The ADL's New Low (ADL Asslibs Attack Jewish Foes Of Islamofascism Alert)

Frontpagemag.com ^ | 12/18/2006 | Don Feder

[goldstategop]

Just when you thought the Anti-Defamation League couldn't conceivably get any worse, comes the news that the ADL has effectively joined the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) to bash Dennis Prager, a popular Jewish author, speaker and talk show host.

In a November 29th column, posted at Townhall.com, Prager criticized Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to Congress, for declaring he'll bring the Koran with him to his swearing-in ceremony.

Prager's calls this "the narcissism of multiculturalism." The author of several best-selling books on Judaism and a member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, Prager notes that America was founded on the Bible -- specifically, the King James version. For the sake of national unity, most Congressmen-elect have used this at their swearing-in, whether or not it was their Bible.

Writes Prager: "Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."

While Prager's observation is reasonable enough, it misses something far more important: The content of the book Ellison has elected to have with him on the day of his swearing-in.

It should here be noted that Prager said nothing disparaging about Islam or the Koran (I'll do that momentarily), just that it isn't part of the American tradition. God be praised.

The response from the Jihadis' Civil Liberty Union was predictable. The Council on American-Islamic Relations was mortally offended. (CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper describes the group as "a Muslim NAACP" - which is like calling the Medellin Cartel an association of health-care providers.)

In a letter to Fred S. Zeidman (chairman of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council) CAIR demanded Prager's removal. Executive Director Nihad Awad raved, "No one who holds such bigoted, intolerant and divisive views should be in a policymaking position at a taxpayer-funded institution that seeks to educate Americans about the destructive impact hatred has had and continues to have on every society."

CAIR knows a lot about bigotry, intolerance, divisiveness and hatred-not to mention religiously inspired homicide. While dressed in civil-rights drag, it does its part to advance radical Islam and support Allah's hit men.

· Terrorism expert Daniel Pipes says CAIR is "on the wrong side in the war on terrorism." That would be the side of suicide-bombers and head-hunters.

· Steven Pomerantz, former chief of counterterrorism for the FBI, charges, "CAIR, its leaders and its activities effectively give aid and comfort to international terrorist groups."

· Islam scholar Stephen Schwartz writes, "CAIR should be considered a foreign-based subversive organization, comparable in the Islamist field to the Soviet-controlled Communist Party USA."

· Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project, a terrorism expert who regularly testifies before Congress, says CAIR is "a radical fundamentalist front group for Hamas."

· The organization was started in 1994 by Awad, Hooper and Omar Ahmad. According to David Horowitz's DiscoverTheNetwork.org, all three "had close ties to the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was established by senior Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook and functioned as Hamas' public relations and recruitment arm in the United States."

· CAIR opened its DC office with $5,000 from the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which the federal government shut down in 2001 for collecting funds "to support the Hamas terror organization." Naturally, CAIR found the move "disturbing" and "unjust."

· As for Ellison taking the Koran to the Capitol, in 1998, CAIR co-founder Ahmad told a California audience, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

· Hooper expressed similar (if more restrained) views in 1993, when he told a reporter, "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future."

· CAIR has supported terrorists and terrorism-facilitators, including Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing), Jamil Al-Amin (formerly H. Rap Brown) and Sami Al-Arian.

· Some CAIR officials have taken a more direct approach to holy war. Among them are Randall Todd Royer (who served as a communications and civil rights specialist for CAIR) indicted for conspiring to help al Qaeda and the Taliban fight U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Ghassan Elashi (a founding board member of CAIR's Texas chapter) convicted of illegally shipping computers to Syria and Libya, and Bassem Khafagi (CAIR's former Community Affairs Director) who pleaded guilty to three federal counts of bank and visa fraud.

In smearing Prager, CAIR is just doing its job. In joining the lynch mob, the ADL is also doing its job - pushing a Leftist agenda in the guise of fighting anti-Semitism and bigotry.

The ADL was in rare form in a December 1st press release, in which it excoriated Prager's views as "intolerant, misinformed and downright un-American." Additionally, the ADL charged "Prager's patriotic prattling is misinformed on the facts" and - just in case you missed the point – "Prager presents intolerant, ugly views."

Finally, the ADL makes the same demand as CAIR, albeit more subtly, at the end of its tirade, "But as a newly-appointed (sic.) member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, Prager and his views must be held to a higher standard." Hint, hint.

Again, Prager said nothing against Islam, the Koran, Muhammed, holy war, martyrdom or any other charming aspect of the religion of sweetness and light. His argument: For the sake of national unity, Congressmen should swear on the same Bible. Whether or not you agree with this, calling it bigoted is akin to saying that official English is racist - which, come to think of it, is another bit of received wisdom from the Left.

Islam has become the Left's pet religion. Given the word from Mecca on women (chattel) and gays (should die – soon) this may seem counterintuitive.

But the Left sees Islam as a Third World religion - a religion of the impoverished and oppressed (like the Saudi royal family?), a non-Western religion, a religion targeted by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a religion whose adherents in the United States suffer vile discrimination and massive civil-rights abuses (like Christians in Egypt, Pakistan, the Sudan, Indonesia, Kosovo, fill-in-the-blank-istan?). It also (correctly) perceives Islam as a religion opposed to America and Western civilization - which, for the Left, trumps every other consideration.

For Abraham Foxman, head of the ADL, there are, perhaps, two additional considerations.

Foxman obsesses about what he sees as the drive for a Christian America. He really believes conservative Christians are intent on establishing a theocracy - one where we all will be forced to sing Christmas carols 365 days a year, and a giant, revolving crèche will replace the Lincoln Memorial. Hence, the ADL's opposition to such manifestly subversive and Christo-centric activities as the public display of The Ten Commandments and grace before meals at the Naval Academy.

Perhaps the ADL mullahs views Muslims as a way to dilute Christian influence.

Beyond that, Foxman can now hold his head high at Manhattan cocktail parties. Yes, he can say, the ADL occasionally defends Israel (though not against the ultimate threat of a Palestinian state, of course), but we courageously condemned a prominent Islamaphobe, who happened to be a fellow Jew. For the left, public betrayal of your own - in the name of multiculturalism, diversity, tolerance, inclusiveness, etc - is a mark of distinction.

The attacks on Prager are despicable. That having been said, Dennis misses the larger point.

What's far more disturbing than an affront to American tradition is the fact that, for the first time, the Koran will be used in such an official setting.

· The Koran which describes Jews as the descendants of apes and pigs.

· The Koran which forbids Muslims from taking Christians and Jews as friends ("Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrong-doers.")

· The Koran which calls for war without end against non-Muslims, including Jews and Christians ("Fight those who do not profess the true faith till they pay the jiziya - poll tax - with the hand of humility.") In other words, Muslims are to fight and kill us infidels until we are totally subjugated and meekly accept the position of subjects of an Islamic society.

· The Koran which commands holy war, including decapitating prisoners ("When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad, strike off their heads... .")

It's no coincidence that most terrorists on four continents are Muslims. Nor is it a coincidence that those who are killing U.S. servicemen in Iraq do so in the name of the bible of Islam. And it isn't by chance that Osama bin Laden, Hamas, Hezbollah and Imanutjob in Iran all cite the Koran as the source of their lunacy.

When David Duke returns from his Holocaust-Denial conference in Tehran, he'll probably announce that he's embraced the true faith and changed his name to Abu Wizard (the father of all Klansmen). And he already has his bed-sheet!

Personally, I'd rather Ellison brought a copy of "Our Endangered Values," "The Audacity of Hope" or "The Pop-Up Kama Sutra" with him to his swearing in, instead of the handbook of Jihad.

[Valin]

I don't know about that. But
America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on
TownHall ^ | Tuesday, November 28, 2006 | Dennis Prager

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1746587/posts

To: Rummyfan
This Prager article has been posted a number of times. It was factually inaccurate the first three times it was posted, and is still factually inaccurate.

There is absolutely no Constitutional requirement for House members or even the President to swear on the Bible when taking his oath of office - while Presidents have traditionally done so, it's not clear that any oath needs to be with one hand on the Bible to qualify as an oath (it likely doesn't), and under the Constitution, office holders can take an affirmation of office of office instead of an oath anyway. In fact, President Teddy Roosevelt didn't swear on the Bible when he became President after McKinley's death in 1901. One simply might not have been available at the time. He still became President. And Franklin Pierce (and according to some historians, Herbert Hoover) affirmed his oath of office instead of swearing it. President Pierce's faith was shaken after he and his wife were involved in a fatal train accident - they saw their own son die before their eyes. Some sources claim Pierce made his affirmation with his hand on a law book, not the Bible.

House members are traditionally sworn in en masse by the Speaker on the first day of Congress immediately after the Speaker of the House is elected and sworn in. The 2005 swearing in ceremony is available on C-SPAN's website here. The Speaker is sworn in around 2:13:30 by the Dean of the House; the rest of Congress is sworn in shortly thereafter.

All Speaker Hastert asked members to do was raise their right hands while being sworn in. As a practical matter, the House floor normally seats 448 (they somehow squeeze in more seats for the State of the Union address), and there are up to 439 other members of the House (including non-voting members from the territories and the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico) that need to be sworn in at that time. There isn't that much room on the floor for aides or family members to hold the Bible for Congressmen to swear on. So, as you can see from the video, most Congressmen appear to raise their right hand and put their left hand on nothing, at least during this ceremonial swearing in.

Now, there may be a chance for members to have a ceremonial one-on-one swearing in for photo-op purposes (or if the Member is not present at the opening of Congress or is later elected). For example, Congressman Rothman (D-NJ) has a picture of him being "sworn in" with his hand on what appears to be the Bible on his House website. This is when Ellison might swear on the Koran - for a photo-op.

8 posted on 11/30/2006 3:34:34 PM CST by conservative in nyc

________________________________________

As someone who live in the 5th CD, a couple of points
1 Ellison has more than enough skeletons in his closet (support for cop killers, support for thr SLA, driving w/o a licence, failure to pay tickets, failure to pay taxes, his Association with the naition of Islam, and failure to speakout on their anti-semitism.
2 If he were a Baptist and held the above positions I'd take him to task, and speak out against him. Hawk1976 maybe you'd like to change the 1st amendment?
3 He's a Muslim, what did you expect him to swear on, the Bhagavad Gita?