In her latest Washington Times column, "Preserve free speech," Diana West puts her finger on the problem with National Review's Rich Lowry's facile dismissal of books which, in his view, attempt to "discredit Muhammad and Islam."
Of greater concern is the philosophical battle National Review declined to fight, and the reasons the magazine declined to fight it. According to National Reveiw Editor Rich Lowry's post at National Review Online, because the magazine's book service is put together by an independent publisher, and since the CAIR-provoking copy wasn't written by a National Reveiw staffer, Mr. Lowry saw no capitulation in removing the Menezes book at CAIR's behest. (National Review this week returned "The Sword of the Prophet" to its bookstore.) "In contrast," he wrote, "Robert Spencer and some others on the right feel very strongly that it is important to discredit Mohammed and Islam as such in order to win the war on terror. That's certainly their prerogative, but it is not the tack National Review has taken."This statement reveals an unnerving disconnect. The study undertaken by Mr. Spencer and kindred Islamic scholars isn't calculated to "discredit Mohammed and Islam" — as if "discrediting" Mohammed and Islam would convince jihadis to make peace to begin with. The fact is, a thorough examination of the expansionist, religious-cum-political ideology of Islam is vital to any successful defense against its jihadist expression. Ignoring facts about Mohammed and Islam, given their role in animating terrorism, would be like ignoring facts about Marx and Communism in that earlier ideological struggle National Review championed — worse, even, considering the inspiration Muslims draw from the personal life of Mohammed.
But what may be most damaging about National Review's act of reference-cleansing is that it helps legitimize CAIR's drive to tar all criticism of Islam as "hate speech" and thus squelch it. This, of course, was roughly what an Australian court ruled against Preacher Scot. It can't happen here? Maybe not. But the only way to preserve freedom of speech is to speak freely.
Morning all!
Today’s Extras:
The Leftist Academia’s propaganda machine. It's the perfect Anti-Science: Mention only the facts that back you up, ignore contradictory data, vilify anyone that questions you, stamp out calls for reform, repeat the lies again and again, and eventually you will win. ~ kj
Strange bedfellows:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17650
A terrorist appeals to the Left:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17650
Homeland security: Harvesting Illegals:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17649
Two examples of how the US is failing in Iraq:
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200504060759.asp
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20050408.shtml
(and I am off to work. Stay safe!)
I don't perceive Robert as being on the right.
Right and left are narrow dogmatic, self righteous terms.
Robert is simply aware of a threat, is knowledgeable about it, and exposes it and that results in his being characterized as "right", which is as much a nonsense as Pym Fortuyn being called right wing.
And in that regard in response to Gary's constant beating of the "left is the evil" drum, and in recognition of his selectivity of vision, which fails to see Right Wing (conservative) treachery. Since there are so many eager beaver ideologues who delight in posting evidence of leftist treachery, and a dearth of posters willing to point out treachery from the right.
I thought I would even the balance a bit, by keeping tabs on right wing treachery.
Leftist treachery is motivated by ideological naivette, right wing treachery is worse it is wilful and motivated by money and power. Except for the useful idiots at street level, who delude themselves into believeing the garbage that comes out of their leaders mouths, there motivation is also ideological, the so called culture war, a war in which Christian and Muslim patriarchialism (family values) are indistinguishable.
My thesis is that both left and right are being jerked around by the ideological short hairs, to the ultimate chagrin and disadvantage of all.
Forbidden Truth
House of Bush House of Saud: Secret Relationship with the worlds two most powerful dynasties
George Bush's "you are with us or with the terrorists is a lie, he is a friend and business partners with the Saudis, the chief protectors and financiers of the terrorists. He went so far as to provide special protection
to the Saudis bin Ladens immediately after 9-11. Every single person who financed and helped the terrorists of 9-11 are free in Saudi Arabia, and in the days after 9-11 the Saudi Bin Ladens were allowed to leave the USA without questioning, some even escorted by the FBI. No wonder. The Bin Ladens have been business partners to the Bush family, funding George's Arbusto Oil Co, on 9-11 just miles from the Pentagon George HW Bush was in a Carlyle Group Business meeting with the bin Laden's brother.The bin Laden family got the contract to rebuild the Khobar towers after the bombing that killed 19 Americans, and the list goes on and on, including Prince Bandar's wife passing $10,000 to a hijacker the week before 9-11.
At the 9=11 hearings a list of Saudis who financed the terrorists were asked for, that night George W. Bush classified that list.
Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold our soul for Saudi Oil
Even Sen Graham states in Intelligence Matters,that it is the Saudis who financed and are behind 9-11, yet the Saudis are privileged family friends and business partners with Bush. page 169
other excerpts
The Saudis funded Osama bin Laden, and are thus responsible for 9-11, but we didn't attack Saudi Arabia did we, we attacked Iraq who had no connection to 9-11.
And finally the utter betrayal but THIS adminstration as documented by Paul Sperry in Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have infiltrated Washington
And yet we have supposed Jihad Watchers venting their spleen solely on "liberals".But nary a peep about "conservative" treason and betrayal. Isn't that right Gary? Maybe some folk use the "Jihad" as a ruse, to wage their own Jihad against those they consider liberal or left. Seems closer to the truth since they
don't criticize, expose or complain about betrayal and duplicity on the right.
For every John Esposito, John Conyers or Ward Churchill there is a Grover Norquist, Karl Rove or Bush.
Giaour, I have no problem being critical of the left or the right as my websites show:
http://www.liberty-and-culture.com/
http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
I have some problems with your focus. The problem is cultural – not some sinister plot. Both political parties, with very few exceptions, fail to criticize Saudi Arabia or Islam. The politically correct multi-cultural left and the ecumenical any-religion-is-good right are blinded by their beliefs (not some secret cabal).
Yes, some people need to be taken to task. However, that won’t be enough – there are others ready to fill their shoes. We need to raise people’s awareness to the threat of Islam. This involves two efforts: expose the nature of Islam, expose the nature of our willful blindness. Comments, anyone?
Gaiour, you're wasting your time. You know that Islam Apologisers come in BOTH political stripes, but the monkeys here will NEVER admit it.
We both saw the Democratic Convention, and we both know that John Kerry and John Edwards both said that we need to rid ourselves of dependence upon Saudi Arabia. We know that Mike Moore said in an interview that Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorist attacks in Israel. We both know that General Clark said publicly that if elected president, he would set up a joint Special Operations program with Saudi Arabia that would hunt down Bin Laden and terrorists like him and that Saudi Arabia would foot the bill. But as Ronald Reagan said, “Facts are stupid things.”
What we have here is a failure to question their so-called “leaders.” They really do believe that Ward Churchill has more influence than James "F*** the Jews, they don't vote for us" Baker III.
You are making a noble effort but I regret to inform you that you really are wasting your time. I tried for months and months to no avail (you should've been here back before the election. Sure, the webmaster can throw out a handful of articles "criticizing" Bush but it is nothing, NOTHING compared to the poison pushed on the Vietnam combat officer candidate.)
Just see this page, where Gary--who never had an original thought or uttered an original sentiment in his life--uses MY quote about conservatism to make "his" point about liberals.
This is the heart of the matter of the con-lib feud. Cons walk all over us with impunity, and most of us take it laying down. When one of us doesn't, oh the humanity! Insults, profanity, and off-topicness, oh my!
That’s why Gary can post links to frontpagemag, the chicken-shit, dhimmi nationalreviewonline, and freerepublic.com. Try answering with bartcop.com, democraticunderground, etc. and watch the ensuing whinefest.
It's the perfect hypocrisy: apparent outrage at the hypocrisy of the other side, while conveniently ignoring that of your own.
Just remember this. Truth is on our side. They will always equate liberalism with every bad thing. Always. They always have. They tried to tie liberalism with communism when the commies were our enemy. Now that the Muslims are our enemy they are trying to tie us to them. They are even rewriting history in a way that makes Hitler out to be a liberal. A rational thinker would say, "But wait. Hitler hated Commies. Hitler hated the unions. Hitler hated abortion..." This would start one down the path of realizing that maybe, just maybe "liberal" isn't synonymous with "bad." So most of them never even get that far. Again, some wise monkey might be tempted to think, “Wait a minute. Hitler was liberal? I thought FDR was liberal? Why did we invade Germany?”
It's been said that if you're not thinking clearly, you're not really thinking. Thus do weak minds seek out each others company and reinforce the most ridiculous claims. Thus is Pontius Pilate made out to be a liberal and Jesus a conservative. (Which reminds me, Gary… speaking of Right-Wing dhimmis, did you see the George F. Will rant earlier this week where he referred to Jesus as—get this!—a “Palestinian” that died at 33 and never traveled more than 100 miles from his place of birth?) Thus do Muslim fools get together and convince themselves that the MUST commit terror to “protect Islam”, “fight the great Satan”, “gain admittance into Heaven”, etc. etc.
They love to oink and oink about how Muslims vote democratic. That's because they want to tie Islam to liberalism. They cite survey after survey that proves that Muslims hate Bush as much as everybody else does, and voted accordingly….but,
THEY WILL NEVER admit that Muslims overwhelmingly supported Bush in 2000, primarily because Lieberman is Jewish. (Find the pic on the web of Dumbya and Pickles Bush arm in arm with the Al Aryans.) They will never admit that Al Aryan alone convinced thousands of Floridian Muslims to vote for Dub. (Recall that Dub “won” Florida by less than 500 votes.)
THEY CANNOT admit that Al Aryan campaigned for Bush and posed with him at a campaign stop. The pic is on the web. I won’t post a link because I don’t expect anyone here to click on it.
THEY WILL NOT consider that the ubiquitous drive to apologize for Islam is one based primarily on money, no more than they will let themselves understand that "political correctness" is at best another word for "politeness" and essentially a variation of "financial correctness."
THEY WILL NOT admit that the media, mainstream and otherwise, exists to make money by selling advertisement.
"IF" we are attacked yet again, look for a renewed wave of blaming everything on the liberals. Even though Dhimbya and his sycophants and toadies have practically been given carte blanche, they will still blame everything on liberals.
They cannot let themselves question their worthless "moral system" because if they did, the whole thing would collapse.
Every week more evidence comes out showing that invading Iraq was a phenomenal waste, but we still “can’t afford” to adequately fund the protection of our borders.
And finally, Gaiour, my good liberal friend, I beg you to reconsider your stance on Israel. I just finished reading “The Case For Israel” by professor Alan Dershowitz. You really should read it. It’s only 13 dollars, 200-odd pages. You could easily read the whole thing in a couple of days. The main part of the book is broken into 30-or-so claims by the haters of Israel (both on the left and on the right) so you could easily read maybe just one or two of these to start with. For each accusation, Dershowitz gives the accusation, provides a few quotes as examples, and then builds the case for the truth. If you would like to borrow my copy, I’ll be glad to send it to you, or (only if you promise to read it) I’ll order you one from Amazon and have it sent to you. The same goes for you Rebaccah and any other liberals out there who hate Israel and/or love the “palestinians.”
Gary you dirty lying little cowardly troll. You know that it's your side that hates science, especailly with it contradicts your "heritage", religimous superstitions, etc.
Mayhap there will come a day when the terrorist leaders of Saudi Arabia makes a deal with Bush: we sell you crude at our cost for five years if you turn your back on Israel. I wonder what the right-wingers will do then? Actually, I think we all know exactly what they do, what they always do: toe the conservative party line.
Gaiour, Gary is pretty sensitive. So if I get banned, it might take me a day or two to get back. If you need to reach me before then (like to read Prof. Dershowitz' book) email me at fanorollins@yahoo.com
Giaour~ Finally! That was more towards what I've been after all along. Still wrong about me however, just like kj. Seriously wrong, but I am not about to help either of you, save where islam is concerned.
Long time no see, kj. :)
KJ you make some very good points, and I'm glad to see a liberal come to their senses about Israel. The right is shady, but I add that the left is just plain scary. You most certainly watched the democratic convention, did you by chance watch Barrack Obama? Now that is scary. If he is the future of your party then you guys are gonna take even more heat about being pro muslim. I know he claims to be a Christian, but I'm from ILL. and I know that he is one of the worst muslim sympathizers you can find out their, grobeling for the muslim vote in Chicago, it's really quite sad. True, Bush and all those oil guys are in bed, as people with money watch out for people with money whether you are Bush or Kerry, as both are disgustingly wealthy.
I have a friend from Ramallah who is a Muslim, and we were at the store one day, when he saw a woman wearing a pro-Palestine shirt. He went to talk to her, but before he got to her, her girlfriend walked up and kissed her open mouth. (I had to laugh) He turned around immediatley and came back to me, and I asked why he didn't speak to her(knowing full well the answer)He responded that he would rather no one support the "Palestinians" if they were going to be queers. Then he told me what he and his people did in "Palestine" to homosexuals, and how he had personally witnessed a classmate being stoned in the street near his village.(I am pretty sure, as I know him well, that he helped in the stoning, as he often speaks about others when he is refering to himself)
Where as one day he complained that Israel allowed gay pride parades and was defiling the land, on this point I had to agree, but I found it interesting that the Left will go to extremes to defend muslims when they should know that the average muslim is completly against all of their beleifs, and would kill many of them for their practices if they had control. Where as Israel on the other hand allows many freedoms to its citizens despite ethnicity, religion, sex, or sexual practices. Sure they are not perfect but no country is, does the left really want another Muslim state in Palestine, like they are always clamoring about just like that dummy Bush and his bullshit roadmap to destruction? Do they really want another state that sanctions extreme violence against any citizen who does not conform to their extreme religious values?
"I have a friend from Ramallah who is a Muslim.."
Curious as to what you might talk about with this "friend from Ramallah" if he once participated in, or at least approves of, stoning someone (presumably to death), and has the other views you ascribe to him?
Oh! kj, since I hardly ever read what you say anymore (due to the hate-mongering screed that is usally part of it)... I just caught that bit about Jesus supposedly being 'palestinian.'
George Will needs a refresher, that much is certain. But I will point out that under the Roman rule, the region had been Named Palestine. It has been a long time since I read Tacitus, Suetonius or Josephus, but I would be curious to see if his (Tacitus) reference to 'Chrestus' includes any mention about the region of Palestine itself. Thanks!
Right and left are narrow dogmatic, self righteous terms.
I couldn't agree more. I have yet to read anything from Liberal-haters or Neo-Con/Con-haters that wasn't a self-righteous diatribe. The more they demonize each other the more they just like each other.
f.g.
Well Hugh, we talk about many things. As a professing believer in Yeshua the Messiah I'm compelled to love and proclaim the Gospel message and saving grace in the Christ. I work in evangelism and outreach with muslims, and am preparing for mission work in the middle east, so I know and meet muslims from all over the world. It is important for me to listen to them, and then when given the chance proclaim the truth to them of Christ and salvation through faith in his sacrifice. Muslims are touchy, and it sometimes requires different appraoches. As for his actions, I have yet to find someone who has not acted in a wicked way against YHWH, and especially for an unbeleiver. If Christ is not good enough for him, then he is not good enough for me or anyone else, and I know that Christ is more than good enough to change the hearts of men and women and bring them joy and hope. I view everyone as a potential brother or sister in Christ, even if they are at the moment only my neighbor. No matter how vile his actions now or previously it is mandated for me to love and be compassionate, I know it is difficult but the Word says: If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him something to drink. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Blesses be the Word of the Lord
I told my Democratic friends, back in March 2004, that if Kerry decided to out-hawk Bush by zooming in on Bush’s weakness – his softness on Saudi Arabia – Kerry would win the election. I said, at the time, if he really remembers his idol, JFK, he should remember that Kennedy make “soft on communism” an issue. Kerry should have called Bush soft on Islamism. Kerry blew it because he caved. Instead of making the enemy, the enemy, he made America the enemy (I show how here http://www.liberty-and-culture.com/pages/5/index.htm ). He blew it big time.
I leave my friends on the left a challenge: put up a strong anti-Islamist candidate and you’ll get my vote. Sure I won’t like the domestic policies but that is dwarfed by the threat of our enemy, Islam. Whoever gets this issue right gets to set the agenda on all fronts. Let’s stop the bickering and join against a common enemy.
Gee, KentuckyGentry, I can't fathom you hanging around a person who has presumably stoned someone to death and who is not currently in jail for this crime. You say it is for an opportunity to spread God's word; I wonder whether you are a little too busy commiserating with him about the gays marching on Jerusalem and not busy enough trying to bring him to the Truth. If he is not open to God's truth, shake his dust off your feet and move on.
KentuckyGentry SAID
I know it is difficult but the Word says: If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
Does this mean give him your flesh to eat and your blood to drink?
JasonP
agreed, but would Kerry have appeared as nothing more than a paper tiger?
KJ
Nice to see that you are not a liberal Judeophobe. congrats on your plug for the "case for Israel".
I think both sides, Liberal Democrat and Conservative Republicans stop the silly Coulterlike name calling and realize the real enemy is Islamic jihadism and the locus of that is the KSA!
Jakester-
I'm with you.
Pick the nits about politics once the real threat is defeated.
Any political figure - left, right, middle, libertarian or progressive- who opposed the global Islamic Tyranny plainly and strongly, and openly tried to steer us away from the suicide of the West, would have my vote.
The minor details about their pedestrian thoughts on health care or social security or base closings or the Ten Commandments in courthouses or gay unions mean little compared with the looming, deadly possiblity of being absorbed into the Restored Caliphate.
And being exterminated for the glory of Allah.
I can put up with self-righteous, quasi-bigoted pea-brain 'christians' or smarmy, self-loathing multi-cultural 'socialists' or jejeune, nihilistic 'anarchists', as long as the Bill of Rights keeps them and their wishes in check.
BUT Sharia checkmates the Constitution -if we are too weak to oppose its insinuation and infiltration into our culture.
Let's focus on the Monster in the Room, and not the fleas in the carpet, brothers and sisters.
We can arm wrestle later -if we still have our arms -and heads- left.
(For those who want to spew vitriol, at least aim it at those who require it... to distract them from sharpening their suras and swords... and not merely your neighbors.)
I will say this in response to anyone who doesn't think that I should try to win the heart of a muslim. The average time that it takes to win a muslim for Christ is 6 years, yes 6 years. This is info that comes from missionaries in the field and at home. As for kicking the dust from my heals, I've had to do this with several people and reserve it for this fellow as well, but most were not muslims, muslims tend to respond better to the Gospel than their athiest extremist counterparts that are so common in the USA and West. And as for this guy, I know the real relationship that we have, and if it came down to it we are not allies or friends, but if anyone is in Christ then they are to love and forgive and that means also taking abuse which is in reality a blessing from YHWH, if you don't believe me read anything in the New Covenant. If I return violence then this muslim will only have his perverted world view confirmed that Christian Zionists are animals and can not act in any way different from them. So why would he come to Christ if the servants of Christ are no different than the servants of Allah? Not all conversions are immediate, most take a long time, Paul spent years in some cities evangelizing, teaching, and correcting because in certain areas the people needed more attention and work. Finally if you are not out evangelizing then do not attack me for doing the Lords work. If you have no experiance in this than how do you condemn this approach which is founded completely on the Scriptures? At least I'm trying to make a difference even if it is slow and one person at a time. It is better than just reading and posting on the internet, which seems to have no affect on the minds of the muslims who visit this site or any other that I've visited. Minds are not changed through words alone but actions and relationships.