FBI Told To "Back-0ff" Muslim Converts

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
This week Obama's "inner Muslim" (the one he said he didn't really have during campaign) grew much stronger than his "outer Christian" as he has shown renewed enthusiasm for Islam and Muslims. Indeed he said in his speech he considers even "stereotypes" of Islam to be a part of his presidential duties:

""I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear"

Signs of Obama's new Muslim favoritism are now manifesting. Now that returning vets etc are seen as the "real" domestic threat (ala Homeland security), potential Islamic terrorists are now the new oppressed class. This is what happens when a guy who could not pass FBI check gets elected to lead gov.

From STRATFOR:

"Several weeks ago, STRATFOR heard from sources that the FBI and other law enforcement organizations had been ordered to "back off" of counterterrorism investigations into the activities of Black Muslim converts. At this point, it is unclear to us if that guidance was given by the White House or the Department of Justice, or if it was promulgated by the agencies themselves, anticipating the wishes of President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

As STRATFOR has previously noted, the FBI has a culture that is very conservative and risk-averse. Many FBI supervisors are reluctant to authorize investigations that they believe may have negative blow-back on their career advancement. In light of this institutional culture, and the order to be careful in investigations relating to Black Muslim converts, it would not be at all surprising to us if a supervisor refused to authorize a full-field investigation of Muhammad that would have included surveillance of his activities. Though in practical terms, even if a full-field investigation had been authorized, due to the caution being exercised in cases related to Black Muslim converts, the case would most likely have been micromanaged to the point of inaction by the special agent in charge of the office involved or by FBI headquarters. "


http://www.stratfor.com/weekly...0603_lone_wolf_lessons


Another sign of Obama/Holder special rights (along with stick wielding Black Panthers" in Philly getting charges dropped). DOJ has special announcement :


"Statement of Attorney General Eric Holder on Department of Justice?s Outreach and Enforcement Efforts to Protect American Muslims"

Thursday, June 4, 2009

"U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder released the following statement relating to President Obama?s historic speech today in Cairo, Egypt:

"The President's pledge for a new beginning between the United States and the Muslim community takes root here in the Justice Department where we are committed to using criminal and civil rights laws to protect Muslim Americans. A top priority of this Justice Department is a return to robust civil rights enforcement and outreach in defending religious freedoms and other fundamental rights of all of our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the housing market, in our schools and in the voting booth.

"There are those who will continue to want to divide by fear - to pit our national security against our civil liberties - but that is a false choice. We have a solemn responsibility to protect our people while we also protect our principles."

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speech.../ag-speech-090604.html

The Washington Post had good words for this:

""Color me naive but I thought all Americans are supposed to have their civil rights protected. OK, one might argue that this was simply done in conjunction with the president's Cairo trip and is not out of the scope of the ordinary. Except that it is a first time the Obama Justice Department has done this for any religious group. And it begs the question do we now need special set aside categories of civil protections for certain religious groups? If so, which ones and why?"


Extra 'civil protection' for American Muslims

http://washingtontimes.com/web...slims/?feat=home_blogs



 

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
I should add Holder has shown special sympathies for terrorists before:

"Eric Holder pushed for controversial clemency"

"As deputy attorney general in 1999, Holder -- now attorney general nominee -- pressed subordinates to drop objections to clemency for 16 members of violent Puerto Rican nationalist organizations"


"Reporting from Washington ? Attorney general nominee Eric H. Holder Jr. repeatedly pushed some of his subordinates at the Clinton Justice Department to drop their opposition to a controversial 1999 grant of clemency to 16 members of two violent Puerto Rican nationalist organizations, according to interviews and documents. Details of the role played by Holder, who was deputy attorney general at the time, had not been publicly known until now."

http://articles.latimes.com/20...n/09/nation/na-holder9

Hummmm...





 
Dec 10, 2005
28,054
12,668
136
WWYBYWB?

winnar? Not quite the right partisan spin on things....
butterbean? not crazy enough...
hm...
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
I should add Holder has shown special sympathies for terrorists before:

...

This is the second time in as many posts you've used "Muslim" and "terrorist" interchangeably. Now you may have forgotten that in this country you're not allowed to go after people because you don't like their religion, but the President clearly hasn't forgotten that his oath of office REQUIRES that he makes sure people have the right to worship as they choose. Protecting the rights of Muslims doesn't make him Muslim, it makes him American.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Barry, please just ask the mods to unlock your old account. This new one and the quality of posts it generates sucks. Thanks.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
...

The Washington Post had good words for this:

""Color me naive but I thought all Americans are supposed to have their civil rights protected. OK, one might argue that this was simply done in conjunction with the president's Cairo trip and is not out of the scope of the ordinary. Except that it is a first time the Obama Justice Department has done this for any religious group. And it begs the question do we now need special set aside categories of civil protections for certain religious groups? If so, which ones and why?"


Extra 'civil protection' for American Muslims

http://washingtontimes.com/web...slims/?feat=home_blogs

I put the only "good words" there in bold, because they describe the problem so perfectly. You and whoever wrote that are either hopelessly naive or total morons...or more likely, playing dumb to make your argument easier. Nobody needs to go to any special effort to make sure the civil rights of white Christians are protected, that's how the system works. But if you don't think there is a threat to the civil liberties of Muslim-Americans in particular, then you've clearly been hiding out in the cave with Osama.

Influential voices, as well as an alarming percentage of the public, have suggested frequently and at great volume that we should specifically target Muslims for extra surveillance and security consideration, despite the fact that doing so is blatantly against the civil rights of Americans who have done nothing wrong. Many people go even farther, with a particular popular conservative writer (Malkin, I believe) suggesting that internment camps for Muslim-Americans would be an acceptable. I don't think Muslims should get extra civil liberties, but the ones they should have anyways seem like they really DO need some extra protection.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,532
6,701
126
Originally posted by: Mani
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
LOL.

I think this pretty much says it all. Wow.

Maybe for you two. Personally, I find it rather terrifying that my country with all it's wealth and freedom and capacity to educate it's people can still produce folk like this and in considerable numbers. It's a shame. This poor bastard has been through a concentration camp and doesn't know it.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
WoW!! You think the mods would be able to ban people using their IP addresses.
This thread is going nowhere quick.

The words -- paranoid and delusional and winnar...comes to mind!
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Were winnar or butterbean banned?

I am sure there are other forums where they could get more agreement and support for their world views than they got here.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Not surprising considering the rumors of Obama being a closet Muslim.
Look at the attempted Bronx bombing. Look at shooting of the solders. What do they have in common? Muslim converts were behind it!
 

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
OP, seek help. You're dangerously paranoid and delusional.

One of us is - don't think it's me though. Obama (with great media help) presented himself as a "Christian" who was strongly in favor of the security of Israel. His Muslim background was minimized and people bridging it up were defamed.

Now just a few months into administration Obama is winking at Iran and it's nukes and
throwing Israel under the bus. His speech in Cairo gave recognition to Hamas. Certainly these things should be considered along with Obama's special rights for Muslim's (and Holder himself tied policy to Cairo speech).

A new poll shows most Americans do not support special rights

"83% Say U.S. Legal System Should Treat All Americans Equally"

http://www.rasmussenreports.co..._all_americans_equally


Of course CAIR is not part of the 83% and were ecstatic with Obama's new policy. Keep in mind CAIR was dropped by FBI for terrorist connections:


"The FBI is severing its once-close ties with the nation's largest Muslim advocacy group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, amid mounting evidence that it has links to a support network for Hamas.

All local chapters of CAIR have been shunned in the wake of a 15-year FBI investigation that culminated with the conviction in December of Hamas fundraisers at a trial where CAIR itself was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator."

Obama said in his Cairo speech that he wanted to protect Muslim ability to make donations (zakat)

"In the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat."

The problem is a lot of Muslim donations end up going to terrorist organizations. It's perfectly responsible for US to limit such funding. Obama has no problem limiting tax deductible donations for Americans so no tears should be shed over limiting Muslim donations going to Hamas (who endorsed Obama btw) etc. Of course I don't think Obama cares about that at all.



 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,836
4,936
136
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Originally posted by: eskimospy
OP, seek help. You're dangerously paranoid and delusional.

One of us is - don't think it's me though. Obama (with great media help) presented himself as a "Christian" who was strongly in favor of the security of Israel. His Muslim background was minimized and people bridging it up were defamed.

Now just a few months into administration Obama is winking at Iran and it's nukes and
throwing Israel under the bus. His speech in Cairo gave recognition to Hamas. Certainly these things should be considered along with Obama's special rights for Muslim's (and Holder himself tied policy to Cairo speech).

A new poll shows most Americans do not support special rights

"83% Say U.S. Legal System Should Treat All Americans Equally"

http://www.rasmussenreports.co..._all_americans_equally


Of course CAIR is not part of the 83% and were ecstatic with Obama's new policy. Keep in mind CAIR was dropped by FBI for terrorist connections:


"The FBI is severing its once-close ties with the nation's largest Muslim advocacy group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, amid mounting evidence that it has links to a support network for Hamas.

All local chapters of CAIR have been shunned in the wake of a 15-year FBI investigation that culminated with the conviction in December of Hamas fundraisers at a trial where CAIR itself was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator."

Obama said in his Cairo speech that he wanted to protect Muslim ability to make donations (zakat)

"In the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat."

The problem is a lot of Muslim donations end up going to terrorist organizations. It's perfectly responsible for US to limit such funding. Obama has no problem limiting tax deductible donations for Americans so no tears should be shed over limiting Muslim donations going to Hamas (who endorsed Obama btw) etc. Of course I don't think Obama cares about that at all.


Hi Butterwinnar.
 

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
I should add Holder has shown special sympathies for terrorists before:

...

This is the second time in as many posts you've used "Muslim" and "terrorist" interchangeably. Now you may have forgotten that in this country you're not allowed to go after people because you don't like their religion, but the President clearly hasn't forgotten that his oath of office REQUIRES that he makes sure people have the right to worship as they choose. Protecting the rights of Muslims doesn't make him Muslim, it makes him American.

Obama had no problem revoking the "conscience rule" shielding health workers who refuse to participate in abortions or other medical activities that go against their beliefs. Obama is (and always has been) a sociopathic double talker.

I know most Muslims are not terrorists but that most terrorists are Muslims. The fact Obama's administration is more concerned with returning vets being terrorists while Muslim converts are getting special exclusions is very telling. The Clinton FBI also ignored Islamic terror to focus on vast right wing conspiracy but Obama will outdo them I am sure.
 

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
[ I don't think Muslims should get extra civil liberties, but the ones they should have anyways seem like they really DO need some extra protection.

You actually do agree with special rights for Muslims - which is what Obama/Holder are setting up. Again I will mention poll showing vast majority of Americans are against this sort of thing:

'83% Say U.S. Legal System Should Treat All Americans Equally'

"Eighty-three percent (83%) of U.S. voters say America?s legal system should apply the law equally to all Americans rather than using the law to help those who have less power and influence. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 8% disagree.

This belief is shared overwhelmingly by Republicans, Democrats and voters not identified with either party."

http://www.rasmussenreports.co..._all_americans_equally

 

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
WoW!! You think the mods would be able to ban people using their IP addresses.
This thread is going nowhere quick.

The words -- paranoid and delusional and winnar...comes to mind!

An easy way to tell difference between lib and cons is that libs always want to shut down information/opinions they dont like - all while squealing about freedom of speech for pornographers, terrorists etc.

Returning to topic at hand, I am sure Obama will go for laws making non politically correct speech a crime (as in France etc.)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,532
6,701
126
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
WoW!! You think the mods would be able to ban people using their IP addresses.
This thread is going nowhere quick.

The words -- paranoid and delusional and winnar...comes to mind!

An easy way to tell difference between lib and cons is that libs always want to shut down information/opinions they dont like - all while squealing about freedom of speech for pornographers, terrorists etc.

Returning to topic at hand, I am sure Obama will go for laws making non politically correct speech a crime (as in France etc.)

I don't want to shut you down. I want you to know how sorry I feel that you are so far around the bend. I think you must have suffered greatly to be that removed from reality. I want you to know that happiness is possible even if you die to all this nonsense you believe.

I personally would encourage you to come out with as much of this stuff as you can. I don't want you to suppress it, I want you to vomit it up. You will feel much better, I know.

Good luck to you. You believe as you do not because you are bad, but because you believe that you are on the side of good. The good is good. There is a good. It just doesn't happen to be what you were taught to believe. We are all the same, liberals and conservatives, all lovers of the good. Our mistake is thinking we know what it is. We were ridiculed for not being sure. We had to become fanatics to survive. Every child crumbles under the strain.
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
WoW!! You think the mods would be able to ban people using their IP addresses.
This thread is going nowhere quick.

The words -- paranoid and delusional and winnar...comes to mind!

An easy way to tell difference between lib and cons is that libs always want to shut down information/opinions they dont like - all while squealing about freedom of speech for pornographers, terrorists etc.

Returning to topic at hand, I am sure Obama will go for laws making non politically correct speech a crime (as in France etc.)

100% true. Obama reek's of muslim sympathy while degrading his own country everywhere he goes. We're not a christian nation, but we're probably one of the biggest muslim ones! Then liberal snakes like Eskimospy and most of the batty left on here want you to believe there is nothing to worry about.

The outright attempts at deception via mocking and shutting down dissent from the left is shocking.
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
OP, seek help. You're dangerously paranoid and delusional.

Nevermind the man behind the curtain!

You sir, are a deceptive tool.