Dirty politics in the Sixth
July 2, 2008 by afp
Filed under *VirginiaPoliticsToday.com
Special Commentary by Chris Graham
freepress2@ntelos.net
I know that politics is a dirty, dirty, dirty pursuit. I just ran a local city-council campaign, so I’m not speaking about this from an academic or philosophical perspective, but from personal experience.
I’m saying that now so you can understand where I’m coming from regarding the issue being raised (again) with Sixth District Democratic Party congressional nominee Sam Rasoul and contributions made to the Rasoul campaign by two Northern Virginia men under investigation for the past six years for possible links to terrorist groups in the Middle East.
The matter first came up in the blogosphere back in April, and has come to our attention again with a post earlier this week on the Roanoke-based Star City Harbinger. The gist of the story is that Rasoul has received campaign contributions from a man named M. Yaqub Mirza, the president and CEO of the Herndon-based Sterling Management Group, and another man named Jamal Barzinji, the vice president of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, also based in Herndon. The IIIT and a network of charities associated with Mirza were the subjects of a 2002 federal raid that was part of an investigation into an international terrorist-financing network. The investigation, according to what I have been able to discern from a quick bit of research, seems to have gone cold in recent years. The most recent reference that I could find to news regarding the matter came in an October 2006 article that focused on the anger in the NoVa Muslim community that the raid was nothing more than a fishing expedition by the feds, who continued to insist that the investigation was still ongoing, and a November ‘06 update that offered a lot of the same in terms of details.
So naturally, what we’re getting in the blogosphere is a series of calls for Rasoul to return the money from Mirza and Barzinji, with a healthy insult or two from Star City blogger Hank Bostwick about what Bostwick views as evidence of inexperience and ineptitude on the part of the Rasoul campaign thrown in for good measure. These opinions are being based, interestingly enough, on allegations spurred by the Bush Justice Department that were initiated in the runup to a war that the same Bush administration based on allegations and innuendos that proved to be less than true at best and evidence of some serious cooking the books at worst, one; and two, I mean, come on, they’re six years into the investigation, and what do they have? Other than allegations and innuendos?
And now Rasoul’s critics want him to respond to their allegations and innuendos by falling on his sword and giving the contributions back? And they consider this helpful advice?
A rhetorical question comes to mind here. Does anybody in the Dear Abby set – and I’ve been told that Rasoul’s one-time nomination opponent, Drew Richardson, is another working behind the scenes to push Rasoul on this – think that giving the money back is truly going to make this issue go away? Or that Republican bloggers are going to make any less hay with this story post-return than they could now?
And speaking of that, where have the Republican bloggers been on this the past two or three months? I’m not a regular reader of the righty blogs, but I just scanned a few of what I assume to be the most-read Sixth District conservative blogs, including SWACGirl, Spank That Donkey and Augusta4Goodlatte, and my site searches came up with nothing – nothing – on the topic.
So the Republicans don’t seem to care – frankly, they’re viewing Rasoul as little more than a housefly trying to stop the steamroller that Bob Goodlatte appears to be once again in the Sixth. And even if they did, all Rasoul would do by conceding the point to his critics would be to give them fodder that they could use to paint him as some kind of extremist Muslim who has no business being elected in the Sixth District.
I’ve got to think that Rasoul’s critics are aware of these kinds of things. They’re all a lot smarter than I am, after all. All I do, really, is ask questions, and I’ll ask one more here. If Republicans don’t care, and if they were to for some reason start caring then were to make hay with the issue either way, what are we really doing here?
Dirty, dirty, dirty politics. That’s what we’re doing here.
Hank Bostwick on Wed, 2nd Jul 2008 3:13 pm
Chris,
Excellent defensive posturing. Great response piece.
A few significant problems I need to mention.
First of all, the issue was never discussed on the blogs in regards to Rasoul’s acceptance of the donations. The blog, “Republitarian,” posting “An Open Letter to Rasoul” asked some very pointed questions about Rasoul’s religious beliefs. In the comment thread, the issue of contributions was raised with Rasoul, who–unlike many politicians–was willing to engage by commenting on the blog. However, the thread ends rather abruptly as one of Rasoul’s supporters informs the readers that Rasoul has left town on family matters. Mr. Mirza’s contributions are never addressed.
Nor is there reference to Mr. Barzinji. So, no offense, but to claim that this issue has been resurrected is simply factually incorrect.
Your research should indicate that both Jim Moran (D) and the second Muslim-American elected to Congress Andre Carson (D) returned donations received from the individuals listed in the post on the Harbinger. Mr. Carson’s return of donations occurred in February of 2008.
My commentary on the donations was a rare moment for me. However, what the failure to properly vet the source of campaign contributions reveals is an inept, inexperienced campaign. Suffice it to say, this may not entirely be Rasoul’s fault.
Initially, Rick Howell was a member of Rasoul’s campaign. Soon, Howell left (I leave it to you to posit why he did) and began a tell-all blog claiming at first that Rasoul was really a Republican (having allegedly voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004) and second, that Rasoul’s campaign contributors were almost entirely from outside the District. Howell’s rantings were inappropriate, tasteless, and juvenile.
Enter Mario P. Mario left shortly after Rasoul received the nomination. Mario’s main purpose was to help Rasoul with the nomination and he was very successful to his credit. Unfortunately, perhaps, that left little time to consider the sources of campaign funding.
It is a bit premature to suggest that the Goodlatte campaign and the Republicans are not considering the evidence as well and are not planning to bring it into the MSM before November 4th.
I prefaced my post on the Harbinger with a strong admonition to our readers not to view the fact of Rasoul’s missteps through the lens of anti-Muslim sentiment. Do I dare quote myself . . .
“It is difficult to discern whether or not criticism of Muslim-American candidates, particularly first-generation ethnic Arab candidates like Rasoul, is motivated by racial or religious animus or genuine fear of the threat of terrorism from Muslim extremists. Consequently, candidates of the Muslim faith are often viewed through a lens of both suspicion, on the one hand, and ignorance, on the other. Rasoul has already explained his practice of the Muslim faith (which my grandmother would have called bed-sheet Baptists ’cause they sleep in on Sundays . . . ) and unequivocally denounced terrorism; however, a larger scandal looms on the horizon for this soon-to-be 27 year old, brow-beaten political newcomer . . .
I suggest Rasoul take the prudent next step in this scandal-cycle of his campaign. He has rejected the accusations of bloggers who claim he denies the existence of Israel and secretly wishes to recalibrate our foreign aid policy to favor the Palestinian Authority; he has stated clearly that he does not support terrorism, and, now, he must return $3000 . . . not out of fear . . . but to return the focus of this campaign season to the summer of 2008 and away from the days of confusion, outrage, and suspicion that started on September 12th, 2001.”
Finally, what retaining the donations may suggest to the voters of the Sixth District is that Rasoul is a candidate who is insensitive to issues of national security and the open-wounds of 9/11.
Rasoul should be considered on his own merits: his inspiring grassroots campaign, his refusal to let Goodlatte get away with slighting the health care needs of the Nation’s poorest children, his lack of support for a war that never should have been waged (presumably, if Rasoul did vote for W in 2004, it would be hard for him to maintain this position), and his willingness to sit down with folks he might not agree with (Unfortunately, Rasoul has been hammered on the lefty blogs for bragging about meeting with Ron Paul’s supporters due to allegations that the Paul campaign is fraught with rabid anti-Semites and racists).
You may define the act of demonstrating sensitivity to issues of terrorism and unequivocally denying anti-Israeli organizations as “falling on one’s own sword” if you wish.
Of course, Rasoul is not anti-Semitic: just ask Joel Segal of Progressive Democrats of American and the Interfaith Solidarity Committee.
On the other hand, if Rasoul is ready to courageously initiate a public conversation about the violence perpetrated against the Palestinian people at the hands of the Israeli government as former President Jimmy Carter did in his book outlining what he believes to be a system of apartheid, I will happily post that article and foster discussion of that issue.
But you and I both know that alone would cost Rasoul the election in this District.
So, Chris, he can’t have it both ways. Rasoul needs to either defend his contributors, the work they do, and why the plight of the Palestinian people should be brought to the attention of the voters in the Sixth District, or return the contributions to avoid the appearance of undue influence or sympathy or simply to acknowledge that he is sensitive to the concerns of the people he wishes to represent.
It worked for Moran and Carson; perhaps, it will work for Rasoul.
BTW, this is the first piece I’ve read by you. You have some excellent insight. I’m clicking over to chrisgrahamslist right now!
chrisgraham on Wed, 2nd Jul 2008 3:38 pm
The Republitarian and NLS references to the issue in April both offered substantial airing of the dirty laundry here in the coments sections of each. And actually, just to clarify, the thread on Republitarian, which was quite interesting for those who have not seen it (http://republitarian.com/?p=931), did not end abruptly when one of Sam’s supporters said that Sam had to leave town to attend to a family matter. That comment was #19 on the comment list, and the question posed by Jonathan Mark was comment #21, in a thread that continued on for two additional days and 36 additional comments.
And Mr. Barzinji’s name was directly referenced in the comment from Mr. Mark.
So this is, in my view, anyway, old news. Now, Sam has not addressed it in the way that some would like him to, sure. He has not sent the money back, and he has not, as one person told me yesterday is being suggested by Drew Richardson, gone to the FBI and asked to be cleared of any wrongdoing, which if that was accurately reported to me, is beyond asinine. But it’s still not anything new, and frankly, looking at this from a political lens, I don’t see any way that him doing what you are suggesting will make anything better in anybody’s mind.
I think you have every right to bring this issue up for public discussion as you wish, the same as similar issues were raised with the congressmen that you referenced both in your piece on SCH and above here. I personally don’t view this as being anything of substance in terms of issues that will be voting issues at the ballot box on Nov. 4, and that is the issue that I am bringing up here in this column.
And as to Moran and Carson, hey, they allowed themselves to be browbeaten into doing something that didn’t make political sense. Perhaps Sam deserves kudos for not allowing us in the blogosphere to tell him that something that makes no sense does because we say it loud and clear.
Hank Bostwick on Wed, 2nd Jul 2008 4:09 pm
Re-check all the links in those threads. All dead . . . so there is no access to the original research by the blogger Jonathan Mark (that I can find), who I mention in my post.
Brother, this is too easy. Recheck the comment thread: Rasoul makes no further comment after Mr. Fulk’s, ergo, the “conversation ends abruptly.”
As to the Drew Richardson suggestion . . . I cannot speak for someone who I have not met personally, but I get the sense that he is searching for some way to objectively clear Rasoul of any taint of terrorist connection . . . clumsy, perhaps, but there are few options left.
Your analysis of the actions of Carson and Moran may have to wait until November 5th for genuine criticism. Until then, the simple fact that their campaigns were so successful is the only one we have to go on.
Excellent exchange, Chris.
chrisgraham on Wed, 2nd Jul 2008 5:05 pm
The conversation continued for some time. Sam wasn’t part of it, but the surrogates seemed to do a fine job of bringing all the issues out there to me.
I don’t get the sense that Richardson is out to actually assist Sam. My feeling, just a feeling, is that he has ulterior motives (like a run in 2010, after Sam does some of his heavy lifting).
Excellent exchange, indeed.
Cliff Garstang on Wed, 2nd Jul 2008 7:15 pm
Chris,
You are right that this is old news. While I appreciate Hank Bostwick’s balanced story, I read about these contributions long ago. The fundamental point here, in my view, is that the individuals mentioned have not, as far as I am aware, been charged with any wrongdoing. We all know that there has been a witch hunt in post 9-11 America targeting, especially, Arab Americans. But an investigation is just an investigation, these individuals are innocent until charged with something and found guilty, and those of us who support civil liberties in America (that’s all of us, right?) ought to cringe at the suggestion that Sam Rasoul should be forced to return these contributions. That might be the easy way out, but would it be right?
And what about the flip side. What about the famous Koch family, which has been quite generous to Republican candidates. Maybe that’s why the Republicans are so quiet on this issue. The Kochs aren’t Arab Americans, but Koch Industries has not only been charged with crimes, but has been convicted and fined substantial sums (explaining, perhaps, their hatred for government regulation and taxations). Why do we question contributions by Arab Americans who have not been charged with a crime, but do not quesiton contributions by the Koch family?
Hank Bostwick on Thu, 3rd Jul 2008 2:02 pm
We posted many, many stories on the Koch brothers:
http://starcityharbinger.com/?p=532
http://starcityharbinger.com/?p=530
http://starcityharbinger.com/?p=527
Check ‘em out, Cliff.
chrisgraham on Mon, 21st Jul 2008 5:46 pm
A reader named Moshe wrote me this afternoon ( July 21, 2008 ) to say that he had been having trouble posting his comment on this story to our site.
Here is his comment:
Regarding the comments made by Hank Bostwick;
““It is difficult to discern whether or not criticism of Muslim-American candidates, particularly first-generation ethnic Arab candidates like Rasoul, is motivated by racial or religious animus or genuine fear of the threat of terrorism from Muslim extremists. Consequently, candidates of the Muslim faith are often viewed through a lens of both suspicion, on the one hand, and ignorance, on the other. Rasoul has already explained his practice of the Muslim faith (which my grandmother would have called bed-sheet Baptists ’cause they sleep in on Sundays . . . ) and unequivocally denounced terrorism; however, a larger scandal looms on the horizon for this soon-to-be 27 year old, brow-beaten political newcomer . . .
This generalization made by Bostwick is the same old propoganda by those who have their head in the sand regarding a very real and viable threat to the US Congress. Why is it when we are critical of those who are considered “fundamentalist Christians” we take it seriously, but mention Islam and you are tagged as hateful or as he put it ” suspicion, on the one hand, and ignorance, on the other.”
This is simply arrogance for him to paint with a wide brush. I have done my homework on Salam Rasoul and I have shown his agenda appears very clear to be toward the removal of Israel in line with the mainline Palestinaian convictions.
Obviously he knows nothing about Islam to suggest Rasoul can be considered as a bedsheet Baptist. Question? Did that make his Grandmother any less Baptist? I should say not. Therefore, being a bed sheet Muslim is no less a Muslim either. This isnt about 911 and hype as he asserted. Rasoul has made it quite clear that he wants to advance the Palestinian cause by using US Congress.
He says in his own website “Today, our consideration of present US foreign policy choices must begin with the Middle East. And it is imperative that the United States now begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq, and do more to promote a peaceful solution where the people of Israel and Palestine can live in peace together as neighbors. Once we begin something, we should work for the best outcome. But, no good will now flow from the United States continuing to occupy Iraq. Still, we must seek every opportunity to help rebuild and thus stabilize Iraq, directly or indirectly.”
He has told me via email he doesn’t have much of a role in foreign Policy. What in tarnation would this be called? Minimal is hardly the word! Palestine and Israel stick out like a sore thumb to me! I have documented what the peace plan is by the Palestinians and this part of the plan always seems to be absent and left out. It is the extermination of Israel they want. http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/26/news/iran.php
http://www.gamla.org.il/english/article/2008/june/g4.htm
Apparently Bostwick wants to create some red herring and accuse those of us who do their homework as madmen against Islam. I would like to encourage him to do some more research on Islam and not trust the book Islam for dummies. May I encourage him to read the Hamas Charter, article 28? http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html
911 was only the fruit of Islam. Having studied the religion I never wondered why it happened. I always wondered when it would happen.
chrisgraham on Mon, 21st Jul 2008 5:52 pm
Now it is me, Chris Graham, speaking.
If Sam’s position vis-a-vis the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and the promotion of policies that are aimed at a peaceful coexistence between Palestine and Israel make him a Muslim extremist, then I’m a Muslim extremist, too.
And I will say it seems to me that painting those of us who support a withdrawal from Iraq and peace between Israelis and Palestinians as extremists is a smear and a slur.
faithdefendingjew on Tue, 22nd Jul 2008 1:09 pm
Thank you Chris for posting this. I could not get it into the site yesterday.
To ensure my message was understood let me clarify.
For the record, removal of the troops is a wonderful thing. The tyrant has been eliminated. The problem has been dealt with. Now we need our men back here to keep our Nation safe! I want the return of the troops asap, but done in a safe manner.
If another tyrant/International bully rises up in the future, then, we deal with him. Many people misunderstand the words of the Messiah when he said “blessed are the peacemakers.” They interpret the statement as a directive to walk around limp wristed, kissing babies, and should never have a disagreement with another soul. That is not what the term means. A peacemaker is called to make war in order to bring peace. It has been said during that time, Ceaser was not just a bringer of peace; he was a peacemaker because he subdued the enemy which in turn brought about peace.
Secondly, I never said peace between Israel and Palestine is not a good thing. It too would be a wonderful thing! But, knowing the history and knowing the dynamics due to Quranic instructions, it cannot happen.
Again, this is not my “feelings” on the matter of Palestine. Read the Hamas Charter, article 28, to see what is planned in order to bring this peace to the Palestinian people.
For the sake of argument, even if it is the agenda of Rasoul was to get into Congress and work toward the peace of two other peoples, in the end he can only influence “us” toward his position by gaining support here in the US for his cause.
Of course, his winning us over toward his position on foreign policy can have its effect on the Nation of Israel and hurt her But, Hamas and PLO have the final say in the matter. Not Rasoul. I am not saying Rasoul is small potatoes. I am saying Rasoul can assist the Palestinian cause by poking holes at policy through paperwork while Hamas and PLO do the work of a bully. In the end Palestine wins. Israel loses and become extinct.
I have done a report on Rasoul and I am trying to get it out in order to show Rasoul is already helping the Palestinian cause through the Hope Fund. As I argued in the article, when has he ever provided approximately 9000.00 to a Virginian? Yet he beats the drum that he wants to help his constituents here in the 6th District.
The website for the Hope Fund reads; “travel expenses from the Hope Fund, annual tuition worth $21,000 from the College of Roanoke, and $9,000 yearly for room, board, and health insurance from Sam Rasoul, a Palestinian-American executive —…
wwwthehopefund.org/YougWomansWish.html
I dont see a problem in helping the needy, but this is not helping feed the hungry. This is bringing Palestinians over and into the US borders where they can be given room, board, and health insurance. How many people has Rasoul helped in this manner?
If it is true that Rasoul’s agenda is to promote the Palestinian cause if he makes it into Congress (and I contend this is his intention) then the issue is not about peaceful solutions. Anyone can yell “we must have peace!” It is about “how” the peaceful solutions are set into play. What are the demands in this case?
The US has this idea that this peaceful solution Is about living side by side like the song “emory and ivory?” I contend that Rasoul wants to use the Congress to eliminate finincial support toward Israel in attempts to hurt her pocket book. I contend that Rasoul wants to eliminate all support toward Israel and see her extinction. Just recently, one man who we are all familiar with has spoken repeatedly about the peaceful solution he intends to see with Israel. Here is the quote from his mouth.
“Iran’s conservative new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Wednesday that Israel must be “wiped off the map” and that attacks by Palestinians would destroy it, the ISNA press agency reported.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/26/news/iran.php
If I may put one more quote from my research about the agenda of the Palestinians; “The messages of the Palestinian Authority and the Arafat-appointed clergy should now be understood by all of Israel. It does not need to be decoded. It is perfectly honest, explicit and straightforward. Israel proper, not merely Judea/Samaria, is “stolen” territory and must be “returned” to the Arabs. Israel’s Palestinian “partners” will not cease their murders of Jews until there is an end to “persecution,” that is, until there takes place a transformation of all of Israel into Palestine. Unless “the Jews” agree to abandon their defiling state and witness its replacement with a proper Arab state they will always invite “slaughter.
“www.gamla.org.il/english/article/2000/nov/ber2.htm
This is not about hate or about suspicion. This is about an agenda that most Americans refuse to see or even consider due to political correctness. As I said, my research shows there is need for concern if Rasoul makes it into the US Congress.
chrisgraham on Tue, 22nd Jul 2008 1:27 pm
I’m glad you were able to comment directly. Thanks for being patient and diligent and the rest.
I continue to believe that you are misstating and misrepresenting Rasoul’s comments and beliefs regarding Middle East foreign policy. At best, we have a string of innuendos held clumsily together by the fact that Rasoul is Muslim. You’re a self-identified Jew, and I’m sure you have beliefs on issues that are in conflict with other self-identified Jews. I’m a self-ID’d Christian, and I know that I have many beliefs that are in conflict with other Christians. You can’t label someone by their religion and hold them to the tenets of their religion’s most extreme adherents, at least not in any sense that one could be considered fair and objective.
Your concern, as you state it, is that Rasoul would advance extremist Muslim beliefs on Capitol Hill if he is elected to Congress. Nothing that you have presented here could make a reasonable person believe that anything close to that could actually happen.
faithdefendingjew on Tue, 22nd Jul 2008 4:10 pm
For the record, I am a self identified converted Jew and I believe the Messiah has come. As an apologist and a Messianic Jew I agree with you that I do have differences with others.
But, truth is not negotiable. If I have a difference from another believer then both of us cannot be right at the same time if our theologies are opposite.
Secondly, you keep throwing out the word extremist as if it has terrible and negative implications. I believe in a time of relativism and liberalism it is also positive for a person to be faithful to their beliefs. Extreme is also called zeal.
In times past, was the Messiah “extremist” when he turned the tables of the money changers over? How about when he pronounced woes on the religious Jews in Matthew 23 and stated they were sending converts to hell where they themselves were going?
Is the term extremist such a terrible term that a believer in the Messiah takes their Bible seriously? I am not trying to make this about you nor get off topic, but are you a devout Christian? Would you call yourself an extremist because of your beliefs? Do you tell people Jesus is the way the truth and the life? Is that extreme? Is that a biblical zeal?
What of the Mormon who takes his Book of Mormon seriously? would he also be considered an extremist?
Then why, if a Muslim takes the Quran as his standard for doctrine and morals,is he or she not also extreme in a day and age of such compromise?
This is about Rasoul, but at the same time it is not. What do I mean? As I wrote in my article, you cannot separate Islam from politics. You appear to be doing this in your statements. You appear to be saying Rasoul’s religion and politics are two different issues because he is not an extremist Muslim. Since he is not an extreme Muslim then he may not advance his religious beliefs in Congress.
I do not have to prove he will. Islam is a system in the same way the Bible is a system. Know the prophet and you will know the disciple. Islam does not have to make up policies concerning Israel. Islam already knows what they want to do with Israel. This is not something a Muslim must toss around in his or her head.
The allegiance of a Muslim is to the Quran first and the US Constitution second. Rasoul is bound to the Quran in the same way you are bound to your Scriptures. Examples? Do you lie? Of course you dont. Why? Because the Scriptures tell us not to lie. Rasoul is not bound to tell the truth as you and I are commmanded because his religion permits certain lies. This is well documented from Islamic doctrine.
Rasoul is a Muslim and that is just the facts. He may be a liberal Muslim under our flag but he is no less a Muslim. He has spent, Lord knows how much money toward bringing Palestinians over to the US. Each one costs about 9000.00 for him. I asked the question in my article. Has he spent 9000.00 on 1 single homeless Virginian? His record shows his heart is for his people and not the US. His heart is toward the Palestinian cause and whether you believe this or not is your choice, but the facts are there to consider.
Rasoul uses the same key buzzwords that are also used amongst Palestinians here and abroad. Paceful solution and economic development. these are not original terms phrased by Rasoul. They are used frequently in US Muslim websites. The websites that are advancing and praising his name are no friends to the US. or Israel.
For example the AMEU says;
“Over the decades, both Democratic and Republican administrations have provided Israel with substantial military and economic assistance in order to enable Israel to maintain its qualitative and technological superiority over any potential combination of regional (Arab) forces, even at times when the two governments have been at odds with each other, for example, over the treatment of Palestinians, the Israeli settlements in the Arab occupied territories, the use of U.S.- made weapons in non-defensive wars, and Israeli actions reflecting an aggressive, expansionist policy in the region.”
Toward the end of the article it reads: “The U.S. Must realize that if Israel insists on illegally confiscating additional Arab territory and occupying Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights instead of seeking peace, the current cycle of attack, reprisal and expansion of Israels defense zones will continue, engulfing the Middle East into more wars and undermining American strategic interests in the area.”
Rasoul is seeking Congress to stop the support of Israel and these Palestinian organizations are well aware of this likeminded agenda. I believe Rasoul may have issues over the 1967 war and this is his way to return the favor to the Jews.
You can take the man out of Palestine but you cannot take Palestine out of the man.
chrisgraham on Tue, 22nd Jul 2008 4:47 pm
You’re smearing a man because of his religion, plain and simple. Sam has not said the first thing about ending U.S. support for Israel. This is ridiculous, and you have to know it.
chrisgraham on Tue, 22nd Jul 2008 4:48 pm
I want to add – I respect your right to hold your views on religion and politics and Sam Rasoul and anything and everything else. I’m not trying to antagonize you here, but neither can I let these statements stand as facts, because they are not facts.
faithdefendingjew on Tue, 22nd Jul 2008 5:05 pm
Chris, I am not trying to smear a man. Truth is all I want to see advanced. consider the following;
When I asked a specific question to Mr. Rasoul via email and a specific question was avoided.
I asked him in the email whether or not he believed Israel had a right to the land they possess?
Answer?
“I believe in a peaceful two state solution. I believe economic development is the best way to attain peace by giving families a future.”
Chris, that is not an answer. It is a specific yes or no question! Peaceful solution is the buzzword for the Palestinians. Look up most Palestinian websites and you will hear this repeated as a mantra.
Why doesn’t someone ask him the following questions on record and then we can get the cat out of the bag.
1.Does he believe Israel illegally confiscated Arab territory and is occupying Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights? Yes or No?
2. Does he believe America is aiding this illegal occupation/confiscation? Yes or No?
3. Does he believe the land belongs to Palestine? Yes or No?
4. Will he do all he can under his power in Congress to help the Palestinians gain Israeli occupied territory? Yes or No?
5. Will he act in the best interest of Palestine or the US? Yes or No?
faithdefendingjew on Tue, 22nd Jul 2008 5:18 pm
For the record, the actual question I raised in the email was;
“what is your political views on Israel and Palestine? Do you believe Israel has a right to the land they possess or do you believe it was never theirs to begin with?”
No answer is often times an answer.
chrisgraham on Tue, 22nd Jul 2008 5:19 pm
The United Nations considers Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem “occupied Palestinian territory.” And that said, even international legal scholars disagree on what that means. And you want Sam Rasoul to define it for us as a voting issue in the Sixth District of Western Virginia? When not even Nobel Peace Prize winners can do so?
Sam has obviously answered your questions in an exchange of private e-mails. You don’t have to like his answer. He is far from being the only U.S. or world politician to equivocate in his response to the question. Presidential candidates, UN secretary-generals and even Israelis themselves do the same.
You want this issue to be a black-or-white issue for Rasoul. I would suggest that it is not a black-or-white issue for anyone outside of a few dedicated hardliners such as yourself. And might I suggest that if you’re going to continue raising this issue, also share with us your read of where Bob Goodlatte stands on it as well. I assume that you’ve e-mailed him to ask his thoughts.
chrisgraham on Tue, 22nd Jul 2008 5:25 pm
From a 2007 press release on a series of meetings with Goodlatte and Israeli and Palestinian leaders:
- “While the situation in the Middle East is exceedingly complex, and not a new one, we must all work together to bring about a real and lasting peace. Instability in the Middle East poses a threat to our security and the security of the entire global community.”
Goodlatte obviously supports the concept of negotiating peace with Palestinians. Implied there is that there is something to negotiate. Goodlatte, like Rasoul, is not a hardliner in either direction. Interesting.
chrisgraham on Tue, 22nd Jul 2008 5:33 pm
Another tidbit – Goodlatte was among 119 members of Congress who did not sign a letter suported by AIPAC supporting Israel’s position that the Palestinians should meet a list of preconditions to jumpstart work toward peace accords. More gray area there for Goodlatte.
chrisgraham on Tue, 22nd Jul 2008 5:35 pm
From a May 26, 2006 column by Goodlatte:
“While we will continue to be involved in the advancement of peace between Israel and Palestine, we must remember that the issues underlying Israel-Palestinian relations are very difficult to resolve and involve mistakes on both sides.”
chrisgraham on Tue, 22nd Jul 2008 5:37 pm
Nothing on Goodlatte’s campaign website about Israel.
chrisgraham on Tue, 22nd Jul 2008 5:48 pm
So the exchange was this …
Q: “What is (sic) your political views on Israel and Palestine? Do you believe Israel has a right to the land they possess or do you believe it was never theirs to begin with?”
A: “I believe in a peaceful two state solution. I believe economic development is the best way to attain peace by giving families a future.”
This is hardly “no answer.” Especially considering where Bob Goodlatte is on the issue, as noted in detail above. Goodlatte will say that he supports Israel and values Israel as an important American ally, but he did not bow to political pressure from AIPAC to sign a letter supported by Israel on the road to peace, he talks about negotiations that recognize the rights of both Israel and the Palestinian authority to be equal players in the peace process, and he is willing to concede that both Israelis and Palestinians have contributed to the ongoing instability in the region. Which is to say, Goodlatte is solidly in the middle on Israel, right there with Rasoul.
Continued one-sided criticisms of Rasoul on this issue would have to be considered politically-motivated in the face of this record of facts.
faithdefendingjew on Tue, 22nd Jul 2008 6:24 pm
Chris, keep in mind I am a Christian apologist which defines me as a defender of the the Scriptures. Politics are a byproduct in many cases because of high profile individuals. I have written on Romney and Obama only because of their religious views. Generally speaking, I dont bother with a garden variety pagan running for office.
I am glad you bring up Goodlatte! How much can I share? lol
Because i am an independent, I have the liberty of addressing any party.
I wish more bible believers knew of Goodlatte’s beliefs here in the 6th District. If they did they would certainly be apprehensive in voting for him especially when we need support toward a failing healthcare system.
Again, here is another perfect example for considering the religion of a person when he or she is or may be representing us.
It is my understanding that Goodlatte has refused to support healthcare bills and this would be due to his beliefs. Being a Christian Scientist forces him to ignore the issue of healthcare because they reject sickness and death.
They prefer not to use doctors, medicine, or immunizations because sickness to a Christian Scientist is . They use what are called “Christian Science Practitioners” to help people through the false reality of illness. They do not believe sickness or death is a reality. Death is only an illusion.
Christian Scientists claim that since organic disease does not exist, “the cause of all so-called disease is mental”
Because they reject death, when Mary Baker Eddy died she was said to have had a phone placed next to her. I am serious! Her followers believed she would pick up the phone and say “this is Mary, get me out of here!” What a shocker, she remained in the grave and never made that phone call.
Of course, the difference between Christian Scientists and Muslims is the tacticts used to make converts. One is by force and the other optional.
Goodlatte also qualifies as a antimessiah according to 1 John. He denies Jesus is the Messiah.
chrisgraham on Tue, 22nd Jul 2008 6:49 pm
I’ve been hearing more and more about another political independent who is well-versed in theology and has been taking Rasoul and Goodlatte to task on points involving their own religious beliefs. Her name is Janice Lee Allen. Wouldn’t happen to know her, would you?
Hank Bostwick on Tue, 22nd Jul 2008 8:03 pm
Chris and FDJ,
I have been watching this exchange for a while now and I am growing more and more amused.
First, to assume that every facet of Islamic thought and theology is embodied in a controversial section of the charter of a Palestinian organization with ties to terrorist activity is a dangerous assumption. Similar assumptions were made by the Nazis in regards to portions of the various interpretations of the Jewish Khabbala and Torah, and those assumptions were used as one of the initial ways to justify treating Jewish Germans as a threat.
Second, there is a continuum within most major religions. At the risk of oversimplification, consider the continuum within the Christian faith to extend from conservative to liberal (similar to our modern political spectrum). The conservative group contains fundamentalists, messianic Jews, Evangelicals (though this is changing), dispensationalists, Catholics, etc. The liberal group might contain sects ranging from mainstream Protestants to Quakers and Brethren to the UCC and the UUA . One characteristics common to the conservative sects of Christianity is a literal reading of the Hebrew and Christian scripture. FDJ makes statements such as “Israel’s right to exist.” While we may agree that Israel should be a sovereign nation, FDJ would no doubt find the basis for Israel’s existence as the promise of Scripture. Other literalists like the Reverend Hagee, James Dobson, and that guy who wrote “The Late Great Planet Earth” see the existence of Israel as fundamental to the eschatological scheme outlined in the book of Revelations. Dispensationalist politicians, like the President, often take their foreign policy cues from an interpretation of Scripture that sees the descriptions of John in his “revelation” and sections of the Hebrew Scriptures as prophesy of actual events to occur at the end of time.
Many liberal Christians do not hold to this interpretation of scripture. While they believe in the divinity of Christ, they are unconvinced that the vision of a destructive God as promulgated by conservative, fundamentalist Christian sects is a valid interpretation of Christian scripture. Does this make those liberal Christians less than “Christian”? FDJ’s questions to you, Chris, seem to hint that he or she feels this way. “Are you a committed Christian?” FDJ asks. That statement reveals an underlying belief that your Christian beliefs would somehow be deficient if they were not the same as the beliefs held by FDJ. Likewise, the Christian Scientist denomination of Christianity as articulated by Mary Baker Edy has done much to alleviate the burdens suffered by the poor, especially poor women, across the world. “The Christian Science Monitor” is recognized throughout the world as one of the most objective sources of news. But, okay, some Christian Scientists do not share my views on medical care. Does this mean that Christian Scientists are less “Christian”? Hardly. Likewise, does the fact that Goodlatte is a Christian Scientist mean that he is automatically unqualified to make legislative decisions regarding health care? Please.
Islam has a continuum of adherents similar to Christianity, from liberal, moderate to conservative. The conservative camp of Islam is home to extremists, radical jihadists, etc.., just like conservative camp of Christianity is also home to terrorist groups like the Army of God.
To automatically equate Sam Rasoul with radical Islam solely because he is Muslim is the height of xenophobia, which brings me to my third and final point.
Many of Allen’s vocal supporters (Sharon Wright, Moshe/FDJ, Robin Waller, etc.) have made similar claims about Sam Rasoul. At first, I thought there were only isolated incidents of prejudice; however, this thread and the fact that it has been resurrected (excuse the pun) after so long convinces me that, for whatever reason, Janice Lee Allen seems to attract supporters who clearly have issues with people of different faiths and ethnicities. This is problematic for a number of reasons the most important of which is the fact that a Congressional representative must represent people of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds.
The time has come for Janice Lee Allen to step out and disavow the statements of Moshe/FDJ, Robin Waller and Sharon Wright. She needs to make a strong statement indicating that she does not believe in these sorts of comments and that her campaign is not responsible for them. Additionally, the syntax, word choice, sentence structure and subject matter may also suggest that the above individuals are one and the same. In that case, it would be easy for Allen to disavow them and claim they are the work of a sole bad actor with an ax to grind.
This comment thread would be a great place for Ms. Allen to distance herself from such comments.
Hank Bostwick on Tue, 22nd Jul 2008 8:26 pm
Moshe,
I’m curious as to where you studied Islam? Which sect? Sunni or Sufi or Shia or Wahhabi? I am particularly fond of the Sufi sect of Islam. What do you think?
R. Talbot on Wed, 23rd Jul 2008 8:51 am
You guys are all news people… give her a call, write an email, send a letter, and ask her specifically about all of this crap.
Things have gotten out of hand « The Augusta Free Press on Wed, 23rd Jul 2008 10:37 am
[...] by Allen in an e-mail interview with Hank Bostwick at the Star City Harbinger about Rasoul’s religious beliefs and raised questions about his stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Of note here is that [...]
Bonnie Burke on Wed, 23rd Jul 2008 9:23 pm
As a former involuntary Christian Scientis, I wonder what you are talking about when you say this cult has done anything for anyone out in the world.
Mary Baker Eddy was adamently opposed to any ministry.
—————————————————————————————–
Likewise, the Christian Scientist denomination of Christianity as articulated by Mary Baker Edy has done much to alleviate the burdens suffered by the poor, especially poor women, across the world. “The Christian Science Monitor” is recognized throughout the world as one of the most objective sources of news.
Thanks,
Bon
Donna Kent on Thu, 24th Jul 2008 8:55 am
The scariest part of all this childish exchange is that no one seems to have picked up on the fact that most of “faithdefendingjew”’s arguments are in fact cribbed from his true master — in fact, a number of the quotes in his/her diatribes are thinly veiled reworks of quotes the author has clearly taken to heart for a long time.
Anyone who has ever read “Mein Kampf” or Googled “quotes hitler” will immediately know what I mean.
willinvirginia on Fri, 25th Jul 2008 3:47 pm
Faithdefendingjew,
I’d like to know how you read and interpret Deuteronomy 13, which explicitly instructs readers to kill anyone who proposes other teachings, even if they be brother, or son, or daughter, or wife or friend, and that their cities should be destroyed.
As a non-believer, should I take this seriously and prepare to defend myself from a zealot that is going to try to kill me and my family because we express our rejection of his god?
Seems to me to be the same kind of threat from militant radical Islam.