Yet another CAIR leader linked to jihad terror. Will Newsweek, and the mainstream media in general, revise its assessment of this band of thugs? Don't hold your breath. "Dallas Islamic Leader Deported: Government links him to terror groups," by Scott Gordon for NBCDFW.com, February 19 (thanks to all who sent this in):
An immigration judge in Dallas on Friday ordered an outspoken Islamic leader deported after the U.S. government alleged he had ties to terrorist groups in the Middle East.Nabil Sadoun, a Dallas resident and former board member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, was deported to his native Jordan after he failed to appear at his immigration hearing. He entered the U.S. in August 1993.
Sadoun's attorney, Kimberly Kinser, said he was already in Jordan and was unable to return to Texas because the government had taken his permanent resident card, or green card.
She denied he was tied to any terrorist groups....
In court, the judge made vague references to the government's voluminous motion to deport him, including alleged involvement with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. The judge concluded Sadoun lied on government forms when he denied he was a member.
The judge also indicated there was evidence Sadoun contributed to the Richardson-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which was the largest Islamic charity in the United States. Prosecutors convicted the group of funneling money to terrorist groups and several of its leaders were sent to prison. In the case, CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator....
Ibrahim Hooper, a CAIR spokesman, said Sadoun left the organization several months ago.
Asked the reason for his departure, Hooper said, "Board members come on, (and) they leave."...
A non-answer from that skillful beekeeper of media bees, Honest Ibe Hooper.
But Rashad Hussain who defended an even worse top Islamic terrorist got promoted as Obama's "envoy" to the Organization of Islamic Conference.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
Because Hussein is a Muslim.
This just made me think of a great idea. Give each of these unedited co-conspirators and hate preaching mouth pieces and Imams a free return ticket to some Islamic vacation paradise, and then deny them re-entry into the Country. It’d be way cheaper than going after them legally.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)
also available in French intro+Chapter 1 so far
‘Le Guide Politiquement Incorrect de l'Islam’ disponible en Français intro+chapitre 1
don' t hesitate to share this with your french speaking friends using social networks buttons available on the website or email share options.
http://www.avraidire.eu/category/islam/robert-spencer-islam/le-guide-politiquement-incorrect-de-lislam-robert-spencer-islam-islam/
An immigration judge in Dallas on Friday ordered an outspoken Islamic leader deported after the U.S. government alleged he had ties to terrorist groups in the Middle East.
.........................
"Outspoken", huh? Great phrasing.
Nabil Sadoun has served on the board of the United Association for Studies and Research. Despite the bland name, investigators believe it to be a key Hamas front in America. In fact, Sadoun co-founded UASR with Hamas leader Marzook.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6458
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Kimberly Kinser, Sadoun's attorney, "denied he was tied to any terrorist groups..." Great. Another lawyer giving the law profession a bad name. It's one thing to defend a bastard. It's entirely another to make obviously specious statements about him.
Another CAIR guy bit the dust...or he will when he gets to Jordan...if CAIR is not careful, it will get a bad name...
The real question is: where do we deport Fibbi Hooper and his enablers to?
He was in Jordan and didn't return. That makes it easier. The real test will be cases leading to deportation of those still in this country. Not deportation of those here illegally -- that's easy. But deportation of those here, even if temporarily, legally. And finally, deportation, after stripping of citizenship, from those who committed perjury -- swearing an oath of loyalty to this country when they could not possibly have meant it in any way that makes, for us, and for our legal and political institutions, sense. We are not required to allow to remain in this country those who cannot possibly, because of their deep beliefs, or their allegiance to an identity that causes them, even without or especially without thought, to embrace something that flatly contradicts in letter and spirit the Constitution of the United States. There is no such obligation.
Fully agree with your prescriptions, Hugh. But I wonder, does there presently exist a legal mechanism to actually strip a naturalized citizen of citizenship based on perjory committed during the swearing in ceremony when the oath of loyalty to the U.S. is given? If not, then there certainly should be, although I can't imagine how it would be enforced. Maybe some of the lawyers here could comment on this.
"The real question is: where do we deport Fibbi Hooper and his enablers to?"
How about a dusty village in Yemen?
Wellington wrote:
Kimberly Kinser, Sadoun's attorney, "denied he was tied to any terrorist groups..." Great. Another lawyer giving the law profession a bad name. It's one thing to defend a bastard. It's entirely another to make obviously specious statements about him.
......................
I absolutely agree, Wellington. Everyone deserves a professional legal defense—but they do not automatically warrant a foolish attorney who goes publicly out on a limb for them over their supposed innocence.
I run into people all the time—*including those in the legal profession*—who do not seem to understand the difference.
Mr Spencer; every time I hear a Muslim squirm trying to extricate himself from being caught in a lie, I always think of a song that was popular when I was fourteen in the early sixties. It's Chad Mitchell Trio's "I was not a Nazi Polka."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNqoX7Z7OJ0
Cool tuneage -- though a little before my time (ahem...).
But good music is timeless.
"Prost!"
Well, maybe the system worked in this case.
Hugh, one reason why it is so difficult to get an effective deportation order for someone who is in the USA--legally or otherwise--is the Fourteenth Amendment. It says that the equal protection of the laws extends to all who are under the jurisdiction of the USA. I'm not 100% sure that I'm against that.
Good news!
I do not believe that any native-born U.S. citizenship can be stripped of citizenship and deported. If there is a precedent, someone should let me know.
A naturalized citizen can be stripped of his citizenship and deported. Witness John Demanjuk, stripped of his citizenship years ago and recently deported to Germany to stand trial for his crimes.
One can only hope that the deportation process of non-citizens will be sped up; and, if naturalized citizens can be proved to have lied to get their status, they too should be deported.
It doesn't surprise me at all that so much news is emanating from the Dallas area, where there is a huge immigrant Muslim presence. Just prior to 9/11, propaganda posters from the Holyland Foundation, a terrorist front organization that was busted soon after the World Trade Center attacks, showed up as paid advertisements on Dallas public buses.
A Hezbollah cell has been broken up in Miami:
Exactly why were these guys allowed into this country?
Sorry for the dead link. The Hezbollah cell arrest can be found here: http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Miami-Men-Funded-Terror-With-Playstations-Cops-Say-84855027.html
I believe the controlling case here, Eastview, is still the 1958 Trop v. Dulles ruling whereby the Supreme Court maintained that loss of citizenship for a birth-right citizen would violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. If there's a later case on this, I'm not aware of it. But, in any event, perhaps it's overdue for a statute stripping a native-born American of his citizenship for treasonous behavior. Then, of course, it would be Supreme Court time before long and who knows what those nine would rule about such a law.
BTW, got O'Neill's work just a few days ago in the mail and, of course, went right to the Appendix where O'Neill mentions a Heribert Illig, a German historian whom I had not heard of, who first proposed the "lost centuries" hypothesis back in the early 1990s. Wow! That's what I kept thinking as I read on and, yes, I'm very, very skeptical but there was a small part of me that couldn't help thinking what if Illig and O'Neill are correct. Still trying to digest all the ramifications of such a radical hypothesis while at the same time remaining dubious about it all. But what if, eh?
Yes, I like the idea for there is another up-side to it.
Upon return to a Middle Eastern paradise of their choice, horror ! The country will already be full of Males spouting hatred to all and sundry. Thus no more Kudos.
Not wanting to start on the bottom rung of the ladder the invalid flight ticket back becomes all the more fitting.
The Demanjuk case comes to mind. It proves that it can be done. And what's cruel and unusual about it?
What Muslims have in store for us once they take over is far worse. Throughout history there have been mass expulsions, bloody, unjustified and cruel.
And yet, I cannot think of any particular case of mass evictions that would be more justified than in the case of the Muslim invasion, which must be reversed.
Stop treating the soldiers of allah as if we could somehow get along. This is a problem that won't go away with interfaith or kumbaya.
We cannot coexist. We can't. Islam doesn't allow it.
"...in the tri-border region of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay."
Cool! In August I'm going to a week long conference in Iguassu Falls, Brazil, which is exactly at the location in question. It's just a short stroll over a bridge crossing the falls from Brazil into Paraguay, so maybe I'll have a wander on over and take a look see. In any case, will certainly use the occasion to ask around about what the situation is there regarding Muslim immigration.
Wellington, I thought that might be the case for a birth-right citizens. But what about naturalized citizens who could potentially be charged with violations of a solemn oath? Would the same law apply?
About O'Neill's book - the curious thing is that he barely mentions the "lost centuries hypothesis" in the main part of the book, which otherwise makes very strong arguments that the Muslims were not the keeper of the torch of Greek and Roman learning until the European barbarians became civilized enough to pick up it up, as they insist "bringing the light of Islam" did. Rather they were the destroyers of what had been not only a thriving Visigoth civilization in Spain, but ravagers and destroyers of cultures throughout the Mediterranean, and this was the real cause of the collapse of European civilization and its descent into the Dark Ages between the Seventh and Tenth centuries. He makes connections that I had not read about before, such as between Muslims and the Vikings, who were basically subcontracted the job of collecting white European slaves for the Arab emirates.
It was very interesting reading, but then I was fairly taken aback when I came to the Appendix to discover his radical hypothesis laid out in detail, so at variance with standard history does it seem. But I have to admit, in pondering it some more I find myself saying, you know, if this is true then it would mean A, B, and C, and that would then explain D, E, and F. I rather imagine that at some point mainstream historians and archeologists will weigh in on this, and when they do it will be a fascinating exchange to follow.
Who knows, the tectonic plate theory was scoffed at for a long time, as was the Chicxulub connection to the dinosaur extinction 65M years ago, and the church burned Bruno at the stake for advocating the radical heliocentric theory. But once everyone got over the shocks of such a radical hypotheses and started looking into them and evidence examined closely (usually by younger people who didn't have a large stake in maintaining the status quo), eventually these came to be accepted as true. Maybe the same will happen here. Now that would be something, wouldn't it?
More about O'Neill - the usual sequence for radically new ideas that eventually survive is:
1. First they ignore you.
2. Then they laugh at you.
3. Then they fight you.
4. Then you win.
He's barely into Stage 1 at this point, and it's not clear if he'll ever get beyond this first stage. Stage 3 is probably where we could expect Muslim rioting in the streets.
Will everybody please join me in writing a letter yo the NEWSWEEK editor? I cancelled my subscription to them years ago because of their institutional bias. I wonder how many subscribers they have now.
Sheik Yer'mami you take the words out of my mouth. We cannot coexist with them nor do we (or indeed they) want to. Why should we be subjected to their filthy way of life? Spitting, snorting, eating with their hands, filthy clothes, even filthier bodies, I could go on and on and that's just their personal habits.
Deport the lot of them. Strip them of their citizenship and charter huge planes to drop them to the desert or at best a dusty village in Yemen. Discontinue all flights to the Middle East to and from the civilized (i.e. Western) world. It would be like Cuba. If you want or need to go there you would have to try damn hard, but the vast majority of us wouldn't bother. And as for them? Not one, not a single one shold be allowed into the USA or Europe. Let them stew in the desert alongside their muttons. They will always have Allah.
"...or at best a dusty village in Yemen."
You took the words right out of my mouth, Buddica! (see my post of 2/20, 5:48 PM)!
I see we're thinking alike! And I agree with everything you said. Unfortunately, however - we still need their oil. A nasty little accident of geography.
darcy sez:
"Unfortunately, however - we still need their oil."
Unfortunately, this is the biggest misconception of all.
While it is true that we do need oil, it is equally true that the Arabs have to sell it because they got nothing else to trade with. Keep in mind that Arab muslims produce nothing, nada, niente, nulla, zilch.
In fact everything they consume is produced by us. Nothing works in Arabia without our knowhow and technology. Thus we have leverage which we are not using.
The question is: why not?
"Thus we have leverage which we are not using.
The question is: Why not?"
Don't know. And, why does our president bow to them and appease them and tell lies about how fabulous and wonderful Islam is?
As sheik yer'mami and Jim Foster mentioned above the Demanjuk case shows that a naturalized citizen can, on rare occasions, be stripped of his citizenship. So, yes, there is a distinction between birth-right citizens and naturalized ones. But things could change over time and I would not be suprised if ten, twenty years down the road, assuming Muslims continue to behave very badly and in a lethal fashion (which I think they will), then a law might be passed stripping any Muslim extremist who acts upon his extremism of his citizenship, irrespective of how his American citizenship was acquired.
I did a little further looking into that Illig hyposthesis and found that there are refutations of it out there to be sure. Two such mentioned that dendrological and astronomical information we have both help to disprove the hypothesis. Tree rings research and sky patterns reported by some ancient authors sustain the orthodox time frame and not O'Neill's or Illig's. Still, I'm grateful to you for pointing out this matter and will continue following it, just for the hell of it if for no other reason. I also agree with your other post respecting the sequence for radical ideas, though, as you mentioned, O'Neill et al. may never move past step one.
I read one of the slanted Newsweek articles, "Why Fears Of A Muslim Takeover Are All Wrong", at:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/206230
If you remove the fervent denials of the likelihood of Islamic ascendancy in Europe's future, you are left with lots of facts that could easily lead to concluding that Islamic political/social ascendancy is Europe's future. It is almost as if the writer (William Underhill) is crying out for this to be heard but that he also knows he is not allowed to print the opinion to which the facts point.
Even his opinions are not all confident: "Coming up with a reasonable estimate for the percentage of Muslims now living in Europe, let alone making projections for the future, is a virtually impossible task." This could swing both ways.
A reasonable approach toward assisting in his enlightenment, and others like him, would be to write directly to him, pedagogically, sticking to facts; events, history, statistics, ideology/theology. Maybe there are those in his profession who need facts and protection from the PC police.
Hi Darcy,
We do indeed think alike. You, me and millions, silent others.
We do need their oil, but seeing that they can't dig it out of the ground without our knowhow and technology (see also Sheik Yer'mami excellent post in this regard) I am sure a mutually convenient agreement could be negotiated. Trouble is our leaders have no balls and no convictions. It would be sooo easy to tell the Saudis et all where to stick it! I bet you they would still sell us the oil. Although they would be barred from travelling to the UK, USA etc., swanning around with their petro dollars, buying up properties in highly desired areas and their wives shopping at Agent Provocateur (makes you laugh doesn't it, the post boxes clad in black tents shopping for sexy lingerie). You couldn't make it up!
Keep up the good work! You never know, one of these millions of others might wake up and take action.
"Tree rings research and sky patterns..."
These occurred to me, too. The tree ring records are continuous and easily go back that far, as are the ice core records, which go back even farther. Astronomical records are less certain, but tracking back the planetary positions and associating them to written accounts of historical events has been pretty successful, and here, too, a 300 year discrepancy would have been noticed. Same with establishing the dates of Pompei and other large volcanic events from that period. I imagine there must be many archeological difficulties with O'Neill's hypothesis, as well.
There would also be problems, I should imagine, with geneological records. Some family lines, including of course the descendents of Mohammad, can be traced back to the Seventh century. Three hundred years would be about 10-15 generations, and even accounting for uncertanties about specific birth/death dates at the 1-5 year level, a gap of 300 years would be very hard to reconcile with geneological records.
Clarification about Pompei - This occurred before the Dark Ages, but the point here is that deleting 297 years from the calendar starting at ~700 CE would be very difficult to reconcile with many disparate forms of historical records and physical evidence.
I understand that the Queen of England's pedigree can be traced back to Alfred in unbroken succession, parent to child, though taking various detours through the female line along the way.
Hey, Mikael....there's a nice open desk by the window now.
If the reason for the ersatz "stripping of citizenship" would be for "treacherous" behavior, then why aren't they simply accused of treason and executed?
Why would we allow traitors to leave the country and avoid the constitutional penalty for their actions?
Lack of will?
Wellington, there was a widespread deportation of illegal immigrants from Mexico in California during the Depression.
The post-WW1 era and our great fear of radical leftism also witnessed the deportation of numerous anarchist and Marxist political activists.