Jul 16 2007
Democrat Congressman Compares Our President To Hitler
Is the Democrat party allied with al-Qaeda’s Islamo Fascists? What would one say if the only Muslim in Congress compared our President, during a time of war, to Hitler?
Freshman Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN), the only Muslim in U.S. Congress, has set off a firestorm of controversy after comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler, and suggesting that the Bush Administration may have been complicit in the terror attacks of 9/11.
Talk about a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda and a propaganda bonanza for Islamo Fascists everywhere. While the true modern Hitlers are al-Qaeda and their brutal cousin organizations, the news that a US Congressman is comparing our country to the Nazis and that we were the ones behind 9-11 is a serious act of treason. I don’t care HOW desparate you are for votes, you don’t repeat the enemies propaganda as fact if you are a leader who has sworn (on a Koran no doubt) to protect this country and its constitution.
Speaking to a group of atheists in his home district in Minnesota, Ellison equated the 9/11 attacks and aftermath to the 1933 Reichstag fire in Germany, which helped cement Hitler’s power.
He carefully parsed his words stating that he would not ‘accuse’ the Bush Administration of planning 9/11 because “you know, that’s how they put you in the nut-ball box – dismiss you”.
Ellison, a co-sponsor of a bill to impeach Cheney for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” described the Vice President as “the very definition of totalitarianism, authoritarianism and dictatorship” and further condemned his refusal to answer Congress’ questions.
Ellison’s promise: “You’ll always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be atheists all you want,” reportedly “raised eyebrows” among the 300 present.
Ellison must think we are all idiots for not seeing him for what he is. al-Qaeda will stand up for our right to be athiests as they hack our heads off on TV. Will the Democrats stand up as Americans and reject this nonsense from one of their own? Will they rejct Ellison and push him aside like the Reps did David Duke? The test is on. Ellison should be totally rejected – including any support for his re-election, for this crap. As should any insane person who thinks the US was behind 9-11. There is a reason that kind of thinking get’s one into mental institutions. It is not a big step from that insanity to thinking you must take violent action to stop Bush and Cheney. Once reality is lost nothing is for certain.
AJ
I think AQ is a reach here even though they may have a finger in the objective.
Ellison is closer linked to Muslim Brotherhood/CAIR/Hamas than AQ.
Am afraid that Ellison’s state has enough Muslim votes to get him re-elected.
Ellison’s comment about atheists doesn’t match what the book of Koran says…hence, raised eyebrows.
yeah, Ellison is a “former” supporter of Elijah Muhammed, the black muslim leader. Not surprisingly, there’s not much “muslim” in the black muslim movement anymore; it serves mainly as a cover for gangs, extortion, prostitution, and more than one major drug smuggling ring. Ellison’s ties to the black muslims faded into the background as he saw a chance to “get respectable” and he found out he could get financing from the mainstream muslims (CAIR) instead. So yes, Keith Ellison is probably one of the most loathsome and criminal members of Congress today; but his consituency in Minneapolis already knew that about him when they elected him last time. He always votes the liberal party line, so what’s not to love?
Not just Democrats:
Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration; author of \”Supply-Side Revolution: An Insider\’s Account of Policymaking in Washington\” and \”Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy\” has this to say about the criminals Bush and Cheney:
Remember the Reichstag fire.. Bush must go. Now.
Ellison is a close friend of Farrakhan, and we all know what a racist/anti-semite that guy is. Ellison does not believe in laws in the US, since he feels he does not have to pay tickets etc., he is another puzzle in the dems al Quaida sympethizers.
Pelosi is making secret travel plans during the summer recess; wondering if she will go to Venezuela, Iran etc.. with Ellison in tow?
How these people are elected is anyones guess.
Hey Sooth, there will be an election in 16 months. Bush can’t run for election again. Links to ridiculous comments by Washington has-beens notwithstanding.
You say “criminals”. If you have specific knowledge of a specific crime, write your congressional delegation. I hear that word bandied about but nobody has ever actually stated a specific charge.
Really ?…
I found a blog post today really stupid ! yeah believe me, these guy are worried because of One Congressman (a muslim one, the only muslim in congress) but they are not worried about "their president" – they are worried about Al-Qaeda (wich i…
Forget it Southie, you and your ilk are the 5th column for the enemy in our midst. The only one who needs to go is you and everyone you represent. I’m at that point.
I have family members fighting to keep people like you safe and secure and all you can do is stab your countrymen in the back while professing patriotism.
Unfortunately you would not recognize patriotism if is slapped you in the face.
If you have specific knowledge of a specific crime yatta yatta yatta
Yeah , as a matter of fact I do . . . a crime the First Chimp has admitted: the warrantless wiretapping of US citizens, a felony under Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1, Section 1809 of the US Code.
Bush’s chances of surving his complete second term are now hovering between slim and none.
I believe the court has recently upheld that. Simply because you disagree with something doesn’t make it illegal.
What about Bill and Hillary’s wiretapping of political opponents? There is *no* legal justification for that.
No- the court has NOT upheld warrantless wiretaps. Learn to read, will you? What the Court said is that in a civil action, the plaintiffs must PROVE they were wiretapped in order to have standing to contest it. I’m talkling about a criminal violation – and since Alberto Gonzales lacks the gonads necessary to enforece the law – Congress will have to do it.
Bush has admitted the illegal wiretaps – he claims that under his mythical unitary powers the law DOES NOT APPLY TO HIM.
There is no precedent for such an opinion – which was concocted out of whole cloth by David Addington – and every Court – from Hamdi to Hamdan – that has ruled on whether or not the president is subject to the law has ruled AGAINST the Bush position.
May I reiterate- learn to read.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/07/MNGJ6QSJDT1.DTL
Also note that these activities as far as have been reported so far involved monitoring on KNOWN terrorists in FOREIGN countries who were engaging in a conversation with someone in the US. It isn’t a situation where you have the govt monitoring conversations between Americans here in the US.
So if you want to protect your right to converse with known terrorists in foreign countries, go ahead.
In any case the issue is now moot because they have now worked out a mechanism with FISA to eliminate the need for that particular program.
Soothsayer! You finally came out of the hidey hole you went into after Libby got his sentence commuted?
First, you’ve obviously never read chapter 50 of the code, which you claim has been broken. If you had actually read it you would realize it is a horribly written piece of legislation which says that the executive can cook babies and eat them if he wants as long as the Attorney General signs a piece of paper saying it’s OK. That’s not a good law, it’s a horrible law and should be thrown out as unconstitutional, but the chance of ever carrying out a criminal action against *anyone* under that code is absolutely zero. It’s what’s called aspirational boilerplate and little more.
And it’s kind of cute that people like you have convinced themselves that the warrant requirement is still in effect for any search in this country. Let me type you a note from the preface to a current 4th amendment crim pro text:
“The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. At one time, most especially in the late 1950’s to the early to mid 70’s, this proscription was interpreted to mean that that, except in limited circumstances, police officers were not allowed to search or seize property without a search warrant, supported by probable cause, issued by a judge or magistrate. This warrant requirement (or at least, warrant presumption) came to be honored primarily in the breach, and is of limited value today in determining the lawfulness of police conduct. Not only do police officers today rarely seek a warrant, many (if not most) searches and seizures can be conducted on less than probable cause.”
That’s simply the state of the law today, thanks to 30 years of Supreme Court decisions that pretty much have eliminated the warrant requirement for all intents and purposes. (although laypeople and the press haven’t quite caught on to that one yet, which is surprising) And it’s not only the warrant reqm’t – if you hadn’t noticed, knock and announce got knocked out earlier this year, too. It’s part of the whole “get tough on crime” movement the court has followed for the last 3 decades, and looks likely to follow for the forseeable future.
And one last thing – even if the police (or anyone acting under the police power) act to get info without a warrant and it is found to be unlawful (not illegal, that’s an important distinction that I don’t think you understand) then the remedy is that the evidence is tossed out and doesn’t get used at trial – that’s all. Anyone acting under color of law and good faith (an attorney general’s written opinion is per se good faith) is automatically shielded from any prosecution in the matter.
hope that helps. If not, try anger management counseling. I’ve heard prozac works, too.
The crux of the issue is here:
Basically what was going on is they were monitoring communications between terrorists but the minute a terrorist talked to someone inside the US, they couldn’t monitor because NSA can’t monitor inside the US. That would require getting a warrant and having the FBIi do the monitoring and of course the conversation would have long been overwith and any intelligence lost. SO … they allowed NSA to keep the intercept which in the past needed to be tossed out. This was in direct compliance with recommendations by the 9/11 commission.
What has happened since is that some kind of agreement has been worked out with FISA where the intercept can be preserved.
What is obvious in all of this, Sooth, is that it is more important to you to play politics and damage a Republican than it is to protect the lives of your own family and community and that particular set of priorities seems to be shared among quite a number of people. That kind of thinking shows how low the left has sunk where they would put their own family at risk in order to do political damage to the opposition.
That is just sick.
WWS -you clearly do not understand the import of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any other warrant/search issues.
I’ve litigated more 4th Amendment cases than you can imagine – especially given your obviously impaired intellect – but let me make it simple for you:
Unlike all those other 4th Amendment cases you are referrring to – in this instance – a specific statute was enacted that made warrantless wiretaps illegal per se – no mens rea necessary. So whatever the state of the law is with resepct to illegal search and seizure IN GENERAL – it does not apply when a specific criminal statute addresses the issue. As the presidential signing statement made at the time says:
Each warrantless wiretap carries with it a penalty of up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Read Section 1809 – criminal sanctions.
So do yourself a favor – to avoid further embarassment- try to learn the law before spouting off.
Hey Soothsayer, you’ve only got a year and a half left! Better get moving on that impeachment thing! Heh.
So, soothie, I take it that you really think that if a Democrat gets elected he will allow anyone in the US to plot attacks on this country without doing anything tacky like monitoring his phone calls. It seems that you are full of it. It seems that this issue has been settled for most rational people. Rational being the operative word.
You know for years if the government wanted to tap a phone, they just tapped it. As far as that is concerned it was not until the recent past that it was necessary to even read a man his rights when he was arrested.
For instance, back when there was a real Hitler in the world, FDR routinely monitored long distance phone calls of American citizens and tapped anyone his buddy J. Edgar Hoover said needed to be tapped.
The state did not read rights to people or even always see to it that defendants always had attorneys.
FDR could lock up Japanese American civilians because he damn well felt like it. And, the US military was not integrated until Truman came along.
So was FDR’s America a dictatorship?
The obvious truth is that these people can make stupid comments about Bush being a Chimp or a dictator or whatever, but if he was really Hitler, they would not be saying anything at all. Morons.
Terrye – how many times do you need it explained. THe FISA court has allowed 15,000 wiretaps – and only turned down a handful of requests – 4 or 5. It allows the government to install the wiretap and run with it for up to 72 hours before the warrant must issue. How does that cramp anyone’s style.
And the difference between WWII and now – is that it was a REAL threat in 1942 – and there was not a specific law that made FDR’s actions felonies. If Bush wants to change the law – then he should do so – he had 4 years when he controlled both House and Senate — but he would rather be a criminal than tell the truth.
Comparing Bush to Hitler is so . . . derivative.
I mean, c’mon, let’s see some originality here. Howzabout comparing him to Tamerlane?