Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Muslim Group Sues Congressman for Defamation (Ballenger (R-N.C.) )

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Khephra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 11:57 AM
Original message
Muslim Group Sues Congressman for Defamation (Ballenger (R-N.C.) )
Muslim Group Sues Congressman for Defamation

12/3/03 11:25:00 AM

(PRESS RELEASE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk

Contact: Arsalan Iftikhar, 202-488-8787, 202-415-0799; Ibrahim Hooper, 202-488-8787 or 202-744-7726, cair@cair-net.org; or Rabiah Ahmed, 202-488-8787 or 202-439-1441, rahmed@cair-net.org, all of CAIR

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A prominent national Islamic civil rights organization today announced that it has filed a defamation lawsuit against a congressman from North Carolina who falsely claimed the group is "the fund-raising arm for Hezbollah."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) filed the lawsuit Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in response to an October 2003 Charlotte Observer newspaper article in which Rep. Cass Ballenger (R-N.C.) claimed the stress of living near CAIR in Washington, D.C., caused the breakup of his marriage.

Ballenger said that proximity to CAIR "bugged the hell" out of his wife. He said his wife also objected to women "wearing hoods" going in and out of CAIR's Capitol Hill headquarters. (NOTE: Many CAIR staffers wear religiously-mandated headscarves, or hijab.) At the time of the article's publication, CAIR attributed Ballenger's statements to "Islamophobic hysteria."

In its lawsuit, CAIR said Ballenger's defamatory statements harmed the group's reputation and were not protected speech because he did not make them within the scope of his role as a member of the House of Representatives. The suit says Ballenger's claim that CAIR raised funds for terrorists was made "with actual malice, wrongful and willful intent to injure...and with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity." CAIR is seeking $2 million in compensatory and punitive damages, together with costs and attorney's fees.

"With this lawsuit, we are sending a clear message to all those who make malicious and defamatory statements against American Muslims or their institutions that they will be held accountable in a court of law," said Arsalan Iftikhar, CAIR's director of legal affairs.

Ballenger, who serves on the House International Relations Committee, has angered African-American and women's groups with previous bigoted statements. Last December, Ballenger said African-American Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney stirred in him "a little bit of a segregationist feeling. I mean, she was such a b-tch." In another incident, many people were offended by a black lawn jockey -- long a symbol of racial insensitivity -- in Ballenger's front yard.

CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and has 25 regional offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada.

more..............

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=115-12032003

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hawkeye-X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. And to think..
Edited on Wed Dec-03-03 12:19 PM by HawkeyeX
that this congressdick is retiring.. Now he has to deal with lawsuits and lump-sum payments. Hopefully this Repuke will learn not to fuck with people.

Hawkeye-X
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. You don't seriously believe
that CAIR will win this lawsuit, do you? If they're lucky, it will be dismissed following a demurrer to the Complaint or a summary judgment motion. If they're not, there will be discovery and the defendant will have an opportunity to prove that CAIR does, in fact, fund terrorists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eissa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Yeah, all those Muslims
support terrorists :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Thankfully
CAIR does not equal "all those Muslims" and there is more than a little evidence of connections between CAIR and terrorists. But thank you for your none-too-subtle attempt to paint me as a bigot. It tells me all that I need to know about you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlackFrancis Donating Member (243 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Who told you CAIR supports terrorists?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-03 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
22. I didn't have to have it told to me
Edited on Thu Dec-04-03 01:06 PM by Blitz
But Chuck Schumer gave me a hint anyway (scroll down).

There has been ample circumstantial evidence:
From the Associated Press:

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff sentenced Bassem Khafagi, formerly of Ann Arbor, to 10 months of time already served in prison. Khafagi, 41, pleaded guilty Sept. 9. Khafagi admitted during the September hearing that he passed bad checks at two banks for thousands of dollars in 2001, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Collins said in a statement.

Collins said Khafagi also "confessed ... he made false material statements" on his nonimmigrant visa application on Nov. 8, 2000, in Kuwait City, Kuwait. An immigration judge ordered Khafagi deported in August. He is expected to be deported soon to his native Egypt, where he is to join his wife and U.S.-born children, the Detroit Free Press reported.

Khafagi had been in custody since January, when he was arrested in a hotel near LaGuardia Airport in New York. At the time of his arrest, he was community affairs director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil rights and advocacy group based in Washington.

The FBI said Khafagi is a founding member of the Ypsilanti-based Islamic Assembly of North America, a charity that purports to promote Islam. Officials said earlier this year that they were investigating the organization for possible links to terrorism.



__________________________________________________________


The FBI says he is a founding member of the Islamic Assembly of North America — which officials are investigating for possible links to terrorism.

Federal investigators say the IANA has funneled money to activities supporting terrorism and has published material advocating suicide attacks on the United States. The IANA says it was formed to promote Islam.

Khafagi was one of four past or present students at Idaho and Washington State University who were arrested during an investigation of a suspected terrorist-related web in the Moscow, Idaho-Pullman, Wash., area.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001722671_webkhafagi10.html

But that's just the beginning . . .

. . .

Not surprisingly, CAIR also backs those who finance terrorism. When President Bush closed the Holy Land Foundation in December for collecting money he said was "used to support the Hamas terror organization," CAIR decried his action as "unjust" and "disturbing."

CAIR even includes at least one person associated with terrorism in its own ranks. On Feb. 2, 1995, U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White named Siraj Wahhaj as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in the attempt to blow up New York City monuments. Yet CAIR deems him "one of the most respected Muslim leaders in America" and includes him on its advisory board.

For these and other reasons, the FBI's former chief of counterterrorism, Steven Pomerantz, concludes that "CAIR, its leaders and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups."

. . .

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/394


__________________________________________________________

"I bring to you salaams and greetings from the Mujahadeen at CAIR."

-Dr. Ghazi Khaksan, of the Council on American Islamic Relations, at the D.C. Rally, January 18, 2003.

___________________________________________________________

. . .

Federal prosecutors yesterday announced indictments against 11 members of what they called a "Virginia jihad network" who are charged with training to work with terrorists to fight for Muslim causes in foreign nations.

The 42-count indictment, returned by a grand jury Wednesday and unsealed yesterday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, charges that the men trained with and fought for Lashkar-i-Taiba, a group that is trying to drive India from Kashmir and has been named a terrorist organization by the U.S. government.

. . .

One of those charged, Randall Todd Royer, arrested yesterday at his home in Falls Church, characterized the allegations as baseless during an interview Thursday. He dismissed the discovery of pistols and rifles inside the homes of some group members as insignificant. "Ooooh, gosh, they have weapons," said Royer, a former spokesman for such organizations as the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim American Society.

. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A43265-2003Jun27¬Found=true

More on the charming Mr. Royer and the specifics of the charges against him here:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8642

Here is the website that this former CAIR spokesman runs:

http://www.atrueword.com/

And more charges against Royer (and not for littering . . . conspiracy to levy war against the United States and conspiracy to provide material support to al Qaeda and the Taliban):

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/25/virginia.terror.suspects/

___________________________________________________________

. . .

Last Wednesday, The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security held the second in a series of hearings aimed at examining Saudi Arabia’s role in exporting Islamic extremism abroad. The hearing, titled “Two Years After 9/11: Connecting the Dots,” was focused on the prevalence of the radical Wahhabi Islamic sect among Muslim political groups in the U.S. CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad and Chairman Omar Ahmed were invited to testify at the hearing, but both declined to attend. In their absence – and in front of their empty witness chair - the committee heard compelling evidence that Saudi Arabia financially and ideologically supports a network of American organizations that act as the defenders, financiers, and front groups of international terrorists. CAIR has been a major player in this network since its creation in 1994, with a particularly soft spot for the suicide-bombing death squads of Hamas.

Senators turned out in force to connect the dots between CAIR and the deviant Islamic extremism that led to the vicious attacks of 9/11. In his opening statement, Chairman Jon Kyl said, “a small group of organizations based in the U.S. with Saudi backing and support, is well advanced in its four- decade effort to control Islam in America -from mosques, universities and community centers to our prisons and even within our military. Moderate Muslims who love America and want to be part of our great country are being forced out of those institutions.”

Senator Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat who has been steadfast in his efforts to uncover the nexus of Hamas front groups in the U.S., was ruthless in his portrayal of CAIR as part of an international terror network. In his opening remarks, Senator Schumer stated that prominent members of CAIR—referring specifically to Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmed—have “intimate links with Hamas.” Later, he remarked that “we know (CAIR) has ties to terrorism.”

Even Senator Richard Durbin, who has made common cause with some of America’s Wahhabi-backed groups, came down hard on CAIR. In his final comments he conceded that CAIR is “unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect,” and requested that the committee seek the testimony of mainstream Muslim groups in its place in the future.

. . .

more:
http://frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9981

"we know (CAIR) has ties to terrorism." Chuck Schumer, D-NY said that on the record. Some may find that to be significant.
____________________________________________________________

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eissa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. And I've seen enough posts from you
to know you'd get my message. CAIR is indeed a legit organization. Any "evidence" to the contrary is more Arab/Muslim bashing by Ashcroft and his goons to try and paint the largest lobby for Muslims as just another "terrorist" organization. John Zogby hosts a talk show on Arab satellite tv as well; I bet that makes him a terrorist too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. So, CAIR is a legit organization
and "any" evidence to the contrary is to be summarily dismissed as bigotry. How very open minded of you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlackFrancis Donating Member (243 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. no, it's just old tired bullshit
maybe some people have been watching long enough to watch these smears come and go and vaporize like the chimera they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. C.A.I.R Spokespeople, Mr. Blitz
Have never impressed me very favorably. The kindest thing that could be said about them is that they indulge in apologetics for some indefensible features of causes they support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlackFrancis Donating Member (243 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. where?
I've heard that many, many, times and all I ever get is people either

A) Lying and completely fabricating what they said
B) Saying they are guilty of some sin of ommission for not "condemning" this that or the other (and they are usually wrong about that also)
C) Reading some wacked out conspiratial notion into rather straightforward things being said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. One Day, Mr. Francis
You will simply have to come to terms with the fact that people entertain different views than you on some matters, and draw different conclusions from their own judgements and experience of the world than you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlackFrancis Donating Member (243 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. some day maybe..
In the meantime can I get a concrete example? This isn't a matter of opinion it's something that can be addressed rather directly :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-03 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
24. CAIR spokespeople
and officials have come out in support of HAMAS, have been charged with conspiracy to wage war against the United States (among other serious felonies), have been tried and convicted of various federal felonies (and ordered deported), have described CAIR as Mujahadeen, have refused to denounce terrorists when directly asked to do so, have intimidated moderate Muslims, have smeared their political enemies with false charges, have defended Saudi funding of terrorism and have generally done everything possible to inhibit the fight against Wahaabiism and Islamic extremism in general.

It is heartening to see that the Senate is finally taking steps to confront CAIR and other terrorist supporting organizations directly. The way that the State Department, the FBI and the White House had treated CAIR previously (much the way they have treated Saudi Arabia) has been shameful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. Actually, there was no evidence provided to the contrary,
speaking of open-mindedness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-03 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. I had to be away from the computer for a while
I believe you'll find some evidence in post #22. Naturally, everyone will have to decide for themselves how much weight to give to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-03 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. What the fuck is a "link to terrorism"?
Sounds like this "link" would include someone who agrees or sympathizes with the cause of these Islamic groups. Perhaps someone who writes about and exposes the same injustices? Wouldn't that effectively do away with freedom of speech and silence dissent on these issues?

Now I see where this is going.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-03 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Perhaps you didn't read post #22
Or the numerous links contained therein. Allow me to briefly answer your question (without lowering myself to your level of discourse).

A link to terrorism is when one of your officials is arrested (with his assault rifle in tow) and charged with conspiracy to wage war upon the United States.

A link to terrorism is when one of your officials has fought for and with a terrorist organization.

A link to terrorism is when one of your former employees is charged with conspiracy to provide material support to al Qaeda and the Taliban.

A link to terrorism is when your community affairs director is convicted of lying to get into the country (among other serious felonies) and is a founding member of an organization that is investigated for possible links to terrorism.

A link to terrorism is when your organization howls in protest when another organization, which has been funding Hamas, is closed down.

A link to terrorism is when one of the members of your advisory board is an unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirator in the attempt to blow up New York City monuments.

A link to terrorism is when one of your executives publicly describes your membership as "mujahadeen."

A link to terrorism is when a leading Democratic Senator specifically describes two of your members (by name) as having “intimate links with Hamas" in a public hearing.

A link to terrorism is when a leading Democratic Senator states, unequivocally, that "we know (CAIR) has ties to terrorism."

Hope that clears things up for you and that maybe now you do see where this is going.

I could go on, but I fear it will have little impact on those who, like the poster who commented above, feel that "any "evidence" to the contrary is more Arab/Muslim bashing by Ashcroft and his goons."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #27
31. I believe that you are proving my point.
Edited on Fri Dec-05-03 11:14 AM by TheStranger
Your list of "links to terrorism," provided in response to my query, actually shows how expansive and vague (and damaging) such a notion really is. "Links to terrorism" is tied to so many things that are not true terrorism, it has become in many cases mere innuendo -- but damaging and possibly defamatory innuendo -- used to for political gain. It is very similar to what happened to many leftists in the 1950's, and their being associated with Communism in America. A good book on the Red Scare would be most highly recommended.

And, yes, I did read as much of post #22 as I could, and it appears that you have been accumulating information about this group for some time, which raises a number of other questions, but that would be for another thread.

It sounds like the "links to terrorism" you describe are either (1) logically fallacious, that is, are inconsistent with logic and are therefore invalid; or (2) really a designation for a certain group of people, rather than an action, which is what terrorism actually is, a reprehensible course of action. The fallacy of "links" only illustrates this.

Moreover, virtually all of the links you describe involve or are based upon allegations, alleged conspiracy, or someone stating such. There is no reference to real life and documented events.

Nevertheless, here were your points.

A link to terrorism is when one of your officials is arrested . . . and charged with conspiracy to wage war . . . .

You define being "charged with conspiracly to wage war" as terrorism. It is clear, however, that war is not the same thing as terrorism. Both can exist without the other, and have existed without one another.

A link to terrorism is when one of your officials has fought for and with a terrorist organization.

This isn't in post # 22. Regardless, you define "link to terrorism" with "fighting for" a specific organization. Here, you make clear that the terrorism you actually speak of is defined by a group of people, rather than the act of carrying out terrorism. Then it is the group that is terrorism, not by what it does, but for whom it is.

A link to terrorism is when one of your former employees is charged with conspiracy to provide material support to . . .

The actions of former employees are actually not generally related in any way to their former employers. In fact, the employee's actions may be the reason why he is no longer employed. Still, there is the problem with the vagueness and expansiveness of "material support." A U.S. appeals court found a prohibition on "material support" unconstitutional, importantly, for many of the reasons provided in this post. Material support, alone, cannot qualify as a "link to terrorism." If that were the case, innocently sending a check for food to a relief agency in Sri Lanka (that secretly actually carried out terrorism there) could qualify as "links to terrorism." Yet this would be absurd.

A link to terrorism is when your community affairs director is convicted of lying to get into the country (among other serious felonies) and is a founding member of an organization that is investigated for possible links to terrorism.

You've defined "links to terrorism" as "lying to get into the country (among other serious felonies." But that cannot be terrorist. There are numerous felonies (including lying) that is nothing even remotely close to terrorism. Then you define "links to terrorism" as "possible links to terrorism." This illustrates the point that your term is logically flawed and a fallacy. But what is really going on is the innuendo aimed to discredit someone for political gain. Again, this is very similar to McCarthyism and the prosecution of people for having "links" or "sympathies" to Communism.

A link to terrorism is when your organization howls in protest when another organization . . . is closed down.

You are doing your argument a very serious disservice here. Howling is an expression of free speech. You are proving my point that the real danger (and possible aim) of such "links to terrorism" is to discredit and silence speech and thought, especially when you are opposed to it.

A link to terrorism is when one of the members of your advisory board is an unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirator. . .

"Uindicted," but "who may be alleged." There are so many qualifications in that sentence, that it further proves the point that "links to terrorism" is politically-aimed innuendo that can be used to smear political opponents. Although there is no factual link to terrorism provided, it does include the word in the same sentence as the accused.

A link to terrorism is when one of your executives publicly describes your membership as "mujahadeen."

You are, again, doing your argument a very serious disservice here. "Pulbic descriptions" no matter how much you (or I) may disagree with them, are expressions of free speech. You are proving my point that the real danger (and possible aim) of such "links to terrorism" is to discredit and silence speech and thought, especially when you are opposed to it.

A link to terrorism is when a leading Democratic Senator specifically describes two of your members (by name) . . .

A link to terrorism is when a leading Democratic Senator states, unequivocally, that . . .

The fact that an unidentified politician stated something furthers the argument that it is politically charged innuendo. Unless there was some evidence provided that the real act of terrorism was taking place, it cannot be, in actuality, a link to terrorism, only a means of discrediting someone or their viewpoint.

Hope that clears things up for you and that maybe now you do see where this is going.

Yes, thank you. I believe that you have excellently, although unwittingly, proved my point. I think such a notion of "links to terrorism" is logically fallacious and a problematic means of using charged innuendo for political gain. Problematic because it diminishes and undermines real efforts to deal with the real danger of international terrorism today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #31
30. Thank you for your response post!
Very well done! This kind of McCarthy-ite presecution has got to stop. We are all going down the rabbit hole and we don't even know it. "Links to terrorism", indeed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sistersofmercy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. Good for them! Anti-Muslim rhetoric should not be tolerated!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PsychoDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
20. As a muslim
I think the congresscritter , like everyone, has a right to his opinion, however wrong or offensive I find it to be.. And I do.

Somehow I suspect he would have blamed another minority group for the problems with his marrage, falling property values, etc, etc..Anything to deflect the horror of personal responsibility, but he picked the muslims because he saw them as the most isolated and least likley to make much of a fuss. Historically, in the US, muslims are pretty quiet and attempt not to attract attention to themselves.

What is/will be interesting, is who will stand up and offer their support or opposition to his remarks...
And who, as always, will remain silent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
4. Ballenger is a frickin' nut!
I believe CAIR is OK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Black Lawn Jockey--- How Quaint
<>

The president of a local branch of the NAACP is calling on U.S. Rep. Cass Ballenger to resign because of a comment he made about a black colleague.
Lewis Woods, president of the Catawba County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, sent a letter to Ballenger's office Friday calling Ballenger's comments "very disturbing and degrading

http://newsobserver.com/news/nc/story/2051082p-1974934c.html

On the same day, an aide painted a black lawn jockey white at Ballenger's Hickory residence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PsychoDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. Hahahaha...
So now It's a white lawn jockey :silly:

At least he didn't paint it brown and put a hijab on it.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
surfermaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-03 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
25. Black Lawn Jockey
He had to paint white, it happened, and now he is leaving his seat...not quick enough, with all the job losses in his district..and rummors that he uses Mexicans in his business grape vines for years have said he would tell an employee to leave if he wanted he would hire another Mexican, remember I heard it onf the (Grape Vine... I live in and area clost to his home, Republicans were going to run against him in the primary if he didn't step down. You will have to be a republican to even run in this hot republican district, I have heard Austin Alrand will compete in the primary and Carolina Mill's executive Geroge Moretz is another, also a lady had been mention as another running in the Primary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damnraddem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
8. Oh, the poor baby!
His marriage is breaking up because his wife cannot stand the cultural diversity to which she is subjected in DC. So the natural thing is to try to strike out and exterminate that cultural diversity. After all, the man is fighting for his marriage here! If he could just get everyone to look alike, act alike, and thing alike -- why, then everything would be just fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
10. The Crosshairs of Racism, Bigotry and Hatred have shifted from
"Others" of the past and are now focussed on Muslims, Arabs and other South Asians of color.

In a country that has fought for centuries, including its bloodiest war, over racism of exactly this sort, it is somehow now quietly encouraged and condoned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PROGRESSIVE1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
11. This ignorant bigotry could be from "Zig Zag Zell" (Dixiecrat-GA)...
also you know. Remember, he was Lester Maddox's chief of staff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BellTry Donating Member (68 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-03 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
28. If he said this while in congress
He can NOT be sued. Congresspeople are immune from ANY slander/defamation/etc. suits if they are speaking in Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goobergunch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-03 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
29. Ballenger is retiring at the end of his term
Edited on Thu Dec-04-03 06:07 PM by goobergunch
And about time, too. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC