Irony: CAIR Refusing to Cooperate in Hearings On Why Muslims Don't Cooperate

Below is my statement on the subject:
==============================
TO: Congressman Peter King, NY
Congressman Michael McCaul, TX

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

RE: Constitutional checks against legal or religious abuses
by any organized group (not just Jihadists)

Dear Congressmen Peter King and Michael McCaul:
Thank you for your commitment to Constitutional protections of citizens
in addressing the issue of religious abuses that otherwise threaten public security.

What makes Jihadist beliefs unlawful in the U.S. is when a follower makes a decision to execute a killing or punishment against another person, without respect for democratic due process and defense. The solution would be to require any large religious organization, or even nonprofit or business corporations, to agree to adhere to the civil laws of due process and redressing grievances, as guaranteed to citizens under the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment.

To ensure there is no religious discrimination against any one group,
I urge you to address NOT ONLY the Jihadist threat of violence or oppression,
but to EXPAND your investigation and hearings on this matter to cover ALL threats of religious abuses, INCLUDING Jihadist oppression of due process
under Shariah law, but not targeting just any one group.

I believe this would ensure the grievances brought forth are clearly CONSTITUTIONAL, and do NOT discriminate on the basis of religion.

By addressing ALL such cases of denying citizens’ due process, the arguments and defenses are based on Constitutional protections of ALL citizens from ALL abuses by ANY group.

Some examples of groups that have evaded due process, in committing
crimes or threats in the name of religious freedom or other civil liberties,
where prosecution through the courts or other legal actions have cost taxpayers’ resources:

1. The LDS scandal where religious leaders hid criminal sex abuse of children
through their cult organization and practices.

2. The Catholic church and other groups, where Elders have unequal
authority to expel or silence witnesses to sexual abuse of children
by members or by Elders themselves.

3. The Westboro Baptist group, that has claimed rights to protest by free speech, while denying or threatening the equal right of others to assembly peaceably (this conflict could also be resolved Constitutionally by requiring such groups to redress grievances in advance, instead of continued disruptions at public expense).

Even if these conflicts are within legal bounds of religious freedom and due process, the cost to taxpayers of not preventing them from escalating to legal action, violates the Code of Ethics for Government Service (attached) calling federal servants to seek more economical and efficient means of accomplishing tasks.

If the Constitutional issue of oppressing or denying due process is applied to ANY large organization:

[4]. The abuse of unions and collective bargaining to gain private benefits at public expense for some workers instead of guaranteeing equal protections of all taxpayers and workers equally

[5]. The abuse of corporate personhood to exercise individual freedoms without equal responsibility for economic and environmental damage resulting from local and global business practices.

Examples: MAXXAM corporate takeover (using junk bonds bailed out by the public) [and] destruction of the Headwaters Forest in California (at a cost of over $1.6 billion to taxpayers).

EXXON Mobil and BP affiliates’ destruction of ocean ecosystems and related fishing businesses without full accountability for the extensive costs of damages incurred to all parties affected.

Again, all these cases of corporate or religious abuses of “Constitutional freedoms” to deny due process and equal protections of the interests of affected citizens, cause an obstruction of justice, and cost public resources and money.

I support you in setting up and conducting a commission or task force on legislation that would require ANY large organization or corporation, whether for business, or nonprofit, or religious, to SIGN AN AGREEMENT to abide by civil protections of due process and the redress of grievances, in order to incorporate, per State, to exercise civil liberties under the Constitution of the United States.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
Houston, Texas

I am willing to volunteer or work through your offices on such a commission, which would publicly distribute

the attached documents, and assist any and all communities or organizations in implementing them internally.

Attached: Samples of Constitutional principles and policies that I propose all organizations agree to adopt in order to qualify for incorporation and the right to exercise civil liberties under governmental protection:

A. Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment
B. Code of Ethics for Government Service
C. Example of local mission statement based on Constitutional values (courtesy of Houston Police Department)

[attachments linked to http://www.ethics-commission.net]
 
Gosh, I'm sensing a theme...

Logical fallacy, followed by an assertion that it's the truth with zero evidence to back it up, based upon the fact that posters think the diaphamous point has been made at some point in the undefined past.

Perfect.
 
Obviously you disagree with Eric Holder and Janet Nepolitano who have said in public that homegrown radicalized Muslims are the threat they worry the most about today.

They also worry about military people becoming unstable and joining militias thanks to PTSD.

Maybe we need a hearing on white military folks joining militias.


Did they say that they worry the MOST about them?

No.

No, they said we need to monitor the situation. Of course, that made rightwing heads explode. So we should probably investigate, don't ya think?

But if Peter King is a Islamophobe or a bigot, then Napolitano and Holder are too.
No, that's your own contorted "logic".
 
Below is my statement on the subject:
==============================
TO: Congressman Peter King, NY
Congressman Michael McCaul, TX

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

RE: Constitutional checks against legal or religious abuses
by any organized group (not just Jihadists)

Dear Congressmen Peter King and Michael McCaul:
Thank you for your commitment to Constitutional protections of citizens
in addressing the issue of religious abuses that otherwise threaten public security.

What makes Jihadist beliefs unlawful in the U.S. is when a follower makes a decision to execute a killing or punishment against another person, without respect for democratic due process and defense. The solution would be to require any large religious organization, or even nonprofit or business corporations, to agree to adhere to the civil laws of due process and redressing grievances, as guaranteed to citizens under the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment.

To ensure there is no religious discrimination against any one group,
I urge you to address NOT ONLY the Jihadist threat of violence or oppression,
but to EXPAND your investigation and hearings on this matter to cover ALL threats of religious abuses, INCLUDING Jihadist oppression of due process
under Shariah law, but not targeting just any one group.

I believe this would ensure the grievances brought forth are clearly CONSTITUTIONAL, and do NOT discriminate on the basis of religion.

By addressing ALL such cases of denying citizens’ due process, the arguments and defenses are based on Constitutional protections of ALL citizens from ALL abuses by ANY group.

Some examples of groups that have evaded due process, in committing
crimes or threats in the name of religious freedom or other civil liberties,
where prosecution through the courts or other legal actions have cost taxpayers’ resources:

1. The LDS scandal where religious leaders hid criminal sex abuse of children
through their cult organization and practices.

2. The Catholic church and other groups, where Elders have unequal
authority to expel or silence witnesses to sexual abuse of children
by members or by Elders themselves.

3. The Westboro Baptist group, that has claimed rights to protest by free speech, while denying or threatening the equal right of others to assembly peaceably (this conflict could also be resolved Constitutionally by requiring such groups to redress grievances in advance, instead of continued disruptions at public expense).

Even if these conflicts are within legal bounds of religious freedom and due process, the cost to taxpayers of not preventing them from escalating to legal action, violates the Code of Ethics for Government Service (attached) calling federal servants to seek more economical and efficient means of accomplishing tasks.

If the Constitutional issue of oppressing or denying due process is applied to ANY large organization:

[4]. The abuse of unions and collective bargaining to gain private benefits at public expense for some workers instead of guaranteeing equal protections of all taxpayers and workers equally

[5]. The abuse of corporate personhood to exercise individual freedoms without equal responsibility for economic and environmental damage resulting from local and global business practices.

Examples: MAXXAM corporate takeover (using junk bonds bailed out by the public) [and] destruction of the Headwaters Forest in California (at a cost of over $1.6 billion to taxpayers).

EXXON Mobil and BP affiliates’ destruction of ocean ecosystems and related fishing businesses without full accountability for the extensive costs of damages incurred to all parties affected.

Again, all these cases of corporate or religious abuses of “Constitutional freedoms” to deny due process and equal protections of the interests of affected citizens, cause an obstruction of justice, and cost public resources and money.

I support you in setting up and conducting a commission or task force on legislation that would require ANY large organization or corporation, whether for business, or nonprofit, or religious, to SIGN AN AGREEMENT to abide by civil protections of due process and the redress of grievances, in order to incorporate, per State, to exercise civil liberties under the Constitution of the United States.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
Houston, Texas

I am willing to volunteer or work through your offices on such a commission, which would publicly distribute

the attached documents, and assist any and all communities or organizations in implementing them internally.

Attached: Samples of Constitutional principles and policies that I propose all organizations agree to adopt in order to qualify for incorporation and the right to exercise civil liberties under governmental protection:

A. Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment
B. Code of Ethics for Government Service
C. Example of local mission statement based on Constitutional values (courtesy of Houston Police Department)

[attachments linked to http://www.ethics-commission.net]


Did you CC Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder for unconstutionally saying that homegrown radicalized Muslim terrorism is a topic that keeps them awake at night?
 
I think we should have hearings about wacko white males in this country, they pose a greater risk to us than muslims do.

Being a white male

Can you point me to the organisation that works internationally to do whacko stuff to any place in the world?

Thanks in advance!!

The hearings are not about who poses a risk internationally, it is about the radicalization of muslims in this country.

The man they caught here yesterday had ties to Northern Alliance, McVeigh had ties to the Northern Alliance. Why hasn't there been hearings about that group?


I'd be willing to bet b/c they are under investigation by the FBI, ATF, ETC.

the NA is a bunch of assholes that are not willing to die for thier cause. They do not have billions in funding, they do not want to put you in a Burqa or force thier laws on you, beyond thier basic nutterie. They do not have a huge population to draw from, they cannot use the threat of "You will go to hell if you talk to the police" and have someone take them seriously.

Go to a KKK meeting. The cops are out in force and the FBI is writing down license plate numbers.



You 2 are acting as if nothing is being done on these groups. It's nonsense, they are not getting a free pass, but muslims get one b/c we might offend some of them?

If your son gets blown to bits by a muslim terrorist, will it comfort you to know that it wasn't you that pissed him off?

The muslims have thier own mafia in thier midst. What must be done, must be done.
 
They also worry about military people becoming unstable and joining militias thanks to PTSD.

Maybe we need a hearing on white military folks joining militias.


Did they say that they worry the MOST about them?

No.

No, they said we need to monitor the situation. Of course, that made rightwing heads explode. So we should probably investigate, don't ya think?

If some Democrat wants to call for hearings to look into that, I wouldn't be blowing a gasket like you are over those poor peaceful radicalized Muslim terrorists.

But if Peter King is a Islamophobe or a bigot, then Napolitano and Holder are too.

No, that's your own contorted "logic".


No...it's actually YOUR logic!

You are calling Peter King those things for saying it bothers him too and therefore, we ought to look into it.
 
I'm not sure. There's certainly an international ring of child molesters - they even make arrangements to travel to SE Asia...

and guess what? Chock full O'white guys.

Got a link to back up that claim?

I'm not sure we should be posting links to known child pornographers and molesters. If you'd really like more info, google some related terms.


oh and by your own admission that it's not all white guys, it's not a group of organised people that want to kill you for a very specific reason.

Who said that it's not all white guys? I said it's chock full of 'em. Of course, there might be some radicalized child molesting hispanics...kinda like there might be some radicalized white Christians blowing up federal buildings.

Science is my religion.... Timothy McVeigh

An athiest killed all those people
 
Got a link to back up that claim?

I'm not sure we should be posting links to known child pornographers and molesters. If you'd really like more info, google some related terms.


oh and by your own admission that it's not all white guys, it's not a group of organised people that want to kill you for a very specific reason.

Who said that it's not all white guys? I said it's chock full of 'em. Of course, there might be some radicalized child molesting hispanics...kinda like there might be some radicalized white Christians blowing up federal buildings.

Science is my religion.... Timothy McVeigh

An athiest killed all those people

Time: Are you religious?

McVeigh: I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.

Time: Do you believe in God?

McVeigh: I do believe in a God, yes.
 
How'd we go from discussing radical Islam to white Americans being on trial?

It's the liberal deflection tactic.

We say we want to stop radical islamist from killing Americans and terrorising thier community.

Libs say: What about >fill in the blank<? Why aren't we doing something about them?

It's so common I just go with it and poke holes where ever they wonder.
 
You are calling Peter King those things for saying it bothers him too and therefore, we ought to look into it.

I can't be held responsible for your inability to follow the conversation.:eusa_whistle:


More deflection.

You were proven wrong about fact-finding hearings being a Kangaroo Court.

You failed to give me the quote of King as I asked that would back up your claim.

You say King's a Islamophobe for wanting to find out how prevalent Muslim radicalization is in the USA and what are the causes of it, yet you DON'T think Hlder and Napolitano are for saying it's a real problem.

No consistency in your argument and avoiding proving things you've said.
 
How'd we go from discussing radical Islam to white Americans being on trial?

It's the liberal deflection tactic.

We say we want to stop radical islamist from killing Americans and terrorising thier community.

Libs say: What about >fill in the blank<? Why aren't we doing something about them?

It's so common I just go with it and poke holes where ever they wonder.


How very true. This thread is a perfect example of it! :clap2:
 
Why cooperate with Peter King...who supported Terrorism against the Brits?

That's new to me. Got a link?

Sure.

“We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry,” Mr. King told a pro-I.R.A. rally on Long Island, where he was serving as Nassau County comptroller, in 1982. Three years later he declared, “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/us/politics/09king.html

Peter King is an asshole and a bomb thrower. I don't need a freakin stupid "committee" to tell me how to curb terrorism from any "radical religious nuts". It's pretty simple..and well with in the founding concepts of our nation:

-We are a secular nation that supports religious freedom. Stick with that. The government shouldn't be advocating or demonizing any religions.
-We are a nation that believes in defending our shores and freely trading with other nations. We are NOT an empire. We shouldn't have bases all around the world. We shouldn't be taking control of the natural resources of other countries.
-Stop killing people in other lands. Enough already.
 
You are calling Peter King those things for saying it bothers him too and therefore, we ought to look into it.

I can't be held responsible for your inability to follow the conversation.:eusa_whistle:


More deflection.

You were proven wrong about fact-finding hearings being a Kangaroo Court.

You failed to give me the quote of King as I asked that would back up your claim.

You say King's a Islamophobe for wanting to find out how prevalent Muslim radicalization is in the USA and what are the causes of it, yet you DON'T think Hlder and Napolitano are for saying it's a real problem.

No consistency in your argument and avoiding proving things you've said.

^This is a supersweet example of what passes for conservatarian radio-based, Charlie-Sheen style "winning!" on this message board.

Or, in the parlance of Richard Nixon's best advice: Declare victory and get the fuck out.
 
I'm not sure we should be posting links to known child pornographers and molesters. If you'd really like more info, google some related terms.




Who said that it's not all white guys? I said it's chock full of 'em. Of course, there might be some radicalized child molesting hispanics...kinda like there might be some radicalized white Christians blowing up federal buildings.

Science is my religion.... Timothy McVeigh

An athiest killed all those people

Time: Are you religious?

McVeigh: I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.

Time: Do you believe in God?

McVeigh: I do believe in a God, yes.

McVeigh No Christian; Worshipped Himself; Said &#8220;Science Is My Religion&#8221;
 
I'm not sure we should be posting links to known child pornographers and molesters. If you'd really like more info, google some related terms.




Who said that it's not all white guys? I said it's chock full of 'em. Of course, there might be some radicalized child molesting hispanics...kinda like there might be some radicalized white Christians blowing up federal buildings.

Science is my religion.... Timothy McVeigh

An athiest killed all those people

Time: Are you religious?

McVeigh: I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.

Time: Do you believe in God?

McVeigh: I do believe in a God, yes.


What a pathetic attempt!!!

Timothy McVeigh DIDN'T murder anyone in the name of his religion.

Not that that has anything at all to do with this topic anyhow.
 
How'd we go from discussing radical Islam to white Americans being on trial?

It's the liberal deflection tactic.

We say we want to stop radical islamist from killing Americans and terrorising thier community.

Libs say: What about >fill in the blank<? Why aren't we doing something about them?

It's so common I just go with it and poke holes where ever they wonder.


How very true. This thread is a perfect example of it! :clap2:

It's typical of 85, he takes the opposing view, no matter what.
Lousia, I'm a little surprised at. She went WAY off topic, and that's not normal.
 

Forum List

Back
Top