Sacramento Bee editorial plumps for CAIR

I fear for my country's inability to make the distinctions that are necessary for her to continue to prosper and to be a place of (relative) decency.

Islam is primarily a social order, not primarily a religion. Just as we need to be wary of people who subscribe to violent racist ideologies, we need to be wary of those who subscribe to a belief system that divides the world into us and them -- and not just us and them (because many traditions have that distinction -- but an "us" that has the right (in good time) to humiliate and to dominate.

Islam is worthy of analysis and derision, not the kind of tolerance afforded to Catholics, Hindus, Jews, Mormans... whatever. Islam is different, and a problem for any society.

Ginger Rutland must be in on some big secret, knowing something that the rest of us Islamophobes don't.

More likely she knows nothing other than what the gullible want to hear.

Peace and Love Ginger!

From Rutland's editorial:
...at a perilous time for Muslims in this country.

(rolling eyes) Yeah, sure. They take their lives in their hands just walking down our streets.

oh please send these stupid women to sharia land, ie iran, saudia arabia for a starter, then they see how much love there is for women.

"Intolerance and bigotry are national traumas, to be avoided above all things."

Said in the imperative; a statement of the absolute.

What then does she thinks falls under the rubrics "intolerance" and "bigotry?"

At the last Ramadan celebration I attended, CAIR presented Sacramento Assemblyman Dave Jones with a beautiful Quran.

One wonders what would have happened if someone displayed a beautiful Bible or a beautiful Torah scroll to the Sacramento Assemblyman? Would that person be denied "equal access" to the public official? Would they be blasted as a "bigot?"

Should Jones follow Boxer's lead and and return it? Should I stop attending CAIR-sponsored events?

I pray not. Should either of us feel compelled to do so, I would fear for my country, for its cherished traditions of religious tolerance, open debate and fair play.

Ginger Rutland, I believe you are a liar. If you loved your country you would not be supporting those who claim in their holy books and traditions that they have a religious mandate to destroy the principles upon which the country is build.

You'll have your cherished shariah law soon enough Ginger; don't whine when you discover where your place as a women resides under such a system; you will learn finally what "religious tolerance" WAS and mourn because of your stupidity and arrogance.

You will get what you deserve!

"I know Elkarra. I don't believe he supports terrorism".

One day, perhaps in the not too distant future, this Rutland will hear the tapes and read the transcripts of what this creep really thinks. The mask will be gone, but the smug Rutland will be sad about that.

An excellent exhibit about Soviet labor camps is now touring the, including grainy documentary short films which, though taken by the Soviet government itself for propaganda purpooses, nonetheless manage to convey something of what went on. The ill-clad shivering prisoners breaking rocks are presented to us as from another world, and one can only imagine, if these are the films the Soviet authorities took, presumably to show the magnificent efforts being made as this or that White-Sea Canal was built, what the real conditions were like -- imagine, or read Varlam Shalamov or many others.

Part of the exhibit, too, consists only of photographs of those in what is now called the Dissident Movement. Andrey Sakharov and Elena Bonner, Yuri Galanskov, Pyotr Yakir, Andrei Amalrik, the smiling face of that gifted teacher, the tormented Anatoliy Jakobson, handsome Valeriy Chalidze, and a hundred others -- the Best People in the Soviet Union -- are all on view.

A perfect exhibit.

Except for one thing.

It is being exhibited in different places. In Boston. Outside Washington. And in California. And in California, the site chosen to show this exhibit is in the desert -- Manzanares. Why the desert? Why make it so hard to have it viewed by a large public?

Because, you see, someone thought it would be telling, someone thought it would be perfect, someone thought it would be wonderful if an exhibit about Soviet concentration camps could be shown to the American public right at Manzanares, where some Japanese-Americans who as we all know were re-located to camps where they could be guarded, and were not permitted, having been deemed to be security risks after Pearl Harbor, were moved -- if they were Japanese-Americans on the Pacific Coast (if they lived elsewhere they were not moved) to one of those relocation camps, with its schools, stores, post-offices, churches, and so on. The largest camp was at Manzanares. The effort was supported by California's then-governor, who would later become the celebrated liberal Supreme Court Justice, Earl Warren.

So the official or officials who, in some Federal bureacuracy, decided to show this exhibit about the vast archipelago of Soviet slave labor camps in which tens of millions of people were worked to death, or killed on the spot at Manzanares, were Making a Statement. And that Statement was: Americans are Guilty, in exactly the same way, or at least we who placed the exhibit in Manzanares wish you to think so, as the Soviet Union.

This Statement is false, and infuriates, but that some in the American government wanted to make it -- who? -- and others did nothing to sto it -- who? -- is telling.

When Ginger Rutland writes, her hand on her forehead in anguish that, if she stopped attending CAIR events, "I would fear for my country, for its cherished traditions of religious tolerance, open debate and fair play."

Can she think of no other reason to "fear for her country"? What about those Nazi agents, especially of the Abwehr, that did such a good job infiltrating American business, or such propagandists as Putzi Hanfstaengl, or such local supporters of the Nazis as Fritz Kuhn? And if the war-generated fears about Japanese-Americans were false, that does not mean that they were irrational (there were some Japanese spies in this country), nor that all those liberals, such as Earl Warren, were wrong in 1942, long before the 442nd Regiment of Japanse-Americans distinguished itself, and how (it was the first or second most-decorated American regiemnt in the war), in the European Theatre, were cruel madmen. There are things to regret, but not to pluck out of historical context, and relocation was limited in time and space and application.

There is no Muslim equivalent of the 44nd Regiment, proving its loyalty to the United States. And there never will be. Instead, at every step, CAIR has been trying to entangle everyone, in and out of the government, and to urge Muslims in this country, whenever and wherever they can do so, to complain, to sue, to do whatever they can to bollix up the entirely rational and sensible measures being undertaken to protect us, on airplanes and otherwise.

Ginger Rutland is just another dhimmi, amongst millions, who never bothered to research the Qur'an, ahadith, or Sunnah of the Profit after 9/11. Hey, Ging, peruse Osama's 1998 fatwa and search his Qur'an quotes on any Qur'an database. But that would require research, the province of "right-wing bloggers" and never "professional journalists" these days. You'd find, as I did, the reason Osama is one of the most popular names for young Muslims after Mohammed.

I've begun to take the long view on such things: I don't live in a city. I don't live near any symbolic targets. But the entire leftist lack-of-brain trust does. Enjoy!

Should she stop "going to CAIR events"? No, but she should do a little book-learning first. Instead of looking on with such naive delight as a leather-bound Qur'an is handed to "Assemblyamn Dave Jones" she should read, and re-read, and read with understanding (what is "naskh" or abrogation, and why are some Suras more important than others, and what is Sura 9 all about, and what does the phrase "Jihad fi sabil Allah" mean), and study or at least familiarize herself with the so-called "authentic" Hadith (and they are all on-line, a click away), and find out, too, who was Asma bint Marwan, and Abu Akaf, and Aisha (and why did Aisha's age play a part in virtually first law that the Ayatollah Khomeini's regime passed), and the decapitation of the bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, and the attack on the Khaybar Oasis.

Rutland somehow has come to believe that she has no duty to study Islam even if she has made CAIR, and Muslims, her beat. She appears to believe she has no duty to find out about the 1350-year history of Muslim conquest of non-Muslims and their lands. She has no duty to find out why Zoroastrianism, once the state religion of Persia, has almost disappearend from Persia, and why some Zoroastrians (Parsees) sought refuge in tolerant India. She has no duty, she believes, to find out why 60-70 million Hindus were killed by their Muslim masters, or what sustained the luxury of the Mughal courts, or what happened to statues of the Buddha in padwasana or otherwise, and stupas, and ancient libraries of Buddhist manuscripts, and all those artifacts of Buddhism that were destroyed, as so much that was outside of Islam was destroyed, and destroyed right up to the present day (remember those attacks on the Bamiyan Buddhas, carried out by the Afghani Taliban, but aided by Pakistani and Saudi Muslim "engineers"?).

Her ignorance may be, for Ginger rutland, her bliss. But her ignorance, naivety, gullibility ,and sheer idiocy -- on display above -- are not bliss for those who read and may even believe her. They deserve better. There have to be some standards.

Who owns the Sacramento Bee? Who runs it? Do they not think there is any duty to have such matters covered by someone who knows something about the matters she is supposeed to cover, and not merely a perfect compendium of all that is stupidest and most unacceptable in American journalism?

"I pray not. Should either of us feel compelled to do so, I would fear for my country, for its cherished traditions of religious tolerance, open debate and fair play."

What a foolish comment from a perfect fool. The things that you cherish are the ideas that are under attack from you friends, the Mohammedans, not from us, the loathed infidels.

Ms Rutland is not a mere dhimmi, but a collaborator who will someday have to answer for her treachery.

It is not an exaggeration that we here in Appalachia refer to the West Coast as Granola Land.

ZenaWarriorPrincess-

The truth is that people like her are easily manipulated by flattery.

A lot of folks at JW are not susceptible to that kind of manipulation. But there are many people (Armstrong, Esposito, etc.) who like the feeling of being morally or intellectually superior to others and manipulators know where to press the buttons with them. Many people see themselves as superior based on their beliefs and Rutland is of that type. When confronted with reality they can be nasty because of their emotional needs. "The personable young University of California, Berkeley, graduate..." knows she's hollow. He could be Ted Bundy, but Rutland will be fooled because it's easy to deceive people like her.

Fortunately, there are plenty of JW types around who will be like the police officer in Florida who told Bundy to get out of the car. That officer was not influenced by charm.

"Should she stop "going to CAIR events"? No, but she should do a little book-learning first".-Hugh

The last thing she wants is to see reality. That would change the atmospherics.

Yes, they really CAIR, about Muslims. yes they CAIR , about the Islamic agenda. Yes they CAIR about making any non Muslim who stands up for THEIR rights to look intolerant or bigoted. They do not CAIR if they twist or leave out the FACTS to support their Agenda.

so why should i CAIR?

Because they do! ....CAIR

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

CAIR presented Sacramento Assemblyman Dave Jones with a beautiful Quran. Should Jones follow Boxer's lead and and return it?

How utterly ignorant.

Apparently Rutland is guilty of judging a book by it's attractive cover and isn't aware that CAIR was DISTRIBUTING BANNED KORAN.

She stated:

". . .I would fear for my country, for its cherished traditions of religious tolerance, open debate and fair play."

That's a two way street honey.

On religious tolerance . . .Surely she is oblivious to the 164 Jihad Verses in Koran.

I challenge her to explore just how open or fair debating CAIR really is. Andrew Whitehead (Anti-CAIR) would beg to differ and that's just one example.

CAIR is notorious for their abuse of legal threats to silence open debate. Ask the one-time Washington, D.C.-based radio host Michael Graham, Boston-based radio talk show veteran Jay Severin, National radio personalities Paul Harvey and Dr. Laura.

A frequent link to this story,
CAIR DEMANDS REMOVAL OF BILLBOARD
will reveal that all traces of the images of these offensive billboards are removed from online access - including internet archive which results in dead links.

CENSORSHIP is not the equivalent of OPEN, FAIR debate .

The multicultural theology of giving equal validity to all cultures and practice is just an ideal. People like Rutland are so hung up on tolerance and diversity, that they are unable to look at contrary evidence as it relates to radical islam. Sen. Boxers' withdrawing the award from the CAIR member is excellent, even if she is compelled to "re-think" her position, the fact that a left wing Democratic Senator raised the issue gives us hope.

The initial source of Boxer's concern was the blogosphere, that sometimes subterranean sewer of suspect journalism, where reputation-besmirching rumor runs rampant. Joe Kaufman, a right-wing blogger, criticized Boxer for honoring a CAIR leader.

cited from Rutland's article

This woman is a regular laugh-riot, more funn than a barrelful of monkeys. For a columnist in the MSM to cricicize someone else for rumor-mongering is hilarious. Rumors and besmirchings are the MSM's stock-in-trade. Remember the hoopla about Bush's national guard service, and about the thousands of black voters in Florida that were turned away from the polls?
The truth is that the MSM is really SSS -- shallow, slanted, and sensationalist. It's like a movie set of an Old West town; it looks good from the camera's angle on Front St, but just walk thru the door of one of those buildings, and you find it's one-dimensional, there's nothing there, there's no depth.
What American paper would carry an informed, in-depth report on a British parliamentary debate on defense policy, or tax policy, or immigration policy? None -- o.k. maybe the NYT on page 18. But they reported every detail of Princess Di's latest shenanigans. Lots of froth and no substance; like a glass of beer that's all foam.

justamomof4-

Michelle Malkin is not an emotionally desperate woman who buys deception. She sees reality. Rutland's head has been screwed. I don't think Michelle would get in the car with Ted Bundy-she knows shit when she sees it.

Good heavens, Frank, why would you think I though MM an 'emotionally desperate woman who buys deception?"
Nothing in my post implies that - nor does that statement resemble anything I've ever posted.

??

Ginger Rutland obviously does NOT know CAIR.

Hugh,

Excellent posts (especially about the Soviet tour going to a desert area of California! figures!)

One minor point, though. "Who owns the Sacramento Bee? Who runs it?" I've found that sometimes it's not the owners of a paper who are "the problem." Sometimes the owners are at arm's length to the decisions which are made by a paper (the owners let the editorial staff make all the decisions).

Just today, I discovered (our local newspaper) -- the "editor-in-chief" chose (this is part of a year-end tradition, to pick the "best books" of the last 12 months), and the "editor-in-chief's" pick -- the "best book" of last year -- ready for it? Ok, it was none other than a text penned by Robert Fisk. In a blurb promoting the book, one reads: about Fisk's "outspoken concern for innocent victims of appalling violence" -- yeah, sure, that's only if you happen to be an Arab or a Muslim.

Such a book choice explains soooo much...(as in, why our local paper is so pro-terrorist, pro-Islamist, etc.)

The media as a whole is traitorous and does not represent the people. Yet there are always those that try to smear the decent people along with them. Are you kidding me? Appalachia, I see that area all the time on TV. At least we here in granola land are not featured on late night episodes of Feed the Children. Fight the jihadists and save your mindless remarks for, well, other Appalachians. We are the land of the 1st Marines, and many, many, many who have served have stayed.
http://www.cpp.usmc.mil/press/kit.asp

Fisk? You have to be a complete Ken-Livingstonian to vote for Fisk, who even in England is known to file stories -- talk to the journalists who have been with Fisk, or without him -- from places he has not been in at the time. A tireless anti-Israel pro-"Palestinian" propagandist for years, Fisk has become so famous for his bias as to have given his name to the award known as "The Fiskie." That local editor has unmasked himself. Watch what he, and that paper, produce by way of apologetics for Islam. Find out whatever you can, and don't let up on letting others know. And if the only kind of pressure that counts -- denial of subscribers and above all of local advertising -- can be brought to bear, help to bring it.

justamomof4-

I read Michelle Malkin's column re Jay Severin linked in your comment. I didn't mean to imply you said anything re MM. I'm sorry for any misunderstanding. (I don't speak for you or anyone else. I speak only for myself.)

I do detect something emotionally needy in this Rutland comment that makes it impossible for her to see the truth. After reading MM's column re Severin, I just reflected on the fact that MM is emotionally strong and would not be subject to flattery and manipulation. That's all. That's what I thought re the Severin column. That's what I was thinking about.

I would have addressed this to Ginger Rutland, but since the SacBee requires registration to even read propaganda there, it is placed here.

Ms. Rutland, you are an absolute ignorant when it comes to the subject of "loyal Americans" and their historical requirements. Your outlook is vintage 60's psychopathy now taught from a perspective of what happened under communist FDR with a bigotry for anyone from the right.
For the record, my Grandfather came to America from Prussia. I will inform your ignorance just what it took for a 12 year old boy to become a citizen of America.
First he had to live in America
Second he had to become a productive citizen.
Third he had to follow all of the laws of the United States of America.
Fourth he had to swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States over all beliefs.
Fifth, WRITTEN ON HIS CITIZENSHIP PAPERS WHICH I HAVE my Grandfather in 1900 had to RENOUNCE ALL LOYALTY TO THE KAISER of GERMANY and the ENTIRE NATION OF GERMANY.

Now that is the fact in requirements which almost 1/3rd of Americans as GERMAN IMMIGRANTS had to comply with before World War I.

There was no questioning of it. There was no worrying over internment. There was no Koran showing up on loyalty swearing in ceremonies. EVERY GERMAN WAS THANKING GOD THEY WERE HERE AND WERE BECOMING AMERICANS. They learned the language and they blended into the American fabric which was set down in 1750 by the Scottish Irish immigration which created "Americans".

It is utterly repulsive that the SacBee published such flat earth propaganda as you have no education at all on the subject of immigration or the things which immigrants actually went through.

I will give you the fact that Germans during World War I were sometimes held to the ground by Americans and made to kiss the ground if they spoke too much in German favor. It didn't hurt any of them and it was peer pressure which took the most radical and made them into Americans.

There were NO LAWSUITS. NO NEWS STORIES, NO SPIES IN AIRPORTS, NO IGNORANTS LIKE YOU PRINTING FABRICATIONS and NO GERMAN GROUPS LIKE CAIR, because Germans understood the police were the protectors and their voice was the elected officials backed by the United States Constitution.

Those are the facts of the Germans and if the ignorants would care to look at Chinese, Italian, French, Russian, Slavic, Indian and the rest of humanity which came to America each one of our forefathers had to renounce all ties and loyalty to foreign powers and mandates.

You are indeed a danger Ms. Rutland as all people with little knowledge are.

Forgive me:
http://www.bakbone.com/newsletter/images/ginger_large.gif

So we are sewer rats. There Ms. Rutland is, living above ground, shining in the glory of her dhimmitude. Let me ask you Ms. Rutland, did you go and read any of these webpages from the sewer? No? Why not? Did you not want to know if there were FACTS behind the accusations? Did you not want to know? Or are you just too lazy to investigate? Isn't that what 'journalists' do? That is, independently investigate, gather the facts and present them fairly? What a foolish dhimmi? Oh Ms. Rutland, if you don't know what a dhimmi is, you just prove my point!

She is the sort of person that paves the way for sharia law in the US.
She knows nothing of the deceptive tactics of islam, and if she does, she can't believe her friends just might be using her to their advantage.
Oh Ginger, you just wait till they are running things. You won't be editor of a paper then, if you are allowed to have a job at all, it will be something menial that a "field to tilleth" can do in a burqa.

Robert Spencer writes: "She immediately assumes that suspicion of CAIR is equivalent to the other false accusations of disloyalty, directed at Japanese Americans and German Americans during World War II and Vietnam war protestors later."

False accusations!??

1) There is a difference between

a) falsely accusing individuals qua individuals, and

b) falsely accusing individuals qua those individuals' membership in a group.

2) Then, there is a difference between

a) falsely accusing individuals qua those individuals' membership in a group, and

b) rationally accusing individuals qua those individuals' membership in a group insofar as two conditions can be met:

i) that group poses a sufficient degree of danger

and

ii) our ability to winnow out the harmless members of that group from the dangerous ones is impaired both by factors related to our own limitations and by factors inherent to that group (such as, for example, blurred lines between actually dangerous members and supposedly harmless members).

The official American accusation of American Japanese, German and Italian citizens was rational, and so was their internment.

It is the politically correct culture that has grown over the past 60-odd years since the internments which has unofficially but powerfully overruled the US Supreme Court which has never ruled those internments to be un-Constitutional, and it is this politically correct culture which produces millions of people in our society like Ginger Rutland, whose reflexively unreflective disapproval of criticism of Islam is seamlessly contiguous with the various rulings of the unofficial yet often more powerful rival to the US Supreme Court, the PC Supreme Court -- for the former does not change the way masses of people think in a society as does the latter.

Ginger Rutland is not going against the grain: she is the norm in our society.

"The initial source of Boxer's concern was the blogosphere, that sometimes subterranean sewer of suspect journalism, where reputation-besmirching rumor runs rampant. Joe Kaufman, a right-wing blogger, criticized Boxer for honoring a CAIR leader."

That's important, for it appeals to many of the Bee's readers.

I suspect the only reason she didn't also refer to him as an evil, Zionist, bastard Jew is that the editorial board would have raised objections; and the description would have tipped her hand.

Chopping a pickpocket's hands off does not quite comport with the ROP image CAIR is so desperate to promote; and which Ginger appears so eager to hear.

At the last Ramadan celebration I attended, CAIR presented Sacramento Assemblyman Dave Jones with a beautiful Quran. Should Jones follow Boxer's lead and and return it? Should I stop attending CAIR-sponsored events?
Maybe open that qur'an and read the words inside.
I'm sure Mein Kampf was bound very attractively too.

I think that Ginger express the denial that I see very prevelant in the "peace and love" society.

This is the same view of the "government will do it for you."

These are the things that CAIR is counting on. What CAIR doesn't count on, the fact that a lot of Americans are skeptical of their government. One of the things that we here in "flyover country" realize is that we can carry the political water necessary to offset the weirdo costal views of our society.

From "flyover country" we see the Gingers of the world as yesterday's flower children. The flower children had a lot going for them, but have been lost to history.

As we press more and more people into the military service to see first hand the effects of ISLAM, we will see them enter the political arenas. The Gingers of this world will be with us for a very long time. The only problem is that they have the floor to talk a lot more than those of us in "flyover country."

Rutland asks, in her Dhimmitude: "Am I a terrorist?" The answer is, "No, you're just a terrorist sympathizer and a terrorist apologist, that's all. Now return to hugging and kissing your Jew murdering buddies.

These people calling bloggers names proves they don't read much. If they did read they would notice that most blogs just discuss the news articles that reporters cover but the MSM ignores.

And by association politicians ignore the articles also.

[-]

MPs don’t know their Sunnis from Shi’ites
Maurice Chittenden and Tom Baird



WHEN you are chairman of your party’s international office and its human rights commission and a member of the all- party parliamentary Friends of Islam group, it might be advisable to swot up on what is happening in the Middle East.
However, constituents of Gary Streeter, the Tory MP for South West Devon, must hope that he knows more about Dartmoor than he does about the Muslim world.

Streeter, who once started his own non-denominational church in Plymouth Dockyard in protest at the presence of a clairvoyant and a shop displaying tarot cards, confessed last week he did not know the difference between a Sunni and a Shi’ite.

He was one of 30 Middle East “experts” from the world of politics put on the rack over Iraq, Iran and other countries in the region by The Sunday Times.

Streeter, once private secretary to John Major, the former prime minister, also failed to identify Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of Iran.

He was not alone. Many of those quizzed did not know their Hamas from their Hezbollah.

Both Sarah Teather, the Liberal Democrat MP for Brent East, and Sally Keeble, Labour member for Northampton North, thought Hezbollah was an organisation based in Palestine.

Anne Milton, the Tory MP for Guildford, wears the dunce’s cap after getting 13 out of 14 questions wrong. It even slipped her mind that she was a member of the Friends of Islam group. “Ooh, am I?” she said. “Oh yes, I suppose so. I forgot. I don’t think I’ve sat on it yet.”

Gordon Marsden, the Labour MP for Blackpool South and treasurer for the British Lebanon all-party parliamentary group, did not know who the leader of Hezbollah was.

Asked if Al-Qaeda was Sunni or Sh’ite, Brian Iddon, Labour MP for Bolton South East and secretary of the Britain-Palestine parliamentary group, said: “Well, it attracts all sorts.”

Top honours went to Phyllis Starkey, Labour MP for Milton Keynes South West, and Andrew Rosindell, Tory MP for Romford, who both got all but one of the answers correct. Khalid Mahmood, the Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Bar, would have joined them but failed to name the president of Iran.

The survey mirrors similar questions posed to politicians in Washington. Jeff Stein, a columnist on Congressional Quarterly, asked Silvestro Reyes, a congressman chosen to chair the House intelligence committee in the new Democrat administration, whether the followers of Osama Bin Laden were Sunnis or Shi’ites. Reyes guessed wrongly that they were primarily Shi’ites. Stein found that Republican politicians were equally flummoxed.

Stein said: “It’s been five years since these Muslim extremists flew hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center. Is it too much to ask that our intelligence overseers know who they are?”

Glen Rangwala, a lecturer in politics at Cambridge University, who provided the correct answers to The Sunday Times survey, said: “All these questions relate to matters that are going to concern the central issues of British foreign policy over the coming years. If they don’t know the basics then we are in a dangerous situation.”

Ali Ansari, director of the British Institute of Persian Studies at St Andrews University, said: “When you are making decisions about life and death, war and peace, it behoves our representatives to brush up a bit on aspects on the Middle East.

“When it comes to the opposition parties, I really would expect them to have more of a handle of the issues.

“Anthony Eden, for all his woes, did have a first in oriental studies from Oxford. He spoke Persian and Arabic fluently. I have to say I think our politicians from 50 years ago were probably a more worldly aware bunch than now.”

Yesterday Streeter was unrepentant. He gave up the quiz after failing the first three questions. “I said I did not want to take part,” he said. “I did not say I did not know who the president of Iran was. I said President President. It was a joke à la Bush. It is not the proper role for journalists to try to be our judge and jury but to get on with the news.”

How would you have fared?

Questions:

1. What’s the difference between a Sunni and a Shi’ite?

2. Can you name the president and prime minister of Iraq?

3. Is Al-Qaeda Sunni or Shi’ite?

4. Can you name Osama Bin Laden’s deputy?

5. Can you name the president of Iranb?

6. Is Hezbollah Sunni or Shi’ite?

7. Can you name its leader?

Answers:

1. The distinction goes back to a dispute over who had spiritual authority over the Muslim community after the death of the prophet Muhammad. Shi’ite Muslims believe that authority was vested in his family; the Sunnis look to the sayings and actions of Muhammad as well as the Koran.
2. The president is Jalal Talabani, the prime minister is Nouri al-Maliki.
3. Exclusively Sunni.
4. Ayman al-Zawahiri.
5. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
6. Overwhelmingly Shi’ite.
7. Hassan Nasrallah.

[-]

I will wager that in the next few days they will print a CYA edition, distancing themselves from this story. Why? Because as of the last few years in Ca. many papers have done similar work and the reaction of cancelled subscriptions and unsupportive email/snail mail has threatened to bring down the paper. Check out the la times, they cannot even give it away for use as fish wrap. They call people on the phone asking for answers to their surveys and many put their 5 year old kids on the phone to answer the questions. And it is not like these journos can tell they are talking to a kindergartener!

Hugh said

The effort was supported by California's then-governor, who would later become the celebrated liberal Supreme Court Justice, Earl Warren.

Interesting. So when the U.S. was attacked by Japan in WWII, FDR, a very liberal President by any standards, and Earl Warren, a similarly liberal Governor of California, (over?)reacted by putting the Japanese-Americans into internment camps. And FDR declared fullscale war on Japan and Germany. And FDR made speeches clearly denouncing Germany and Japan (not "a few radical Germans and Japanese who have enslaved the vast majority of peaceful Germans and Japanese"). And FDR did not hold hands with Hermann Goering in the Rose Garden.

Interesting.

That's a quiz.

What is needed is a real examination.

I'll prepare one. And those who do not pass that examination, but nonetheless are serenely confident that they have every right to spout off about policy matters concerning Islam, will be clearly seen to need to have their talking-heads examined.

Silly women like Ginger will keep feeling the love of CAIR until sharia takes over and they are told to quit their jobs, go home, put on a burqa, stay inside, and have Muslim babies. Then, finally, Ginger and her friends will get it. In the meantime, I don't care that much about Ginger's hand wringing. I do worry about agencies such as the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. who keep sending representatives or directors to dinners and CAIR/Muslim sensitivity training sessions.

Robert said

There is an enormous crisis engulfing the Islamic world

Maybe CAIR's silence about the crisis is because the premise is false. Maybe there is no crisis engulfing the Islamic world. Maybe this is business as usual. Maybe this is how things have been for 1,350 years, and if it's worked this well for this long, there is no need to go fixing it if it ain't broken.

Fast forward to the year 2100. Let's look at what a typical day for Ginger Rutland's great-great-granddaughter will look like:

5am: Get up to begin chores. After the collapse of an industrial economy, brought on by the inability to support anything more complex than family farms due to the demands of praying 5 times per day, America once again becomes a subsistence economy, with all that entails.

8am: Get the children ready to head to the madrassa. Utilizing the former public school building, now crumbling and decripit, sheiks teach the boys and girls (in separate quarters, of course) the essentials of Islam.

10am: Begin preparing lunch by slaughtering lamb. With the fall of the industrial economy, supermarkets no longer in existence.

noon: Serve lunch to husband, who has just come back from the coffeehouse in the village square, where he had spent the morning BS-ing with his Muslim brothers. Recieve news that now that she is too old to be sexually attractive to him and has borne him 3 sons, he will be taking a younger wife from the farm next door as wife number 2.

2pm: Welcome children back from madrassa. Find out that today they learned that the sun sets in a pond at the end of the world. Cries out "Praise be to Allah that my children are so well-read!"

3pm to 6pm: Begin to prepare dinner by slaughtering goat. Notices tell-tale since of anal penetration and realizes that's why husband has not been so keen to "till her field".

7pm: Husband finally comes home from coffeehouse for dinner. Beats her because dinner is cold.

8pm to midnight: Husband haraunges entire family on how the Shia (her husband is a Sunni) are as bad as the Jews used to be before they were all exterminated. Harangue ends with cries of "Jihad in the way of Allah against the Shia". Children chime in stating desire to become shaheeds.

Midnight: Heads to bed while husband goes outside. Drifts to sleep to sound of goats bleating loudly and husband moaning.

Repeat until Judgment Day.

So, Ginger Rutland, is it worth it?

I saw "The Invasion of the Body-Snatchers" last night Connections to the present were so obvious, that this should be on any list of movies, along with "The Manchurian Candidate," to be shown for rest-and-recreation at the Army War College, or Fort Benning, or Fort Jackson, or Fort Bragg, or for that matter when it's movie-night at the White House.

A connection so obvious, and yet one which, I suspect, will never be made by the ginger-rutlands of this world.

Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, after discovering that the managing editor recommends as the "best book" of the year, a book written by Robert Fisk.

Then I read the following (published today, same newspaper), in the Letters to Editor:

Now that Saddam Hussein has been hanged, his heinous crime of killing 148 Kurds [sic] should set a precedent that all who kill wantonly should be similarly punished.

U.S. President George W. Bush and his administration have, in the past three years, lied to their own country and the world, made a mockery of the United Nations, ordered the invasion of a sovereign nation, occupied it and brutally slaughtered hundreds of thousands of its inhabitants and sacrificed 3,000-plus of their own soldiers and disabled thousands more.

Justice cries out that similar treatment be meted out to them.

Now, is that what I think it is?? This is standard fare, btw, for this "paper" (I've actually read worse).

The italics should go on until the "meted out to them" (that's still part of the letter). my mistake.

The letter:

[Quote]:Now that Saddam Hussein has been hanged, his heinous crime of killing 148 Kurds [sic] should set a precedent that all who kill wantonly should be similarly punished.

U.S. President George W. Bush and his administration have, in the past three years, lied to their own country and the world, made a mockery of the United Nations, ordered the invasion of a sovereign nation, occupied it and brutally slaughtered hundreds of thousands of its inhabitants and sacrificed 3,000-plus of their own soldiers and disabled thousands more.

Justice cries out that similar treatment be meted out to them.
[Unquote]

Is this a veiled or not so veiled threat? I'm reading this in my daily paper "letter to editor."
Is this "fair comment?"

Hugh, I saw Dr. Strangelove last night and was struck that while Peter Sellers as President was no warmonger, he was able to go through the entire crisis without calling Communism "The Ideology of Peace"!

OT more of the same.

[-]
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1984530,00.html

Revealed: preachers' messages of hate

Muslim worshippers are being urged by radical clerics to ignore British law

Jamie Doward
Sunday January 7, 2007
The Observer

An undercover investigation has revealed disturbing evidence of Islamic extremism at a number of Britain's leading mosques and Muslim institutions, including an organisation praised by the Prime Minister.
Secret video footage reveals Muslim preachers exhorting followers to prepare for jihad, to hit girls for not wearing the hijab, and to create a 'state within a state'. Many of the preachers are linked to the Wahhabi strain of Islam practised in Saudi Arabia, which funds a number of Britain's leading Islamic institutions.

Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A forthcoming Channel 4 Dispatches programme paints an alarming picture of how preachers in some of Britain's most moderate mosques are urging followers to reject British laws in favour of those of Islam. Leaders of the mosques have expressed concern at the preachers' activities, saying they were unaware such views were being disseminated.
At the Sparkbrook mosque, run by UK Islamic Mission (UKIM), an organisation that maintains 45 mosques in Britain and which Tony Blair has said 'is extremely valued by the government for its multi-faith and multicultural activities', a preacher is captured on film praising the Taliban. In response to the news that a British Muslim solider was killed fighting the Taliban, the speaker declares: 'The hero of Islam is the one who separated his head from his shoulders.'

Another speaker says Muslims cannot accept the rule of non-Muslims. 'You cannot accept the rule of the kaffir [non-Muslim],' a preacher, Dr Ijaz Mian, tells a meeting held within the mosque. 'We have to rule ourselves and we have to rule the others.'

The 12-month investigation also recorded a deputy headmaster of an Islamic high school in Birmingham telling a conference at the Sparkbrook mosque that he disagrees with using the word democracy. 'They should call it ... kuffrocracy, that's their plan. It's the hidden cancerous aim of these people.' The Darul Uloom school said it no longer employed the teacher and that one of the reasons he resigned 'was the incompatibility of many of his opinions with the policies of the school'.

When contacted by The Observer, UKIM said: 'We are a nationwide organisation and hold different programmes in our mosques. We are very concerned about this. We have instructed all our branches not to allow any more speakers with radical or fundamentalist views. This has occurred as a result of an internal problem. We hired out Sparkbrook community hall, and some of the organisations that hired it allowed some speakers with views that are not our own. As a result, no more external groups will be allowed to hire the community hall at Sparkbrook.'

Elsewhere the documentary records the huge popularity of DVDs and internet broadcasts produced by extremist preachers. At the Islamic bookstore at Regent's Park Mosque in central London, DVDs of a preacher called Sheikh Yasin are sold. In one DVD, Yasin, who is promoted on the mosque's website, accuses missionaries from the World Health Organisation and Christian groups of putting the 'Aids virus' in the medicine of African people, 'which is a conspiracy'.

Another DVD on sale features Sheikh Feiz, a Saudi-trained preacher. Feiz says: 'Kaffir is the worst word that can ever be written, a sign of infidelity, disbelief, filth, a sign of dirt.'

In a statement the company that runs the bookstore said: 'We sell and supply a wide range of material and we do not necessarily agree with it. It is totally unfair to blame [us] for any of the views expressed in these lectures.'

Elsewhere, another preacher at a mosque in the East Midlands is caught on film, praying: 'God help us in our fight against the kaffir, in every field, in every department of life. We beg you to help us fight against the enemies of our religion.'

Inside the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham, a preacher is recorded saying: 'Allah has created the woman deficient.' A satellite broadcast from the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, beamed into the Green Lane mosque suggests that Muslim children should be hit if they don't pray: 'When he is seven, tell him to go and pray, and start hitting them when they are 10.' Another preacher is heard saying that if a girl 'doesn't wear hijab, we hit her'.

Another preacher says: 'The time is fast approaching where the tables are going to turn and the Muslims are going to be in the position of being uppermost in strength and, when that happens, people won't get killed - unjustly.'

In a statement to Channel 4, Lord Ahmed, the convener of the government's Preventing Extremism taskforce, said he was worried about the programme's consequences: 'While I appreciate that exaggerated opinions make good TV, they do not make for good community relations.'

A spokesman for Green Lane mosque said Islam does not denigrate women and that the instruction to hit a child was merely a smack. He accused C4 of intensifying the 'witch-hunt' against Muslims.

'Undercover Mosques', Dispatches, goes out at 8pm on Monday, 15 January

[-]

Something about "Lord Ahmed" just doesn't sound right to my ears.

He thinks it should not be discussed to avoid consequences. Hmm.

CAIR has obviously made inroads among Sacramento journalists and perhaps some politicians by being 'nice'. But, of course, behaving nicely is not the issue. The real issues are not addressed: Rutland does not offer a single shed of evidence that what Kaufman says is false. She merely claims that Elkara is innocent on all counts because he is such a nice guy.

Let it be known to politicians and journalists in Sacramento: the issue is documented acts, views, beliefs by CAIR as an organization and its members (like Elkara) that are morally reprehensible and inconsistent with foundational principles of American government. The evidence exists and it is at the ready to be made more visible, more public, more embarrassing to politicians and pundits who cross the line. Boxer's staff obviously came to know this and, hence, rescinded the award to Elkara because the award represented a political liability. CAIR is now obviously flexing its political muscle, calling in 'friends' (let the unwitting Rutland) to try to make the case that alienating CAIR is the greater liability for Boxer and friends.

It is not. And if politicians on either side of the isle become too close to CAIR or its members they take the enormous political risk that the American public will discover the truth, not that CAIR or so-and-so are 'nice', but that they advocate the long term goal of instituting Sharia law in the United States, that they support Hamas and Hezbollah, that they support jihadists around the globe that aim to kill Americans (for instance, does Rutland know that CAIR recently spoke favorably about the 'Islamists' in Somalia: a group that openly harbors and supports al Qaeda terrorists that murdered Kenyans and Americans in the embassy bombing: Muslim terrorists whose allies are actively attempting to attack the United States and kill indiscriminately as many Americans as they can? CAIR talks out of both sides of their mouths, but that shouldn't matter, I suppose. They are just so nice.)

Americans have had enough of this, and the fact that Elkara has been nice to Ginger Rutland is irrelevant to the issues, issues that concern life and death.

These same people would have probably said of Bundy… He was is a nice boy, so he has a few sexual hang-up’s that include but are not limited to, necrophilia. What’s the big fuss about? These people were warned that in the not too distant future if you are found to have been an apologist you will never recover from that position. They will lose are losing all credibility yet they forge ahead with their utopian views. Do they perhaps understand that their entire future is based on the hope taht what they say about islam, will somehow magically become true? Please, they trade their Women like we trade baseball cards. “Putting the 'Aids virus' in the medicine of African people”, they always accuse others of exactly what they would do. “God help us in our fight against the kaffir, in every field, in every department of life”. As a matter of fact, they are probably spreading all manner of hideous viruses among us as we speak.

Borg quoted a Channel 4 (BBC?) program:

'You cannot accept the rule of the kaffir [non-Muslim],' a preacher, Dr Ijaz Mian, tells a meeting held within the mosque. 'We have to rule ourselves and we have to rule the others.'

A Dr. said that? A preacher? Someone who has spent their life studying the Qur'an said that? At a meeting in a mosque? Sounds like that Islamic expert Tony Blair needs to sit him down and explain to him how peaceful and pluralistic Islam is. This mis-understand-er-er needs to be told how Muslims all over the world want kaffirocracy, I mean, democracy. If Blair is busy, Bush or Condi, noted Qur'anic scholars in their own right, could step in.

It's simple: don't buy the Sacramento Bee, and don't buy advertising or classified space there either. And, BTW, tell them why you're not buying. That should send a message.

I want to stab myself in the face every time someone talks about "religious tolerance" when defending Islam. Why are people so stupid that they consider a belief system, any belief system, to be completely in touch with Western values as long as it's recognized as a religion?

Follow this link to find out why many journo’s write what they do. Hint…knife/chest.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/01/pajamas_interview_flemming_ros.php

The Sacramento Bee frequently runs warm and fuzzy articles on current Muslim events such as articles on Muslim children putting on a fair about the history of Islam and the value and greatness of its followers (they were poets, intellectuals ad nauseum, of course not mentioning the murder and mayhem and Mohammeds "revelation" that he could kill "poets" who did not agree with him)and inviting the community to attend. Other articles have been printed also and not just in the "religion" section but the Metro section.

Ginger Rutland experiences Ramadan:

http://www.zawaj.com/events/ramadhan/ramadan_novice.html

To deny oneself all food and drink for 12 hours - not even a sip of water is permitted - is very hard. To do that not just for a day or a week, but for a full month, represents a commitment to faith that is rare and precious and real. Certainly, it seems so to someone like me, who has a hard time walking past the candy vending machine at work, even after I've just had lunch. So, I left my first iftar impressed and deeply moved.

Indeed, committing suicide to kill infidels for Allah is very hard too. It represents a commitment to faith that is rare and precious and real.

sonomaca,

So what's not buying a newspaper going to do? There are still thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, who'll still be buying it (and being convinced of the CAIR propaganda). Opting out is like a retreat -- and you keep retreating, keep retreating, and what's left? a tiny island?

I think more serious efforts have to be made in a positive, pro-active sense -- more anti-jihadist media, more anti-jihadist websites, more anti-jihadist television channels (on this latter score, the pro-jihadist, pro-Arab/Muslim terrorist television channels keep sprouting up and are spreading everywhere).

According to this link (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1050496/posts), Rutland wrote another pro-CAIR editorial in 2003.. gotta love the last paragraph:

Full text of Rutland's 2003 editorial here:

http://www.adcaustin.org/index.cfm/mod/news/ID/17/SubMod/NewsView/NewsID/126.cfm

"To deny oneself all food and drink for 12 hours - not even a sip of water is permitted - is very hard..
--- from a comment by Ginger Rutland

Half of Hollywood does it intermittently year after year. In Chicago, Oprah Winfrey has probably denied herself food and drink for twelve hours at least a hundred times. And in New York, if you need more examples of how common this self-abnegation is, just ask those cold-eyed men and women who run the model agencies. And finally, if you've now reached Boston, or Hospital-Land, just ask doctors what they always require patients to do before surgery. And then, if that doesn't do the trick, find out about fasting among non-Muslims for religious reasons. It's not so uncommon, and there's no reason for impressionable Ginger Rutland to be so impressed.

In the North, the sun (in the winter) sets at 4 pm. Oh, the horror! what a deprivation!!!

If OBL himself was a member of CAIR, we won't have to worry about the Sac Bee uncovering the story.

Correction to above comment, "frequently" was not the correct descriptive word but there have been some.

tch, tch, tch, the ignorance of the Dhimmi! The "fast" does not last for twelve hours -- it's from sunrise to sunset. Doesn't the CAIR dupe know anything about iSlam?

To deny oneself all food and drink for 12 hours - not even a sip of water is permitted - is very hard. To do that not just for a day or a week, but for a full month, represents a commitment to faith that is rare and precious and real.
More Rotland from an article Posted by: kamala

What would she have to say about a Christian giving up some pleasures for Lent? Would she think that represnted "a commitment to faith that is rare and precious and real?" Ha! More likely she'd denounce it with a mixture of ridicule and bile.

special_guest wrote:

So when the U.S. was attacked by Japan in WWII, FDR, a very liberal President by any standards, and Earl Warren, a similarly liberal Governor of California, (over?)reacted by putting the Japanese-Americans into internment camps.

Warren and Roosevelt were Classical Liberals, a breed that has become exceedingly rarer and rarer in the intervening 60-odd years since the 1940s, reflecting the degredation of Liberalism into what I think is more appropriately termed "Leftism". The proper definition of "Leftism" would be "deformed (Classical) Liberalism".

But Leftists today aren't the only problem. The PC Multiculturalism that incubated and spawned them, and which they in turn, symbiotically, nourished, has become so dominant and mainstream that its sociopolitical influence has transcended, and transformed, most people (not just "elites") on whatever point of the Left/Right spectrum they might stand (including so-called apolitical types).

Unsuspecting zombies recruited for print and electronic media

NEW YORK, 9/11/08: "In their persistent quest to breach the Infidel's defenses, the bad guys were honing their weapons and increasing their firepower" said Ms. Rutland, former journalist with the Sacramento Bee.

"With growing sophistication, they are taking advantage of our journalism/RTF students by secretly installing themselves in tenured positions on thousands of colleges and universities, banding their students together into an unwitting army of zombies and using the collective power of the dragooned network to deceive, divide and conquer."

"When I departed that newspaper, founded the International Infidel Tribune and hired Hugh Fitzgerald as Editor-in-Chief, having listened to his stories, read the works of Ye'or, Bostom and Trifkovic and consulted with Robert Spencer, as an outsider and a non-Muslim I finally felt somehow that my own freedoms and sanity had been made more secure. I was grateful for that."

. . .to be continued

correction: you meant "the now defunct Sacramento Bee."

I don't see how any democratic society can appreciate Islam ? The truth is the truth ! What, if an Islamic husband beats his wife, it's Ok because he's Islamic ? The need to change the name from CAIR to CARE, I guess we could consider they'd be on the right track, but that isn't going to happen so remove the snake.

Just emailed to Ms. Rutland at grutland@sacbee.com:

Ms. Rutland,

I just read your editorial in Friday's Sac Bee challenging Ms. Boxer with some tough questions regarding CAIR and Basim Elkarra. I wonder if you'd be willing to challenge Mr. Elkarra with a few tough questions as well. Here are 10:

1. Does he believe Zionism is a "racist ideology"? Did he or did he not write the following? "Understanding Zionism helps us understand the complexity of the current situation. One should learn from the apartheid in South Africa that a racist ideology achieves nothing but suffering for all people involved." (Basem Elkarra, Al-Bayan, 'Introduction to Zionism,' November 2003)

2. Does he support former Lodi imam Mohammed Adil Khan, who was deported after attempting to build a madrassa? Shabbir Ahmed, a former student of Khan's, "acknowledged that Adil Khan had, for a time, been a close friend of a Taliban leader." (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/16/MNGJ8DP5IJ1.DTL). Elkarra said, "We're concerned especially that the older imam (Adil Khan) was driven out. He was a pioneer in interfaith work." (Sacramento Bee, August 16, 2005)

3. Does he agree with CAIR-Florida Communications Director Ahmed Bedier's statement that "Catholic priests pose more of a terrorism threat by having sex
with young altar boys than those who flew planes into the World Trade Center."? If not, will he condemn Bedier publicly? (Bedier said this to Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite: http://www.anti-cair-net.org/BrownWaite.pdf)

4. CAIR's founder Nihad Awad said in 1994 "I am in support of the Hamas movement." (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:w2z1ug5xtysJ:kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/subdocs/091003_epstein.pdf+%22barry+university%22+%22i+am+in+support+of+the+hamas+movement%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)
Does Elkarra agree? If not, will he condemn Hamas publicly?

5. Does he agree with CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper's statement that "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future"? as Hooper told the Minneapolis Star Tribune (April 4, 1993)? Will he say candidly that he simply does NOT want to see Islamic law take hold in the US?

6. Does he believe that the Qur'an is the eternal and literal word of God?

7. Qur'an chapter/verse 4.34 says that husbands have the right to beat their wives.
Liyakatali Takim, a Muslim Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Denver, wrote in 1995 that, to preserve "marital harmony," "as a last resort, very light form of physical correction is to be undertaken...Indeed, all commentators are in agreement that the third form of corrective measure should be undertaken only as a last resort and should be very mild." (http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetWork/msg00015.html) Will Elkarra publicly condemn any level of domestic violence and thus reject verse 4.34 of the Qur'an?

8. Does he believe that the Prophet Muhammad's words, life and ways continue to serve as the perfect model of human behavior?

9. On several occasions, according to the most respected Islamic sources, Muhammad said himself that the proper punishment for someone who leaves Islam is death: "No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'" http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.260. Does Elkarra believe that anyone who leaves Islam should be punished at all (let alone with death)? Does Elkarra contest that Muhammad said this? Does he reject this aspect of Muhammad's words/behavior?

10. Does he believe that Muslims and non-Muslims should be treated 100% equally before the law in any country worldwide? Does he thus reject verse 9.29 of the Qur'an, which says: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth [Islam], (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya [poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.029

I hope you'll take the time to ask Mr. Elkarra these questions; I'm sure the American public will appreciate his answers.

Thank you.

So when the U.S. was attacked by Japan in WWII, FDR, a very liberal President by any standards, and Earl Warren, a similarly liberal Governor of California, (over?)reacted by putting the Japanese-Americans into internment camps. And FDR declared fullscale war on Japan and Germany.
Posted by: special_guest
I don't think that Warren was regarded as a liberal while governor. He was a Republican, and was appointed by Ike. But, once on the federal bench, he "grew" as the liberals like to say.

Technically, it was Congress that declared war. And they did so against Germany only because Hitler had very foolishly declared war on the U.S. first. Up until then, despite numerous provocations by FDR, Hitler had wisely kept out of a war with America. But, in support of Japan, he declared war on Dec 11, and the U.S. reciprocated. It was one of Hitler's worst blunders. It is interesting to speculate on what might have resulted if he hadn't, and the U.S. and Japan were left to fight their own war, in parallel to a separate European war. There's the makings of a good "alternate history" novel here.
|It might also be noted that more Americans of German and Italian ancestry were interned in camps than those of Japanese ancestry. Did they or their descendants receive any compensation?

remote_control said

Warren and Roosevelt were Classical Liberals

Heh heh. Is this the same political-persuasion algebra that calculated that GWB and Cheney were actually liberals, not conservatives, as soon as they started failing in Iraq, as some conservatives tried to claim?

I have never claimed that liberals are better prepared to defend the country than conservatives, or vice versa. It is conservatives who claim to have cornered the market on patriotism, strength, and sanity. They haven't, and it's not helpful to discard 50% of the population as 'the enemy' or 'traitors' because they don't share all your views. Islam is a danger, that is all we have to agree on at the moment.

special_guest, I would call Edmund Burke a Classical Liberal as well.

The major reason why Conservatives today are almost as bad as Leftists with regard to the Problem of Islam is because the sociopolitical culture of Conservatives has also become infected with, and degraded by, PC Multiculturalism.

Nevertheless, we see many little signs of a slightly higher degree of rationality and health in the Right, throughout the West: for example, whenever we learn of an anti-dhimmi politician in Europe or Australia, we inevitably learn he or she is a conservative; another example, some of the tactics used by Bush & Co., of monitoring the transactions and private communications of citizens, the attempts (often frustrated by Democrats) at more aggressive treatment of Muslim prisoners, etc. -- tactics that Democrats would be far less likely to pursue, precisely because the Left is, to a degree, more deeply and broadly infected and degraded by PC Multiculturalism.

ebonystone said

Up until then, despite numerous provocations by FDR, Hitler had wisely kept out of a war with America.

The previous post may have provoked a chuckle, but this one is worthy of spraying a mouthful of milk out ones' nose and all over the keyboard. FDR provoked Hitler, that is excellent.

But I can see that conservatives are the ones who had to, as they always do, drag the liberals kicking and screaming into WWII, so who am I to disagree.

kamala,

I can guess how Ms. Rutland herself would answer the question you propose for her to ask Elkarra:

1. Does he believe Zionism is a "racist ideology"?

Ms. Rutland: "Well, heck, I beleve Zionism is a racist ideology! Who in their right mind doesn't!?"

2. Does he support former Lodi imam Mohammed Adil Khan, who was deported after attempting to build a madrassa? Shabbir Ahmed, a former student of Khan's, "acknowledged that Adil Khan had, for a time, been a close friend of a Taliban leader."

Ms. Rutland: "Well, heck, didn't our good old CIA support the Taliban at one time?"

3. Does he agree with CAIR-Florida Communications Director Ahmed Bedier's statement that "Catholic priests pose more of a terrorism threat by having sex with young altar boys than those who flew planes into the World Trade Center."?

Ms. Rutland: "Well, heck, as much as I support the rights of NAMBLA, I'd have to say that the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church on this issue is disgusting, and anyway, why should we be grilling one CAIR member on the extemporaneous opinion of some other CAIR member?

4. CAIR's founder Nihad Awad said in 1994 "I am in support of the Hamas movement." Does Elkarra agree? If not, will he condemn Hamas publicly?

Ms. Rutland: "Well, heck, I support Hamas more than that fascistic apartheid government of Zionists in Israel!"

5. Does he agree with CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper's statement that "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future"?

Ms. Rutland: "Well, heck, last time I checked, it's every American citizen's right to hope for his country to reflect his values -- even if those are values that we in our narrow-minded xenophobia have difficulty tolerating."

6. Does he believe that the Qur'an is the eternal and literal word of God?

Ms. Rutland: "Well, heck, does Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or Ted Haggard believe the Bible is the eternal and literal word of God?"

7. Qur'an chapter/verse 4.34 says that husbands have the right to beat their wives.
Will Elkarra publicly condemn any level of domestic violence and thus reject verse 4.34 of the Qur'an?

Ms. Rutland: "Well, heck, last time I checked, America has had no shortage of wife-beaters and domestic abuse, with a whole heck of a lot of Christian families involved."

8. Does he believe that the Prophet Muhammad's words, life and ways continue to serve as the perfect model of human behavior?

Ms. Rutland: "And the problem with that is...?"

9. On several occasions, according to the most respected Islamic sources, Muhammad said himself that the proper punishment for someone who leaves Islam is death: "No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'"

Ms. Rutland: "I don't know about that... I think you've been reading some Islamophobic hate literature..."

Does Elkarra believe that anyone who leaves Islam should be punished at all (let alone with death)? Does Elkarra contest that Muhammad said this? Does he reject this aspect of Muhammad's words/behavior?

Ms. Rutland: "Those are inflammatory and insensitive questions, and I wouldn't soil my reputation by stooping to their level."

10. Does he believe that Muslims and non-Muslims should be treated 100% equally before the law in any country worldwide?

Ms. Rutland: "Why wouldn't he, for God's sake?"

Does he thus reject verse 9.29 of the Qur'an, which says: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth [Islam], (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya [poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Ms. Rutland: "Heck, I'm sure you're taking that verse out of context, and anyway, the Bible is filled with violent verses too. I think you're a hatemonger who has been reading too many Right-wing blogs."

remote_control said

The major reason why Conservatives today are almost as bad as Leftists with regard to the Problem of Islam

Does liberal thought have elements that cause problems with Islam (like wanting to include everyone, no matter how violent their philosophy)? Yes. Does conservative thought also have elements that cause problems with Islam (like putting large energy companies' well-being before the nations', or by fighting Communists at the cost of training and arming jihadists)? Yes.

But some here like to claim that Islam isn't the problem; liberals (or Democrats, or Dhimmicrats, or Demonazis, or whatever clever phrases Rush has thought up that day) are the real problems.

whenever we learn of an anti-dhimmi politician in Europe or Australia, we inevitably learn he or she is a conservative

Did you leave out the U.S. on purpose? If so, that's a step in the right direction. When Boxer rescinded her award to CAIR, most here just criticised her for being a lying politician trying to cover her behind bla bla bla.

And I don't think we need to torture prisoners, or spy on U.S. citizens. We won WWII without it, I think we'll survive now. That doesn't mean I'm pro-jihad, or weak on defense. I'd rather not have jihadists here to be spied on in the first place. It makes no sense to have a policy of encouraging Muslims to come here to study how to fly (but not land) airliners, and then use their presence to justify spying on Americans. That is just plain stupid. Same goes for Iraq. I don't think we should be there. Not because Saddam was a great guy, or because we shouldn't be picking on the poor Religion of Peace, but because Iraq is not where the terrorism is coming from. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would be closer to correct.

A friend of mine was involved in CIC operations in NYC keeping track of Bund members, the Bundists were able to trade off the intelligence they had gathered on communists for immunity from prosecution, and they all excused donations or "networking" enabling each other so that only those caught actually aiding the nazis such as sabotage or reporting ship movements ever were prosecuted. I expect it's no different with the people in question in now, rather than question them, you should just look for their connections, take notes, follow the money. And if anything like 9/11 or larger happens again, the government should search every mosque and home of every important leader of their cause in this country, and if they don't like it (it would exonerate the innocent, right?) they can always leave. Anyone whose first loyalty is not to the USA is a guest that should behave themselves according to our rules.

special_guest,
Can you name one good idea a liberal has come up with that actually worked? I know that liberals have tried to hijack many causes and call them their own but I cannot think of one original good idea they have had, ever. FDR, did he offer a hand out or a hand up? I have no problem with some liberalism, as long as it is not destructive, but the leftards have hijacked the liberals. Can you imagine a modern liberal supplying arms to anyone? No, the jihadists don’t count.

Belligerent Acts Prior to US Entry into WW2,
Mar 27 1941. ABC Conference. Atlantic Fleet is to help the Royal Navy convoy ships across the Atlantic. The agreement inextricably links the U.S. Navy in the effort against Germany.
Mar 30 1941 U S seizes Axis ships in US ports.
http://www.ww2pacific.com/bellacts.html

I was intrigued by the use of "plumps." I think the composer of this article should have used "pimps."

The Sac Bee has always been only worthy for the classifieds. The rest of the paper is best used to line the floor of your bird cage...a cheap paper that absorbes a lot of bird droppings...

special guest,

But some here like to claim that Islam isn't the problem; liberals (or Democrats, or Dhimmicrats, or Demonazis, or whatever clever phrases Rush has thought up that day) are the real problems.

I think the sentiment that "liberals are the real problems" is a view without much peripheral vision: it restricts the problem, probably as a psychological mechanism to make the problem more manageable; but the real problem I maintain is wider and deeper, a veritable and mainstream and dominant culture of PC Multiculturalism that affects both Left and Right. Most Jihad Watchers don't seem to be able to grasp that possibility, perhaps because they are stuck with the paradigm of Elites vs. the Common American, with everything bad emanating from the latter, as though America could have a small ruling class of sinister soulless Plutocrats pulling all the strings -- a paradigm that demonstrates a disturbing alienation from the organic health and greatness of the USA, in my opinion. My auxiliary point attached to my observation here is that, while both Left and Right are affected and infected, the Left is, to a certain degree, more affected and infected.

"whenever we learn of an anti-dhimmi politician in Europe or Australia, we inevitably learn he or she is a conservative"

Did you leave out the U.S. on purpose?

The sentence directly following the one you quoted included the US.

And I don't think we need to torture prisoners, or spy on U.S. citizens. We won WWII without it...

On the first count of torturing prisoners, the reason we won WWII without it was beause we were otherwise waging an aggressively non-PC war. On the second count, we did engage in surveillance of U.S. citizens, and that practice in the following Cold War also for the most part was good and beneficial.

It makes no sense to have a policy of encouraging Muslims to come here to study how to fly (but not land) airliners, and then use their presence to justify spying on Americans.

That's a bass-ackwards way of characterizing it. Bush & Co. are forced to spy on Americans, precisely because their otherwise PC mentality can't even entertain the far more radical and un-PC strategy of stopping Muslim immigration and deporting Muslim citizens on any basis whatsoever (other than blatant ties to terrorist groups).

So through the night rode Paul Revere;=
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm,---
A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo for evermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.
And Ginger Rutland sticks her head out the door
And screams like never before
Put out that damn light, and shut the F up!
People are trying to sleep, you're keeping us up!

kamala thank for the email address, your letter is great, with many good questions. l just wrote her a very short note,
Dear Ms Ginger Rutland ,
l read your article about why so many Americans are resistant to the facts about the Council on American Islamic Relations and about Islamic jihadism in general . It is called common sense, something many elites on the left do not seem to grasp.
Please read articles, books, even the Koran if you will, and you will notice a trend and thus able to connect the dots of what is behind many of the terrorists activities around the world,
Books by Robert Spencer would be a great start.

ps before you label anyone whose opinions differ from yours as "racists", remember that Muslim, Islam are not a race, but Islam is an ideology that closely related to facism, that is it controls your every day life, and if
sharia law ever takes control in the West, it relagates all non Muslims, minorities, women as secound class cititzens. so please educate before
you condemm.
pss if your even more curious about learning, you migth try reading Robert Spencer's website www.jihadwatch.org
that is for the truly brave person who has quest to learn the truth.
and say hello to Hugh for me.

tgusa said

Can you name one good idea a liberal has come up with that actually worked?

Sure. Little Boy and Fat Man, a project led by Robert Oppenheimer (a liberal) and dropped on the orders of Harry Truman (a Democrat).

You really think that conservatives thought of every good idea, ever? That's pretty strong, don't you think?

special_guest, the liberals of yesterday were a whole lot different than the leftist of today.
l would welcome a true liberal of yesteryear, if one could find one in the Democratic party. the far left loonies have driven them out and or made them shut up. today's leftist feeds off pc, multiculterism and have become islam's defenders over Western culture. The liberal of yesterday would be not recognize their currrent day libeals, aka loonie left. at least Chamberlain realized his mistakes.

Ginger Rutland
http://www.capradio.org/programs/bios/biodetail.aspx?bioid=37
Maybe she's a revert.

ZenaWarriorPrincess said

at least Chamberlain realized his mistakes

Yes, Neville Chamberlain, member of the Conservative Party, realized his mistake. He was replaced by Winston Churchill, who ran originally as a Conservative, then later (but still before WWII) as a Liberal. He was appointed to create an all-party government, since in the case of national defense, political party loyalty is trumped by loyalty to the nation (cough cough).

Again, my point is not that liberals have had all the good ideas, it is that no party is the sole repository of everything good in the universe. Which seems a shocking idea to some here.

special_guest said… Sure. Little Boy and Fat Man, a project led by Robert Oppenheimer (a liberal) and dropped on the orders of Harry Truman (a Democrat).

General Leslie R. Groves,
Yes, Oppy was instrumental in the development of the bomb in his sector. But it took a General to get the complete job done. Truman? He did what he was told, until he didn’t(Korea) so then he was out. Do I think conservatives have all the good ideas? Naw. But the bigger question is, was it really a good idea for any of us to develop nukes?

Can you imagine a modern liberal dropping the bomb on anyone?

tgusa said

was it really a good idea for any of us to develop nukes?

Can you imagine a modern liberal dropping the bomb on anyone?

If our nation is in danger, absolutely. And I don't even have a very good imagination.

Clarification to my original comment. It was not my intent to imply that the Sac Bee was promoting one faith over another. In all fairness to the Bee they have also run various stories on other faith activities including the opening of a new Mormon Temple and articles on Jewish events etc. It was not my intent to imply otherwise.

special_guest
You are a liberal (not a leftard) I can work with, the old 70-30 rule. If I agree with you 70% of the time we can work out the other 30%.

Another bunch of idiots that haven't bothered to read the Kuran and think they understand Islam and Muslims and have no clue just how far off base they really are.

Hey SACRAMENTO BEE EDITORS: READ THE stupid KURAN!!!!!!!!

Rutland wrote:

"At the last Ramadan celebration I attended, CAIR presented Sacramento Assemblyman Dave Jones with a beautiful Quran."

Hey, I've got a "beautiful" Mein Kampf. First edition, German language, Gothic Script.

==============
GINGER RUTLAND IS A BIRD BRAIN!