Do Not Let Another Vote Be Lost, Yet Again

Guest Post by Fariha Tayyab

After interviewing with a reporter from the Houston Chronicle mid last week on the Muslim community's reaction to recent racial uproar in both campaigns, I got to thinking, thinking a lot to where I felt a bit trapped. And now I've decided to speak or rather explain to everyone who is confused as to why I support who I do and why it matters.

(Side note: For those of you who would like to read a critique of Obama and his campaign addressing each issue area please let me know. I have a great thorough email sent from a friend titled "Obama and the Muslim vote")

Maybe it's not about the lost vote, maybe it's about a sincere vote that is lost yet again.

We live in a bi-world. Bi-partisan to be more specific. It is so because well we didn't really do anything and more importantly because we chose not to. Ross Perot, as is well known, a 3rd party candidate came really close to being in the main race, but yet he was polling below 10percent. Ralph Nader, who is running as an independent this year and a fourth time in national polls. He polled above 5 percent and event reached 10percent at one time. Therefore, a vote like Ralph Nader's isn't wasted or 'lost'...That's just a myth what we're taught. The democrats even wrongly blamed, Nader for Bush's victory in 2000 (with logic in mind that if Nader's voters would have voted for Kerry maybe he would have won stepping aside all other significant reasons why Gore lost). Furthermore, Bush defeated Al Gore in FL by around 500 votes and Nader received close to 100k votes in Florida. Many other 3rd party candidates also received more than those 500 or so votes... A point to just let flush through your mind, so your vote is not lost, it's not unheard, its not overlooked. Those who do stand up for their principles, well its seen. More, here.

In eight years, everyone seems to have been worked up and passionate about this election. We seem to be taking no more of Bush-it. So the word change resonates throughout our political thought processes. And yet really its just not change, just a tweek in how things were and a beacon of hope that seems to shift and sway to where it almost obliterated concept of reliability and consistency. Whether it be the children from Ron Clark elementary, or the pyscho 'kill him' chanters at McCains rally's, or the man who names his baby Sarah McCain Palin, or even the movie Obsessions, or even Republican leadership changing their stance or shifting out of the scene because "Palin is like a cancer", or any of the enthused Obama supporters and all their interesting actions, or maybe even all the Muslims who vote together.

Your best teacher is your last mistake.

Vote together for a man who knows he has gotten our vote; who understands he doesn't have to step into ONE MOSQUE, because he already has our vote. He doesn't have to stay consistent and can unconditionally support [apartheid] Israel and offer more than 3billion in aid annually, create tension and talk about proactive action for Pakistan insurgencies, or the many other issues a Muslim vote would be 'concerned' with and seem to have always been a bit too concerned with. He has our vote, and he will regardless. Not because we love Obama, but because we choose to be involved to not get another Bush or McCain, who God forbid wins. The thought of that makes us cringe. Expediency or sincere voting?

What about the issues that McCain doesn't mention? Obama does? What about the issues neither mentions? The one's that affect us first and foremost? What about the military budget? Alternative Energy? Corporate welfare and crime? the Justice system? US Policy on Middle East? Etc. All these affect us but yet Obama doesn't address them. Address the real issues.

He's a writer, a professor, a lawyer, a politician, a activist, a journalist, a speaker, a trooper, a hero. A man who started more than 10 nonprofits, one who broke Guinness book of world records for most speeches given in a day, whose one of multiple books was ranked 38th amongst 100 top pieces of Journalist for 20th century, who both Life and Time magazine named 100 most influential Americans in 20th century and even in history. Not to mention his running mate, Matt Gonzalez, who is also phenomenal in a myriad of ways, that this email would only drag on, but most of us know him as the one who almost won mayoral race in San Francisco in 2003.

Other campaigns are driven by organizations and political action committees and platforms that definitely have their own agenda. Their money is supporting within both campaigns. Has anyone really stopped to think about this, in depth or even on surface level? It's almost as if you pay and you get your voice heard. So then what is change? Because the people putting money in don't seem to be wanting it. Nader only accepts money from individuals and in turn for the last 30+ or so years Nader puts interest of the people at the front. "Nader raiders" didn't just come and go, they came and stayed, they wrote books about him, their hero, they worked to continue to establish his non profits, they amongst everything else voted for him, and shifted the trend.

The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. That's the only difference.

One's not sure what to say, let's just say Obama is Muslim, its a disgust for him to ever admit maybe 1% of him was or could be. It would hurt his campaign which is honestly understandable, because he is all about change and voting for the people. If those who are voting on more shallower terms on basis of surface level and minority status, well maybe there is some triggering factor for doing so. On a shallow note, Nader is first Arab American presidential candidate (his parents were from Lebanon and Catholic) and not only is his stance pro Palestine but he's also not hiding in corners erasing his identity and rather embracing it amongst other things. Random point that doesn't really matter unless your voting on a 'I vote minority' basis. At his fourth round of elections, there is some merit and sincerity in Nader, a trooper. It's about challenging the status quo, and about not giving up. And now he is on the ballot in 45 states.

A leader has the vision and conviction that a dream can be achieved. He inspires the power and energy to get it done.

So the biggest, most comprehensive, overall argument remains: If We don't want McCain, so we vote Obama. Expediency at it's best. However, this doesn't seem to hold immense amounts of logical thought or firmness it just seems to be to some, borderline jargon. As those of us who are Muslim peoples, we come from our ideals. Rather we are our ideals. And our religion and it's fundamental concepts were strived for, even if they weren't achievable within a short time. It was the ideal that mattered, the overall message, and the true values we stood for, that was what kept Muslim thought alive. Never ending struggle now, and the never ending struggle then. We aren't a people to trade off in the least, rather we have patience to the most. So even on an "Islamic" note this doesn't have much standing. What isn't a reality now in four years, isn't going to be a reality ever really if we don't start to make it one and mold things. For those who aren't voting and seem to be a more political Islamic inclined kind of ideology, its because you don't support these candidates because they are both evil. This also to some is flawed logic, however there is an alternative? Yes, indeed.

Once you don't vote your ideals, that has serious undermining affects. It erodes the moral basis of our democracy.

So as Americans we believe in democracy, what was once brought up as democratic ideals and values, but what is not. And not only what has not been but what will not become if we as a people aren't proactive. Change is there, change is real. and if you let it be change is possible. However it is not through the avenues of Mu-Barack. There is no really blessing in that, if we vote for him out of the dislike for McCain.

As Nader explains in an interview, "One feels an obligation, Tim, to try to open the doorways, to try to get better ballot access, to respect dissent in America in the terms of third parties and, and independent candidates; to recognize historically that great issues have come in our history against slavery and women rights to vote and worker and farmer progressives, through little parties that never ran--won any national election. Dissent is the mother of ascent. And in that context, I have decided to run for president."

Be real with yourself. Be a trooper. Be a true American and holdup democratic ideals, in whichever candidate you find it in and God bless. But today only Ralph Nader seems to be real and about change.

Do not let another vote be lost, yet again!

*Nader/Gonzalez 08
*All italics where Nader quotes. Glad you enjoyed

Support Obama But Vote McKinney?

The Green Party Presidential ticket of Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente brings something special and unprecedented to U.S. politics. Not only are they the first all women-of-color ticket in recent memory to get ballot access in most states. These women take racial justice seriously, and have made strides to put gender at the center of a progressive agenda. For these two, it's more than skin deep.

They're the Presidential ticket that talks about amnesty for undocumented workers, that opposes guest worker programs as riddled with abuses, because they believe a just immigration reform means addressing the trade and economic policies fueling poverty and migration. They're the ticket that demands reparations in the form of federal investment in low-income families and communities of color, to end racial disparities in health, housing, education, and incarceration. They call for the right of return for Katrina survivors; an end to prisons for profit, to the War on Drugs. And they speak of reproductive justice – not just the right to abortion, but actual healthcare access; of freedom from coerced or uninformed medication and sterilization.

Nowhere do we see Nader, or white male Third-Party-politics-as-usual, bringing in these issues – this slice on life, or sensitivity. McKinney, for instance, points out that Social Security cuts will disproportionately harm women. The Green Party candidates offer to do us the public service of contesting Palin's brand of "feminism." Let's take them up on it.
. . .

But each vote for them contributes towards building unprecedented ballot access, federal funds, and an inroad to the national debates, for the Green Party. If McKinney / Clemente get 5% of the national vote, the Green Party qualifies for millions of dollars in federal matching funds for 2012 – a significant dent in the two-party system. Under the electoral college's winner-takes-all system, not every vote for a major candidate counts; but by supporting a minor candidate, we can strategically use our votes to institutionalize a progressive platform.

. . .

In the words of McKinney herself: "We are in this to build a movement. We are willing to struggle for as long as it takes to have our values prevail in public policy." She reminds us, "Voters in this country are scared into not voting their hopes, their dreams, their aspirations. But in Bolivia and Ecuador and Argentina and Chile and Nicaragua and Spain, and India and Cote d'Ivoire and Haiti, voters were not afraid to vote their hopes and dreams, and guess what. Their dreams came true. Ours can, too."
. . .

There is not a contradiction between supporting Obama's victory over McCain, and spreading the word on McKinney – because we believe her politics should be included in the debates; and believe all voters should be aware she and the Greens exist as an option.

There is not a contradiction between spending time to campaign for Obama in key swing states, and pledging your own vote to McKinney – particularly in Democratic strongholds such as California, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, Oregon, or Washington, where Obama will win landslide; or Republican states where McCain is assured of victory.

As an example, in 2004, Kerry beat Bush in Massachusetts 62% to 32%, by over 700,000 votes. 5% of the vote would have been around 140,000 ballots, but third party candidates actually got around 1% altogether, or 27,000. This election, 35 states are not swing states.

. . .

In August, AntiWar.com featured a line-up of McCain, Obama, Nader, and Barr. Incidentally, reflecting a common trend in much progressive media, over 80% of the site's columnists and regular contributors are male. When challenged by readers about McKinney's absence, the editors explained that both she, and ultra-rightwing, xenophobic, anti-abortion Chuck Baldwin – who seeks to cut all federal investment in communities of color – were omitted. Not due to bias against McKinney as a black woman, but because, an editor flippantly wrote, both of the candidates are "pretty perfect" on foreign policy. If McKinney's stance was so perfect, why wouldn't the site choose to promote her as a standard-bearer? And why instead place her on equal footing with a racist, sexist Baldwin? Besides not considering economic inequality, immigration policy or internal colonization as relevant to imperialism, AntiWar.com must simply have not viewed her as a serious contender.

Why has McKinney had more trouble getting attention from left organizations and institutions compared to Nader, Green Party candidate in 2000? After all, she, too, champions universal healthcare under a single-payer system; progressive taxation; repealing free trade agreements and abolishing the anti-union Taft-Hartley act. She takes a stronger stance against war and occupation, urging an immediate and orderly withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan. And she has vocally opposed the bail out.
. . .

The right-wingers have meticulously learned to rig the electoral system in their favor. Let's take it back.

Vote truth this year, and work for it next.

Source: OpEd News

Don't Let Anyone Stop You

The strategies being used to scare/intimidate voters are ridiculous.

In Atlanta, Georgia:
On October 10, Kyla received a disturbing letter from the Fulton County Department of Registration and Election. The letter stated that they had received notification that Kyla was not a US citizen. This letter, dated October 2, but postmarked October 9, stated Kyla would be removed from the rolls unless she produced proof of citizenship within a week of the letter’s issue date. Since Kyla received the letter on October 10 and its issue date was October 2, she thought it was too late to correct the mistake.

In Temple Hills, Maryland:
Adele had voted at the same precinct for the past 21 years and she went to her usual precinct to vote during this year’s primary. However, after waiting in a long line, Adele was informed that her voting location had been changed. Adele was frustrated as she had not been notified of this change prior to Election Day and that no one at the precinct could explain the reason behind the change. Instead, poll workers gave Adele the name of her new precinct. Adele was faced with the decision to drive to another precinct or go to work.

More stories and volunteer information: 866 Our Vote

Obama v. McCain

(Disclaimer: this is by no means my way of promoting the idea of voting for Obama. In my book he is, at least, as bad as McCain. Rather, this is me promoting the work of a very cool Muslimah!)

Techonology:


Memoir:


Sexist:

Check out the rest of these great ads: Vote Smarter 2008

Still On The Fence?

Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr have been excluded from the Presidential Debate Schedule. However, if you'd like more information about the corporate, establishment, "different name, same game" candidates be sure to watch the upcoming debates:

All four debates will begin at 9pm ET, 6pm PT and last for 90 minutes. Both campaigns also agreed to accept the CPD’s participation rules for third-party candidate participation. Third-party candidates will be included if they poll 15% or above in at least 5 national polls.

Each debate will be broadcast on the major broadcast networks, including CBS, NBC, ABC, and FOX. They will also be aired on cable news channels such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and C-SPAN.

Here is a break down of what each debate will consist of:

1. First Presidential Debate - Foreign Policy & National Security
Date: Friday, September 26 – Site: University of Mississippi – Topic: Foreign Policy & National Security – Moderator: Jim Lehrer – Staging: Podium debate – Answer Format: The debate will be broken into nine, 9-minute segments. The moderator will introduce a topic and allow each candidate 2 minutes to comment. After these initial answers, the moderator will facilitate an open discussion of the topic for the remaining 5 minutes, ensuring that both candidates receive an equal amount of time to comment

2. Vice Presidential Debate – Foreign & Domestic Issues
Date: Thursday, October 2nd – Site: Washington University (St. Louis) – Moderator: Gwen Ifill – Staging/Answer Format: Debate will consist of both foreign and domestic policy questions asked by the moderator. Format will be similar to the presidential debates.

3. Second Presidential Debate – Town Hall Meeting
Date: Tuesday, October 7 – Site: Belmont University – Moderator: Tom Brokaw – Staging: Town Hall debate – Format: The moderator will call on members of the audience (and draw questions from the internet). Each candidate will have 2 minutes to respond to each question. Following those initial answers, the moderator will invite the candidates to respond to the previous answers, for a total of 1 minute, ensuring that both candidates receive an equal amount of time to comment. In the spirit of the Town Hall, all questions will come from the audience (or internet), and not the moderator.

4. Third Presidential Debate - Domestic and Economic Issues
Date: Wednesday, October 15 – Site: Hofstra University – Topic: Domestic and Economic Issues – Moderator: Bob Schieffer – Staging: Candidates will be seated at a table – Answer Format: Same as First Presidential Debate – Closing Statements: At the end of this debate (only) each candidate shall have the opportunity for a 90 second closing statement.

Hijab Flutter/Additional Information: You Decide 2008

Hussam Ayloush For President, Vote Now!

Muslims Barred From Picture at Obama Event

Obama wants to give Apartheid Israel more missiles. He wants Apartheid Israel to reign over an un-divided Jerusalem. Those however, are his policies abroad. He's so much better on the home front:

Two Muslim women at Barack Obama's rally in Detroit on Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women's headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.

The campaign has apologized to the women, both Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.

"This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama's commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers."
...
In Detroit on Monday, the two different Obama volunteers — in separate incidents — made it clear that headscarves wouldn't be in the picture. The volunteers gave different explanations for excluding the hijabs, one bluntly political and the other less clear.
...
The men said the volunteer, a twenty-something African-American woman in a green shirt, asked if their friends looked and were dressed like the young men, who were all light-skinned and wearing suits. Miller said yes, but mentioned that one of their friends was wearing a headscarf with her suit.

The volunteer "explained to me that because of the political climate and what's going on in the world and what's going on with Muslim Americans, it's not good for [Aref] to be seen on TV or associated with Obama," said Koussan, who is a law student at Wayne State University.
...
When they said they were with Abdelfadeel, the volunteer told them their friend would have to take the headscarf off or stay out of the special section, Marino said. They declined the seats.

After recovering from the shock of the incident, Abdelfadeel went to look for the volunteer and confronted her minutes later, she said in an e-mail interview with Politico.

"We're not letting anyone with anything on their heads like baseball [caps] or scarves sit behind the stage," she paraphrased the volunteer as saying, an account Marino confirmed. "It has nothing to do with your religion!"

In most work and school settings, religious dress — such as Jewish yarmulkes, Sikh turbans, Muslim hijabs — is permitted where secular clothing like baseball caps is not.

"The scarf is not just something she can take off — it's part of her identity," said Marino.

Photographs of the event also show men with hats in the section behind Obama and former Vice President Al Gore, though not directly behind the candidate.

Source: Politico

OK. Alright. You say it was just a volunteer making a mistake? Rather, it was two volunteers. And doesn't the "oh my staffer/volunteer made a mistake" line sound familiar? Yes! That's the same cop out Barbara Boxer used last year to justify Islamophobic actions on her end.

I want to understand. I really do. Somebody please explain to me why we are even bothering with these particular politicians? For intelligent and informed activists, isn't this becoming an issue of self respect?

Update (06/19/2008): Obama Apologizes to Muslim Women for Treatment at Rally

The One Thing Clinton & Obama Agree On

Obama's first first foreign policy speech of the general election campaign entailed him "whoring" himself out to AIPAC this morning. Sad, right? On the bright side, at least we now know for sure that Clinton and him agree on one thing: ensuring the Palestinian people continue to suffer under iron fist of Apartheid Israel.

Hillary Clinton:
"It has been an honor to contest these primaries with him. It is an honor to call him my friend. And let me be very clear: I know that Sen. Obama will be a good friend to [apartheid] Israel."

Barack Obama:
Rumors have been circulating at least since last year that Obama is a Muslim and does not support the Jewish state. He is a Christian and said at the conference he is a "true friend of [apartheid] Israel," earning applause.

Source: Obama Addresses Rumors at pro-[Apartheid] Israel Conference

The Candidates' "Spiritual Guides"

Are you, like me, tired of discussing whether or not Obama is a Muslim and whether or not his pastor is "anti-American"? Good, because it turns out it's McCain's "spiritual guide" that is the real problem:



And a message from the director and producer, Robert Greenwald:

You may have heard of Rev. John Hagee, the McCain supporter who said God created Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans for its homosexual "sins." Well now meet Rev. Rod Parsley, the televangelist megachurch pastor from Ohio who hates Islam. According to David Corn of Mother Jones, Parsley has called on Christians to wage war against Islam, which he considers to be a "false religion." In the past, Parsley has also railed against the separation of church and state, homosexuals, and abortion rights, comparing Planned Parenthood to Nazis.

John McCain actively sought and received Parsley's endorsement in the presidential race. McCain has called Parsley "a spiritual guide," and he hasn't said whether he shares Parsley's vicious anti-Islam views. That's because the mainstream media refuses to ask. And so, we've taken matters into our own hands, joining Mother Jones to present the truth about McCain's pastor:

Watch the video!

Since the media won't question McCain about his deeply bigoted pastor, it's up to you to call attention to this issue. Make McCain's pastor problem a major story by forwarding this video to your family, friends, and colleagues. Digg it! Anything to spread the word.

We can't let McCain get away with aligning himself with a religious leader who's called for an all-out war on Islam, someone who draws no distinctions between Muslims and violent Islamic extremists. Now is the crucial time to act.

Yours,
Robert Greenwald
and the Brave New Team

Looking For An Alternative?

It seems you aren't the only one. Ralph Nader's got an exploratory committee out and about, and here's what they are saying:

Maybe we’re wrong.

Maybe the Democrats and Republicans will nominate Presidential candidates this year who will stand up against the war profiteers, the nuclear industry, the credit card industry, the corporate criminals, big oil, and the drug and health insurance industries.

We doubt it.

But hope springs eternal.

In the meantime, take a few minutes and explore with us an idea.

The idea is this—1,000 citizens in every Congressional district.

Each and every one committed to challenging the corporate powers that have a hammerlock on our political and economic systems.

Organized citizen power facing off against corporate power.

In this election year – 2008.

Instead of spending this election year sitting back and watching the corporate candidates spin their vapid mantras – hope, experience, change.

Instead of spending the year complaining about inertia, exhaustion, and apathy.

Let us instead weigh the possibility of pulling together half a million dedicated citizens collectively rising up off our couches and organizing a ground force in every Congressional district in the country.

A ground force of citizens who are informed, committed, tenacious advocates for a just future.

This is what we are contemplating.

Something new.

Something big.

Something bold.

Something that works.

Something that will prod young and old alike.

To join in a mass push back against the corporate powers that are dictating our future.

No one person can get us there.

But one person is ideally suited to lead this grassroots force – if he chooses to do so and runs as the citizens’ candidate for President in 2008.

And that one person is Ralph Nader.

Check them out and get involved HERE.

Whats the Caucus Ruckus?

Today is the Iowa Caucus. Many people know the buzz of the caucus, but what the HECK is this Caucus ruckus?

Some questions I got leading up to today- democratic process, but what role does the caucus play, doesn't seem to democratic when my candidate doesn't make it? Why the heck are we even thinking about voting now? Or, how about this one, Caucus, is that a sexual term?

Caucus- in loose definition- means a gathering of people, like minded to decide on something. Islamically this process can be understood as coming together for the purposes of Shura. In our democracy, the caucus is coming together to decide on a "party candidate"- Republican or Democrat.

Unfortunately, we only have a two party system. In that system each party's candidates go head to head in the states in order to get the national party's bid for the Presidential nomination. Now in a state like California people who are on the fringe have a better chance at getting the nomination. For example- Kucinich would probably get enough votes from this state to buoy a legitimate campaign, as would an extremist nut case like Tancredo (who is no longer running) because both of them would be able to get the party die hards to come out and vote in an election- the caucus.

At one point these caucuses- correct me if I am wrong- were actually held by Congressional and legislative representatives of either party to elect a party presidential nominee, which to me is not all that DEMOCRATIC, however that began to change as the methods of communication and travel changed.

The reason why we don't normally get the fringe as nominees is because of the Post-Civil War structure of the parties. Again correct me if I am wrong- after the Civil War the nation being split in two needed mending and the South literally had to be cemented back together with the Union. In order to do that the political parties had to take into account what Southern politicians demands were. One of these brilliant idea's was to put together the caucus process so that the Southern states would weed out and present the presidential candidate for party consideration.

That are so many things to criticize about the process but for general history this explanation should suffice. Here is what happens in Iowa and the caucus itself:

Its not the normal primary election California and many other states use. If you want to know how it works, check out this link (What Happens at the Iowa Caucus). These "gatherings of the neighbors" basically elect delegates who would vote for a certain candidate at the national convention- which means they aren't voting for the candidate but rather delegates to represent the nominee of choice.

Why is this whole process important?

For starters read the evolution of the Iowa Caucus at NPR to really get an understanding of the process. However, for a general understanding here is the gist- Iowa is make or break for any presidential nominee. When we have up to eight candidates running, how does one person decide between any one of them? Iowa basically brings the zoom focus on the winners, they become the people you want to dissect. When the primary comes around to your state and you wish to participate, you have a clearer idea of who you want to vote for because since the early primaries the hot seat of media attention has been focused on the winners, often times leaving the losers to drop out and leave the race.

Now if you want to examine the criticisms of this process- aside from the "this is haram brother because it is not part of the Sharia" or the "we don't vote because it is a kufar system" analysis- check out these books:

• Hull, Christopher C. 2007. Grassroots Rules: How The Iowa Caucus Helps Elect American Presidents. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.
• Squire, Peverill, ed. 1989. The Iowa Caucuses and the Presidential Nominating Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Winebrenner, Hugh. 1998. The Iowa Precinct Caucuses: The Making of a Media Event. 2nd ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press

And for all the Brown Coats this tid bit fact was really nice to learn about, preserve our minority history!

The origin of the word "caucus" is debated, although it is generally agreed that it came into use in English in the US. According to some sources, it comes from the Algonquin word for "counsel," cau´-cau-as´u, and was probably introduced into American political usage through the Democratic Party in New York known as Tammany Hall, which liked to use Native American terms. (from wikipedia under "caucus" search)

Tancredo Not Seeking Re-election

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), in the midst of a long-shot presidential campaign, will not seek re-election, his staff confirmed Monday.
. . .
"It's the fact that I really believe I have done all I can do in the House, especially about the issue about which I care greatly (immigration)," Tancredo told the Rocky Mountain News in a phone interview from Iowa.

His presidential campaign, mired in single-digits in the polls, has been focused primarily on fighting illegal immigration and securing the nation’s borders.

Full Story: CBS News

Yes, the "immigration reform" Tancredo is the same
"right wing nutcase" who once suggested the US bomb Makkah.
Can I get an Alhamdulillah?

CAIR Asks Rep. Tancredo to Retract 'Bomb Mecca' Remarks

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

Muslims Welcome GOP Rejection of Threat to Attack Mecca
CAIR calls on Rep. Tancredo to retract, apologize for 'extreme' remarks

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 8/6/2007) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today welcomed remarks by several Republican presidential candidates repudiating threats made by fellow White House hopeful Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) to attack Islamic holy sites.

The Washington-based Islamic civil rights and advocacy group also called on Tancredo to retract and apologize for remarks he made last week advocating threats to bomb the holy cities of Mecca and Medina as part of his proposed anti-terror policy.

SEE: Attacking Mecca Effective, Tancredo Says (AP)
SEE ALSO: Tancredo Defends Threat to Bomb Muslim Holy Sites (CNN)

In a statement issued today, CAIR said:

"The Republican candidates and the Department of State are correct in rejecting threatened attacks on Islamic holy sites as a deterrent to terrorists.

"Representative Tancredo's extreme and counterproductive proposal to threaten Mecca and Medina fails any reasonable test for strategic viability. It only serves to further damage our nation's interests and image in the Muslim world and will inevitably be used as rhetorical fodder by extremists.

"America's relationship with Islam and Muslims worldwide will be a central issue for the administration of our next president, whoever that may be.

"We call on Representative Tancredo to retract his inflammatory statements and to apologize for fanning the flames of international mistrust and hostility. We also urge every other presidential candidate to state how her or his leadership would win back the international support, particularly in the Islamic world, that America has lost in recent years."

During a Republican presidential debate in Iowa over the weekend, former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson said, "I sincerely believe that bombing religious artifacts and religious holy sites would do nothing but unify 1 billion Muslims against us."

After the debate, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said the idea is "appalling." Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) also said, "I wouldn't follow that."

SEE: GOP Candidates Go On Attack Over Bombing Remark (Rocky Mountain News)

Earlier in the week, Tom Casey, a deputy spokesperson for the State Department, said: "It is absolutely outrageous and reprehensible for anyone to suggest attacks on holy sites, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish or those of any other religion." Casey called Tancredo's proposal "absolutely crazy."

SEE: Candidates' Remarks Bomb with State Department Officials (AP)

No Time for Apathy

There are many Muslim students these days who find it fashionable to talk about not participating in national elections. Which I guess I understand, but definitely disagree with their perception. Yet there are those still who feel any involvement in politics or government is taboo for the Muslim community. To which I think to myself- why are you even living in America- go back home because (save the rant for later). I thought this line of thought was stamped out for good, and I am not excited to see a resurgence of it.

However, I feel that most of my friends, family and associates just don't care. They are so concerned with Brangaleena or Paris being sent to Prison, or worse, idiot democracy of American Idol. They just don't care about substance or issues of dire concern. Its really sad to think that people are so brain dead/washed to not pay attention to reality. Ironic how we need Reality TV in order to escape the reality of life.