Posted on 09/04/2004 1:39:22 PM PDT by pilgrim
Pro-Bush Booth Stirs Anger at Convention
ROSEMONT, Ill. (AP) -- They stop abruptly when they see the 5-foot-tall photo of President Bush, with "muslimsforbush.com" above his head.
Then come the outbursts.
"Disgusting," said one onlooker. "Take that down," said another.
At the largest annual convention of American Muslims, a pro-Bush booth has stirred anger among attendees who believe the president's actions since Sept. 11, 2001, have hurt more innocent Muslims than terrorists.
"I think President Bush has misled not only the United States, but the world," said Noor Maciael, an educator who called the booth "disgusting" and planned to vote for Democrat John Kerry. "He has put us in a situation where the whole world is hating this country."
The display was funded by Muhammad Ali Hasan and his mother, Seeme, who recently created the group "Muslims for Bush." Seeme Hasan said in a phone interview that she and her husband Malik, a Colorado physician who earned his wealth in the health care industry, have donated more than $1 million to Bush and Republican causes since the 2000 campaign.
"The reason we are doing this is that Muslims don't have a lobbyist," Seeme Hasan said. "We want to be there. We are going to give contributions at the highest level."
Bush has other supporters in the Muslim community. Some are Iraqi-Americans overjoyed that Saddam Hussein has been ousted. Others are entrepreneurs who view the GOP as more friendly to business interests. And many devout Muslims prefer the Republicans' conservative stand on social issues such as gay marriage.
But many Muslims at the nonpartisan Islamic Society of North America convention were not grateful for the Hasans' activism.
An older man gawked at the photo of the president with his arms wrapped around Muhammad and Seeme Hasan, and said, "I'm numb. I'm speechless." He then joined a group that had cornered a conference official, demanding that the display be taken down. A volunteer staffing the booth said some people were taking campaign material and throwing it out.
Asma Gull Hasan, the elder Hasan's daughter, who was also at the booth, said she had expected negative remarks. However, she said she was encouraged that some passers-by had quietly told her they would vote for the president.
Bush has a complex relationship with American Muslims.
He declared Islam a peaceful religion when some other U.S. leaders were condemning the faith, and honored Muslim holidays in the White House.
After Sept. 11, the president made a gesture of enormous significance for the community when he visited a Washington-area mosque and warned the public that anger over the suicide hijackings should not be directed toward U.S. Muslims.
However, his subsequent policies have caused deep resentment.
Muslim leaders say the domestic war on terror and the USA Patriot Act, which extended controversial law enforcement powers, have cast so wide a net that all Muslims and their institutions have become suspect. Many also saw the war in Iraq as the extension of a misguided U.S. policy in the Mideast that foments terrorism instead of stopping it.
Leading American Muslim organizations endorsed Bush in 2000 over Democrat Al Gore, expecting the Texas governor would be more sympathetic to their concerns. But Muslims have said since that they regretted their decision.
Surveys of U.S. Muslims indicate a majority will vote for Kerry, even though they fear he will not go far enough in repealing parts of the Patriot Act. Volunteers at a Kerry booth at the convention, in a far corner of the vendors' hall away from the Bush display, were busily distributing campaign stickers.
Both candidates have been reaching out to Muslim voters. Muslims are concentrated in some battleground states, such as Ohio, Michigan and Florida, and they hope their presence in those areas will help them gain political visibility.
Muhammad Hasan said that since the convention began Friday evening, critics who have approached him have been more open to hearing his views. He said he was not discouraged by the response so far.
"I have a lot of faith in the fact that the Muslim vote is up for grabs," he said.
You wrote:
"So what do you suggest? If Bush has the power than so will the next Democratic president. No matter how much you trust Bush not to misuse it, you must fight the precedent to prevent a future president Hillary from having that power."
Yes, that was my point.
I guess we'll have to keep electing Republicans, and
replacing RINOs with trustworthy folk, until such time
as we can safely repeal the law.
[Many libertarians agree that there are three means
to guarantee freedom: ballot box, jury box, cartridge box.
After Waco and Ruby Ridge, I'm not so sure of the third;
and I'm a lowly Republican, not a libertarian. What do
you think?]
Oh, okay. Thanks for the correction. Are you Michael Badnarik?
Any Muslim that doesn't vote for Bush probably has terrorist sympathies and is an implicit threat to the USA.
Actually, the usual formulation is: Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box.
We must never let anybody, not even Republicans that you trust violate due process. It removes the jury box from the protection plan and makes the ammo box the only alternative when tyranny threatens.
If you want this nation to endure as a free constitutional republic, you will fight for due process, no matter who is in office, no matter what the crisis of the moment is. There are NO EXCEPTIONS possible without putting the nation at risk of destruction or enslavement.
That is the libertarian principle applicable here and that is the constitutional principle applicable here. What Lincoln did, what FDR did and what Bush did is unforgiveable. And I don't even see him saying that maybe he was wrong. Jose Padilla still sits in jail, there still has been no charge against him. This is a continuing criminal conspiracy and the leader of the crime is asking to be reelected. Outrageous!!!
Now here is a great example of Nazi like thinking. Anyone of a certain religion who does not fall for the prevalent propaganda of the current administration is obviously the enemy. How far do you have to go with line of thought, to say that anyone, of any religion who does not vote for Bush is a terrorist? Not very far at all.
No, I do not have his speaking ability. He is very good on his feet in a debate. If he manages to embarrass the debate commission to let him in to the debates, he will make rhetorical mincemeat of Bush and Kerry. He wins the election for sure.
Bush or Kerry will only win because the media kept Badnarik a virtual secret.
True conservatives will flock to him when they realize how they have been used by Bush and the neo-cons.
I'm sure it isn't the first time you heard it here. But, stay the course and keep the faith. The end of Osama Bin Laden is near.
Hey Blackdog; I like to see that comment on a bumper sticker :)
Conservatism is not the politics of hate. But, it is also not the politics of sticking your head in the sand, pretending Muslims love us. They don't. They want us all dead. To deny this is delusional and self destructive. My motto: get THEM before they get us.
Thank God for President Bush!! He "gets" it!!
And then your alarm clock went off. : )
I realize you probably really believe this, but...well, I'll just shut up for once.
I maintain that anything coming from the AP is not believable.
You wrote:
"If you want this nation to endure as a free constitutional republic, you will fight for due process, no matter who is in office, no matter what the crisis of the moment is. There are NO EXCEPTIONS possible without putting the nation at risk of destruction or enslavement.
That is the libertarian principle applicable here and that is the constitutional principle applicable here. What Lincoln did, what FDR did and what Bush did is unforgiveable. And I don't even see him saying that maybe he was wrong. Jose Padilla still sits in jail, there still has been no charge against him. "
First, thanks for the more complete exposition:
(soap box, etc.)
Second, I am NOT trying to start a flame war.
I was intending humor.
Third, I have not thought this issue all the way through
to my satisfaction. I agree about the dangers of the
Patriot Act if misapplied. I am much more concerned,
however, about the character of the individuals in
positions of authority. The Clintonistas needed no
Patriot Act for the atrocities at Ruby Ridge, Waco,
and with Elian Gonzalez. And I am not satisfied that
justice was ever served upon the perpetrators within
the bureaucracy, let alone upon the front line troops.(*)
As far as your assertions go, I agree with the risk,
but not necessarily with the results.
Lincoln-are you talking about the arrest warrant for
Taney; suspension of habeas corpus; or what?
FDR-not sure what you refer to here; please elaborate.
Bush-Padilla: Are no charges filed? Or no *public* charges?
I seem to recall he was accused of wanting to detonate
a radioactive device -- whether improv. neutron bomb,
or just conventional explosives laced with radioactive
material, I don't know.
Two key issues from my point of view:
1) Consent of the governed. In virtually every dispute
between a govt. and those seeking to overturn or replace it, there is a disagreement. Governments want to hold
on to power, legitimate or not; those advocating or
fighting for removal of government always claim to be
fighting injustice. How _does_ one tell the difference?
Socially, the key seems to be the degree of popular support. But this is not infallible--recall the 'Good
Germans' who let the Nazi system go unchallenged. And
if you claim "oppression" by the govt., every splinter
group in the world claims to be oppressed. In a humorous
vein, recall the discussion between Arthur and the smart-ass peasant at the beginning of Monty Python and the Holy Grail "Ah! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Help! Help! I'm being repressed"; or look at the loopy
protesters outside the RNC.
2) The actual danger to the govt. Remember that in Lincoln's day, we had an actual CIVIL WAR on US Soil.
The possibility existed not just of some states seceding,
but the destruction of the current US constitutional
system of government. Yes, I agree, states' rights
took a beating (with consequent loss of freedom)--and
what we have left now is less than we did, what with
guarantee of due process (rubber stamp, going through
the motions of justice) rather than real justice.
But maybe Lincoln wouldn't have been so draconian IF
the threat wasn't so severe: and the states' rights
most vocal advocates let themselves be associated with
the cause of slavery, thereby discrediting their
cause possibly for CENTURIES. Not too bright, that.
My point here is that desperate times call for extreme
measures. IF Padillo really did want to set off a nuke,
how much should we support him; but if the Clinton-types
see a precedent, then political enemies will
just 'disappear' to be accused of 'Heinous Crimes Against the State (TM)'.
One last point. Since we are fighting a war on terror
by means of intelligence, electronic intercepts, etc. the
factors Operational Security become important. How
are we to assure the govt. isn't making things up, while
still safeguarding the govt. sources to that we do not
tip our hand about where we are getting the information
(to make sure the rest of us stay safe)? Would you support
in-camera review by a panel of judges?
(*) One could make an analogy to the govt's behavior in these episodes to the John Kerry 1971 testimony before congress. But that is a whole different thread / flame war.
And hate is not the ideology of conservatism,
despite what some bumper stickers seem to say.
Hate is NOT a family value.
reply:
Only liberals think it is.
or
Family values are NOT hateful.
or
Homosexuality is NOT a family value.
or
Abortion is NOT a family value.
You get the idea :-)
Yep, that's been my position in the past but every time those murdering bastards go on another rampage I get a little more radical in my thinking. After what happened in Russia I'm ready to get out my broad brush and paint them all sub human.
I didn't say that any Moslem that didn't vote for Bush was a terrorist. You read that into my remark.
Sympathy:Mutual affinity, Mutual understanding, affection. capacity for sharing or understanding the feelings of another.
Contributing money to many of the so called Islamic charities that support the terrorist organizations is sympathy.
The silence of the majority of Moslems and their spokesmen towards terrorists acts is sympathy.
Looking the other way so that you don't see suspicious activity that could possibly be terrorist activity is sympathy.
All of the antiwar protests have had a huge Moslem contingent, especially Palestenian that have used their anti war protests as concealment for their rants and calls for more suicide bombings on Israel. This is sympathy.
You obviously have a very juvenile conception of what constitutes Nazi ideology.
You obviously have not listened to the presidents rhetoric at all because both he and every member of his administration have bent over backwards to say Islam is a religion of peace, especially when it is so obvious that a huge contingent of it are blood thirsty animals.
This is an implicit threat to the United States.
The silence of the Islamic community is deafening.
Just yesterday a imigrant British imam said that taking children hostage was acceptable if the cause was just. Do you consider this denouncing terrorism.
The moslem community of the world is being defined by the worst members among them.
Where are the Moslems in the streets protesting the terrorists. There aren't any.
Odd, when no one has yet convinced the Jews of this.
Did you read the thread explicating the need to kill 24 million islamocrazies to stop the attempt to establish a worldwide caliphate? We have to stop them - they won't stop themselves. They've bought into something so twisted, and so vile, that their poisoned lives aren't of much value to them. All we lack is a decision to go to war in an effective way. The vilest islamocrazy is susceptibile to fire-and-fastmoving-metal therapy.
I dunno about the millions but I know about Mike4freedom's need for constitutional laws etc.
And I know that anyone who would kill innocent children to make a political statement has forfeited their "human rights". They recognize no laws and have no humanity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.