But CAIR is still a front organization for extremists, and to be watched carefully

According to the Department of Homeland Security, it's right-wing groups that are the terrorists and extremists. Should they be "watched," too.

Should we hire some of those old Stasi members to do the watching? They probably don't have a lot to do these days. You sound just like them.

And what do you mean by "watched"? Watched how?

Is AIPAC a front organization for extremists, too?

Glenn where did you get your numbers that .6% of Americans are muslim? I had read that it was 3%.

The Pew link I provided for each group compared the % of members in Congress versus the % of overall population, and indicated that .6% of the American population is Muslim:

See the first chart:

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=379

It seems to me that a co-conspirator is a person or group that involves itself in a conspriacy along with others.

Un-indicted means, not indicted.

It means an assertion, unproven by the government and untested in any court of law.

Glenn, I have to agree with Jebbie, you are guilty here of selectively leaving out important facts in your article

Jebbie's complaint was that I didn't specifically mention that AIPAC - unlike CAIR -- actually had officials indicted for espionage. Do you agree with Jebbie that I should have explicitly mentioned that? Does AIPAC's influence in Congress concern you as a result of that?

Do you know what an un-indicted co-conspirator is?

And since AIPAC officials have actually been indicted in connection with espionage, do you worry about their influence in Congress?

That's because this pro-isamic organization has been found financing Islamist terrorist groups like Hamas.

This is a lie. They were never charged with anything, let a lone convicted. They were listed in a government document as one of many groups that gave money to what was the largest Islamic charity in America. That's an accusation, one never proven in any court, and one that was never the basis for any criminal indictment.

Unlike, say, AIPAC, which had two of its key officials indicted and charged with felonies, though they were eventually dropped.

For shame. It's not like you to leave details like this out of your articles. What "powerful group in Congress" has actually been directly involved in an espionage case and why isn't that group being prosecuted?

What details did I leave out? The links go right to AIPAC, though they're only one of many groups with huge influence in Congress that has been found guilty of wrongdoing.

And none of their officials was found guilty. A DOD employee, Larry Franklin, was convicted for passing classified information to AIPAC, but the charges were dropped against the AIPAC officials themselves because of legal rulings that found, in essence, that merely receiving classified information is not a crime (since journalists do that all the time).

As much as I view any Cheney-Kristol slogan like Keep America Safe as deeply ironic, it seems like a real stretch to be calling them out for copying the ACLU on the basis of using the same "Keep America Safe" catch phrase.

Do you actually think that's what I was saying?