement if the agency failed to revise its law enforcement training materials.

Maintaining the training materials in their current state “will undermine the relationship between law enforcement and the Muslim American community,” al-Marayati wrote.

The MPAC, like CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood front group.

Let's chew on this just a second, here we have a supposedly 'moderate' Muslim and someone who purports to be a loyal U.S. citizen threatening the security apparatus of the U.S. government not only with his own non-cooperation but with inciting other Muslims to do the same unless he gets his way.

To those who know about the MPAC and al-Marayati, who has defended Islamist terrorism repeatedly, none of this is any mystery. Al-Marayati has even defended genocidal groups like Hezbollah on occasion, referring to their terrorist attacks as 'legitimate resistance' in an interview on Jim Leher's PBS 'NewsHour

Read more at: http://www.investigativeproject.org/profile/114

' show. But the fact that he could make this kind of threat and have the Obama Administration cave in so completely is almost unbelievable in it's scope.

Not only was al-Marayati able to get the training manuals pulled, but he wants " a clear and unequivocal apology to the Muslim American community” and input into the revised manuals and the people providing the training, and calls for the DOJ and FBI to “establish a thorough and transparent vetting process in selecting its trainers and materials.”

Al-Marayati also demanded a new “interagency task force” to review any training materials..which would include representatives of the Islamist organizations the FBI is supposed to be monitoring! And the indications are he'll more than likely get all of that.

Dwight C. Holton, the U.S. Attorney in Oregon told the Soros galley slaves over at Talking Points Memo that he had spoken with Holder directly about the the “egregiously false” training that took place at the FBI’s training headquarters at Quantico and at a U.S. Attorney’s office in Pennsylvania.

“I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for,” Holton said. “They will not be tolerated.”

This sort of sensitivity even embraces terrorists. Holton boasted that when he made the announcement of the arrest of the “Christmas tree bomber” Mohamed Osman Mohamud in 2010, he never mentioned a thing about The Religion of Peace.

“In the 37-page complaint that laid out the allegations against Mohamed Mohamud, he is never once identified as a Muslim. We were very careful about that. It’s not relevant from our perspective, what’s relevant is the violence,” Holton said.

“Every time I opened my mouth about that case, I said maybe two or three main points and one of them is ‘violence knows no country, no religion, no boundaries’,” Holton said.

Yes, we're simply overwhelmed with Jewish, Buddhist and Christian terrorists. Gotta keep an eye on them.

This is a man in charge of prosecuting terrorist cases in America.You're paying this clueless dhimmi's salary, folks.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Obama DOJ Bows To Islamists, Pulls References To Islam From Security Training Manuals

This would be pathetic if it weren't so dangerous. The Obama Department Of Justice is pulling back all training materials used for law enforcement and national security communities in order to eliminate all references to Islam:

“I recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security,” Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole told a panel at the George Washington University law school.

The move comes after complaints from advocacy organizations including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others identified as Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the 2004 Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial.

In a Wednesday Los Angeles Times op-ed, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) president Salam al-Marayati threatened the FBI with a total cutoff of cooperation between American Muslims and law enforcement if the agency failed to revise its law enforcement training materials.

Maintaining the training materials in their current state “will undermine the relationship between law enforcement and the Muslim American community,” al-Marayati wrote.

The MPAC, like CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood front group.

Let's chew on this just a second, here we have a supposedly 'moderate' Muslim and someone who purports to be a loyal U.S. citizen threatening the security apparatus of the U.S. government not only with his own non-cooperation but with inciting other Muslims to do the same unless he gets his way.

To those who know about the MPAC and al-Marayati, who has defended Islamist terrorism repeatedly, none of this is any mystery. Al-Marayati has even defended genocidal groups like Hezbollah on occasion, referring to their terrorist attacks as 'legitimate resistance' in an interview on Jim Leher's PBS 'NewsHour

Read more at: http://www.investigativeproject.org/profile/114

' show. But the fact that he could make this kind of threat and have the Obama Administration cave in so completely is almost unbelievable in it's scope.

Not only was al-Marayati able to get the training manuals pulled, but he wants " a clear and unequivocal apology to the Muslim American community” and input into the revised manuals and the people providing the training, and calls for the DOJ and FBI to “establish a thorough and transparent vetting process in selecting its trainers and materials.”

Al-Marayati also demanded a new “interagency task force” to review any training materials..which would include representatives of the Islamist organizations the FBI is supposed to be monitoring! And the indications are he'll more than likely get all of that.

Dwight C. Holton, the U.S. Attorney in Oregon told the Soros galley slaves over at Talking Points Memo that he had spoken with Holder directly about the the “egregiously false” training that took place at the FBI’s training headquarters at Quantico and at a U.S. Attorney’s office in Pennsylvania.

“I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for,” Holton said. “They will not be tolerated.”

This sort of sensitivity even embraces terrorists. Holton boasted that when he made the announcement of the arrest of the “Christmas tree bomber” Mohamed Osman Mohamud in 2010, he never mentioned a thing about The Religion of Peace.

“In the 37-page complaint that laid out the allegations against Mohamed Mohamud, he is never once identified as a Muslim. We were very careful about that. It’s not relevant from our perspective, what’s relevant is the violence,” Holton said.

“Every time I opened my mouth about that case, I said maybe two or three main points and one of them is ‘violence knows no country, no religion, no boundaries’,” Holton said.

Yes, we're simply overwhelmed with Jewish, Buddhist and Christian terrorists. Gotta keep an eye on them.

This is a man in charge of prosecuting terrorist cases in America.You're paying this clueless dhimmi's salary, folks.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Obama DOJ Forces School District To Pay Muslim Teacher $75K Over Special Leave For Mecca Trip During School Year

You may remember a story I reported on last December about the Obama Justice Department filing suit against the Berkeley School District in Illinois on behalf of Safoora Kahn, a Muslim teacher because the district denied her three weeks special leave during the school term in order to attend the Haj in Mecca.

The Haj, for those of you who don't know is a religious pilgrimage to the Saudi city of Mecca. It's a religious duty all Muslims are supposed to perform once in their lifetime if they are able, where they prostrate themselves before the Ka'aba and a meteorite known as the Sacred Black Stone and perform rites virtually unchanged since it was a pagan idol dedicated to Lah, the Arabian Moon God.

And it lasts all of five days, not the three weeks Khan requested.

Nevertheless, after her request was denied twice, Khan resigned, went to Mecca and filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) which referred it to the Department of Justice. They sued on her behalf, and believe it or not, they won.

Safoorah Khan’s religious discrimination lawsuit against the Berkeley School District ended with a settlement that forced the district to pay $75,000 in lost back pay, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees, not to mention the costs the district incurred in defending itself.

The settlement also requires the district to develop a policy for accommodating religions - and let's be honest, we're only talking about Islam here - including mandatory training on religious accommodations to all board of education members and school supervisors.

“I’m glad that we settled and I hope this does set a precedent,” Khan said. “I hope they realize that hajj means a lot to Muslims and there will be more and more people taking the trip. I hope this helps people and their employers to accommodate Muslims and their requests.”

That statement is a clue as to how this went down. I can almost guarantee that Ms. Kahn talked to her friends at CAIR first before quitting her job and filing the EEOC complaint, which cost her nothing and cost the school district she worked for $75,000, the cost of defending itself against her lawsuit and the cost of hiring a replacement when she resigned in the middle of a school year.

I guarantee you, the Obama DOJ would not have taken a similar case for a Catholic teacher seeking three weeks off for Holy Week, or a Jewish teacher seeking three weeks off for the ten day period between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.

The first commandment of the Obama Administration - Thou shalt appease Islam at all times.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Obama DOJ Forces School District To Pay Muslim Teacher $75K Over Special Leave For Mecca Trip During School Year

You may remember a story I reported on last December about the Obama Justice Department filing suit against the Berkeley School District in Illinois on behalf of Safoora Kahn, a Muslim teacher because the district denied her three weeks special leave during the school term in order to attend the Haj in Mecca.

The Haj, for those of you who don't know is a religious pilgrimage to the Saudi city of Mecca. It's a religious duty all Muslims are supposed to perform once in their lifetime if they are able, where they prostrate themselves before the Ka'aba and a meteorite known as the Sacred Black Stone and perform rites virtually unchanged since it was a pagan idol dedicated to Lah, the Arabian Moon God.

And it lasts all of five days, not the three weeks Khan requested.

Nevertheless, after her request was denied twice, Khan resigned, went to Mecca and filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) which referred it to the Department of Justice. They sued on her behalf, and believe it or not, they won.

Safoorah Khan’s religious discrimination lawsuit against the Berkeley School District ended with a settlement that forced the district to pay $75,000 in lost back pay, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees, not to mention the costs the district incurred in defending itself.

The settlement also requires the district to develop a policy for accommodating religions - and let's be honest, we're only talking about Islam here - including mandatory training on religious accommodations to all board of education members and school supervisors.

“I’m glad that we settled and I hope this does set a precedent,” Khan said. “I hope they realize that hajj means a lot to Muslims and there will be more and more people taking the trip. I hope this helps people and their employers to accommodate Muslims and their requests.”

That statement is a clue as to how this went down. I can almost guarantee that Ms. Kahn talked to her friends at CAIR first before quitting her job and filing the EEOC complaint, which cost her nothing and cost the school district she worked for $75,000, the cost of defending itself against her lawsuit and the cost of hiring a replacement when she resigned in the middle of a school year.

I guarantee you, the Obama DOJ would not have taken a similar case for a Catholic teacher seeking three weeks off for Holy Week, or a Jewish teacher seeking three weeks off for the ten day period between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.

The first commandment of the Obama Administration - Thou shalt appease Islam at all times.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!