Here is the email I am submitting to Senator Kerry:

I am incensed about your remarks today concerning my and my fellow enlisted soldiers' intelligence. I also read your follow-up explanation that it was a failed joke - I hope you also do not believe the rest of the country as stupid as me, because I have a really hard time believing it was a joke after being able to view the speech (yes, in context) online.

I have a BA from Columbia University. Maybe you have heard of it. I would be willing any day of the week to put my French language skills up agaist yours. I also attended a certain private high school in Exeter, NH. Maybe you have heard of that one? I enlisted in the US Army after 9/11. Am I stupid?

I went to basic combat training with a guy who has a BS in Aeronautical Engineering. He is, literally, a rocket scientist. He also enlisted soldier in the US Army after 9/11. Is he stupid?

I currently work with another guy who has a Masters in Philosophy and was very close to finishing his dissertation for his PhD. He, by the way, is very liberal politically, but I would be willing to bet that in an exercise of debate, with him taking the other side, he would talk circles around you, or any of your 99 colleagues in Washington. He enlisted in the US Army after 9/11 out of patriotism. Is he stupid?

College degrees in my company in the enlisted ranks outnumber those in the officers'. We obviously did our homework and worked hard during our years in school. Maybe you are out of touch and do not realize just how much things have changed since you were in the military (that is if, in fact, you had an idea about it then). I think you may get too many of your ideas from movies and television, because it is painfully obvious that you have not ever taken the time to really speak with an enlisted member of today's US military.

To my relatives and friends in MA: Please, please, please do not send this elitist buffoon back to Washington the next time he is up for re-election. This is not the first time he has made disparaging remarks about the military, or the general population at large. Listen to his speeches and he will always mention the "working class". We don't have classes in the United States. Our ancestors left Europe because they hated the fact that they were part of the toiling masses which supported a small, elite aristocracy who ran everything. In America, anyone can work hard, become successful and live the good life - ANYONE. Bill Gates dropped out of college to write MS-DOS, the precursor to Windows. Wal-Mart started as one family-run store in Arkansas. Nike was a track coach's dream in Oregon. Next time you hear a John Kerry speech, listen closely and when he refers to "working class Americans" it will be in the 3rd person. That is because he does not see himself as part of that group - he sees himself as part of a small, elite aristocracy."

Posted by TJ at November 1, 2006 06:11 AM

"WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE IN STORE FOR YOU.  TODAY'S INSTALLMENT

"Again .. .do I think that the Republicans have earned our continued permission to control both the House and the Senate in Washington?  Not only no, but hell no.  The best that can be said of the Republicans now is that they're not Democrats, though they seem to be trying to erase any differences as fast as they cam.  Republicans in control for two more years --- spending and increasing the size of government --- is an acceptable outcome next week only because the alternative is so much worse. 

This week I'm detailing some of the plans that the Democrats have for you and your bank accounts if and when they get the control that they think is their birthright.

Today I want to share with you another delicious little morsel the Democrats have waiting for you if they ever gain the political power they so ardently desire.  It's called "imputed income."  If you are a home owner, pay attention.  This concerns your wallet and your bank account. 

Let me start this off with a few points that I don't think you will dispute.  Democrats are the party of big government.  Democrats are the party of the social welfare state. Democrats want to make more and more Americans dependent on government because they know that the higher the degree of dependency the weaker the people and the stronger the government.  It goes without saying that the stronger and more powerful government becomes, the stronger and more powerful the politicians who control that government become.  This isn't rocket surgery here.

Money in the hands of the people who earned it contributes to their personal independence.  Independent people don't need politicians.  Money taken from those who earn it and then used to build the government social welfare state robs people of their independence.  Democrats love this scenario.  They want you to be dependent on government.  To do that they need to take your money and use it to grow the federal welfare state.  This is why Democrats just love the idea of tax increases. 

To be sure, Democrats know that all of their rhetoric about raising taxes on the rich and the rich "paying their fair share" resonates well with their voter base.  Playing to wealth envy will always earn votes ... but nothing earns votes quite like dependence on government.  Creating that dependence, though, is an expensive proposition.  To cover the tab the Democrats have to drain every penny from your pocket that they can -- right up to the point that you decide it's time to revolt.

Democrats will tell you that they only want to raise taxes on the so-called "rich."  Nancy Pelosi will probably come up with some figure in the $200,000 or $250,000 range to describe "rich" when she and her Democrat pals start to work on their tax increase plans.  But here's a warning.  If you happen to fall below that "rich" category, you're in their crosshairs as well.  They have various schemes in the works to put you smack in the middle of the "rich" category, and thus set you up for some pretty substantial tax increases.

One such scheme targets homeowners.  It's called "imputed income," and its a brilliant and devious idea on how to tax your home ownership.

Here's how it works.

Let's say that you've owned your home for about 20 years.  For 20 years your home has been appreciating in value ... big time.  Your monthly payments on that home are about $550 a month.  Remember, it's a 220-year-old loan made when the cost of your home was much, much less.  There isn't much of a home mortgage tax deduction left at this point since you almost have the home paid off, and the bulk of your payments go to principal instead of interest. 

The very fact that you're living in such a nice home, and paying so little, attracts the interest of Democrats.  They know that there are a lot of people in your neighborhood that paid a lot more for their homes than you did, and their mortgage payments are a lot higher.  Not only that, but there are other people renting homes in your neighborhood and they're paying much more than you are every month.  It's obvious that you're enjoying some great economic benefit due to the fact that you've owned your home for so long and your payments are so low.  Well, where there's an economic benefit, their must be a tax!

Enter the concept of imputed income!

Under this wonderful plan, first floated by Clinton Democrats before the voter revolution of 1994, the government would figure out how much your home would rent for every month.  To do this they would use all of that census data they've gathered, plus any information that they can develop on current sale and rental prices up and down your street. 

Let's say that the government --- the IRS, if you will --- determines that your home would rent for $3,250 a month.  That would add up to $39,000 a year.  But the IRS discovers that you're only paying $550 a month, or $6,600 a year in rent.  Well, there's that economic benefit you're enjoying by virtue of your long-term home ownership.  The economic benefit of your home ownership is the difference between the $39,000 you should be paying to live there, and the $6,600 you're actually paying.  Do the math.  You're getting away with $32,400 every year in non-taxed economic benefits! 

The Democrat plan is simple.  Just take that $32,400 and add it to your taxable income on your next tax return.  Then you get the privilege of paying income taxes to the federal government on the economic benefit you derive from your long-term home ownership.  The IRS has "evened the playing field" in your neighborhood ... so to speak.  Your neighbors had to pay taxes on the full $39,000 they're paying to live down the street ... now you're having to do the same.  After all ... it's only fair, right! 

Just remember this.  Democrats actually believe that the best use for every single penny you earn is for it to be spent by government for what they love to call the "common good."  They will grudgingly allow you to keep enough of your earnings to avoid your participation in a full-scale tax revolt.  A good Democrat knows that only Democrats and the government know what is good for you, and that you will be so much better off and your life oh so much better if you will just succumb to the power of government and it's ability to care for you much better than you can care for yourself. 

In tomorrow's Nuze ... what would you think about a proposal to limit where you can invest your retirement funds ... a limit based on political correctness.  "

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

" TURNING POINT --- AT LEAST FOR ME

"OK ... all bets are off.

Don't get me wrong ... I still have this deep felt desire to see the Republican's get punished by the electorate in next week's midterm election ... but suddenly the stakes seem to be too high.

What turned the tide for me?  John Kerry, that's what.  That insipid, haughty, pretentious jerk uttered another one of his absurd statements about our men and women in uniform ... and in a flash my fear of Democrats and their disdain for our military services overcame any desire I had to put Republicans over my knee.

You did hear what Kerry said, didn't you?  Come on now .. surely you have. [refresher]  For the few of you who might have been in a 48-hour coma, The Poodle was talking to a group of college students in Pasadena, California (where else?) on Monday when he said:  "You know, education--if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

So there you have it.  There's your choice.  According to Mr. Band-Aid Purple Heart, you either become smart, or end up serving in our armed forces. 

John Kerry seems to have a deep-seated disdain (bordering on hatred) for those in uniform.  Remember, please, that it was John Kerry who, many years ago, talked about our troops in Vietnam regularly committing atrocities against innocent women and children.  It was also John Kerry who remarked earlier this year about American troops in Iraq "terrorizing" women and children.  How dare that pompous ass suggest that it is our troops who are doing the terrorizing over there? 

For the record, Kerry is dead wrong.  Not that he cares.  Just four days ago The Heritage Foundation issued a report by Tim Kane entitled "Who Are the Recruits?  The Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Enlistment, 2003-2005."      (  http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm  )You have the link, go and read the report for yourself.  If you do you will find that a higher percentage of military recruits have graduated from high school than the general population.  In  2004 82.7% of recruits were high school graduates while another 7.03% had their GEDs.    The national high school graduation rate that year was 79.8%.  Even today, in 2006, the high school graduation rate for recruits is still higher than the high school graduation rate for the civilian population.  Looks to me like the recruits are doing pretty well.  You'll also find that "the Department of Defense reported that the mean reading level of 2004 recruits is a full grade level higher than that of the comparable youth population." 

Clearly John Kerry had no idea what in the hell he was talking about .. the arrogant putz.

So .. the firestorm erupts, and here comes Kerry to the microphones to set the record straight.  Did he apologize for his insult against our troops?  Are you kidding?  Not only did he not apologize, but he actually had the stones to try to tell us he wasn't talking about our troops, he was talking about Bush!  I would ask just how stupid Kerry thinks Americans are --- but the very fact that he thinks we should have made him president indicates what his answer, were he to be truthful, would be.

These men and women are on the front lines, giving up their lives, to defend us from Islamic fascism -- and Kerry is back here talking about what intellectual failures they are.  Intellectual failures that terrorize women and children in the night. 

Do we hang the sins of John Kerry around the necks of all Democrats?  Well, let me ask you.  Did you hear of one single Democrat .. just one .. anywhere .. stepping forward to repudiate what Kerry said?  Maybe some Democrat did, but I sure as hell haven't heard anything about it.  Have you?  A Democrat congressional candidate in Iowa has gone so far as to say Kerry's words were "inappropriate."  Hardly an apology .. but he did ask Kerry to cancel a planned campaign visit to his district.

In other words ... these gutless wonders who just love to tell us how much they truly do support our troops won't even stand up to be heard when our soldiers are slandered by this rich woman's boy toy. 

This is such a gift to the Republicans.  It's as if Karl Rove himself paid John Kerry a large amount of money to read from a script.  It couldn't be better.  Here we are, on the even of the 2006 mid-term elections...in which the Democrats are poised to take over the House and maybe the Senate.  Now here comes John Kerry, standard-bearer of his party in the last presidential election...to slander our troops.  Bad move....even the most anti-war politician never blames the troops.  It's political suicide.

So .. that's it.  We're six days out, and I've come unglued.  Sure, the Republicans have become just another party of big government and pork barrel spending ... but at least they don't slander the very men and women who are shedding blood every single day to defend our country. 

Give me the big-spenders who support our troops over the big-spenders who slander them any day.

I'm voting Republican.

We'll just have to figure out another way to take these Republicans miscreants to the woodshed.  "

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

"Pacifism: The Ultimate Immorality

    there was no one left to speak out.

    for I am a Pacifist.

And so the Pacifist, perhaps unthinkingly, unwittingly, mistakenly, is deeply mired in his intellectual confusion, but surely and unequivocally, the epitome of evil itself, For the Pacifist devoutly believes that by refusing to fight against evil he is affirming that he is good, too good and pure to oppose evil, too good and pure to fight evil, to good and pure to kill evil. But in the end, he is the enabler without whom the triumph of evil would not be possible.

About the Writer: Raymond Kraft is a lawyer and writer living and working in Northern California.  "

http://chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=22667

Source WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Just 10 days before Americans vote in midterm congressional elections that could result in a historic shift of power, the federal government is investigating whether anti-American Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez may control the company that operates electronic voting machines in 17 states.

Many questions have been raised about the reliability of the new machines, which leave no paper trails for the purposes of recounts. But now federal officials are investigating whether Smartmatic, owner of Sequoia Voting Systems, is secretly controlled by the Castroite revolutionary leader of Venezuela who denounced President Bush as Satan in his most recent United Nations address, the Miami Herald reports.

An informal investigation of Smartmatic's ownership begun last summer has, the paper reveals, become a formal probe.

One of the other major concerns raised about the electronic voting systems is that they could, under the right circumstances, be tampered with to deliver fraudulent results.

The investigation stems from a May 4 inquiry to the Treasury Department by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., raising concerns about Smartmatic's purchase of Sequoia last year. Maloney said she was disturbed by a 2004 article in the Miami Herald revealing that the Venezuelan government owned 28 percent of Bizta – a company operated by two of the same people who own Smartmatic.

(Story continues below)

In a deal with twists and turns even federal investigators are having trouble following, Bizta bought back those shares after the article appeared, and Smartmatic now characterizes the deal as a loan.

Bizta and Smartmatic had partnered with the Venezuelan telephone company CANTV to win a $91 million contract to supply electronic voting machines for Venezuelan elections, including the controversial 2004 referendum Chávez won in a vote in which he was widely accused of fraud.

Despite the probe, Smartmatic categorically denies any link to the Chávez regime.

"Smartmatic is a privately held corporation, and no foreign government or entity – including Venezuela – has ever held an ownership stake in the company," Mitch Stoller, a company spokesman, said in an e-mail to the Miami Herald.

"The government of Venezuela doesn’t have anything to do with the company aside from contracting it for our electoral process," the Venezuelan ambassador in Washington, Bernardo Alvarez, told the New York Times tonight.

But the Venezuelan connections have haunted the company whose machines have been plagued with problems in U.S. elections.

When the Chicago City Council asked Sequoia executive Jack Blaine in April about problems in that city's voting, he said some Venezuelans had provided technical support during the election and that some of the glitches could be traced to a component developed in Venezuela to print and transmit results to a central tabulation computer.

The Chicago Board of Election Commissioners is withholding further payment to Sequoia until after the Nov. 7 election.

The Smartmatic investigation is being conducted by the Treasury-led Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS – which determines whether deals involving foreign investors compromise national security.

Determining whether there really is a hidden connection to Chávez or anyone in his government is difficult because of Smartmatic's complex, though legal, corporate structure, reports the Miami Herald.

Stoller admitted the company is 97 percent owned by the four Venezuelan founders – two of them dual citizens: Mugica (Spanish and Venezuelan), Anzola, Roger Piñate and Jorge Massa (French and Venezuelan). The remainder of the company, Stoller told the paper, is owned "by employees of Smartmatic (past and present) and family and acquaintances of the founders."

The four top owners have not said whether they support or oppose Chávez.

"The government should know who owns our voting machines — that is a national-security concern," said Maloney, who started the investigation with her letter last May. "There seems to have been an obvious effort to obscure the ownership of the company."

Chavez has made it clear his goal in life is to bring the U.S. to its knees. He has stood with Iran against the U.S. and, as WND reported Thursday, he is providing documents that could help terrorists infiltrate the U.S.-Mexico, according to a new congressional report on homeland security.

"Venezuela is providing support – including identity documents – that could prove useful to radical Islamic groups," says the report of the subcommittee on investigations of the House Homeland Security Committee. "The Venezuelan government has issued thousands of cédulas, the equivalent of Social Security cards, to people from places such as Cuba, Colombia and Middle Eastern nations that host foreign terrorist organizations."

The documents can be used to obtain Venezuelan passports and American visas, which in turn allow the holder to elude immigration checks and enter the United States.

As WorldNetDaily reported, a Venezuelan military defector claims Chavez developed ties to terrorist groups such as al-Qaida – even providing the group with $1 million in cash after Sept. 11, 2001.

Air Force Maj. Juan Diaz Castillo, who was Chavez's pilot, told WorldNetDaily through an interpreter that "the American people should awaken and be aware of the enemy they have just three hours' flight from the United States."

Diaz said he was part of an operation in which Chavez gave $1 million to al-Qaida for relocation costs, shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today's WND Poll.

But for officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) – the most visible group claiming to represent Muslims in America – their political loyalties appear to lean in one particular political direction. An extensive review of political contributions by CAIR officials, employees and board members on the local, state and national level reveals that CAIR is betting almost exclusively on Democrats to represent them politically on Capitol Hill during the upcoming 110^th Congress.

To conduct this study, I gathered the names of all CAIR employees and board members that could be identified from the national organization and the CAIR local and state chapters. This information was compiled from publicly available sources – CAIR websites and the most recently filed IRS Form 990s for the organizations at GuideStar.org. The names of the CAIR officials that could be identified were compared to current Federal Election Commission (FEC) individual donor information (this database only covers federal races) available at OpenSecrets.org. (Three caveats should be made about this data: first, not all CAIR affiliates identify their employees, officers and board members on their websites or 990s, so giving by some CAIR officials could not be examined; secondly, the most recent 990 publicly available for some CAIR affiliates is 2004, so some employee and board member positions might have changed since that time; and thirdly, some campaigns file their disclosures on a quarterly basis, so recent contributions may not have yet appeared in the FEC database.)

The political contributions by the CAIR officials that could be identified so overwhelmingly favor the Democratic Party that I was only able to find three donations in the two-year 2006 political cycle that went to Republicans: a $300 donation by CAIR-New York President Nasir Gondal to moderate Republican Rob Simmons (CT-2), and two donations by CAIR-Houston President Tarek Hussein, who gave $1,000 to the Republican National Congressional Committee late last year, and another $1,000 to the primary campaign of Muslim candidate Ameer Omar, who ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination in TX-30 (more on Mr. Hussein’s contributions later).

One CAIR official betting on a Democratic win next month is CAIR-Ohio President Asma Mobin-Uddin, who gave $250 to Democratic challenger Mary Jo Kilroy, who is currently in a tight race against Deborah Pryce – the moderate GOP incumbent and the fourth-highest ranked Republican in the House. This congressional district (OH-15) has been targeted by the Democratic Party as one of the seats that they can pick up from Republicans in this election, and the DNC is pouring money into this race to turn this seat blue. One might believe that the abortion issue would be a determining factor for Dr. Mobin-Uddin, a licensed pediatrician, as Pryce repeatedly affirms a constitutional right to abortion; but comparing the public positions of both candidates on the issue, Kilroy is even more pro-abortion than Pryce. As the leader of a prominent Muslim organization, Mobin-Uddin’s support for Kilroy very curious.

CAIR-California President Rashid Ahmad is another CAIR state chapter leader also betting on the Democrats this election cycle, giving $500 to Rep. Doris Matsui (CA-5), in her reelection bid – his only campaign contribution documented thus far.

The disproportionate spending by CAIR officials isn’t limited to the state chapters. In fact, board members of the national CAIR organization are apparently the most active political givers in the country – with all of their money going exclusively to Democrats.

Take, for instance, CAIR Co-founder and Chairman Emeritus Omar Ahmed. In May of this year, Ahmed went on a political giving spree, making $250 donations to five different Democratic congressional candidates, though none of the recipients are running in his home state of California. Four of the races Ahmed has given to are for seats currently being held by the GOP and have been identified by the Democratic Party as districts that they hope to change hands in this election. One of those seats is open, currently held by retiring Rep. Henry Hyde (IL-6), where Ahmed is backing Democrat Tammy Duckworth – a disabled Iraqi War veteran who opposes the Bush Administration’s policies in Iraq. In another race, Ahmed is backing Democrat Patricia Madrid against Rep. Heather Wilson (NM-1) – the only female veteran currently serving in Congress (House and Senate). The other two Republicans targeted by Ahmed’s political contributions are Rep. Clay Shaw (FL-22) and Rep. Charles Taylor (NC-11). He also gave money to Democratic incumbent Melissa Bean (IL-8).

Those who have closely watched the news regarding CAIR in recent years might be familiar with Omar Ahmed. He was CAIR’s founding Board Chairman, a position he held until May 2005. He is also the former president of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) – the parent organization of CAIR that closed down after a federal court found them liable as a front for the terrorist organization, HAMAS, in the death of an American teenager killed in a HAMAS attack (see Joe Kaufman’s article “Death of a Terror Lobby”). According to testimony by counterterrorism expert Steve Emerson, author of American Jihad, before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism in February 1998, “IAP has issued Hamas communiques calling for the killing of Jews, produced training videos for Hamas operatives, and actually recruited for Hamas in the United States.”

Ahmed has also drawn fire for comments he made in 1998 explaining CAIR’s role in the future domination of Islam in America, recorded at the time by the San Ramon Valley Herald (July 4, 1998):

One of Ahmed’s former IAP colleagues, CAIR Co-founder, board member and Executive Director, Nihad Awad, is also enthusiastically giving to Democrats this cycle. Awad served as IAP’s Director of Public Relations, and his name regularly appears in Steve Emerson’s 1998 Senate testimony on the IAP, HAMAS and CAIR connection. He currently runs CAIR’s day-to-day operations.

One curiosity about Awad’s political contributions is that after he infamously gave $500 to Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney on September 11, 2001, he began using another name – Nehad Hammad – for his subsequent political giving. As Debbie Schlussel has previously noted, Awad had used the name “Nehad A. Hammad” in CAIR documents filed with the IRS in the early 1990s, and has taken up that same name for all of his political giving since his 9/11 donation.

In the current 2006 election, Awad has put all of his money – $2,000 – into the candidacy of Keith Ellison, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) nominee for the MN-5 Congressional District. The district has been drawn overwhelmingly Democratic, and Ellison is a shoe-in to win the election, which will make him the first-ever elected Muslim official in the federal government. As Scott Johnson explained two weeks ago in the Weekly Standard (“Louis Farrakhan’s First Congressman”), Ellison has been criticized for failing to pay $25,000 in income taxes, his long-time association with the Nation of Islam, and habitually defending anti-Semitic remarks made by his associates.

But that hasn’t stopped CAIR from throwing its considerable weight behind Ellison’s bid to become the first elected Muslim federal officeholder. As Joel Mowbray pointed out in the Washington Times last month, Awad has not only given his own money towards Ellison’s campaign, but he headlined a campaign fundraiser in August for Ellison, which netted him $15,000-$20,000, and is responsible for bundling at least $10,000 more in contributions for the candidate (Robert Spencer has also covered the Ellison-Awad connection, “Keith Ellison, CAIR and HAMAS”).

And just last week, Joe Kaufman reported that Ellison was speaking at a closed-door event for CAIR-Florida with Jim Davis, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate for Florida, and that other CAIR officials, including CAIR National Governmental Affairs Director Corey Saylor and CAIR National Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed – a professor of Finance at the University of North Florida – have also contributed $1,000 and $500, respectively, to Ellison’s campaign.

But after Kaufman publicly revealed the hush-hush Ellison-CAIR event, Nihad Awad and Parvez Ahmed came out swinging in an editorial published by the Star Tribune accusing “right-wing bloggers, agenda-driven commentators and political operatives” of using the event to engage in “scurrilous smear tactics in an attempt to derail his campaign and to marginalize American Muslim voters." Of course, there's nothing "scurrilous" about it. Their political donations to Ellison can be obtained by anyone in the world with an Internet connection searching the FEC online database.

Keith Ellison has not been the chief beneficiary of CAIR’s giving, however. One name that continually appears in the political contributions of CAIR officials in the 2002, 2004 and 2006 election cycles is none other than Rep. Cynthia McKinney – perhaps the most rabidly anti-war member of Congress and who has accused President Bush of being secretly behind the 9/11 attacks. As Daniel Pipes noted in 2004, McKinney has been the recipient of political contributions from a Who’s Who of radical Islamic organizations in America.

McKinney has had a long and profitable history with CAIR. When she faced a tough challenger in the Democratic primary in 2002 (a primary race she would eventually lose, costing her congressional seat), CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad/Nehad Hammad gave not only his controversial $500 September 11, 2001 donation to her campaign, but a last-minute $1,000 in the closing days of her losing primary campaign, in addition to the $1,000 he gave to Democrat Rep. Jim Moran (VA-8) in the 2002 cycle. CAIR-Philadelphia Chairman Iftekhar Hussain also came through with $3,000 for McKinney that year, joined by fellow board member Mahmood Siddique, who gave $800 bundled with Hussain’s contribution. CAIR-Chicago board member Muhammad Kudaimi also attempted to come to McKinney’s rescue in 2002 with a late pre-primary $1,000 contribution, as well as another $1,000 from his wife, Randa Loutfi, but all to no avail.

And in McKinney’s unsuccessful bid to keep her congressional seat in this current 2006 election cycle, she received $500 from CAIR-Houston President Tarek Hussein, the same man responsible for only two of three contributions to Republicans by CAIR officials on all levels that I could find.

This giving to McKinney exposes a trend in data on giving by CAIR officials in the 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections – giving that appears to be driven more by anti-war and pro-radical Islamic ideology than political calculation. But perhaps for these CAIR officials, they are perceived to be one in the same, as they give to some of the most extreme elements on the American political spectrum.

For instance, between 2002 and 2004, Tarek Hussein gave four separate donations to conspiracy theorist and notorious anti-Semite, Lyndon LaRouche. And in the 2004 Presidential Election, there were no recorded donations by CAIR officials to Democratic Party nominee John Kerry, but two for Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader (by CAIR Co-founders Omar Ahmed and Nihad Awad/Nehad Hammad), and another for Moonbat Democratic candidate, Dennis Kucinich, by CAIR-Southern California Executive Director Hussam Ayloush. If these candidates are representative of the ideology that CAIR identifies with, they is not only out of the American mainstream, but even the mainstream of the Democratic Party itself.

But that notwithstanding, at present CAIR officials are content to liberally spread their campaign contributions to Democrats, apparently on the gamble that they will take one, if not both, chambers of Congress. Cynthia McKinney will be gone, of course, but Keith Ellison is certain to be there to carry the congressional water for radical Islam. With Democrats in control, CAIR is betting that they will be better represented on Capitol Hill in their self-proclaimed goal of eventual Islamic domination for America. Maybe that is something that citizens should keep in mind on November 7^th as they go to the polls and vote.

(Just for the record, I have not contributed to any candidate, political party or PAC in the 2002, 2004 or 2006 cycles.) "

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=25136