At last! A politician who gets it and who is willing to enumerate the reasons that CAIR is a blight amongst us. I’m not a single-issue voter - e.g., I plan to look up his views on immigration, taxation, and the bloated size of the Federal government. However:- I don’t care that he has an amply endowed trophy wife; in fact, it is to his credit to have been engaging enough that she found him attractive.
- I don’t know anything about his stand on abortion and whether or not it aligns with mine, and I don’t care.
- I don’t know anything about what he thinks of affirmative action, and I don’t care.
- Ditto for term limits, his religious faith or lack of it, or what he plans to do about our dreadful “education” system.
The fact that Fred Thompson understands CAIR and questions its comings and goings is enough for me, thank you.
I know, for the moment, that I’d vote for Thompson if the elections were held tomorrow. If someone comes out with an even stronger anti-CAIR statement and keeps hammering it home, well then… I’d have to reconsider.
His wife is going to be hard to beat, though. All by herself, she looks like the anti-Hillary.
From “The Fred Thompson Report“:
Good News about CAIR- - - - - - - - - -
I’ve talked before about the Council on American-Islamic Relations — most recently because it filed that lawsuit against Americans who reported suspicious behavior by Muslims on a U.S. Airways flight. Better known just as CAIR, the lobbying group has come under a lot of scrutiny lately for its connections to terror-supporting groups. This time, though, The Washington Times has uncovered some very good news about the group.
For years, CAIR has claimed to represent millions of American Muslims. In fact, they claim to represent more Muslims in America than … there are in America. This has alarmed Americans in general as the group often seems to be more aligned with our enemies than us — which isn’t surprising as it spun off from a group funded by Hamas. As you know, Hamas has been waging a terrorist war against Israel and calls for its total destruction. It also promises to see America destroyed. Nowadays, Hamas is busy murdering its Palestinian political rivals.
Even with this history, and CAIR’s conspicuous failure to condemn Hamas by name, it has been treated as if represents Muslim Americans by our own government. The good news is that the financial support CAIR claims to have among American Muslims is a myth. We know this because The Washington Times got hold of the group’s IRS tax records.
CAIR’s dues-paying membership has shrunk 90 percent since 9/11 — from 29,000 in 2000 to only 1,700 last year. CAIR’s annual income from dues plunged from $733,000 to $59,000. Clearly, America’s Muslims are not supporting this group — and I’m happy to hear about it.
Of course, every silver lining seems to have a cloud; and this cloud is that CAIR’s spending is running about $3 million a year. They’ve opened 25 new chapters in major cities across the country even as their dues shrank to a pittance. The question is; who’s funding CAIR?
CAIR’s not saying. The New York Times earlier this year reported that the backing is from “wealthy Persian Gulf governments” including the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Obviously, we have a bigger problem here than the one with CAIR.
Hat tip: bev.
18 comments:
Thompson seems to be a moderate sceptic on immigration/open borders from what I've seen - not a McCain/Bush type fanatic, anyway.
Every time I see the next speech or comment by Fred Thomson makes me more and more glad to see he is going to throw his hat in the race. He is not reagan, but iin the republican Party today he is the closest thing to Reagan
I'm already pretty much on the Fred Bandwagon. Have said so for a while, and I've also gone on record stating that he will be the next president.
Now I'm wondering who the running mate is: I'm thinking Romney, but perhaps Rudy would take it.
That's the spirit, Dymphna. Who cares what position he has on abortion?
Fred Thompson's position on immigration is the one of attrition through enforcement.
He starts looking really good. I will definitely keep an eye on him. Unlike Tom Tancredo (which is doing an excellent and very important job in any case) he stands a chance to win.
I like Fred and Mitt. Of course, Tom Tancredo is my favorite. The biggest losers are McCain and Brownback, that goes without saying as both are for amnesty although Brownback is backing off because he knows it is so unpopular.
While I am a Republican, I think our leading candidates are really far above the Democratic contenders.
It is heartening to hear Thompson speak with knowledge of that terror front group CAIR.
Thompson and Tancredo might make a good team.
But I want to hear more from Fred.
Tom T. doesn't have the bucks or charisma, but he's got the heart. And the will.
Nothing on the Dem side is anything but embarassing.
Since folks are saying their druthers, how about a Thompson/Lieberman ticket? If Joe was to register Republican, it would be a plus for the Elephant clan and bring along a lot of conservative minded Democrats, plus drive the moonbats even further over the edge.
I like Tancredo, too.
But not enough backing.
Romney and Guiliani have too many things that would scare off those who vote but don't hear anything but the MSM. MSM can't hurt Fred much.
___
Songdongnigh: *Great idea*!
I don't think it would have a large base, though. Tell me why you think they would appeal to a wider base...I'd like to know, because it's an attractive ticket.
________
Conservative Swede: I never do care much about the abortion issue but would like to see this country join the rest of the world in not permitting partial birth abortions. They are disturbing.
Funny thing is, I think it will be men who will show the heart necessary to get rid of this. Roe v Wade was trumped up by the Guttmacher Institute and now that it's firmly entrenched, they're willing to say they lied...and lied, and lied. Everyone yawns at the revelation. What's a little perjury before the Supreme Court if your cause is just?
The other abortion issue which disturbs me is the young teenagers who are "counseled" and never told the statistics on breast cancer for any woman who has an abortion before carrying a child to full term. If any of her first degree female relatives have the BRCA gene, she's very high risk for breast cancer before she's 30 if she has an abortion before goinh thru a full term pregnancy.
Two teenagers have won legal suits, settled out of court, because the BC/AB consortium don't want a lot of publicity about it.
Once a woman has carried a child to term, no problem. And spontaneous abortions heal themselves without leaving loose cannons rolling around to wreak damage later.
I don't know if you were trying for arch irony with your remark, but it's wasted on me. The abortion industry in this country has done a lot of damage to young girls. The one-in-ten women who will get breast cancer has dropped to one-in-nine in the last year. As a 7 year suvivor, that's an important statistic for me...
...and yeah, that politics as local. *Real* local.
Dymphna,
I can't cite chapter and verse for why I like either guy, just an accumulation of their behavior and responses to current events. Briefly though, Thompson would bring a conservative, take no crap steely eyed realism and Lieberman would bring a well thought out nice guy liberalism. They’re both honest, hard working and are real people people. They are both Gentlemen of the first order.They are strong on defense and immigration and neither has any legal or moral baggage. You just don't find those sets of character very often, and especially in a politician, much less two with a lot of similar traits. They are the type of personalities who could work together well and at the same time each maintain their own integrety. Overall I think they could give our fractured electorate a common point of agreement and rally the country for the common good.
Fred Thompson locked up the nomination with the line "mental institution, Michael something you might want to think about"
While I am not a one issue voter, I do consider a candidates abortion stance as a basic moral intelligence test. I don't know of any one who is pro abortion, particularly late term abortion who's other reasoning is not suspect.
Fred is the only one out there I have seen really slogging it out in the culture war.
The third world invasion is the most immediate threat to our existence, and should be the primary issue in this election. Thompson says some of the right things about immigration, but I'm more concerned about what he doesn't say. He's said nothing about abolishing birthright citizen for the children of illegal aliens (a gift from the Supreme Court in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case). He's said nothing abolishing an illegal alien's right to hearings before the EOIR and to appeal to the Circuit Courts before deportation. He's said nothing about ending political asylum. President Thompson might be no more effective in preventing our submergence into the third world than El Presidente Arbusto.
Gringo malo--
Is some candidate saying these things and I just missed it? Please send him on and I'll put up a post on him, too.
I need a credible candidate, though. Someone of Ron Paul's ilk is not going to get the MSM viewers, which Thompson can.
D,
The trouble with electing an actor is that one never knows who's writing his script.
In answer to your question, no, I know of no candidate (not even Ron Paul) who even mentions birthright citizenship, the EOIR, or political asylum. Obviously, any candidate who claims to be tough on immigration but doesn't address these issues is just posturing.
This probably means that the next administration will conduct business as usual. In other words, they'll continue to arrest illegal aliens and release them with a summons to an EOIR hearing. The aliens will continue to ignore any such summons, buy a new phony ID, and remain here indefinitely. American taxpayers will still be forced to pay third world refugees to come here.
"The trouble with electing an actor is that one never knows who's writing his script."
I understand the sentiment, but I never thought of Thompson as an actor. I used to watch him as a lawyer on the Watergate committee long before he was in movies.
Ronald Reagan was ridiculed as a buffoon and “just an actor” reading someone else's lines till he left office. Then it was brought out that he wrote most of his speeches over the years. Fred has a style and unique delivery that seems to be consistent and would be hard for a series of writers to capture, so I tend to think writes most of his speeches. Political reality does not allow any candidate to fully disclose all the details of his platform. The best we can do is judge by past performance and assessment of their CHARACTER. Fred and Joe have integrity and aren’t afraid to say what they think.
As to Joe bringing in a large base, remember that even though the Democratic party did a hatchet job on him, he went on to be re-elected. I think are a lot of anonymous “gun-totin‘ Democrats” (I know some) out there who have nowhere to go and would welcome Joe to the White House. For instance out here in West Virginia, a majority Democratic state, most folks are pretty conservative at heart and are not happy with the crop of Dems being offered.
Dymphna,
We have a similar stance regarding abortion. Roe vs Wade needs to be overturned. Partial birth abortion is indeed "killing babies". But abortion is not the big issue for this election. It's good not to get oneself distracted by miniature issues, just as demonstrated by you in this article. As I said, this is the spirit. What made you think I was ironic?
Comments on Gates of Vienna that use four letter Anglo-Saxon expletives and demeaning ad hominem name calling as a form of argumentaion always get deleted.
But then our regular readers know that. It's the trolls who seem to have trouble with the concept.
Post a Comment