Religious Freedom Is A Traditional American Value

Technorati Tags: Virgil H. Goode, Jr., Keith Ellison, Congress, Bible, Koran, Muslims, First Amendment

Republican congressman Virgil H. Goode, Jr., a Christian, tells Keith Ellison, a newly elected member of Congress, that (a) he has no right to serve in Congress because he is Muslim; (b) he has no right to use the Koran in a private swearing-in ceremony; and (c) U.S. immigration policy should bar Muslims from immigrating to the United States (although this was a total non sequitur, because Keith Ellison is an American). Imagine if a newly elected Jewish congressman were told his religion should bar him from serving in Congress, or that he should be required to put his hand on the Christian bible instead of the Tanakh during a private swearing-in ceremony, or that U.S. immigration policy should bar Jews anywhere in the world from immigrating to the United States. Imagine the outrage if that Jewish congressman were blamed for complaining about such treatment.

That is exactly what has been happening to Keith Ellison ever since Virgil Goode made his hateful, racist remarks demanding that candidates for Congress submit to religious tests:

• Daniel Pipes, a well-known Jewish, right-wing policy wonk and author, and director of Middle East Forum, a neoconservative think tank, is saying that Rep. Goode "is the latest target of an Islamic advocacy group's 'victimization game.' " The advocacy group to which Pipes refers is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) -- the same CAIR, let it be noted, that sent representatives to stand in solidarity with Jewish Holocaust survivors, in a ceremony held at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum after the Iran Holocaust Denial Conference.
• Wolf Blitzer also blamed Keith Ellison for Goode's attack on him, saying on Thursday's edition of CNN's The Situation Room that Ellison " 'touched off controversy recently when he indicated he'd include the Quran as part of his swearing-in ceremony,' while Goode 'has done his best to add to the controversy.' "
• The White House, always quick to condemn any criticisms of U.S. foreign policy as "anti-Bush hatred" or "anti-American propaganda," has been silent on Rep. Goode's comments -- and actually declined to criticize those comments, or make any public statement at all about the attacks on Ellison.

Maha puts the not-so-good Goode fracas into a much-needed historical context .

Read More...

Summary only...

I Say It's War and I Say the Hell With It

Joe at AMERICAblog asks a good question: "How are we at war without a declaration of war?"

I'm not being facetious. This is legally quite serious. How can the president claim extreme and exceptional war-time powers when Congress never declared war, an ability congress most certainly has and did not exercise?

From AP:

The White House argues the Constitution gives the president wartime powers to eavesdrop that he wouldn't have during times of peace.

I would go so far as to say that if Congress expressly did not exercise its power to declare war, and it clearly did not, then Congress implicitly stated, by it inaction, that it did not wish to grant the president any of these added powers.

To put it another way, if Bush keeps talking about how September 11 changed everything, then why is our nation at a lesser war footing than it was during World War II?

Especially since the cheerleaders for this war are always telling us that it's as crucial to the survival of Western civilization as was World War II.

Technorati tags: declaration of war, September 11, the Constitution, Congress

Read More...

Summary only...