But It's Thomas Jefferson's Koran!

Jefferson's Koran should not be lent out, not as part of a publicity stunt by somoeone whose worldview is completely antipathetic to that of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson had his dealings with the Muslims, that is with the Barbary Pirates, the Muslim corsairs who preyed on Christian ships and seamenm. He negotatied with them. His own view of their behavior is on record. Unlike John Quincy Adams, who took the measure of Islam (google "John Quincy Adams" and "Islam"), who denounced Islam as a belief-system, Jefferson merely denounced the behavior of all the Muslims he had any dealings with -- but in the end it amounted to the same thing. His view had little in common with that of Bush and Blair and the others now "taking a leadership role" all over the ill-led West.

This stunt by Ellison disgusts, and what further disgusts is the willingness of those in charge tof Jefferson's library to lend out, a book owned by Jefferson to make it appear to the world that Jefferson's possession of the Qur'an, implieds, or will be assumed to imply, some kind of favorable attitude toward Islam. The legal and political and even educational institutions Jefferson helped to create, his social attitudes, his variegated intellectual interests, all make clear that Jefferson, that child of the Enlightenment, could not have endured an Islamic regime for one minute. Nor could someone like Jefferson ever have been produced within Dar al-Islam. Everything he held dear, including the spirit of questioning everything that was most unquestioned -- see Jefferson's scissors-and-paste version of the Bible, holding the miracles, keeping the moral lessons -- is flatly contradcited by the unyielding letter, and the grimly incurious spirit, of Islam.

"Keith is paying respect not only to the founding fathers' belief in religious freedom but the Constitution itself," said Ellison spokesman Rick Jauert.

How touching. Somehow, I think the Founding Fathers would not agree with this statement if they saw Islam in action in this day and age-they most likely would recognize the evil for what it is.

While I agree that taking the oath of office for the photo op swear in is wrong, we should really back off the issue. It is clear that Ellison, aided by the ACLU, will be allowed to use the Koran or the Qu'ran (take your pick) for the photo op.

All we do is elevate Ellison to a position of higher importance that he deserves. He will look like a fighter when he is allowed to swear in on the Koran, he will look like the winner in this controversy. His constituents will see his ability to stick it to the man and his legend will grow.

I am just waiting for somebody who worships toilet paper to get elected, that way we can see a swear in on a roll of Charmin.

"In short, to swear on the Bible is to affirm, among other things, that one is part of a tradition, and to swear on the Qur'an does not amount to an affirmation of the same tradition, no matter how much Glenn Beck or Ed Koch or anyone wishes it does or assumes it does."

Has there been any attempt to have Robert or anyone else connected with JW to have an interview with Glenn Beck about this? In many ways Mr. Beck "gets it," but apparently he's still stuck in the misguided notion that Islam is a "religion of peace," wherein it is being hijacked by a minority of "extremists."

Please also note that Mr. Beck admittedly refers to himself as a "rodeo clown," and as such is in dire need of further education about the Islamic jihad situation we face. I also believe that he can be swayed from his current attitude with regard to this Quran swearing-in situation.

This sentence:
Yet the holy book at tomorrow's ceremony has an unassailably all-American provenance.

How utterly disgusting. It reveals in itself an Islamic attitude -- thus, you put on the trappings, clad yourself so as to appear "virtuous" and then claim that that which appears is that which is. Thus a neo-nazi espouser who drapes himself in an American flag and holds up a copy of the Constitution can then proclaim that he's become "unassailably all-American!" Ja, sieg heil!

What else will these Dhimmi be trotting out to display as evidence of a "proud American tradition?" Sawing off the heads of Infidels while proclaiming how much they have to teach Americans about the concept of "justice" and "tolerance" Muslim-style? Ja, Alluh Akbar! sieg heil!

Muslims will hijack EVERYTHING! They are interminable dreamers and BS artists

It was Jefferson who commissioned the six frigates of the first squadron of the standing U.S. Navy. Let Congressman-elect Ellison visit the deck of the USS Constitution to meditate on the actions of that glorious ship under the command of Preble's Boys when it smashed the corsairs of the Muslim navies in the Mediterranean during the first invocation of Article I., Section 8. of the Constitution for the United States. "Old Ironsides" is still in commission and so is its mission against the same enemy her heroic crews faced on the shores of Tripoli.

Then, how can we put out the info that Ambassador Jefferson discovered about Islam in 1786 from the Ambassador of Tripoli....for this is exactly what Ellison deserves to hear for his act.

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, then serving as American ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively, met in 1786 in London with the Tripolitan Ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. These future American presidents were attempting to negotiate a peace treaty which would spare the United States the ravages of jihad piracy—murder, enslavement (with ransoming for redemption), and expropriation of valuable commercial assets—emanating from the Barbary states (modern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, known collectively in Arabic as the Maghrib). During their discussions, they questioned Ambassador Adja as to the source of the unprovoked animus directed at the nascent United States republic. Jefferson and Adams, in their subsequent report to the Continental Congress, recorded the Tripolitan Ambassador’s justification:

… that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Keith may as well swear on Mein Kampf. It amounts to the same thing...

And that version of the Qur'an that Jefferson possessed, and that Ellison presumes to appropriate for his own religio-political purposes? Its author, George Sales, translated the Qur'an in 1734 so that his Protestant readership, in learning more about its contents, could "attack the Koran with success" and Sales maintained that it would be Protestants to whom, within Christianity, would fall the task of checking Islam: "for them [the Protestants]...Providence has reserved the glory of its overthrow."

Oh, and among the books in Jefferon's library was another -- Humphrey Prideaux's 1697 work on Muhammad, "The True Nature of the Imposture Displayed."

I guess I’m a bit confused considering in our country's history, four presidents and an unknown number of Jewish elected officials have been inaugurated without swearing an oath on the Bible.

Please consider the following article:

In a recent Townhall article Conservative Talk Show Host and Columnist Dennis Prager states that Congressman-elect Keith Ellison (MN 5) should not be allowed to take the oath of office on the Koran because "he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11."

Besides playing on the racist fears of his readers by comparing taking the oath of office on the Koran to "a racist elected to Congress" being allowed to "choose Hitler's 'Mein Kampf,' the Nazis' Bible," Prager is completely wrong when he states that "all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book."

In our country's history, four presidents have been inaugurated without swearing an oath on the Bible. Franklin Pierce was affirmed, and swore no oath, Rutherford Hayes initially had a private ceremony with no Bible before his public ceremony, Theodore Roosevelt had no Bible at his ceremony, and Lyndon Johnson used a missal during his first term.

Despite Prager's insistence that "for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament," it is clear that he is wrong. Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, took the oath of office on a Torah in 2001. Madeleine Kunin, a Jewish Immigrant and Governor of Vermont "rested her left hand on a stack of old prayer books that had belonged to her mother, grandparents, and great grandfather" as "a physical expression of the weight of Jewish history."

So, what's the problem?

Jefferson had long experience trying to free American ships, beginning with the "Betsy" seized by Muslim pirates operating out of Morocco, a task entrusted to him, Franklin, and Adams as early as 1786, and then later tried free American seamen enslaved by the Dey of Algiers. He detested those whom he had first to try to negotiate with, recognizing their malevolence and their meretriciousness, and he sought ways to force Congress to strengthen the U.S. Navy so that, through force, the only thing that in his dealings with Muslims he thought they would understand, he could at long last deal with them.

The next move:

- since this is Jefferson's Qur'an, Jefferson was a muslim, followed by..
- all whose libraries have a Qur'an, were muslims, followed by.....
- so many American presidents were muslims, followed by.....
- Therefore, America is a muslim land.
- Therefore muslims are fighting infidel occupation of a muslim land.

There you have it: evil infidels oppressing muslims and illegally occupying muslim America.

QED

'The Ambassador answered us that "it was founded on the laws of the prophet, that it was written in their koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their [islams] authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners...."'
-Jefferson

Just to give an idea of the general attitute Western Americans held to these Islamic nations who produced fewer books combined then Scottland alone in the whole of the 18th century, here are a couple of quotes frome an English Enlightenment thinker...

"Yes, Turkish slavery is confirmed, and Turkish tyranny defended, by religion!"
-Thomas Gordon (Letter No.25 of Cato's Letters)

"The Turks place great devotion in releasing captive birds from their cages, in feeding indigent and mangey dogs, and building hospitals for them, and in paying a religious reverence to camels: But at the same time that they thus use birds and beasts like men and Christians, they use men and Christians worse than they do beasts; and with them it is a lighter offence to deny bread to a poor Christian, who is famished in his chains, than to the dogs of the street, which are fit for nothing but to breed infection. They will load a poor Christian with irons, cover him with stripes, and think that they do well and religiously in it; yet make it a matter of conscience not to overload a beast of burden."
-Thomas Gordon (Letter #31)

Get all religion out of politics! Keep religion private! Stop offending and annoying atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists, and all sorts of other decent people. One doesn't need to be a Jew or a Christian to believe in democracy and human rights, nor does being a Jew or Christian guarantee that one believes in democracy and human rights. All it takes to be a good citizen is to be decent and rational.

As for swearing on a holy book, when did that ever keep a politician from being crooked? Stop swearing!

The Judeo-Christian tradition may have some good elements, but they are irrelevant to the Good Citizen. Grow up folks!

At the same time, if it takes a few Judeo-Christians to keep us free, I'm willing to deal. There are worse people. :-)

Exactly, Alert.

There's another aspect (I heard this during the Beck show) which I find extremely annoying. I believe it's a non sequitur, and this was to point out that Ellison was a "real" American because he could trace his roots back X number of years. Well, once again, that in itself displays an outright ignorance of what it means to be American and makes America great -- and GUESS WHAT? Yeah, it's not your presumed "pedigree" -- Europeans might not like that -- but I don't give a F-k how far back some dim wit traces his or her ancestry -- that DOES NOT make a person "more" American -- that's total bunk! What is happening to America?!! It's the VALUES you espouse, not your pedigree!

In June 1786 Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams, negotiated a peace agreement with Morocco, Sidi Muhammad ibn Abdallah. In order to obtain release of the American ship “Betsy.”

America, Jefefrson believed, would to better “raise ships and men to fight the pirates into reason than money to bribe them.” For such a course, Jefferson argued, “ will procure us respect in Europe. And respect is a safeguard to interst>

To Jefferson the Muslim corsairs – who often registered their would-be Christian prey with their rulers before setting out -- were “sea dogs,” a “pettifogging nest of robbers.”

In “Power, Faith, and Fantasy” the historian Michael Oren notes:

“Jefferson was typical of the Americans who later viewed the region [the Muslim states of North Africa] as the repository of despotism, depravity, and backwardness, a kind of inverse mirror of their own democracy, probity, and enlightenment. Certainly, to his mind, a band of Muslim holy warriors bent on enslaving innocent American sailors was far more deserving of whiffs of grapeshot than bags of hard-earned gold….But with much of American opinion still opposed to using force, Jefferson had no alternative other than to continue negotiating with North Africa for the hostages’ eventual release.

Through the good offices of Mathurin monks, members of a French order devoted to redeeming Christina slaves, Jefferson offered Algiers a substantially reduced ransom plus sundry douceurs, or “sweeteners.” The dey, however, rejected these gestures, and when revolutionary authorities in France suppressed the Mathurins, Jeffe4son lost his go-between. Months passed in which he received agonized letters from the imprisoned Americans, many of whom were mortally ill with the plague. Suffering “perpetual anxiety for our captives,” the secretary felt that American policy was at an impasse, possessing the constitutional means to Fight Barbary but still unwilling to employ the, “suspended between indignation and impotence.”

Finally, in December 1790, a dismayed Jeffesron recommended that America go to war. “The liberation of our citizens has an intimate connection with the liberation of our commerce in the Mediterranean,” he explained to Congress, “The distresses of both proceed from the same cause, and the measures which shall be adopted for the relief of one,, may…involve the relief of the other.”

Jefferson agreed with John Paul Jones that the Americans must use force with the Muslim pirates attacking American and other Christian shipping if they were to demonstrate to themselves and to the world that they were ”A Great People who deserve to be Free.”

Oren:

“Jefferson’s plan was to send {John Paul] Jones to Algiers with $25,000, a paltry sum that the dey was almost certain to reject. Congress, spurned, would then appropriate sufficient funds to create a full-time Mediterranean squadron. “Jon Paul Jones with half a dozen frigates would totally destroy their [the pirates’] commerce, cutting them to pieces by piecemeal.”

Jones died in Paris before the plan could be carried out.

And now, after Morocco’s king, and the deys of both Algiers and Tunis,it was the turn of Tripoli to complete the list of the Barbary regimes making war on American shipping. Pirates from Tripoli looted two American brigs, the “Catherine” and the “Franklin,” and demanded $100,000 in tribute.

Jefferson sent a squadron: the frigates Essex, President and Philadelphia, and the 12-gun sloop “Enterrpirse” – first to Gibraltar, where the Muslims on the ship “Mashuda” – the former American ship “Betsy” – were kept bottled up, and then the American ships sailed on to Tripoli to blockade the harbor and to send a few shells land-wards.

The rest of the story can be found, much of it in Oren’s forthcoming book, but also in articles.

As for what everyone else in those days thought of Islam, based on their knowledge of history and often from personal experience, see John Quincy Adams. See John Ledyard. See William Eaton. See Mordechai Noah. See them all, and you will not find any among them offering anything like what Bush and Condoleeza Rice tell us.

Balanced View is a 1st rate dhimmi for January.

The reality is the koran represents a CULT and not a religion that has attacked and murdered Americans for decades along with murdering many thousands of Israelis, Europeans, Indians, Russians, Sudanese, and now Australians.
The koran is explicit in detail and commands muslims to "Kill the non-believers wherever you find them."
Has Israel, its government, or military attacked the mainland USA or even tried to impose Hassidic Jewish law by point of knife or gun at America?
The koran represents the worst of man and hell and demands its followers to wage war against the world until ALL are subjugated to islam. It is actually stated in 134 verses so how much more proof do you need?
Islam and its koran has a problem with THE ENTIRE PLANET for not being islamic so tell me again what is YOUR problem for not understanding the reality and history of muslims and islam??
Muslims are waging war against all and their instruction booklet is the koran THAT is my problem with it....sorry about your choice.
I hope this site does not again delete my posting or this will be my last writing.

OT
But jihad related:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23872_Palestinians_Hate_Us_More_Than_Al_Qaeda_Hates_Us&only

Since Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts do not get the point about the Koran, perhaps since ideology is ideology and books are books, does this mean that it would be ok for Hillary Clinton to be sworn in holding a copy of Mein Kampf which is part of the John F. Kennedy Library Collection?
Or how about the Chinese Communist military finding which stated it would destroy America in 10 years held by John Kerry. Surely as beliefs no longer matter then anything can be used including the Koran which teaches the American Constitution is nullified like all other laws next to the Koran which teaches death to all non Muslims.
That is what Ellison is swearing to uphold.

Who were the Barbary pirates?

http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/

"playing on the racist fears of his {Prager's} readers..."
-- from a posting above by an apologist for Islam

How many times shall one repeat: opposition to Islam, dislike of what is in the Qur'an and the Hadith, worry over the hostility toward Infidels engendered by, taught by, those texts unambiguously, and certainly the cause of the observable behavior of Muslims toward non-Muslims in the lands conquered by and for Islam over 1350 years, does not constitute "racism." No matter how many times that word "racism" is used as camouflage or cover, it will not do: Islam is a belief-sytem, and even though it is a vehicle for Arab imperialism, the most successful imperialism in human history, it also wraps that Arab imperialism in universalist claims so that many non-Arabs remain unaware of that imperialism, or only dimly aware, and its appeal can be to those of any race -- just as can Christianity, but with considerably more justice, with its genuintely universalist claim.

"In our country's history, four presidents have been inaugurated without swearing an oath on the Bible. Franklin Pierce was affirmed, and swore no oath, Rutherford Hayes initially had a private ceremony with no Bible before his public ceremony, Theodore Roosevelt had no Bible at his ceremony, and Lyndon Johnson used a missal during his first term.

Despite Prager's insistence that "for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament," it is clear that he is wrong. Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, took the oath of office on a Torah in 2001. Madeleine Kunin, a Jewish Immigrant and Governor of Vermont "rested her left hand on a stack of old prayer books that had belonged to her mother, grandparents, and great grandfather" as "a physical expression of the weight of Jewish history."

So, what's the problem?"
-- from a posting above by an apologist for Islam

Without stopping to investigate, and then discuss, all of the highly tendentious assertions made in the excerpt just above, one thing can be said.

The answer to that question -- "what's the problem" lies in the nature of Islam itself. It is a collectivist faith. It is opposed to locating legitimacy in the expressed will of the people, but rather finds it in the will of Allah, as expressed in Qur'an and glossed by the components -- Hadith and Sira -- of the Sunna. It is opposed to individual liberties. It is opposed to freedom of speech, unfettered freedom of speech about religion, for example. It is opposed to full legal equality for women. It is opposed, wherever it comes to power and can inflict, through Muslims coming to dominate, the Muslim view of things, the equal treatment of Muslims and non-Muslims. The tenets of Islam, that is, as expressed in the Qur'an, flatly contradict the legal and political institutions of this country, and many of its social arrangmeents as well.

That cannot be said about the Bible, either the New or the Old Testaments. Nor are atheists or agnostics, who may not believe in God, brought up to revile and to work to undo the legal and political institutions of this country.

Islam is different.

That's "what the problem" is.

Keith Ellison is able to pull the the wool over the eyes of those who have not the knowledge of history. The public system run by teacher's union methods creates this ignorance. Keith Ellsion should be given a history lesson as well as those foolish enough to think Thomas Jefferson actually admired the koran and islam. Would the truth be known Keith Ellison would be ashamed to be dumb enough to even admit he concerted to islam.

The point is Robert Spencer could lend Ellison his Koran with Spencer's signature no doubt but it does not mean Mr. Spencer is a supporter of Islamic theology.

Jefferson had a Koran!

So what.. so does anyone who wants to figure out the enemy. Jefferson had to figure out what he was up against. Maybe Bush should pull out the copy he put in the oval office and start reading (with the commentaries of course) it. It might help.

Now that would be funny!

As a third-year student at the University of Minnesota Law School in 1989-90, he wrote two columns for the Minnesota Daily under the name "Keith Hakim." In the first, Ellison refers to "Minister Louis Farrakhan," defends Nation of Islam spokesman Khalid Abdul Muhammad, and speaks in the voice of a Nation of Islam advocate. In the second, "Hakim" demands reparations for slavery and throws in a demand for an optional separate homeland for American blacks. In February 1990, Ellison participated in sponsoring Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael) to speak at the law school on the subject "Zionism: Imperialism, White Supremacy or Both?" Jewish law students met personally with Ellison and appealed to him not to sponsor the speech at the law school; he rejected their appeal, and, as anticipated, Ture gave a notoriously anti-Semitic speech.

Ellison first emerged as a candidate for public office in 1998, when he ran for the DFL nomination for state representative as "Keith Ellison-Muhammad." In a contemporaneous article on his candidacy in the Insight News, Ellison is reported still defending Louis Farrakhan:
Anticipating possible criticism for his NOI affiliation, Ellison-Muhammad says he is aware that not everyone appreciates what the Nation does and feels there is a propaganda war being launched against its leader, Minister Louis Farrakhan.
Ellison says now that he broke with the Nation of Islam when "it became clear to me that their message of empowerment intertwined with more negative messages." However, Ellison himself was the purveyor of the Nation of Islam's noxious party line in his every public utterance touching on related issues over the course of a decade. Moreover, Ellison's unsavory associations were not limited to the Nation of Islam.

Perhaps the lowest moment in Minneapolis's history was the September 1992 execution-style murder of police officer Jerry Haaf. Haaf was shot in the back as he took a coffee break at a restaurant in south Minneapolis. The murder was a gang hit performed by four members of the city's Vice Lords gang. The leader of the Vice Lords was Sharif Willis, a convicted murderer who had been released from prison and who sought respectability as a responsible gang leader from gullible municipal authorities while operating a gang front called United for Peace.
The four Vice Lords members who murdered Haaf met and planned the murder at Willis's house. Two witnesses at the trial of one of the men convicted of Haaf's murder implicated Willis in the planning. Willis was never charged; law enforcement authorities said they lacked sufficient evidence to convict him.
Within a month of Haaf's murder, Ellison appeared with Willis supporting the United for Peace gang front. In October 1992, Ellison helped organize a demonstration against Minneapolis police that included United for Peace. "The main point of our rally is to support United for Peace [in its fight against] the campaign of slander the police federation has been waging," said Ellison.
Willis was the last speaker at the demonstration. According to a contemporaneous report in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, Willis told the crowd that Minneapolis police were experiencing the same fear from young black men that blacks had felt from police for many years. "If the police have some fear, I understand that fear," Willis said. "We seem to have an overabundance of bad police. . . . We're going to get rid of them," Willis said. "They've got to go." The Pioneer Press account concludes with Ellison's contribution to the demonstration: "Ellison told the crowd that the police union is systematically frightening whites in order to get more police officers hired. That way, Ellison said, the union can increase its power base."
Ellison publicly supported the Haaf murder defendants. In February 1993, he spoke at a demonstration for one of them during his trial. Ellison led the crowd assembled at the courthouse in a chant that was ominous in the context of Haaf's cold-blooded murder: "We don't get no justice, you don't get no peace." Ellison's working relationship with Sharif Willis came to an end in February 1995, when Willis was convicted in federal court on several counts of drug and gun-related crimes and sent back to prison for 20 years

The various themes of Ellison's public commitments and associations all came together in a February 2000 speech he gave at a fundraising event sponsored by the Minnesota chapter of the far-left National Lawyers Guild, on whose steering committee he had served. The event was a fundraiser for former Symbionese Liberation Army member Kathleen Soliah after her apprehension in St. Paul (under the name "Sara Jane Olson") for the attempted murder of Los Angeles police officers in 1975.
He described her as one of those who had been "fighting for freedom in the '60s and '70s" and called for her release. (She subsequently pleaded guilty to charges in Los Angeles and to an additional murder charge in Sacramento; she is serving time in California.)

He has also spoke favorably of cop killers Mumia Abu-Jamal and Assata Shakur. (Shakur has been on the lam in Cuba since 1984; last year she was placed on the FBI's domestic terrorists list with a one million dollar reward for her capture.)

DEATH ANGELS - Forgotten domestic terror

Death Angels, a group within the extremist black nationalist group, the Nation of Islam....

http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2006/12/death-angels-forgotten-domestic.html

""He wanted to use a Koran that was special," said Mark Dimunation"

Dimunation?? Where the hell do people get these names. Its like the guy who won the poker champs a few years ago was Chris Moneymaker. My weather reporter was named "Larry Storm". Remember Cleric Rage!! Do they just make them up??

Dimunation = Dimu-Nation = Dhimmi Nation

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Slow day.

Wow, the stretches one could make upon finding what someone has on their bookshelves. It boggles the mind!

Robert Spencer wrote:
"In short, to swear on the Bible is to affirm, among other things, that one is part of a tradition, and to swear on the Qur'an does not amount to an affirmation of the same tradition, no matter how much Glenn Beck or Ed Koch or anyone wishes it does or assumes it does. Islamic teachers daily use the Qur'an to establish principles that differ radically from those of Judeo-Christian tradition. These questions need to be discussed in a forthright and honest manner by Ellison and by the mainstream media, instead of being swept under the rug or condemned as bigotry."

--

I so absolutely agree!

This entire situation disgusts me -- and the politicians that are allowing this in Washington, DC are completely forgetting their oath to protect this nation "against all enemies" -- damn them all for the fools and cowards they are!

Foehammer

PS OT: "Anvil 2.0" (nickname for my blog) is so close to being ready for public consumption right now, the "wheels" are squeaking -- but I'd better get back to it. No rest for the weary in this war....

Jefferson's copy is an English translation by George Sale published in the 1750s

Hmmm, as I understand it, then, this is not regarded as a Qur'an -- it is a "meaning only" text with no particular religious significance. Or, since I suspect it was translated by a Kafir, it is a horrific forgery and abomination upon the holy book. If Ellison wants to swear on it, I'd say let him. Let him call it a Qur'an and appear with it on national television.

Then make a big media fuss about how progressive Ellison is, being the first major Islamic personality to publicly declare the English translation to be a genuine Qur'an.

Send clippings of this announcement to some news wires in Dar Al-Islam...

Then sit back and watch.

While we're at it, I see an astute reader posted this at Pipes' site:

Submitted by PDM, Feb 15, 2006 at 12:51

From AMERICAN SPHINX The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph J. Ellis

"Several muslim countries along the North African coast had established the tradition of plundering the ships of European and American merchants in the western Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic, capturing the crews and then demanding ransom from the respective governments for their release. In a joint message to their superiors in Congress, Adams and Jefferson described the audacity of these terrorist attacks, pirates leaping onto defenseless ships with daggers clenched in their teeth. They had asked the ambassador from Tripoli, Adams and Jefferson explained, on what grounds these outrageous acts of unbridled savagery could be justified: "The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of the prophet, that it was written in their koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their [islams] authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners...."

This event occured between 1784-1789 while Jefferson was ambassador to France and Adams (2nd president) was ambassador to England.

I wonder what Jefferson's response was?

For me, this whole swearing in business is about tradition. Just like for most of the history of the US, people in court placed their hand on a Bible and swore to tell the truth. It became a tradition. But, just like the removal of the cross from that Canadian College because it might o-f-f-e-n-d some one, the dismantling of traditions continues just to kiss the asses of o-f-f-e-n-d-e-d wittle persons and gwoups. They might become a Christian by placing their little hooks on a Bible. Keep bending over backwards in the name of "inclusion" just to make the oh-so-oppressed feel better. Where does this PC BS end? Sooner or later the majority, who are Christians, are going to get a gut full of this crap!

When Jesus walked on earth, while standing before the magnificent temple, he prophesied it to be utterly destroyed, and that it would consume itself from within, not a stone unturned.

Lo and behold, 70 years later, the twenty-foot wide double temple gate flunks open on its own accord. Eye witnesses recorded that there were the sounds of rumbling chariots, horse hoofs, and voices saying, “LET US DEPART;” thereafter, Jerusalem was under siege commanded under the Roman Emperor, Titus. While the army surrounded it, it could not breach the stronghold, not even after six month and with great losses. Meanwhile, with a great store of grain within the temple, the robbers prevented the inhabitants from getting their shares of grain. Eventual, when the wall was breached, despite Titus’ entreaties to preserve the magnificent temple, his solders pour out their utter contempt, of the long difficult fights, and threw a torch into the tinder dry temple; every house was found with families shutting themselves up in disgrace and died of hunger--- as prophesied that it would consume itself from within. Not a stone from the temple is found today because the gold within the temple melted on them; thieves and robber carried them away, as prophesied, NOT A STONE LEFT UNTURNED.

Like Jerusalem, in 70 A.D., America is consuming itself from within as we speak of. The Lord’s spirit has departed from many households, some are consumed by drugs, some alcohol, children are born out of wedlock, young girls give birth to more illegitimate offspring and thereon perpetuate the illegitimacy into the next generations, less boys could qualify to go to college, jobs have departed from America to China, India, and many other countries, the president, the congress, and the senate are still clueless about Islam or CAIR; many of you say cluelessly, “What’s the problem with swearing in with Koran.” These are only the tip of the iceberg.

As a foreign born, I see the corruption continues to grow from within Washington such as that I have seen in Muslim countries.

Make an entry in your dairy for tomorrow, when the first Muslim congress is sworn in with Koran, such as that unprecedented before you forefather. IT IS THE DAY OF THE BEGINNING OF THE AMERICAN DEMISE.

Indeed, it is sad for my son and his generation—Where else can they go? God help!

Go to Skeptics Annotated Quran. Put it in chronological order. Look at Repentance, 2nd to last in chrono order. This is chapter 9 in standard order.

Repentance

Repentance contains the Verse of the Sword 9:5, Slay them, the unbelievers, where you find them. This is the kernel of every statement from 633 AD to now. The Muslims believe that every word in the Koran is God's voice.

As Walid Shoebat says in Obsession, the video on the internet, Nazis believed the Fuhrer commanded them in Mein Kampf to kill Jews. Muslims believe God in the Koran commands them to kill Christians and Jews, under many circumstances including not submitting to Islam. That is the current situation of Israel and the West, for now.

The commands in the Koran to Muslims from God to kill Christians and Jews are far more explicit than anything in Mein Kampf. The conditions under which it is commanded are far more general. To deny Islamic genocide and to deny that when its actually happened it was commanded in the Koran is genocide denial.

WaPo Comments

WaPo comments links, but not the comments themselves disappear after 2 or 3 days. The above link lets you ses the comments after that.

Ellison's swearing on a Q'uran in entering Congress. There can be no more perfect place to place one's hand upon a book that condones lying. They all swear to be truthful uphold the Constitution - a document that has been utterly shredded assunder by the same very pirates, er I mean people he is joining to share in the fruits of screwing this country over with. They are have made a mockery of their swearing on the Bible which promotes truth.

Better they should ALL swear on the Q'uran. Then at least we see some actual representation of the truth from COngress.

The best thing that could have happened to this country on 911 (if it could not be stopped from happening!!) was if the third plane had hit the Capitol Building (especially the Senate side).

The Pentagon is filled mostly with Patriots and true citizens. They were innocent. I can't say that for anyone in the Capitol. I'm not even sure who is a bigger threat to my life, my liberty or my pursuit of happiness: bin Laden or Congress.

Rawstory comment page on this WaPo article.

The Rawstory comments for Keith Ellison or against Virgil Goode are sometimes quite explicit in their thoughts.

All Ellison is doing is bringing to light the writings of Jefferson regarding islam. His writings prove that from then until now, not one thing has changed. I can’t understand why Ellison would do this, boneheaded move? Perhaps. I believe Jefferson had an extensive library, that he actually used, unlike the pols of today and their in name only libraries. Someone should scour Jefferson’s and other Presidents writings regarding the muslims.

SALE'S PREFACE TO THE PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE AND TRANSLATION.

"I IMAGINE it almost needless either to make an apology for publishing the following translation, or to go about to prove it a work of use as well as curiosity. They must have a mean opinion of the Christian religion, or be but grounded therein, who can apprehend any danger from manifest a forgery: and if the religious and civil insti­tutions of foreign nations are worth our knowledge, those of Muhammad, the lawgiver of the Arabians, and founder of an empire which in less than a century spread itself over a greater part of the world than the Romans were ever masters of, must needs be so; whether we consider their extensive obtaining, or our frequent intercourse with those who are governed thereby. I shall not here inquire into the reasons why the law of Muhammad has met with so unexampled a reception in the world (for they are greatly deceived who imagine it to have been propagated by the sword alone), or by what means it came to be embraced by nations which never felt the force of the Muhammadan arms, and even by those which stripped the Arabians of their conquests, and put an end to the sovereignty and very being of their Khalifahs; yet it seems as if there was something more than what is vulgarly imagined in a religion which has made so surprising a progress. But whatever use an impartial version of the Qura'n may be of in other respects, it is absolutely neces­sary to undeceive those who, from the ignorant or unfair translations which have appeared, have entertained too favourable an opinion of the original, and also to enable us effectually to expose the imposture; none of those who have hitherto undertaken that province, not excepting Dr. Prideaux himself, having succeeded to the satisfaction of the judicious, for want of being complete masters of the controversy. The writers of the Romish communion, in particular; are so far from having done any service in their refutations of Muhammadanism, that by endeavouring to defend their idolatry and other superstitions, they have rather contributed to the increase of that aversion which the Muhammadans in general have to the Christian re­ligion, and given them great advantages in the dispute. The Protestants alone are able to attack the Qur'an with success; and for them, I trust, Providence has reserved the glory of its overthrow."

"I wonder what Jefferson's response was?"
-- from a posting above

In 1786, he tried negotiating with the Ruler of Morocco to free the "Betsy." Later he tried negotations with the Deys of Algiers, and Tunis, and then realized that the only way to deal with the Muslim rulers of North Africa was through the application of military force. He was going to attempt to make a bribe so low that it would be rejected by the Dey of Algiers, and then to force Congress to support the use of force, but Jones died before the plan could be executed. He did develop a great hostility, even hatred, for the piratical "dogs" and their way of negotiating so meretriciously.

One can read more about this in Michael Oren's "Power, Faith, and Fantasy," a book that has its virtues and its faults (one fault being Oren's own lack of understanding of Islam, or at least his complete unwillingness to discuss the teachings of Islam and the attitudes naturally arising from those teachings), but is rich, in the first 150 pages or so, in anecdote and diplomatic history.

this sint exactlty jefferson on islam,but it is about America's response to islam

This is not the first time I have read the claim that the Koran justifies lying. On previous occasions I have looked up the Koran verses cited in support of this claim. Each time I found that there is no license to lie in general, but only in a very particular situation. And even so, the language is rather ambivalent.

Hugh,

You should have put in bold text the following (so all could see and read):

...it is absolutely neces­sary to undeceive those who, from the ignorant or unfair translations [of the koran] which have appeared, have entertained too favourable an opinion of the original...

This intro completely refutes what many, many are claiming at some of the "comments" pages posted by Old Atlantic -- some are alleging (the ignorant and the liars) that Jefferson was a supporter of Muslims!! Jefferson must be rolling in his grave!

oops sorry....

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/barbary.htm

I suspect that the ACLU and its theatrics will once again be the winners in this PR stunt (along with convincing all the rodeo clowns that Jefferson really, really loved Muslims -- there's is such a wonderful and liberal tradition built on love and tolerance (when they're not busy sawing off heads, of course0!)

"You should have put in bold text the following (so all could see and read):

...it is absolutely neces­sary to undeceive those who, from the ignorant or unfair translations [of the koran] which have appeared, have entertained too favourable an opinion of the original..."

Well, you are right, but I write directly into the little box, ordinarily, and so do not have the "bold" function at hand.

It is absurd that people should think that Jefferson's ownership of a Koran meant that he was favorable to Islam. He was an educated man. He wanted to find out about Islam. As a law student at William and Mary his only way of finding out was by buying a copy of Sales's translation of the Koran. He did possess a copy of Humphrey Prideaux's polemical attack on Muhammad, but according to Sales even Prideaux did not sufficiently expose the doctrines of Islam.

Jefferson owned a Koran. So did John Quincy Adams, possibly our most learned President (if anywhere near Boston, many will want to visit the Adams Family site, and library, in Quincy) whose views on Islam can be found by googling "John Quincy Adams" and "Islam." And what's more, they actually read the books they bought, and made sense of them, unlike Blair or Bush or so many others.

Ibn Warraq owns many different Qur'ans. So does Ali Sina. So does Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Robert Spencer owns quite a few different Qur'ans. So do I.

What does that make all of us? Does it make us as much "supporters of Islam" as some are claiming Jefferson must have been, otherwise he would not have possessed a Qur'an?

What palpable nonsense people offer up, and expect others to believe.

balancedview writes:

"So, what's the problem?"

It's the Koran, stupid!

In 1785, the exasperated Jefferson suggested that war was the only solution. His mind was "absolutely suspended between indignation and impotence." Jefferson declared that tribute was "money thrown away" and that the most convincing argument that these outlaws would understand was gunpowder and shot. The future president proposed a multi-national effort between European powers and America that would in effect economically blockade North Africa and ultimately provide for a multi-national military force to combat pirate terrorism. The European powers chose to continue paying tribute to the Barbary States (Irwin, 1970)

By the spring of 1801, Yusuf had heard nothing about his $10,000 [he had demanded]and his impatience with America had grown to a fine rage. The Pasha summoned the American representative to his court, made him kiss his hand and decreed that, as a penalty, tribute would be raised to $225,000, plus $25,000 annually in goods of his choice. If refused, the alternative was war. To make his point, Yusuf had his soldiers chop down the flagpole in front of the American consulate, a significant gesture in a land of no tall trees-and one that meant war (Channing, 1968).

Jefferson decided that a little "showing of the flag" in the Mediterranean was more appropriate than tribute. He ordered the frigates President, Essex, and Philadelphia and the sloop Enterprise to blockade Tripoli and convoy American shipping (Malone, 1970).
This squadron, under Commodore Richard Dale, had to patrol and control a coastline over 1,200 miles in distance, which resulted in a "most desultory blockade." The lone success of the force was the defeat of a larger Tripolitan ship by Enterprise. Since there had been no declaration of war by the United States, the Barbary cruiser could not be taken as a prize. However, the captain of the Enterprise did have all of the corsair's guns thrown overboard before allowing the ship to continue on its way, with sixty casualties to his none (Channing, 1968).

"Since there had been no declaration of war by the United States, the Barbary cruiser could not be taken as a prize."

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2006/10/to-shores-of-tripoli.html

Ellison must swear on an Arabic Quran. A quran in any language other than Arabic is not a real Quran. There are many on-line opinions from those dispensers of Islamic opinion that support my statement. Infidels are not allowed to touch an Arabic quran, but we can touch a "translation."

What I want to know is what Jefferson wrote in the margins. Considering his dealings with Islamic terrorism, it might be interesting to learn his conclusions.

It was expected that he would do something like this. He certainly wouldn't swear on the NOI Koran. This would be to easy to open and read. It would also put him at odds with Sunni/Shia (real) Muslims who might decide a beheading was in order.

Swearing on Jefferson's Koran will at least delay a review of what is in it (and Jefferson's notes). Do not be surprised if the Koran is misplaced shortly after the swearing in.

I am surprised that there is no readily available revelation of what Jefferson had in his notes.

If Jefferson (or someone like Churchill) had a copy of Mein Kampf that doesn't mean anything. If Hitler had a copy of the Gospels-does that mean Hitler agreed with Christ in condemning hypocrisy-deception? Again, stunts. The deception that is intrinsic in Islam is loathsome. It is loathsome.

Hugh from you many postings on this subject it seems you are quite upset at the use of one of Jefferson's books. How could the handlers, or what ever you call them of his library agree to hand over his book to a two bit politician?

Islam is different.

That's "what the problem" is. by Hugh at January 3, 2007 04:01 PM

I fully agree with JW folks as Hugh put its that Islam is different. It is not simply different it is different in a dangerous manner.

I am absolutely disgusted with my Amrican fella Ellison wish to start ball rolling against our Constitution. As he made his intentions clear in his recent speech that he believes Muslims are here to teach us 'the meaning of good life', he will burn our constitution in a heart beat and replace it with Cowran given half the chance.

I am even more disgusted with the Congressmen who support his stance.

When Ellison take the official oath of office with hands on Cowran, I'll feel our Constitutional rights are raped by Islam.

Keith Ellison is deceptively implying that since Jefferson had a copy of the Koran he therefore endorsed it. It is like saying that if Hitler had copy of the Gospels therefore Hitler endorsed the Sermon on the Mount or Christ's mandates against all deception-hypocrisy as coming "from the evil one", or if Churchill had a copy of Mien Kampf that means Churchill endorsed Hitler. No honest person can have anything but contempt for Ellison's deception here.

Islam is a "religion" of deception. They (like the Nazis) are Pharisees, people who say one thing in private and another thing in public, people who deceive. Deception is war. War is deception.

I apologize to any previous posters who scooped me on the Jefferson quote. Sorry, I hadn't read all the comments at that point. But I'm surprised nobody yet pointed out the following problem with swearing an oath on the bible.

First, I understand that your officials do not actually swear on the bible anyway, that it is an affirmation, and they may hold a book (any book) for the photo.

In Canada, it is still not as well known as it should be that swearing is not required in any circumstances legally -- one always has the option to "affirm" a statement in court, etc. I believe the same is true in the U.S. This is NOT, as some might thing, a slighting of Christian belief; it is, in fact, more consistent with Christian teaching than swearing on the bible.

Once when I went as an unregistered voter to the polls I had to give my ID, fill out a form and then they handed me a bible, asking me to swear that I am who I claim. The conversation unfolded approximately as follows:

Me: Sorry, I won't do that but I will affirm that I am who I just said.

Official: Yes, you can do that. Most people don't know that is an option.

Me: I never swear on the bible, I always opt to affirm, so I've known about it for some time.

Official: I've always wondered why some people do that. Is it because you are an athiest?

Me: No, it's because I'm a Christian. It seems an ironic thing, dont you think, to swear on a book that instructs you not to do so?

Official: Huh? (must have been an American -- a Canadian would have said "Eh?")

I took the bible from him, turned to Matthew 5 and read (Jesus speaking):

"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord'. But I tell you, do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No' be 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one".

Now, Christians generally hold to an interpretation of liberty within such rules -- the kingdom does not consiste of prohibitions "do not taste, do not touch" and so on (Col. 2:21), it is the heart that matters, so someone who opts to swear, on the bible or anything else, is not guilty of some mortal sin.

However, Muslims hold that Jesus is a prophet (second only to Mo). Further, they must obey to the letter any command that come from God through the prophets. I wonder if Ellison knows that God, through the prophet Jesus, has forbidden him to swear?

Somehow I doubt he'll lose any sleep over it even if he knows.

Hugh, thanks for the historical background on this issue, it's badly needed.

Archimedes,

What Jesus commanded is not in the Koran, and the Muslims staunchly believe the gospel is full of lies, and that they insist that Jesus was never crucified. The Koran said then even Jonah was an Arab.

What you said about no swearing is truth, but please do not be so naïve in believing Ellison will loose sleep, he was born of a Christian and knew what Jesus said, but could care less, and become a Muslim.

It takes a devil to deny Christ, especially one who has heard the good news of salvation trough Christ.

If you put a lobster in a hot boiling pot, it will jump out in agony, but if you put it in a cool pot and slowly raise the temperature, it will fall asleep and be cooked for your enjoyment.

America is in that pot, which I mentioned latter. It has become fit for the Islamic consumption.

Yes, Archimedes2, other strands of religious faith also prohibit the swearing an oath (Orthodox Judaism, for example). I don't see this as the issue. Options for a person who wishes to exempt himself or herself from taking an oath exist in both Canada and the U.S. (including at swearing-in ceremonies, pledging allegiance to a flag, citizenship ceremonies, etc. etc.) In Canada (which, I must say, doesn't really have as sharp a separation of church and state as does the United States -- I think it's actually easier in the States to refrain from stating an oath than in Canada), Canada already has had a person swearing an oath on the Koran (that was Canada's first Muslim lawyer, back I think in the 70s / 80s?) Personally, my problem with the swearing of an oath on the Koran is this -- i believe the Koran (in its stated principles and how it's been interpreted throughout the ages) runs contrary to the principles inherit in the United States -- the Koran does not uphold equality of sexes; does not uphold the freedoms of speech or even of religion; its values are counter (nearly the exact opposite) of what the U.S. constitution stands for. (more so if one considers what Jefferson wrote). Thus, it's about the symbolic import.

It was Mumtaz Ali in 1962 who swore on a Koran, not a bible, in Ontario when he began to practice law. Since then he's been a big advocate for the introduction of Sharia law in Canada.

I read on the web that George Sale's version of the Koran was the one read by all learned figures throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.

Edward Gibbon had this to say about:

‘In the spirit of enthusiasm or vanity, the prophet rests the truth of his mission on the merit of his book; audaciously challenges both men and angels to imitate the beauties of a single page; and presumes to assert that God alone could dictate this incomparable performance. This argument is most powerfully addressed to a devout Arabian, whose mind is attuned to faith and rapture; whose ear is delighted by the music of sounds; and whose ignorance is incapable of comparing the productions of human genius. The harmony and copiousness of style will not reach, in a version, the European infidel: he will peruse with impatience the endless incoherent rhapsody of fable, and precept, and declamation, which seldom excites a sentiment or an idea, which sometimes crawls in the dust, and is sometimes lost in the clouds. The divine attributes exalt the fancy of the Arabian missionary; but his loftiest strains must yield to the sublime simplicity of the book of Job, composed in a remote age, in the same country, and in the same language. If the composition of the Koran exceeds the faculties of a man, to what superior intelligence should we ascribe the Iliad of Homer, or the Philippics of Demosthenes?’

Thomas Carlyle put it more tersely:

‘It is as toilsome reading as I ever undertook, a wearisome, confused Jumble, crude, incondite. Nothing but a sense of duty could carry any European through the Koran.’

Oh, in the name of all that is HOLY, Who elected this jackass and WHY????

If he is going to swear on the Qu'ran he should have to read a passage or two:

Those who disbelieve, promise them a painful doom. 3:21

Those that the Muslims killed were not really killed by them. It was Allah who did the killing. 8:17

If you deny the revelations of Allah, you will be among the losers and will "see the painful doom." 10:95-97

and then the crowd can Yell " Allahu Ackbar!!! "

I have five different translations of the Qur'an. That means that I am five times as enthusiastic about Islam as was that enthusiast Jefferson.

Robert possesses ten different translations of the Qur'an. He, therefore, is ten times as enthusiastic about Islam as was that enthusiast Jefferson.

Ibn Warraq possesses fourteen different translations of the Qur'an. He, therefore, is fourteen times as enthusiastic about Islam as was that enthusiast Jefferson.

Und so weiter.

Koran enthusiast Jefferson. Oh brother, what is next?
It seems simple. Jefferson, wanting to know as much as he could about the world and the koran containing the complete life/death plan for all arabs, does it not make sense he would get a copy? Easy, one book to read and you pretty much get the outline for the whole gang

Jefferson on islam,
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear… no wait, that’s on Christianity! More Jefferson…
I cannot live without books.
Thomas Jefferson.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

My apologies for being off topic once again:

Crossing the pond to the USA: Muslim Inmates Sue State Over Diet

Ummah News Links

To Abd,
a warning.
The higher you climb,
the harder you fall.
Don't tempt the fickle fates
or you'll end with nothing at all.
Don't be greedy, and so needy,
you'll show your hand too soon.
Reaching for the pedophile's
moon god can end in the destruction
of your easy earned political seat,
with your friends turned enemies,
in a frenzy of water carrying for the arabs.
Abd is the black slave who digs his own grave.

Jefferson was no dhimini! He read the Quran to understand his enemies. He gave the Barbary Pirates the butt-kicking that they richly deserved.

"Jefferson's Quran dates religious tolerance to the founders of our country," he added.

this quote came from a spokesman form our new muslin rep.

I know this is BS i hope some of you out there can provide some quotes from past presidents that will show how they felt about islam. and i know it was not good

Syed Mumtaz Ali who in 1962 swore on a Koran instead of a bible when he began to practice law in Canada, and is now an advocate of Sharia law for Canada, also speaks about teaching "tolerance" to Canadians. He seems to feel that Canadians are terribly intolerant -- and you might ask, "intolerant?" how so? Well, according to Syed Mumtaz Ali, Canadians who refuse to permit adulteress women to be stoned to death for their "crime" illustrate intolerance. Indeed, he characterizes Canadians' reluctance for penalties by stoning to death -- as in keeping with the Koran's injunctions (typically it's stoning adulterous women, who've actually been raped, seeing how it's rather difficult to get 4 male witnesses to said rape event, unless, of course, it's a gang rape, then it isn't a "crime" I suppose) as a prime example of Canadian "intolerance." Thus he states on his webpage (with many more insightful commentaries of a Medieval nature, such as how he wishes to eventually alter Canada's constitution - so as to have it more in adherence to Muslim/Pakistani laws). Oh, the hilarity!

HAHAHAHAHA!

God reading the comments esp. by Hugh....too funny. Thats the spirit. Islam at its core is dangerous but also very stupid. The reason no one understands this misunderstood religion is you must have a S&M complex, glutten for punishment, or pure need (to survive muslims) to read and understand the koran and Islam in general. I wonder if Ellison is going to read the dam preface before he swears on it. I hope he does right before he is about to do it. That will be a hoot. In fact I hope we can learn something from this: The Founding fathers were not that religious as some people think and second they hated Islam. In fact most of the enlightenment era people hated it. They were not controlled by pc crap either so they just hammered it. Heck they were all Islamophobes!!! :)

The hope is this will wake up the secular masses to make this a war not between Christian theology vs. Islamic theology BUT a war between Western values, culture and laws VS. Islamic values, culture and laws.

Re-awaken the Enlightenment!!!

Thats a battle everyone who has a free mind can join and with one voice: Islam sucks and is beyond stupid!!!

Ellisson is encouraged by the stupidity of the likes of Toni BLair and GWB who made the most idiotic statements about this hateful war-manual in the past. Bush keeps a Koran in the White House (he probably NEVER had a look at it)

Blair is making a fool of himself when he tries to suck up to the Mohammedans by telling them how 'enlightening' and progressive this BS is.
And don't forget the pathetic secretary of state, Condi Rice: 'Disrespect for the holy Koran never was, never will be tolerated by the US of A...'

I covered it in a song:

http://sheikyermami.com/2006/12/20/abu-hamza/

jefferson's koran? wonder if the passages on the free use of slave girls were underlined.

i have a copy of sale's book. it is not friendly twoards "mohammedism". this is from the introduction...

"I imagine it almost needless either to make an apology for publishing the following translation, or to go about to prove it a work of use as well as curiosity. There must have a mean opinion of the Christian religion,or be ill grounded therin, who can apprehend any danger from so manifest a forgery:"

it is full of contempt for islam

if my copy is the same as the one ellison is using, he will burst into flame when he touches it.

About the statement:
"Jefferson's Quran dates religious tolerance to the founders of our country," he added.

Yes, this is b.s. Jefferson did not speak about "religious tolerance." That's a CAIR spin-doctor speaking. In fact, in Jefferson's day, people of a religious congregation wrote to Jefferson, complaining that they were suffering from religious persecution. Jefferson's diplomatic response?

He once again asserted the principle that NO ONE religion was to be favoured or given preferential treatment over another. That was Jefferson's "thing" -- separation of church and state -- he DID not want to see the government aligned with any one religion or any one denomination -- Jefferson saw what took place in Europe (the religious wars which were bitter and bloody). Jefferson sought to avoid this kind of religious hatred, and he believed he could do so by NOT privileging one religion over another -- he did not approve of the alignment of the British government with the Church of England. Such an alignment, Jefferson felt, would only lead to wars.

Ironically, the Koran does not abide by a separation of mosque and state, nor does it tolerate the presence of minority religions in its midst (just look to Muslim majority countries and see how religious minorities are treated -- minority religions are routinely persecuted, if they are allowed to exist at all). Thus what Muslims demand here in America (and in other western states), they immediately deny freedom of worship to other religious minorities in their homelands. It's the essence of hypocrisy.

So, if Ellison and others were really to adhere to a principle of religious "tolerance", than you'd find such tolerance expressed in Muslim majority countries (but, of course, you won't find that, because Islam is intolerant of other faiths -- "Islam must dominate and not be dominated" -- that's a founding principle of Islam, hardly Jeffersonian!)

OT , but funny!

http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/opinion/Convert32306.jpg

J.S. posted "Options for a person who wishes to exempt himself or herself from taking an oath exist in both Canada and the U.S."

Such options also exist in the UK and, to the best of my knowledge, throughout the EU.

This moslem Representative-elect Ellison is, if you can forgive a foreigner, and a Brit to boot, posting about USA affairs, in my opinion starting on a long and very subtle campaign - which may take decades or even centuries - to rewrite USA history in the minds of the USA polloi. This is one of the cleverest moves which I have seen in years, that is: make the American public aware that one of the founding fathers possessed a koran without telling them why. How clever! What subtle propaganda! The American public will in general, if I am not mistaken, think something like 'Oh well, if President Jefferson had a koran then it can't be all bad, can it?' It's a subtle, perhaps subliminal, attempt to give the koran some sort of general credibility and as such it is a very dangerous move which must be resisted, in my opinion, by all true Americans of all political colours.

Perhaps, of course, that great branch of the American military (The Few. The Proud) may be allowed to correct such an impression. I refer, of course, to the United States Marine Corps and the first verse of their hymn:

"From the Halls of Montezuma
to the Shores of Tripoli,
We fight our country's battles
On the land as on the sea.
First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean,
We are proud to claim the title
of United States Marine."

(a history of, and the full text of, the hymn (together with a playable audio version) can be found at the USMC's site at:
http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/HD/Customes_Traditions/Marines_Hymn.htm )

Although I do take some little exception to the last four lines of the final verse:

"...If the Army and the Navy
Ever look on Heaven's scenes,
They will find the streets are guarded
By United States Marines."

because, obviously, it will Tommy Atkins guarding the streets because USMC will be guarding the port - and that would, as it always has been, an unbeatable combination.

Dominic.

Please forgive the typographical error of the missing word 'be' which should have appeared after the word 'would' in the last line of my last post. How careless of me, sorry!

Dominic.

If Jefferson was a supporter of Islam, he, with typical Islamic incuriosity, would probably have thrown out all his other books.

Cuz we all know, nothin's as awesome as the Koran!

If the composition of the Koran exceeds the faculties of a man, to what superior intelligence should we ascribe the Iliad of Homer, or the Philippics of Demosthenes?

It doesn't exceed the faculties of "man", although apparently it exceeded the faculties of the average Arab man of Mohammed's time.

And, never mind comparing it to Homer or Demosthenes. It doesn't even rise to the heights of Snoopy's "It was a dark and stormy night...".

The sooner the world is rid of this book, the better.

I know this is BS i hope some of you out there can provide some quotes from past presidents that will show how they felt about islam. and i know it was not good

Posted by: sado1

here is a copy of a post from somebody else on here,not all U.S presidents,but there are a couple

Winston Churchill, who wrote in 1899,
“The religion of Islam above all others was founded upon the sword … Moreover it provides incentives to slaughter, and in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men – filled with a wild and merciless fanaticism”.

John Quincy Adams who wrote in 1829,
"The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force".

John Wesley (1703-91) who wrote,
"Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it...have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth; that numberless cities are raised from the foundation, and only their name remaining; that many countries, which were once as the garden of God, are now a desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations are vanished from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind".

Hilaire Belloc who wrote in 1938,
"Will not perhaps the temporal power of Islam return and with it the menace of an armed Mohammedan world, which will shake off the domination of Europeans -- still nominally Christian -- and reappear as the prime enemy of our civilization? The future always comes as a surprise, but political wisdom consists in attempting at least some partial judgment of what that surprise may be. And for my part I cannot but believe that a main unexpected thing of the future is the return of Islam".

Bishop Fulton J Sheen who wrote in 1950,
"Today (1950), the hatred of the Moslem countries against the West is becoming hatred against Christianity itself. Although the statesmen have not yet taken it into account, there is still grave danger that the temporal power of Islam may return and, with it, the menace that it may shake off a West which has ceased to be Christian, and affirm itself as a great anti-Christian world Power".

Patriarch Cyrus of Alexandria, while negotiating the surrender of Alexandria to the Muslims, 640 AD,
"I am afraid that God has sent these men to lay waste the world".

Gregory Palamus of Thessalonica, 1354,
"For these impious people, hated by God and infamous, boast of having got the better of the Romans by their love of God…they live by the bow, the sword and debauchery, finding pleasure in taking slaves, devoting themselves to murder, pillage, spoil…and not only do they commit these crimes, but even — what an aberration — they believe that God approves of them. This is what I think of them, now that I know precisely about their way of life.".

William Eaton, US Consul to Tunis, wrote in 1799,
"Considered as a nation, they are deplorably wretched, because they have no property in the soil to inspire an ambition to cultivate it. They are abject slaves to the despotism of their government, and they are humiliated by tyranny, the worst of all tyrannies, the despotism of priestcraft. They live in more solemn fear of the frowns of a bigot who has been dead and rotten above a thousand years, than of the living despot whose frown would cost them their lives…The ignorance, superstitious tradition and civil and religious tyranny, which depress the human mind here, exclude improvement of every kind…"

"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adams's capital letters)… Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant… While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and goodwill towards men." -John Quincy Adams

"The Muslim religion is so unreformed since it was created that nowhere in the Muslim world has there been any real advance in science, or art or literature, or technology in the last 500 years" - Lord Tebbit

"The true Islamic concept of peace goes something like this: "Peace comes through submission to Muhammad and his concept of Allah" (i.e. Islam). As such the Islamic concept of peace, meaning making the whole world Muslim, is actually a mandate for war. It was inevitable and unavoidable that the conflict would eventually reach our borders, and so it has." – Vernon Richards

“Islam was not a torch, as has been claimed, but an extinguisher. Conceived in a barbarous brain for the use of a barbarous people, it was - and it remains - incapable of adapting itself to civilization. Wherever it has dominated, it has broken the impulse towards progress and checked the evolution of society.” – Andre Servier, 1922

“The Greeks who triumphed at Marathon and Salamis did a work without which the world would have been deprived of the social value of Plato and Aristotle, of Aeschylus, Herodotus, and Thucydides. The civilization of Europe, America, and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization, because the victories stretching through the centuries from the days of Miltiades and Themistocles to those of Charles Martel in the eighth century and those of John Sobieski in the seventeenth century.”
“During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier and the Polish king, the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today nobody can find in them any "social values" whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influence. There are such "social values" today in Europe, America, and Australia only because during those thousand years the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do - that is, to beat back the Moslem invader.” – Theodore Roosevelt

"Of course, there are distinguished precedents even for the bleakest and coarsest of these judgements. To Montesquieu in 1748, Islam’s ‘destructive spirit’ spoke ‘only by the sword’; to Schopenhauer in 1819, the Koran was a ‘wretched book’ in which he had ‘not been able to discover one single idea of value’; to De Tocqueville in 1843, Islam was ‘deadly’, ‘to be feared’ and a ‘form of decadence’". – David Selbourne – The Losing Battle with Islam

And how about this quote from Ayatollah Khomeini from 1942:
“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] verses and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” - Ayatollah Khomeini

With respect to some of the criticism of swearing in on the Bible as a Christian, that some of the passages in the Old Testament resemble some passages in the Koran, and that swearing in on a Bible smacks of theocracy equally to swearing in on the Koran.

1. The Christian belief is that the Old Testament is not binding and in effect for Christians, except for parts specifically reaffirmed by the New Testament (the Ten Commandments, for example), so that large parts, even most, of the Old Testament has only historical value for Christians. The Old Covenant, the Covenant of the Law, that is now no longer in effect, has been replaced by the final revelation predicted by the Old Testament, the Covenant of Grace, as revealed through Jesus Christ. This was specifically made clear by the letters of the apostles authored by early Christian leaders. Paul banned circumcision of new christian converts, and abolished all of the esoteric practices ordered by the Old Testament, including dietary laws and prohibitions on ethnic jews taking non-jewish wives, and the dual code of conduct in the Old Testament, for example, charging usury to jews vs. non-jews. The priesthood of the New Covenant, the sacrifice, and the temple of the New Covenant was understood to center around the Eucharist and the Mass, instituted by the Crucifixion and the Resurrection of Christ. The early christians taught that some of the things allowed under the Old Law, such as polygamy, were allowed because the Old Testament was meant as an intermediate moral preparatory step for the full revelation to be given by Christ. So, the actions or words of Old Testament figures alone cannot be considered to represent Christian beliefs or moral codes, unless specifically reaffirmed by Christian figures of the New Covenant.

2. The Christian teaching is that civil authority proceeds from God, whether or not the civil authority itself is Christian, and Christians are bound to obey the civil laws of their countries. This was specifically repeated by the early Christian leaders in the letters of the apostles many times - one typical excerpt from the second letter of Peter, Ch 2

13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

The Roman civil authority that Peter was instructing the Christians to recognize as legitimate, and as deriving its' legitimacy to make civil laws from the God they worshiped, was the Roman emperor, who of course was a pagan and an idolator at the time.

So it is perfectly legitimate for a Christian to swear loyalty to his civil state on a Bible, whether the state is secular or Christian, he is merely reaffirming the christian dogma of separation of Church and State, and the dogma of loyalty of the Christian to even a non-Christian civil state, it does not have theocratic or subversive implications, like a muslim in a secularized majority Christian state swearing in on a Koran. As far as the implications that somehow a believing Christian swearing in on a Bible when taking political office is somehow more of a risk to seize absolute power and force his beliefs on the other people then an atheist that doesn’t use a Bible, in the past 200 years, how many people were killed by atheist and socialist(Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Robespierre) political leaders trying to force their atheistic and socialist beliefs on people, and how many people were killed by Christian political leaders forcing Christianity on people? And why is it that the number of people killed in the name of religion is thought to discredit religion, and religious political leaders are seen as dangerous, while the millions of people that were killed in the name of atheism and socialism much more recently in the short time since it first acquired political power, are not believed to discredit atheism and socialism, or mark out political leaders of those beliefs as dangerous? The most oppressive Christian regime, say Inquisition era Spain, was nowhere near the terror and horror of the most oppressive atheistic socialist regimes (Stalin, Hitler (National SOCIALIST Party, atheism and the government controlled economy and welfare state that Hitler instituted IN NO WAY represent conservative ideals, though the liberals have succeding in misrepresenting it as a right wing ideology) Mao, Pol Pot) and yet atheism and socialism are perceived to be somehow inherently less dangerous and totalitarian then Christianity? I mean if you distrust religion because of the number of people killed in its’ name, shouldn’t you distrust atheism and socialism even more? Is Christianity in political discourse and papal power really the number one threat to US democracy in the 21st century? Is it the Middle Ages and is the earth flat? Unless you are also going to calling for removal of socialist and atheist beliefs from political life and discourse, you are a hypocrite for calling for a removal of Christianity from political life and discourse, because in recent history, people were killed in the name of SOCIALIST and ATHEIST beliefs, and political leaders violently seized absolute power in the name of socialist and atheist beliefs, not Christianity. On the contrary, Christianity sided with the forces advocating freedom. Banning religion from political discourse is an excellent preparatory first step for yet another violent socialist and atheist takeover, of which some that are advocating it are very well aware….

Patriot8/

You forgot one, and one that I think any student of the West's history would know:

"Muhammad professed to derive from Heaven, and he has inserted in the Koran [sic], not only a body of religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The gospel [sic], on the contrary, only speaks of the general relations of men to God and to each other - beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, whilst the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods." Alexis de Tocqueville.

Dominic.

Patriot8/

Both volumes of de Tocqueville's great work - "Democracy in America" and his "The Old Regime and the Revolution" are on my shelves. However, I won't pretend to have read my way entirely through all three but some of my American acquaintances have! Shame on me!

Dominic.

Hmmm. And de Tocqueville's "Memoir on Pauperism" is, I have just noticed, also sitting on my shelves - and I have never even opened it. Double shame on me!

Dominic.

Bravo! Bravo! Bis! Bis! Patriot8 for that posting! -- my hat's off to that compiler!

And was it not George Bernard Shaw who percipiently said "If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam"?

Dominic.

Also, remember one General Pervez Musharraf (What is he? /That all our swains commend him?/ Holy, fair,/ And wise is he/ The Heav'ns such grace did lend him) who once said: "Is this the way of life that Islam teaches us? That we fight amongst ourselves and feel scared of fellow Muslims."

Duh! Well yes!

Dominic.

P.S. With Apologies to a certain W. Shakespeare. D.

Enouth of islamia. aum sect into the congress please, cna't be worse.

GreatComet- the founding fathers weren't that religious? You must know different people than the ones I do because those I know of were deeply religious and knew the value of founding htis country on Christian priciples of morality and justice. Newt Gingrich just had a special on just how religious the founding fathers really were- lots of good info there.

I see a few people stating that we should kick God out of politics altogether- We've seen just how well that works in countries that don't honor the True God. 'Good Americans'? Sure, since we have Christian morals to judge by- but remove those morals from law, and you will have one person worng another- that wronged person will feel trampled on and won't be bound by those icky Christian morals any longer, he'll retaliate, and on and on it will go- escalating until all sense of right is lost. We are 'good' precisely because of the dictates of morality as laid down in the bible- remove those rules and laws, and I can pretty well assure you that one concession after onother will be made when 'good' people are wrogned if they are restrained by moral dictates. Our Christian moral dictates are exactly what make this country such a free and desrieable place to live.

Alert- you hit it right on the head in your post- that is exactly why Ellison's desire to swear in on the Koran that 'Jefferson had' is such a slap in the face to freedom loving Americans. http://sacredscoop.com

Arnie/

Care to decode your last post? Don't understand a word of it!

Dominic.

how many Congressmen and Congresswomen have porn in their homes...........why not swear in on the porn?????????????

how many Congressmen and Congresswomen have porn in their homes...........why not swear in on the porn?????????????

Posted by: Texican

I would like to see one swear on the Constitution, so help them legal registered voters.

I can only guess with respect to Arnie's post. I suspect that the "aum sect" is a reference to the Aum Shimrikyo suicide cult (??), and that such a cult in Congress, can't be worse...(just guessing).

Anyway, on other matters, I don't think the crux of the debate hinges on whether or not the Founding Fathers were Christians. Yes, they were religious, and yes, they were Christians. Having said that, that does not really get to the major point --- which is that the Founding Fathers had the foresight to adopt (as a kind of prime directive) a "hands off" policy in terms of supporting any one religion or religious denomination (as opposed to another). There was to be NO favoritism) -- there would be no U.S. federal government of Protestants lording it over the Catholics, or vise versa -- No feds composed of Catholics lording it over the Protestants. There was to be NON-interference, no religiously-backed federal government force acting on behalf of anyone (persecuted or not). That's the principle of the separation of church from state.

how many Congressmen and Congresswomen have porn in their homes...........why not swear in on the porn?????????????

Only if it's a nudie mag from Thomas Jefferson's private stash!

unicorns62000 said

By the spring of 1801, Yusuf [the Pasha of the Barbary States] had heard nothing about his $10,000 [he had demanded]and his impatience with America had grown to a fine rage.

Islamic Rage, circa 1801. Pre-Modern Israel. Pre-US troops in Saudi Arabia. Pre-Danish cartoons. The excuse at that time was, he wanted his money (well, actually our money), like some mobster capo di capo. The Founding Fathers did not share our current leaders' delusions about the Religion of Peace. They knew what it was, and how to deal with it. There is a fine lesson to be learned there, kudos to Rep. Ellison for reminding us.

J.S you bring up a common misconception- you meld two concepts into one, and throw in somethign that was never in any of our founding documents to boot.

Yep- it's true- the government can not force a religion on anyone- nope- congress/government does have a right ot practice a religion they so choose and even speak well of it in public-

you are talking about a supposed seperation of church and state as though our founding fathers meant to throw it out of government altogether so as not to be seen as favoring one religion over another and this simply is not the case nor a part of our constitution. Most of hte people that settled this land had escaped from a government forced religion, and that is what they cautioned against- NOT against anyone practicing a Christian religion in public office.

Now- the crux of htis issue is that Ellison is throwing our Christian nation's ideals in our faces and vowing to take his oath on a book that is in direct contrast to our constitution as an added insult- We can sit around and talk all day long about how it's just meaningless because it is simply a book- but in the end, the underlying sentiment of Ellison is what matters. We can look to his actions in office and private life and add it to our suspicions as well, because they back up the fact that he beleives that upholding the ideals of the Koran are more important than upholding our constitution- by their fruits ye shall know them.

Prager brings up a good point by infering that Ellison doesn't respect our Christian nation enough to honor our wishes, nor does he respect our God enough to stand before Him and either swear or affirm an oath without having his anti-cononstitution book present.

but alas, the voice of the left and those who don't see the oath as a serious matter will prevail and we'll sink just that much further into the 'and everyone did what was right in their own eyes' swamp that threatens to bring this country down in a rain of sulpher and brimstone- all the while having the left seethe and villify the right for trying to point out that we need God and His ideals if we're to remain truly free and prosperous.

It deeply offends me to see Ellison using President Jefferson's name.

Isn't there someone in the government with the authority to tell Keith Ellison that, in America, if you intend to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the USA, you use a bible?

If you intend to swear to uphold the constitution of Islam, you use a Quor'an.

The Quor'an gives him full permission to deceive Americans and to strive to overthrow the Constitution of the USA.

This can't be too difficult for him to understand?

He should be told that he must first do a photo op in Saudi Arabia using Thomas Jefferson's bible, before he does a photo op in America using the Quor'an

Keith is not paying respect to the founding fathers or the Constitution. He is rubbing their noses on the Quor'an.

I like it - Using the Quran is ok as long as it is the Quran of a stout Christian ;-)

HUGH writes "and he sought ways to force Congress to strengthen the U.S. Navy so that, through force, the only thing that in his dealings with Muslims he thought they would understand, he could at long last deal with them. "

It was true then and it is true today,"force, the only thing that in his dealings with Muslims he thought they would understand,"

We should throw aside any notions of peace,appeasement,negotiations, resolutions,treaties,hudna,alliances,or any association with Muslims or Islam.

All have been tried and all have failed.

The sooner force is applied the sooner the issue will be resolved. Force is the only thing that Muslims understand. Failure to use force will be exploited by the Muslims to enslave or kill those who show weakness.

Islam's Qur'an is an evil text, Those who adhere to its tenents have proved to be violent beyond measure.

Islam should be outlawed. Muslim immigration should be banned. Mosques should not be permitted in your neighborhood.

Violence permeates every Muslim neighborhood in the world. Racism exists in every Muslim neighborhood in the world. Hate is preached in every Muslim neighborhood in the world. Extreme senseless killings exist in every Muslim neighborhood in the world.

What will it take to return the world to a more peaceful existence-----FORCE BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY---VIOLENCE, IT IS THE ONLY THING THAT WILL WORK.

LAST MAN STANDING WINS.

Keith Ellison may claim to distance himself from Louis (the Lip)Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, but he still adheres to its tenets. Black Muslims , as noted by many, hate the police, hate government, hate integration, and especially, hate whitey.
Watch Mr Ellison, in his new political position, propose legislation that calls for the institution of Islamic teaching in public schools to be manadatory. Watch for him to call for Muslims to be exempted from searches at airports, train terminals and other public arenas. Watch closely how he votes on matters of security.
Those non Muslim voters who vote for Mr Ellison have made a huge mistake. Or maybe, they have already subjected themselves to become Dhimmis. Perhaps they failed to check into Mr Ellisons background. His support for cop killers, his support for Islamic groups affiliated with terrorist organizations, his support received from terrorist organizations, his disdain for the morals, the grand and noble morals earned and paid for by the blood of our founding fathers, all these and more clearly show the non Muslim voters who elected him have made a mistake.

Islam is silently strangling all that you should hold dearly to your heart.

Islam is intruding into your childrens schools, taking over your churches, your neighborhoods, your businesses, and now making inroads to controlling your government.

One begins to look forward, at this point, to the desecration of Jefferson's Qur'an by Ellison, as he attempts to enroll it in a stunt that will now be rememberedfor all the questions it has raised and will continnue to raise, and for the prompting, or excuse it gives, to discussion about not only Jefferson, but John Quincy Adams, and indeed of everyone of significance in the Early Republic, and the universal view of the perfidy of the Muslim states and peoples with whom they had to negotiate, and the clear-eyed view of Islam that so many had, and so many expressed -- because in those days, our leaders studied, thought, did not glad-hand, did not descend to pitiable sentimental nonsense, and neither a Washington or a Jefferson or any Adams would ever have thought of "transplanting democracy" because "ordinary moms and dads in the Middle East" yearned for "freedom." What a degradation not only of the democratic dogma, but also what a dumbing-down that has proceeded up, upwards to the highest levels of our unfortunate and ignorant rulers, in both parties.

Ellison's stunt opens the door, provides the excuse. Don't let others, don't let our rulers, forget Jefferson and Adams and John Quincy Adams and William Eaton and John Ledyard and Philip Freneau and William Barlow and all the others who wrote about Islam, and could teach our current "taking-a-leadership-role" leaders, the people who more than five years after the 9/11/2001 continue to be unable or unwilling to study Islam or the history of Islamic conquest, who could be shown up in a half-hour, on radio or television, by intelligent interviewers, to know far less than the minimum that would be merely adequate for the discharge of the responsibilities of rule. The early Americans could show these late ones a thing. Or two.

And now, rounding the track at #101, one feels like taking a trip to the seacoast of Dalmatia, along with the one-hundred previously posting puppies at this thread. Or is it the seacoast of Bohemia?

"Some people responded that the Bible had nasty stuff as well..."

If that is so, and if that argument is readily grabbed by Islamists, why not then have an Islam that is a cut above the rest of the religions, instead of it having to be worse off ?

--- "Keith is paying respect not only to the founding fathers' belief in religious freedom but the Constitution itself," said Ellison spokesman Rick Jauert.

The Quor'an does not allow any religious freedom so what respect is Ellison talking about?

For Ellison to show respect to the founding fathers and the Constitution would require him to apostatise, then he would be showing that he is working for America, and not Islam.

This is a matter of principle, and should be seen as a turning point and should not be allowed to happen. This should not be his choice, but the choice of the people of America. He should be told that he doesn't have a choice. Either he uses a bible or a copy of the Constitution of the USA or he stands down from office. This should be seen as the start of the Islamisation of America. A Muslim Rep.-elect sworn in on the Quor'an in America. Definitely not a good idea. A start down a very dangerous road for all Americans.

This is a take to the streets with placards issue and should not be allowed to happen. As Muslims took to the streets over the cartoon and the Pope issues, so should Americans take to the streets and object to this use of the Quor'an, even if it is ONLY a photo op. It still sets a precedent that will be all but impossible to reverse.

i have a copy of sale's book. it is not friendly twoards "mohammedism".
...
if my copy is the same as the one ellison is using, he will burst into flame when he touches it.

Posted by: attackcartoons at January 3, 2007 09:54 PM

You know, it could be a lot of fun to reprint this book, with "The Version Used by Congressman Keith Ellison" stamped on the cover.

Sales' translation of the Qur'an, if reprinted, should contain his prefatory remarks, as posted above, in which he expresses the belief that his translation does justice to the Qur'an which has heretofore been softened in its meaning, and the more accurate knowledge of which will, in turn, help Infidels to better check, or end, the power of Islam.

As I posted elsewhere: We need a "Wake-Up America!" publicity campaign.

Picture of a hand pressing the Koran onto an American flag. Underneath: "Wake Up America"

Flyers, bumper stickers, tee-shirts, coffee mugs, the works. Plenty of catchy quotes from Koran: "Kill the infidels, etc."

Looks like Mitt Romney will be running for President. His website says:

"Romney wants the public to know that Jihadists are not an 'armed group of crazed maniacs in the hills of Afghanistan.' Rather, Romney says the United States is facing a 'far more sinister and broad-based extremist faction' with a 'very 8th century view of the world.'"

"The jihadists are waging a global war against the United States and Western governments generally with the ambition of replacing legitimate governments with a caliphate, with a theocracy."

Romney, or others, have to insist on a withdrawal from Iraq, in order for the squandering of American men, money, materiel, and morale both civilian and military to stop, and an intelligent exploitation of fissures, ethnic and sectarian and economic, within the Camp of Islam, to be properly exploited.

Without that demonstration of a clear understanding, one is likely to get more of the same folly, and more of the same folly in Iraq will permit the islamization of Western Europe to proceed apace, without a unified Western response, and will also permit Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

Neither of these developments is tolerable.

Any candidate who continues to support the war in Iraq should be defeated -- period.

Hmmm, as I understand it, then, this is not regarded as a Qur'an -- it is a "meaning only" text with no particular religious significance. Or, since I suspect it was translated by a Kafir, it is a horrific forgery and abomination upon the holy book. If Ellison wants to swear on it, I'd say let him. Let him call it a Qur'an and appear with it on national television.

Then make a big media fuss about how progressive Ellison is, being the first major Islamic personality to publicly declare the English translation to be a genuine Qur'an.

Send clippings of this announcement to some news wires in Dar Al-Islam...

Then sit back and watch.

Posted by: Archimedes2

I do whole heartedly agree with this statement. ellisons use of the jefferson koran to take his oath of office on is better than the man placing his filthy satanic hand on a holy bible!
Read the article, the Jefferson koran has scribblings Jefferson made in the margins!
Let ellison take his oath on the Jefferson koran , it shows how tame and trained the american muslims have become! Imagine a muslim taking oath on a koran with kufar scribblings in it. Ofcourse Mr Jefferson is even more wise ,powerful, holy and knowledgable than allah ever was or ever will be!
We shall call the american muslim after ellison "munifiqeenized" muslims!

They call me racist, they call me bigot, they call me islamophobe!
In the words of the recently departed, king of soul, Mr James Brown i say,
" SAY IT LOUD, IM KUFAR AND IM PROUD!

I read some of the later comments, and I think it needs to be re-stated that the business with the Koran is a photo-op.

Glenn Beck interviewed the managing editor of "Congressional Quarterly", David Hawkings, on January 2, 2007 (transcripts available at CNN).

Here's in part what Hawkings said: "...these are photo-ops that we`re talking about. No member of Congress actually is -- holds -- puts his or her hand on any kind of religious text when they actually take the oath of office. [snip]

The Constitution actually makes it clear that no member of Congress can be required to use any religious text and, in fact, religious texts are actually excluded under the Constitution from the congressional swearing in."

OK? At the Federal level, there is to be NO political, federal alignment with any one religion or a denomination of a religion.

On the other hand, even a photo-op conveys a particular message -- and it is this message about the Koran, as if it's no different from a bible (and the symbolic import of this), that's what I and many others object to.

It’s the fourth quarter; we are up by a field goal. There are only 2 minutes left in the game. Our opponent has the ball and pulls off a razzmatazz play. We stand dumbfounded on the field in disbelief as the wide receiver runs into the end zone. Our minds scramble to make sense of the befuddlement we collectively feel. Only to conclude that we simply were not prepared.

Listening to all of these comments by like minded readers of this post, I am affected in the most deleterious manner. As it stands, America is not suited to defend herself from the likes of such an adversary. Our opponent is not unstoppable, yet it will never stop. We are a nation that looks for the quick fix, the easy solution, and the happy ending. As such, our enemy is wise to move slowly, take inches instead of yards, always keeping us away from there real intentions.

Lets keep this issue in perspective: How much does it affect any of us that an American born convert to Islam decides to runs for political office, and uses the platform to self-promote and proselytize? All politicians do this. How much does it affect any of us that he chooses to swear in on a book that we all consider to be a cheap knock off of the original? To be honest, how much do we really care about our own religious tomes? The point is not about the details, the point is that the tide is turning and there is nothing that we can do about it! That is why we hem and haw about the details. We simply have not come to the proper conclusion yet, that we are unprepared.

J.S maybe you just aren't wording it right or something but there is Nothing that states the government can not align itself with a religion- the protection is from making that alignment a requirement for citizens- thus forcing that religion on others- people are trying to assert that the government can have no affiliation with religion because it would be seen as an 'endoresment' of said religion- that is false- the protections the founding fathers meant to give us was a government FORCING a religion on people.

Did you know that Roosevelt led the country in prayer each morning on his radio show? Was that the government forcing people to accept his religion? Ansolutely not! those hwo didn't serve God simply didn't tune in. Roosevelt led those who did serve God in prayer because he felt God's blessings on this great country were an asset worth praying for.

You're arguing two different issues here- one about the swearing in, and one about how you beleive there needs to be a complete seperation of government from religion altogether but your argument mistakes forcing religion from practicing a religion of choice. http://sacredscoop.com

"because in those days, our leaders studied, thought, did not glad-hand, did not descend to pitiable sentimental nonsense, and neither a Washington or a Jefferson or any Adams would ever have thought of "transplanting democracy" because "ordinary moms and dads in the Middle East" yearned for "freedom."

...posted by Hugh

Morover, those politicians could not be purchased or influenced by the likes of present-day porcine saudi princes, who can swing elections with their filthy petrodollars. Both the politicians and the electorate had more integrity in those days.

enough is enough- agreed- however one small point- I don't beleive the politicians use hte platform to prostelitize- they aren't preaching sermons and trying to get converts- they do however express their beliefs as is protected by our constitution.

Now, I absolutely agree that we can stop an insurgency of Islam into our government but that we will not because we are too politically correct at this point- much the way France was when they had the chance to stop it but failed to do so.

Ellison has made it clear that he will call upon his fellow muslims to stand up and be muslims- not Americans- He has also made it clear that he has ties to organizations that are connected with terrorism- these things should disqualify him absolutely from running for office- however, as stated, we're too pc to make that stand. We'll sit idly by and watch as he ralies muslims to 'be strong in the face of American opposition to Islam' and we'll sit idly by and watch as those proud muslims make more and more demands for concessions to their faith (which is really a political structure that is antithetical to our own) Won't be long before the 'outrage' by muslims starts cropping up in this coutnry as the percieve continuous misdeeds committed against them. CAIR has already filed bogus, false reports of a 'rising tide of hate crimes' committed agianst Muslims (But upon further investigation a majority of these have proven to be false or worse yet, staged by muslims themselves to make it appear that there is some systematic racism going on in htis country- They've assembled isolated incidents and made it appear that there is some islamophbia happening when in fact it is nothign more than a few isolated incidents that don't even come close to what Jews or other groups in this country experience)

Hugh, i whole heartedly disagree with your post!

Here is the problem. If we pull out of iraq it not only re enforces the muslims perception of America as a weak and cowardly paper tiger. It frees up the jihadis busy in iraq to repel the infidel from muslim soil as commanded by allah and muhammad to travel to other lands and lend their support, such as somolia!
As long as the infidel have soldiers on muslim soil muslims are obligated to travel to that land and fight to dispell the infidel from muslim soil!
It is best we infidel choose our battle ground than permit the muslims to have their choice of field!
Afghanistan for instance, the mujahadeen spent decades building and fortifying the mountains caves and tunnels and stocking them with the best and most modern weapons terrorist money could buy! We hear the dhimmicrats and the liberals scream that america should have remained in afghanistan and completed the "mission" there before moving on to iraq!
President bush was right in pulling american forces out of afghanistan where the mujahadeen had decades of experience fighting the russians.
If American military had remained in afghanistan all the jihadis we are fighting in iraq today we would be fighting in the fortified mountains ,caves and tunnels the mujahadeen built in afghanistan, the Numbers of casualities america has suffered in iraq would be nothing compared to what our losses would have been in afghanistan!
America chose the field inwhich we would wage war against the muslim terrorist. It was a good choice. Although the muslims have the civilian population in iraq to hide out amongst. their losses are staggering regardless of their screams that they are defeating the coalition, thats simply islamic bravado!
The arab news media al jazeera is stating that over 650 thousand muslims have been killed since america attacked iraq although this is certanily false and is used only for propaganda against the coalition the muslims believe this to be true!
America losses in iraq in the past 45 months in iraq is 3000, you do the math! thats less than 3 death per day!
Muslims murdered that in innocent unarmed civilian men women and children in less than 2 hours on american soil sept.11,2001!
Thats the problem with leaving iraq now, it frees the muslims up to concentrate on slaughtering innocent unarmmed men women and children on their terms in locations of their choice!
Incase you dont now the laws and obligations of jihad permit me to post them here for you!

þ*** Found in: BOOK O: JUSTICE.
Chapter O-9.0: Jihad.O-9.4:
Who is Obligated to Fight in Jihad:
Those called upon (O: to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation are every able bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane.þ Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad.''The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b-7) is such Koranic verses as:
1- ``Fighting is prescribed for you'' (Koran 2:216);
2- ``Slay them wherever you find them'' (Koran 4:89);
3- ``Fight the idolators utterly'' (Koran 9:36);
and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:
``I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah'';

þ*** Found in: BOOK O: JUSTICE.
Chapter O-9.0: Jihad. 0-9.3:
Jihad is also (O: personally) obligatory for everyone (O: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (O: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means.whoever is found by non-Muslim and knows he will be killed if captured is obliged to defend himself in whatever way possible. But if not certain that he will be killed, meaning that he might or might not be, as when he might merely be taken captive, and he knows he will be killed if he does not surrender, then he may either surrender or fight. A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to an indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible).þ

Think on it, as long as we are on muslim soil the jihadis are "obligated" to migrate and fight to repell the infidel from muslim soil!

Cottshop wrote:
"J.S maybe you just aren't wording it right or something but there is Nothing that states the government can not align itself with a religion- the protection is from making that alignment a requirement for citizens- thus forcing that religion on others.."

I agree with most of what you say, Cottshop. But, the notion of the separation of church and state has been interpreted by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions (thanks to countless lawsuits). And there have been various decisions as a result -- one is, as you mention, that it's unconstitutional to require of any citizen a religious test (known as the Coercion Test) (England had required such tests for politicians, the United States has not); then there's been a ruling by Justice O'Connor who states that there is to be no favouring of one religion over another (known as the Endorsement test), also see the 1947 ruling Everson v Board of Education in which the ruling states that you "can't prefer one religion over another." There's also been what's referred to as the "lemon test" -- the government must remain neutral, neither hindering nor advancing religion.

I read another interesting site (unfortunately, I don't have the source), but it suggested a continuum in the interpretation of the "separation of church and state". Thus, you have the absolute separationists (here would be the extremists -- those who would remove the "g" word from the pledge, coins and so on), then you have the accomodationists (those who see some value in religion and don't wish to totally expunge religious belief from the public sphere), then there are those who are the "non-preferentialists" (those who do not wish to see one religion privileged over another). I guess I fall into the latter category.

"Hugh, i whole heartedly disagree with your post!

Here is the problem. If we pull out of iraq it not only re enforces the muslims perception of America as a weak and cowardly paper tiger. It frees up the jihadis busy in iraq to repel the infidel from muslim soil as commanded by allah and muhammad to travel to other lands and lend their support, such as somolia!" \
--- from a posting above

And just how long would an American withdrawal from Iraq, as you put it, be perceived by Muslims as showing America "as a weak and cowardly paper tiger"?

For such a measure does not have to take place in a vacuum. All kinds of signals of a new, harder, much more ruthless policy, can be given, and should be. A withdrawal can be announced, and then in the months between the announcement and the withdrawal itself being complete, all kinds of other measures can and should be undertaken. Cutting the Jizyah to Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt and the "Palestinian" Arabs would be good, increasing military aid to real, i.e. non-Muslim allies, such as Ethiopia and Israel, would also be good, so would a meeting of NATO called to discuss the internal threat to NATO members military operations, and even control of weaponry, by the growing Muslim menace within Europe. Perhaps 5,000 American troops, for "humanitarian reasons" of course, could seize the southern Sudan and Darfur in order to protect the local population until such time as referendums on the future they desire, in or out of Sudan, can be held, the imposition of a large and ever-increasig gasoline tax combined with the announcement that all revenues from that tax will be used for nuclear, solar, and wind energy projects, and also for subsidies to mass transit, "because we must diminish the use of oil to preserve the environment from catastrophic and possibly irreversible change, and to dry up the sources of funding for the world-wide Jihad" and of course, ensuring that Iran knows that it can no longer avoid physical damage being inflicted on it if it continues its nuclear project (American hostages having been removed from Iraq, but American planes and ships close by, and ICBMs ready to do their stuff), and that furthermore the country formerly known as Iran may suffer a great and permanent diminishment if the Kurds, Azeris, Baluchis, and Khuzistanian Arabs all were to revolt at the same time.

And if all of those measures are undertaken, and if further, the American withdrawal is followed by real war between Shi'a militias and Sunnis determined to hold on, what then? What happens to that supposed belief you and others - Brent Scowcroft, George Bush, the Saudi Ambassador, Mubarak -- keep warning us will be a catastrophic situation that "of course we can't permit." Why can't we? Wasn't the Iran-Iraq War a good thing? Why can't we watch the Sunnis refuse to acquiesce, and accept help from Sunni powers outside Iraq, and give the Shi'a as good as they get?

And how long, if the measures offered in the first paragraph are undertaken to show that the United States is hardly withdrawing from the war, but now fighting it intelligently, out of a recognition that Islam, all of Islam, is the problem and that problem will not be solved by bringing either "freedom" or "prosperity" (for god's sake, look at what prosperity brought to the Muslims -- it made them everywhere more dangerous to Infidels) to "ordinary moms and dads throughout the Middle East."

You offer up the usual baseless nonsense.

It's too idiotic to keep offering up. Basta.

All Kurans say the same thing in each and every one of them.

It therefore makes absolutely NO difference WHOSE Koran is used (even if Ellison's DID belong to Jefferson, but how, we wonder, did THIS bonehead get in possession of it if it was Jefferson's?).

ALL Korans say that the Muslim is to lie to the "unbeliever" as a matter of Islamic practice.
This is known as "taqiyya."

For a Muslim to practice "taqiyya" on the witness stand to a courtroom full of "unbelievers" constitutes the felony known in the US legal system as PERJURY!!!!! It usually carries a mandatory prison sentence of at least 10 years if the perjurer is convicted.

Ellison is knowingly attempting to undermine the US judicial system. He should be stripped of his office and sent to the penitentiary for this (for a very long time along with the imams who put him up to this).

Separation of Church and state is a very handy tool for us to be using at this juncture in our nation's history.

Yuo bring up an interesting point about the 'no test' idea- Some statesd supercede the supreme court and still do require a test of religion upon running for office (Although I think it would be prudent to require that folks be grounded in God to run our states, I also don't agree that a state actually should require their officials to take such a test IF the majority of people don't want that.

however, there are those arguing that taking an oath or giving an affirmation before God is some kind of test- and this simply is yet another false claim- in NO way does agreeing to stand before God institute a 'test of religion' A person need not believe in God at all in order to agree to fulfill the wishes of the majority that officials swear an oath before a God the majority worships. Therefore it is NO test for anyone running for office- Maryland I beleive is one of hte states that actually does apply a religious test- they make you swear that you believe in God before they allow you to serve in office (I think it was Maryland- I might be mistaken) and there are a couple of other states as well. This is a TRUE test of religion. Some courts even give TRUE tests of religion when a person is sworn in or a person is sworn to testify.

Now, the neither 'hindering nor advancing' any religion is NOT a ban on practicing or displaying one's faith- Everyone STILL has those rights- even public officials- Lawyers and those who oppose God are falsely trying to claim that expression of faith is an attempt to 'advance' said faith- it is NOT-

A president standing before the country and ordering people to go to church would be an attempt to advance said faith through coersion- and that is exactly the thing our founders were trying to prevent- and NOT the free expression of faith nor the funding of faith through entitlements- this 'must remain neutral' crap is being abused to the point that it is starting to trample all over hte rights of our people to freely express and support religion. Anti-God advocates have managed to pursuade O'Conner to make rulings- however, that does NOT mean that her opinion on the matter is closed to scrutiny or challenge in legal matters. And it also does not mean that people can't misinterpret what the ruling actually stood for-

Some state judges have tried to advance their agendas by misinterpreting, thus preventing freedoms of expression as we have seen in some of the latest cases where valdictorians were censored unconstitually on the claim that their speeches mentioning God would be viewed as the School endorsing relgion- A recent State ruling looked at the facts and determined that the school acted worngly by censoring the student and that the student's speech was NOT an endorsement by the school- this is a correct understanding and ruling based on factual law, and the supreme court's ruling can and should be challenged based on like freedoms of expression and support for relgions of personal choice.

thndrbang1 has more brain.

I salute you, thndrbang1.

pythagoros- many religious books are available from I beleive the library of congress- or where ever it was that the historical koran of jefferson was kept- many officials often borrow from the place to swear in on the books of their choosing- one other point- according to muslims- translations of the koran are not valid holy books- only the original korans can be used- I'm sure Ellison knows this and I'm not sure why he would use a book that his religion doesn't even recognize other than to stick his religion in the face of Americans as a 'take that' deal.

"The war between shia and sunnis in islam will end the minute the coalition pulls out of iraq, you and i both know it."
-- from an impenetrable poster above

You mean just the way the Fast Jihad (Hamas) and the Slow Jihad (Fatah) joined forces so splendidly after the Israelis withdrew from Gaza? Is that what you mean?

When the Americans were nowhere in sight, did Iran and Iraq have a splendid eight-year war that preoccupied and drained both of them? And aftger that war was over, didn't one side (Iraq), promptly turn its attention to massacring the Kurds and then invading Kuwait? And didn't the other side promptly turn its attention to such things as support for Hezbollah, massacring Iranian exiles in Paris, and getting serious about that nuclear project that, during the Iran-Iraq War, could not proceed?

The only thing holding the Shi'a militia back in Baghdad -- what do you think they are doing in Basra and elsewhere far from reporters, to the local Sunnis, by the way? -- are the Americans. The only thing holding the Sunnis back from getting their revenge on the punier and more pacific (until now) Shi'a, has been worries about the Americans.

Pull them out. It is madness to be preventing what we should devoutly wish. It doesn't have to be stated in the terms I use.

Pretend, if you need to, that the American withdrawal is being undertaken only because it will be the "best way for the Iraqis to make the compromises necessary." Say anything at all. Go ahead, even try to believe that if it makes you feel better, if you somehow think one must never express openly the desire to see one's mortal enemy confounded by the exploitation of that enemy's pre-existing divisions, that cannot be healed, and that we should certainly not wish to heal. Sentimental crap about "moms and dads" and "everyone wants freedom" or "we can't let down our friends" (the "friends" in question now being, according to Foreign Agent Brent Scowcroft, our Saudi "friends," our Egyptian "friends," our "Jordanian" friends, and if we saw things through the Scowcroftian lens, our "Palestinain" "friends" as well. The Bush Administration was inveigled by the Shi'a in exile into going into Iraq to build a Light Unto the Muslim Nations (and to ensure a transfer of power to the Shi'a Arabs). Now Scowcroft and his well-paid busy collaborators want to do the bidding of the Sunni Arabs, by making American soldiers (who have not received quite the sums Scowcroft at Kissinger Associates, and now on his grasping own, has received from Muslim governments and entities), fight and die to ensure that the Sunni Arabs themselves, inside and outside Iraq, have to fight for themselves.

Just like Bush and so many others, who apparently think no one else knows how to think, or is going to point out the silliness and hollowness of their failures, their faulty or non-existent understanding, you permit yourself to say things for which there is no evidence. All the evidence suggests quite otherwise.

In a world ruled by sanity, Hugh's idea of pulling out of Islam-infested lands and strengthening our non-Muslim friends would be the best course of action. Unfortunately, I believe that the course our nation WOULD take in pulling out of enemy territory would be to appease and apologize for the mistake. I have no faith in our elected officials to truly do the right thing.

Really, I do not see anyone really doing the right thing in the fight against the jihadi threat. I think we can only hope that they make more mistakes than we do, because all the wrong people are politicians. There are some VERY sick minds who want nothing more than personal power in Washington, DC. I wouldn't trust them with the care of my stamp collection, let alone the welfare of my nation.

CottShop: Where this guy got Jefferson's Kuran is beside the point, truly.

My real point was that the Kuran teaches Muslims to lie to the "unbelievers" which on a stand in a US Court of Law is committing perjury.

Ellison is attempting to undermine the US judicial system. As you no doubt know by now, more and more Muslims enter the US all the time. As they spread chaos throughout the land their bringing chaos into the Judicial system will further paralyze the US government from defending us and work toward their advantage as they attempt to seize control of our country from us. Of that I am certain.

They have done this before-- all over the world. America is just another conquest for them.

Yeah Pyth, I know what you meant- I was just pointing out that to Muslims it won't be viewed as the real deal & I'm not sure why he would be 'compromising' like that knowing it might bring condemnation from the Muslim world- I wasn't adressing the issue that as you point out the American issue that we are objecting to is the fact that he will be committing purjury as you state.

I'm suspicious by nature and I think that his using the 'fake koran' might have soem kind of implications that I'm not seeing when viewed by the Muslim world- I guess that was more my point- but yeah, I'm with you on the severity of his lying under oath by placing his hand on the koran at all- and I absolutely agree that we are headed down the same path France did and will be overtaken very soon for our unabashed conceeding towards Muslims who are most definately striving to take over our government and establish their own- Michigan, the state ellison is from, has many comunities that are practically imune to U.S law now and hwo practice their own laws of Islam. We're falling aprt one county at a time- but it is a slow and steady progression that unfortunately a lot of people write off as just the U.S being 'tolorant' of people's differences.

It was the Library of Congress (from the rare books and special collections division) that lent out the Koran.

And, from another website: "Today, only the states of Texas and one of the Carolinas have constitutions requiring a religious test for holders of public office. And although these laws are still on the books, they have been nullified by Federal legislation."

Regardless of whether or not Ellison should use the Koran to swear in, Jefferson's owning of one testifies to nothing. I have a decent library of my own, but I hope that after I'm dead that no one goes through it and makes inferences about what I believed based upon what I thought I should read or own for reference purposes.

This is allegedly a political master stroke by Ellison…

It also is yet another golden opportunity for the media, including all the pompous opinion celebrities who surround our brains to pick themselves up out of their malfeasance and do the right thing.

Bill? Glenn? Rosie? Tim? Wolf? Laura? Hugh? Pinch? Is anybody listening out there?

And the right thing for them to do is, when reporting Rep. Keith and the Jeffersonian Koran in his hand, give a brief synopsis of why TJ bought the thing in the first place. Would it kill these windbags to mouth a phrase like, “… which Jefferson bought after a long series of bloodthirsty attacks by Jihad warriors in corvettes pirating America sea merchants in the name of Allah, decapitating American sailors and even selling them into slavery. It is believed that Jefferson bought the Koran after his emissary to the Sultan of Tunisia demanded one fourth of the federal government’s budget at the time to return kidnapped sailors to American authorities.”

This awful stain my fair state has just put on our great nation's history presents us with a wonderful teaching opportunity.

The noose we’re wrapping around our necks is made from fiber taken from the overlarge tongue muscles of ahistorical opinion celebrities, and the academic frauds who feed them.

Last night on the American comedy talk show Late Night with Conan O'Brien (whose host, the eponymous Conan O'Brien, has hosted the Emmy Awards show twice and is slated to take over the most famous and prestigious talk show in American history, The Tonight Show), Conan in his monologue set up a joke about the Ellison swearing-in, saying, "Did you hear in the news, our first Muslim Congressman is going to swear in using a Koran owned by Thomas Jefferson! Isn't that cool?"

The audience's credit, they did not burst out in warm supportive applause at his comment.

WAKE UP AMERICA! THE SIX PSYCHOSIS OF ISLAM AND KEITH ELLISON!

FROM: http://www.vicmord.com/Newsletter1Elul5767September2006.html

It is said that the difference between neurotic and psychotic people is that neurotic people "dream" about castles in the air, while psychotic people "live" in castles in the air.

Just as Hitler thought he could conquer the Earth, so, too, did Alexander the Great, the Romans, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, and Stalin. They were all psychotic, living in castles in the air.

Islam also believes that it can conquer the Earth (Psychosis #1). Islam plans to kill every last Jew on the Earth (Psychosis #2). Up to here, this makes Islam just as psychotic as Hitler's Nazism. But then, even more so, Islam plans to kill two billion Christians which was not party of Nazism's plan. (Psychosis #3) Moslems have a saying: We kill the Jews on Saturday and the Christians on Sunday.)

Then Islam plans to kill the pagans: The Hindus, Buddhists and others. That's psychosis #4. And finally, if you tally this all up, 1.3 billion Moslems think they will get away with annihilating 5 billion non-Moslems. That's psychosis #5.

Then when they have finished off five billion non-Moslems, the Moslems will turn on each other Shiites killing Sunnis and vice-versa, Psychosis #6.

Conan went to Harvard, so of course he does not understand Islam.

I have been reading and listening to a variety of commentators -- and I just can't believe what I'm hearing. There's a huge disconnect. The "commentators" are (nearly all, ok, honestly, it's been every single one -- it's unanimous) that the use of the Koran is the greatest achievement of "liberality" in the history of the United States. The mood is completely celebratory.

You know, I could perhaps understand this, if the fellow were some hard-working, self-made business guy who also happened to convert to Islam (and sincerely and quietly insists that authentic Islam is pacifist, religion of peace, and blah, blah, blah). If this were the case, I wouldn't be upset.

But this guy? Forget it! He's already acting out like the worst of the worst of the Islamists. His associations with CAIR, his unmitigated chutzpah in claiming to teach Americans about "tolerance" and "justice" while his henchmen scream out "Allahu Akbar!"; his support for the Nation of Islam -- and the open bigotry and rank antisemitism this group represents; -- it just goes on. How this guy is the grand stride forward in terms of liberality or representative of Jeffersonian democracy (!?) (when the worst of the worst aspects of the Islamists are diametrically opposed to everything the United States stands for)? Well, this is NOT a great day for "liberality" -- just a great day for those who wish to tell themselves and others lies.

... makes Islam just as psychotic as Hitler's Nazism.

Look at it this way:

1) When the brown shirts were on their roll, they had sultry bimbos doing the bump and grind down at the nightclub, pale thigh skin jiggling & glistening under in the spotlights. Hell, the night life in Berlin during the 20s and 30s woulda made Hugh Hefner blush.

2) The Moslems, by contrast, demand that a woman wear ankle length dresses on the bottom and at least a hijab, if not a niqab or a burqa on top. If the Moslima doesn't comply with Moslem Man's special needs in this regard, he'll beat the woman's ass first and, if she persists, will be forced to stone her to death for being such a slut.

Now that's psychotic.

Ynkedoodl2

I agree but disagree on Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan was a bloodthirsty and sometimes cruel man BUT his real goal was to conquer China not the world. The only reason he went to war outside of China was becuase Islam declared war on him.

In 1218, A caravan traveling from Mongol lands to the Persian Empire was stopped by the governor of a Persian frontier province in modern Uzbekistan and ordered the caravan massacred and its goods seized. Genghis sent ambassadors to the Shah of Persia demanding answers. The Shah humiliated the Mongol emissaries and put them to death. The Shah sent the head back with the "join Islam or die" message. Genghis was not to pleased by this development...

Needless to say Islam got what was coming to them...the greatest ass whooping perhaps in history. Plus I don't trust Islamic accounts regarding the mongols. Muslims always claim everyone else is at fault when they started it. Let me say this Ghengis was a man of his time (which was ruthless) but he was by no means as bad as the muslims claim. Perhaps the Mongols have gotten a semi-raw deal if you compare them to their neighborhood. So on this account alone I am willing to give the nomadic warlord a break on this one.

Even Genghis Khan was attacked by Jihadi madmen.

What was he supposed to do...convert! No! No not Genghis Khan! He got even...

Romish means Roman Catholic. The author of the introduction for this translation of the Koran is putting down Roman Catholics. He's suggesting that if the Catholics were not so (gall darned) superstitious, maybe there'd be more Muslims convertin'...then he goes on to put in a plug for the Protestants...

Here is a story that hasn't been given any or much media attention.This story is a prime example of the state of mind our media is in and how far they go for thier own agendas. perhaps this story hasn't had much attention for the fact that the persons in this story wished it to be so.However my feelings are that the prevention by the MSM for the heralding of this story is intentional,we are sold out by our own informers.

This story is true and a fact.I also highly doubt that any one single zombie can recite such a deed from the masters in the hiearchy of islam.

Here it is;

Jack Tilley, a seargent major of the army,was with a group of people who recently were visiting wounded soldiers at walter reed medical center in washington,DC.

he saw a special forces soldier who had lost his right hand and suffered severe wounds of his face and side of his body.Sgt Tilley wanted to honor him and show him respect without offending,but what can you say or do in such a situation that will encourage and uplift?

How do you shake the right hand of a soldier that has none?

He decided to act as though the hand was not missing and gripped the soldiers wrist while speaking words of comfort and encouragemaent to him.

However,there was another man in the group who knew exactly what to do.

This man reverently took the soldiers stump of a hand in both of his hands,bowed at the bedside and prayed for him.When he finished the prayer he stood up,bent over the soldier,kissed him on the head,and told him that he loved him.

Sgt.tilley was awed by the powerful expression of love for one of our wounded heroes he was witnessing! "What a beutiful Christ-like example!" he thought,moved to tears.

What kind of a man would do such a thing?

It was the wounded mans commander-in-chief.Geprge W. Bush, President of the United States.

This eyewitness account was told by seargent major jack tilley at a soldiers breakfast at red stone arsenal,al,and recorded by chaplain james henderson,who was stationed there.

Thats the end of the story i leave it up to you to believe or not.

Islam will not prevail.There are soldiers in iraq who decdided to return to duty missing limbs and carrying other scars.

Iran claims they will humiliate America,they will strike at America if we interfere with thier works.I say try as you may Iran you will never be anything remotely as great as this nation.Yes it's true the forces of our military are strained,our allies tire of the work at hand and ahead.The thing is that there are always people like me,waiting in the wings to follow my brethren and if he falls then stop to honor him and take up his weopon and protect all that he gave and paid the price for.

People like myself do not fear islam in fact islam fears people like myself.

Islam will not win,they may win battles with thier tactics so evil and dark but they cannot win the war because one day even the islamic horde will see that islam offers nothing,nothing at all.

Dar al-harb that was such a heart touching story, and like you, islam does fear the free thinking Westerner, and should fear allthose who remain free of their death cult.

JS funny you should say that I just did an article on my site about how there is a revival going on in muslim countries with millions turning their lives over to Christ despite the great threat posed to them.

"Conan went to Harvard, so of course he does not understand Islam."
-- from a posting above

Going to Harvard in order to emerge as a misunderstander of Islam is neither necessary, nor sufficient. Of course, had he majored in Middle Eastern studies, had he taken courses with Leila Ahmed or William Grahan or Asani or Roy Mottahedeh (relative to the others, the most attractive and worldly of the lot, who even can quote Benchley, but that still an unacceptable apologist).

Monitory example: thrusting young academic and author of "After Jihad" (the title of a single volume that speaks volumes), Noah Feldman (single-handed author of the Iraqi Constitution, his party-trick is being an Orthodox Jew who studies Islam, but I'm afraid very far from the level of Joseph Schacht, which hasn't keep him, Feldman, from just being appointed to Harvard Law Schol with tenure (thus rewarding all his calculated efforts of the last few years), which will guarantee that for another few decades the tradition of apologetics that began with Frank Vogel and others will not soon end, and Islam will be protected, from inquiring minds that want to know, unless they happen to engage in study on their own, extra-Langdell and extra-Pound). The only solace one can take is that people even worse than Feldman, such as Khaled Abou El Fadl (google "Khaled Abou El Fadl" and "scholar of the house" and see what Khaled Abou El Fadl thinks of Khaled Abou El Fadl -- it's remarkably close to what Noah Feldman thinks of Noah Feldman), were not appointed. Real non-Muslim scholars of Islam (which is to say of Islamic law) exist, but mostly in Europe. And one can just imagine how the appointment, the references, the committee worked -- letters from Mottahedeh, John Sexton, possibly Esposito or others in MESA Nostra. And unless one knows something already, nothing in one's experience would lead those HLS innocents to see through the facade, and none are likely to have done the work -- beginning, say, with reading Schacht and Antoine Fattal -- that would allow them to make their own judgments. They would not question "authority" and all the "authorities" in this closed-circle are simply part of the same MESA Nostra cabal. And that's how these things happen.

Harold Koh, take note.

On the other hand, the courtly, well-read and articulate faculty members of yore have disappeared, and replaced usually by others quite different. Try to find the ghost of Arthur Sutherland or of Mark DeWolfe Howe or of Paul Freund and you will be disappointed. But the Development Office will not let potential donors in on that little secret.

So the author of "After Jihad" and all kinds of prognosticatory articles about Iraq -- that useful Step on the Ladder -- will not find himself as much out of place as he might once have been.

Push, push, push.

hmmm...I recall a certain Iraqi flag problem..remember that? when they tried to change the flag of Iraq (it had an interesting sky-blue colour).

A year or so ago (or perhaps more?), I was flipping through the cable network tv channels. I happened across Vision tv (it's a religious channel). There was a program on -- I suspect it was to convert Arab Muslims to Christianity (I must say i was really taken in by this program). Why? Well, it was the entire approach of this program (no sermons, no angry words, no demands) -- instead, it was just singing! Yes, singing in Arabic! a solo singer -- a tenor -- lilting, beautiful, attractive songs -- all sung in Arabic, but which told the Christian story. Now I thought -- if you want to win converts? -- do this!

Anyway, I believe that program has been taken off the air (at least, I don't see it offered anymore.) Instead I'm seeing lots and lots of Muslim dawa -- this is to win Canadian converts to Islam. One program (which I find truly offensive) has a preacher -- he's the exact mimic of a Christian-style evangelical -- angry, demanding, pointing the finger, sermonizing, even the same begging, imploring at the end (that's two thumbs down, imo).

Also, I'm noticing (this is not scientific) but there does seem to be an increasing number of hours devoted on this Vision tv channel to Islam (and preaching to get converts) this is just my opinion (I could be wrong).

"I'm noticing (this is not scientific) but there does seem to be an increasing number of hours devoted on this Vision tv channel to Islam..."
-- from a posting above

Here is something to investigate and protest. All of a sudden, Bridges TV (which google, along with "Jihad Watch"), a station devoted to the Islmaic "view" and making Islam palatable to Americans, is included -- not as an extra, for which one would have to pay, but as part of the normal "premiere package" offered by both Verizon's FIOS and Comcast's Cable Service.

One has to pay extra for every other "International" channel listed: for the Russian, the Polish, the Japanese, the Korean, the Italian, the French.

But only Bridges TV, among all those listed as "international channels," does not require the payment of an extra fee. Why not?

It is conceivable that the well-moneyed backers of Bridges TV (look Arabia-wards) offered sums of money to both Comcast and Verizon to give this special treatment to Bridges TV, which after all is essentially Islamic propaganda.

One would like a member of Congress, and especially someone who has oversight of the Cable Industry (Marty Meehan, perhaps) to look into this matter.

I am sure I am not the only one who is taking a keen interest in Bridges TV, and those boosting its prospects, and why.

Indeed, this propaganda channel is being offered for FREE...and owned by Muslims. Oil money? Once again, the sell-outs! How disgusting! Aren't there any vocal protest groups in the United States left (as in remaining) to represent American interests? Or is it all Cindy Sheehans? (btw, I notice the same thing about Ellison -- it's like there's no MSM alternate -- they ALL preach the same B.S., sing from the same song sheet! where's the diversity??, dang it!!)

Several small details interest me, in regards to Mr. Ellison's 'event.' First, the two volume Koran was placed in a box and taken underground from the Library of Congress to the Capitol, where it was taken out of the box, being wrapped in green felt, and checked thru the security machines. One has to wonder: Was this part of the white glove treatment afforded the Koran, but not other holy books? Did Mr. Ellison have to unwrap the green felt? I suspect so....but think of the unclean hands that handled it previously! Also, from the photo op with Mrs. Pelosi, it seemed to me that her hand carefully rested on top of Mr. Ellison's hand, and not the Koran itself. Was this another piece of PC afforded the two volumes? Lastly, I checked on the two Buddhists now in Congress. I could not find any news reports on their photo op swearing in ceremonies. Must be that the Ellison photo-op took up all time and focus of the reporters/photographers. Also, Ellison met Rep. Goode, latest Islamaphobe, on the House floor, and invited Mr. Goode to coffee to get to know each other better. Is there no end to the wonderfulness of the new Muslim Congressman as he goes about his task of teaching others about truth and justice, the Islamic way?

I think it's important (in the current war) to understand the media's role in winning converts to Islam. It includes the dawa on Vision tv (these are Muslims who adopt anglo-sounding names and do an impression of an evangelical Christian), to the networks such as CBC (or the BBC). I consider the CBC another media outlet which promotes and encourages active proselytizing on behalf of Islam (this ranges from repeating antisemitic charges to featuring pro-Arab, soft on terrorism reports or "aren't those marytrys for Islam wonderful?").

One of the tactics the Dawa Muslims use is to encourage viewers to pretend to be Muslim -- the Muslim preachers encourage, for example, women to wear a hijab ("just wear it for a day!") or to try out a day of fasting (during Ramadan). Interestingly, this is precisely the same tactics I hear are being employed by school districts (in social studies classes, for example -- to get the kids to "pretend" to be Muslim). This is the same strategy the Muslim preachers tell Canadian non-Muslims to do on channels such as Vision.

CBC is running (again, this is yet another program, I believe, aimed at conversion) a comedy show entitled: "Little Mosque on the Prairie." And, of course, do you believe any of the actors are Muslims? Of course not. There's only one Muslim in connection with the show -- all the others are non-Muslims. Now I'm wondering what will be the conversion rate for those "actors" who are dressing up and pretending to be Muslims??

We'll have to wait and see...

Mary- hopefully Goode will accept that invite and put the hard questions to ellison- ask him the things that NEED to be answered so that all America can know that ellison is no 'moderate' muslim http://sacredscoop.com

Thomas Jefferson read all KINDS of things. Reading about something does not mean you agree with it.

This is a disgusting 'attempt' to say in some pathetic way that Jefferson would condone this guy. Such trickery! Ellison is behaving like a classic democrat! Another Clinton!

I could just puke. I'll bet Jefferson would too.

J.S. you say that the 'media' is working to win converts to Islam.

Since the 'media' is owned by corporate America (6 corporations) own all the TV, Radio and Newspapers.....what is it that CORPORATE AMERICA stands to gain by having a muslim population?

I am VERY interested in any comments on this please.

It's laughable how Liberals will trip over themselves in their race to embrace the Islamic guillotine... Talk about a culture of death!

Did you see the picture of the oath where Nancy Pelosi was touching Ellison's hand and the Koran with a look of girlish titillation?

Bizarre, disgusting, perverted...

Dumb Ox

I don't think it's Corporate America -- I think there are other factors at play. In the UK you've got an extremely pro-Islamist media (BBC -- always demonizing Americans, always sympathetic to terrorists -- I believe the BBC has hired for reasons of "diversity" a gazillion Muslims who are predisposed to hate Americans; you've got the Guardian newspaper -- I don't know if you've ever read one of the editorials printed in this scandalous rag of a paper, but they write and sound like radical imams preaching the need for jihad against the west -- then there's the Canadian version of the BBC which is now linking up with the English language al-jazeera -- yes, that's our tax-payer funded, public media, out to convince Canadians that terrorists beheading Infidels is a "good thing;" that suicide bombers are really martyrs, and victims of western aggression; that the Holocaust is all a hoax; that antisemitism does not exist; that 9/11 was a conspiracy done by Americans working for the CIA; that when Americans entered Iraq it was no different from 9/11 since all Americans are terrorists; on and on it goes).

The American media is also Leftist, but they are a pale shadow of what's printed, reported, and broadcast in countries say, like Canada or Britain. (I also suspect that Saudi oil money does play a role -- why Fox news will sometimes go soft on Arab terror). I think self-loathing by the Left is also partially responsible, along with the need to appear "tolerant" to "minorities" (even when the "minorities" announce that they intend to launch a full scale war or nuke America).

J.S. I know how the British media is, I lived there for 7 years. I also know, if you dig a little deeper, that some of the same 'powers that be' who own US media, also own foreign media. We know that Sky News is owned by the same idiot that owns Fox News. Talk about extreme difference in reporting.

I know the BBC is hiring a lot of muslims. Again, it goes back to the same question I asked earlier...

Maybe I should rephrase it....what is it that CORPORATE POWERS (globalists) stand to GAIN by having a muslim population worldwide?

Folks should do a little research and find out who the corporations ARE that are buying up world's media. There's IS a reason for this.

Indeed -- corporate globalism is quite different from "Coporate America." Many years ago I heard a lecture by a prof -- he was a die-hard Leftist -- talking about corporate globalism (you get into transnational corporations which do not represent the interests of any one country or nation)...but I have a problem with the whole manner of thinking -- it strikes me as being far too conspiratorial (?). You get the "hidden hand" (invisible but all-powerful forces) guiding events...

Anyway, I don't know why Globalists would want or need more Muslims (?). Let me quess: They hold stock options in the Koran? (religious materials is the number one export of the Saudis) They've got shares in small weapons manufacturing (lots of AK-47s and pellets for suicide vests and plastic explosives) (?) all right, I give up...Why?

Swearing on Jefferson's Koran will at least delay a review of what is in it (and Jefferson's notes). Do not be surprised if the Koran is misplaced shortly after the swearing in.

I am surprised that there is no readily available revelation of what Jefferson had in his notes.
Posted by: Agrippa

I'd like to see someone subpoena Jeff's Koran under the "Freedom of Information Act". How about it, ACLIE?

Wow, the comments to this post have really grown (and gotten a bit off-track)! I'm checking in just to post the CAIR page where they share a video of the event:

http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=42983&theType=NB

Note the title of their article:

Video: Ellison Uses Quran for Mock Swearing-In

Typical grammatical error, or rather numerical error, in which they say "...uses quran 4 mock swearing-in" instead of "...uses quran 2 mock swearing-in". Wonder if they'll fix that?

how many Congressmen and Congresswomen have porn in their homes...........why not swear in on the porn?????????????

What about the congressman who had money in his freezer? I think they should all swear in on a stack of "Franklins". That's what they all care about the most. And that's the one thing they can all agree on.

how many Congressmen and Congresswomen have porn in their homes...........why not swear in on the porn?????????????

What about the congressman who had money in his freezer? I think they should all swear in on a stack of "Franklins". That's what they all care about the most. And it's the one thing they can all agree on.