Michele Bachmann’s rough month seems to be winding down, although not before her allegation of “deep penetration” of high levels of the U.S. government by elements of the Muslim Brotherhood was publicly denounced Thursday by a coalition of 42 religious and secular organizations including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
So many Republicans had criticized Bachmann and her four fellow travelers for publicly expressing their suspicions against a high-ranking State Department official and others that it’s worth noting that Majority Leader Eric Cantor declined to do so.
Asked on CBS’s “This Morning” whether Bachmann was “out of line,” Cantor replied: “If you read some of the reports that have covered the story, I think that her concern was about the security of the country… So that’s all I know.”
House Speaker John Boehner had been among the first wave of Bachmann denouncers, describing her statements as “dangerous.” The difference between Cantor and Boehner’s statements tends to reinforce the impression that the speaker is a reluctant Tea Partier at best, while his immediate subordinate Cantor represents the hard right in the Repub leadership group.
The 42 organizations who put out a Thursday statement criticzing Bachmann and the others was a broad coalition including religious and secular groups from the NAACP and the ACLU to groups representing Jews, Lutherans, Baptists to the Catholic Bishops, whose decision to sign the letter was noteworthy because they often ally with the right on social issues.
“We write to raise our voices in protest of your recent letters regarding prominent American Muslim individuals and organizations,” the organizations wrote in a joint letter to the five House members. The letters refers to several letters asking for investigations of alleged Muslim Brotherhood penetration, including one long one to Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, one of two Muslims in Congress, replying to Ellison’s request that the group back up their allegations.
“These letters question the loyalty of faithful Americans based on nothing more than their religious affiliations and what is at best tenuous evidence of their associations. As such, your actions have serious implications for religious freedom and the health of our democracy,” the 42 organizations wrote.
How many of these organizations
are aligned with the Democrats or the left – I would suspect most of them.
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops?
Without question, a Bolshevik fronted organization (ever notice how many of them wear red?).
Revelation
Maybe they know something.
Yeah
Real Democratic leftists like John McCain.
But then, he actually knows something about Ms. Abedin.
Wow
“These letters question the loyalty of faithful Americans based on nothing more than their religious affiliations and what is at best tenuous evidence of their associations.”
For religious organizations they sure have a tenuous relationship with the truth.
“…tenuous relationship…”
“…For religious organizations they sure have a tenuous relationship with the truth.” Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether there is a meaningful correlation between “religious organization” and “truth,” I can’t help but wonder what Mr. Tester means by this statement. Does he know something the rest of us don’t?
As for “…a tenuous relationship with the truth…,” so does the letter that is at the center of the controversy, as well as the Minnesota Congresswoman most closely associated with it. Mrs. Bachmann and “the truth” have tended to keep each other at arm’s length since I arrived here. She remains an embarrassment.
Whats wrong with asking questions about radical Islam?
Sticking your head in the sand will get you killed.
“FBI did not investigate Fort Hood shooter ‘because of political correctness’ according to new reportArmy Maj. Nidal Hasan is charged with killing 13 people and wounding 32 others
He opened fire in 2009 at Fort Hood, Texas
He had exchanged emails with a known terrorist, expressing support for suicide bombings and killing civilians
The FBI’s anti-terrorism task force thought the issue was too sensitive to bring up because Hasan is a Muslim
Agents thought that interviewing American Muslims who visit extremist websites was a sensitive issue”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2175978/FBI-did-investigate-Fort-Hood-shooter-political-correctness-according-new-report.html#ixzz21x9fusNW
Let’s see…
An article in a British newspaper quoting a Republican congressman.
Wikipedia says:
“In August 2011 AlterNet reported that McCaul, along with John Culberson and Ted Poe were stripping away the basic right of deceased soldiers families to choose which prayers, if any, were to be read at a soldiers funeral. It was reported that the three politicians were attempting to impose Christian ceremonies on the military funerals of everybody who has served in the military, regardless of whether or not the deceased was Christian and with or without the consent of the family of the deceased.[3][4] The three politicians state their demands are a response to Veteran Affairs banning Christian prayers at military funerals, a claim Veterans Affairs state is completely false.”
I’ll wait for confirmation from a less biased source.
Confirmation from a domestic, liberal site, CNN.
You really didn’t have to wait for news on the FBI report, the following CNN report is dated 7-20-2012.
Washington (CNN) — A report made public Thursday on events surrounding the deadly shooting spree at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009 provides new details on the failure of anti-terrorism officials to act on e-mail traffic between Maj. Nidal Hasan and major terrorist figure Anwar al-Awlaki.
The 173-page report by William Webster, a former FBI and CIA director, describes FBI policies and procedures that failed to prevent the shooting spree. Hasan is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, said the report confirms many of the findings of his committee’s earlier review.
He said he is pleased “for the first time the report declassifies the communications between Hasan and Anwar al-Awlaki so that all Ameriicans, especially the families of the victims, can understand Hasan’s radicalization and the full scale of the tragedy for which he is responsible.”
Lieberman added, “We are concerned that the report fails to address the specific cause for the Fort Hood attack, which is violent Islamist extremism”
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/politics/fort-hood-report/index.html
Also
The CNN article you cite also says:
“The report said the e-mails between Hasan and al-Awlaki should have been passed by the FBI in the Washington Field Office to the Defense Department bosses for whom Hasan worked. But the FBI saw no evidence of terrorist activities in his case, and believed the information in the e-mails was too sensitive to share because visiting extremist websites is not grounds for taking action.”
Hindsight is great, but we don’t live in a police state where the police can take action on a hunch.
The fact that the FBI failed to prevent the shooting spree doesn’t mean that it was at fault — simply that there was not enough evidence to support legal action. Something about a constitutional presumption of innocence.
Lieberman of course is engaging in mind reading (and politics).
We do not –know– why any given individual commits a given act.
More than a hunch….
In emails to a known terrorist, Army Maj. Nidal Hasan expressed his support for suicide bombings and killing civilians, while the terrorist, Anwar al-Awlaki, encouraged Hasan to stay in touch.
“I would assume that (a) suicide bomber whose aim is to kill enemy soldiers or their helpers, but also kills innocents in the process is acceptable,” Hasan wrote in one of the e-mails to Awlaki, according to CBS News correspondent Bob Orr.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57475430/lawmaker-report-shows-fbi-ignored-accused-fort-hood-shooter-nidal-hasan-out-of-political-correctness/
“The FBI saw no evidence of terrorist activities in this case”. This is not a case of hindsight, it’s a case of government policies keeping the FBI from recognizing the obvious and acting on it. The government still refuses to call the Ft. Hood shooting terrorism, instead calling it workplace violence.
We know that Maj. Hasan was radicalized in violent Islam and he shouted Allahu Akbar while shooting.
So…
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops denounce gay “marriage”, denounce abortion as a sin against God and humanity and Michelle Bachmann as a loudmouth….
Guess what bandwagon Eric Black jumps on….
So . . .
. . . you must agree with them about Rep. Bachmann, right? You’re not one of those “cafeteria Catholics” who pick and choose the teachings they want to follow, are you?
Nope RB
I’m on-board with the Bishops. The only difference between us is, perhaps, that I get such a kick out of watching the reverberations of Michelle’s big mouth bounce off the enraged left.
Not enraged
as much as scared.
Less by what she says (which is too detached from reality to be dangerous) than by the number of people who take her seriously. By herself she’s a joke (Iowa proved it).
You’re right Paul
I’d forgotten how perpetually frightened the left is.
Because
There are perpetually scary people out there.
As Kipling didn’t say”:
If you can keep your head
while people all around you are losing theirs
and blaming it upon you,
You just don’t understand the situation.
Of course
It’s hard-core leftists who see the boogeyman under every bed. They’re the ones trembling in fear about radical Islam, the “reconquista,” Agenda 21, the Illuminati, George Soros, the homosexual junta, MoveOn, ACORN, big government taking away their guns, Obama outlawing the suburbs, anti-Romney messages in Batman movies, the War on Christmas, etc., etc.
If this doesn’t alarm you…
You need to read a lot more on Joe McCarthy. Ms. Bachmann will keep this up until, like McCarthy, she goes after people others will stand up for.
I fail to see the connection between the average Muslim-American and the Ft. Hood shooter or the Muslim Brotherhood. There are between 1.3 and 2.7 Million Muslims in the USA. (Wiki). To paint all those people with the same brush requires a broad brush indeed. Most are hard working, peaceful Americans. Most Christians are hard working, peaceful people. A few are anything but.
In the 1950’s there were Communists in the US. McCarthy’s claim, like Bachmann’s, was that they’d infiltrated the Dept of State and that he had proof. He never had any proof, anymore than Bachmann does.
If you demonstrate hatred towards a large group of people, does that make it more likely or less likely that they will perceive you as the enemy? If you hate a group of people based on their religion or ethnicity, where does that leave you in the eyes of Jesus Christ?
Race baiting and the acceptance of hatred is a tool oft used to get tyrants into power.
Tester and Krasnoff suggest this is a left vs. right issue, that those who object to Bachmann’s speech are somehow aligned with the Democrats.
Really? That’s your moral stance?
(rare kudos to Mr. Swift, for being willing to separate conservative politics from something less rational) Like McCarthy, Bachmann’s actions will force political allies to either reject her or go over the cliff with her.
Ft. Hood shooter and average Muslim
“I fail to see the connection between the average Muslim-American and the Ft. Hood shooter or the Muslim Brotherhood. There are between 1.3 and 2.7 Million Muslims in the USA. (Wiki). ”
You fail to see the connection because there is none, no one said there was. The average Muslim did not kill 13 people or contribute to a known terrorist group.