Romney: Democrats have accepted defeat in war against 'violent jihad'

OT, but important:

People, here is Robert on the front page of the U of Rhode Island newspaper: CLICK AND READ! --darcy

http://media.www.ramcigar.com/media/storage/paper366/news/2007/10/25/News/Author.Says.Islamic.Fundamentalists.Threaten.The.United.States.And.Allies-3056055.shtml

Yikes, didn't work. Try this:

http://www.ramcigar.com/home/

Moving the ball forward

Great to see that story. Was a fair report of Robert's presentation. No editorializing. I think it was one result the IFAW was intending.

Thank you Darcy for linking.

Good to see Romney using terms like "jihad" instead of the GWOT. But....no need to qualify jihad by using "violent". While somewhat refreshing, it does indicate a lack of understanding on Romney's part. To be effective jihad need not be just violent.

USorThem - Thank you. Yes, it was a straightforward report of Robert's speech.

On the other hand, did you read what happened at Emory? The Nazi students who hate free speech booed Horowitz off the stage. It's unbelievable.

I'm going to find the link.

http://www.emorywheel.com/

Read this and weep at the utter brainwashed stupidity of students' at privileged universities today. It's so shameful their behavior, and so stupid, words can't express.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=83CB1DD4-4180-499B-A546-F6BF82589B84
more on emory

so much for "free speech"...oh yeah, that's only for terrorists & commies.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=34118C79-8278-4F5A-96D5-B5E5C7FFCD50

Mr. Spencer - is it possible that you can make a separate thread about the Emory debacle?

We already know that the dems have taken an official defeatist stance, but it is good to hear a candidate talk a little reality. I think Mit is just a little too perfect, like a 'Stepford' husband, but in this case he shows he can think for himself.

Emory...The guy who heckled, Kerry, got tasered and arrested. Creating a disturbance is against the law.
Most of DH hecklers were not students, some who were, were recognized. Outside people should be arrested, not just ejected. Disruptive students should be expelled. Using speech (heckling) to stop speech, is 'hate speech' in itself and should be a hate crime. I don't care much for the concept of 'hate crime', or speech, but if we have to have them, lets apply them equally. Why make those who disrupt the public order, with this Emory type crap, immune? When the mentally fractured guy said 'everyone stand up, they can't remove us all',
it was time for the tack squad. These mentally disturbed activists, will keep this up, so in order to not have a series of instant replays, more 'serious', security is in order...

And none of them have a clue as to the other forms of jihad by those so called 'moderate' muslims against us.

If they'll start to fight the "violent" jihad, as such, maybe they'll then start to recognize the Fifth Column "soft" jihad, which seeks the same end (the undermining and eventual overthrow of the secular West) but through demographic/ immigrational and "legal" (insinuate Sharia law into our processes) conquest.

Rudy-Romney may be the best we can get, because, weak as they are on the overall subject of creeping Islamofascism, they're still preferable to the opposition, since the Democrats have got their heads so far up their multiculti canals that all they can see is their own craven gutlessness.

"radical violent jihad"
-- from the article above, quoting Romney

Other candidates do the same thing. They pile on the intensifying epithets: "radical extremist violent jihad." It is as if, by piling on the verbal pillows of so many quite unecessary adjectives, one cushions the verbal blow to the noun "jihad."

But surely the duty of those who are running for President, and who therefore presume to be able to protect us, is to demonstrate, ever more clearly, that they have a grasp of the ideology of Islam, that they also have a grasp of Ibn Warraq's lapidary dismissal of putting faith in "moderate Muslims" because, as he put it, "there are moderate Muslims but Islam itself is not moderate" and it is the belief-system, and the possibility of eternal return to that belief-system in all its full-bodied menace and malevolence, by those who might possibly, for reasons Infidels do not always comprehend, outwardly exhibit the lineaments of a "moderate Muslim" -- that is, demonstrate a certain laxity or unobservance of what is prohibited and what is commanded in Islam, but in fact, at the deepest level, retain a defensiveness about Islam that leads them to lie about the contents of the faith, and what they themselves believe, or may, sometimes quite easily, once again allow themselves to believe.

All of this has to be brought out by one or more of the candidates. In so doing, they will force other candidates to do the same -- or show that they are incapable of doing the same -- ever upward from the lowlands at the foot of Mount Truth to higher up, for a more elevated and wider perspective.

Start by pruning those epithets: "radical" and
violent" and "extremist." Start using the word "Jihad." Start discussing how attention to "terrorism" alone misses all the other instruments of Jihad, and that those instruments include the Money Weapon, well-financed and carefully-targetted campaigns of Da'wa all over the Western world, and demographic conquest (here give some of the alarming figures, starting, say, with The Netherlands).

And Romney so far has been among the best in his willingness to employ the word "Jihad" -- a word that has never, I think, crossed the lips of Bush or Rice. But he too needs to keep going, keep at it. And so does Giuliani. And so do the Democratic candidates, who should be able to demonstrate, who need to demonstrate, that their opposition to the war in Iraq is not the result of a failure to comprehend the menace of Jihad, but is an opposition to the misunderstanding of the right goal -- weakening the Camp of Islam -- that cannot be attained by any cockamamie and sentimental schemes to bring "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East. A display of icy determination to end the squandering of tangible resources -- men, money, materiel -- and intangible but vital ones such as morale, military and civilian -- would go a long way to relieving doubts about this candidate, and that one.

Don't you know your only a facsist if you have a conservative view. These "college" kids didn't act like hitler youth quelling the free speach of another human being. No,no, DH could have kept speaking,......he'd only get a half of a word out before the slogan chanting would begin. It is great to see that the faculty were able to take control of the situation and teach these folks about public behaviour. Perfect opportunity wasted. I am really starting to believe that a college degree is a useless sheet of paper.

Before we get too critical about a candidate parsing his words or pulling punches in his rhetoric, we need to remember that in order to govern, the candidate must first get elected. If a candidate told it like it is in the manner most of the posters at JW would like to see, he would not be elected.

I get sick of, cringe, when I hear all those expressions - radical, terrorist, islamics, 'radical islamics', etc because by not saying what they are they are still avoiding the fact of WHO is our enemy, WHAT is our enemy - WHO and WHAT are we fighting? What is a 'war on terror'? This is the most mind numbing term of them all.

Basically all crime could be considered terror. All the wars of the past could have been called 'wars on terror'. The terror of the Nazis, the terror of the communists, the terror of the N. Koreans, etc. Now, how come they won't say 'the terror of the muslims'?! Instead they might say islamics. What the heck is an 'islamic'? gee, oh, oh I can answer that!! It is a m-u-s-l-i-m.

What did they call the people who supported the Nazis? I am talking about the willing supporters of the Nazis? Are we not talking that they were also the enemy? Or the supporters of communism during any of the wars we had with them - were they not also the enemy? YES. If we, as a society as a whole, would know our enemy and crack open the koran we would find that 'moderate' muslims are told to support jihadists - and we are finding throught their charities - they do indeed fund their jihadists. And they do too know what that charity is for since it is in their koran.

I am also sick of this - they don't know the koran because it is in Arabic. Well, it is in so many languages that have been translated by Arabic speaking muslims that this denial is sickening.

Last night on the FoxNewsTicker, I saw a story that said "Duncan Hunter has been researching Quran on internet and concludes islam approves killing of innocents". I've been searching this morning and can't find anything else.

Did anyone else hear about this?

Do you have the website for what you found on Duncan Hunter? I cannot find anything.

I found something on what Duncan Hunter said on www.sheikyermami.com website. Good for the sheik! I went there after reading jihadwatch.org

"...after attending several fundraisers in the Philadelphia area today, Romney focused his attacks mostly on the Democratic front-runners".

If Romney continues on this track then he is running for vice-president. Giuliani is the only candidate in this field who really understands the danger faced from the Saudi-A-Gas-Station ("We really practice apartheid") and other well heeled Jihadists and Jihadist enablers. (I don't his wife will be invited to the gas station if he is elected.) Jihad is not an abstraction with him.

Giuliani is down to earth. For example, he knew how to treat the presently dead Areafat in a down to earth manner when he had the NYPD escort Areafat out of the Metropolitan Opera House. He killed two birds with one stone when he did that: he did the right thing, and the politically savvy thing at the same time. He's smart.

r-not...If reading or chanting the Quran in Arabic, has any advantages at all to the chanter, it is magic, and not of Allah. He is not known as a master magician. I don't think a Quran in Arabic has any magical qualities. If it's just better for clarification, then why are the clerics not telling non Arabic speaking, or reading, muslims, that their 'other language Qurans', are wrong, and explain what is right? But what we hear them saying and writing, is the same stuff we can read in the English versions. There is simply nothing mystical about any of it. This is just a false claim of superiority because, you can't prove any different, and they don't have to prove it, saying it is good enough.
No it's not, it's rather a weak lie actually, I can see through it and so can you...that's why you are sick of it. There are a number of these repeated falsehoods, I am sick of, but I guess when the opposition only has blanks to shoot, they have to shoot a lot of them to have any effect, it's mostly just noise.
Have a good day...

A step forward in winning this homefront war.

Kudos to brave Spencer and brave Horwitz.

The bastards who were violent, who tried to shut them up will be marginalized as most people will see them for what they are.

Spencer used the vital language - the problem is with fundamental, not 'radical' islam (though this independancy from oil riff is a non starter and could possibly be misleading)

When Mitt uses the correct and truthful language,(it's fundamental islam) is able to to say to an audience "read the koran for yourself", he will gain momentum and has a far better chance of winning.

Thanks duh_swami, you are right about the blanks. It made me chuckle and I needed that.

So Democrats are accepting defeat? And what are Republicans accepting? What is Romney accepting? Is he going to talk out of both sides of his mouth, like our current president?

Actions speak louder than words, Mitt. It's the same with Rudy. They might be more dangerous than the Dems for one reason: they'll give us a false sense of security. They'll let us think they're going to fight violent jihad and then speak only of the jihad as an internal struggle once they're elected.
A former Bush State Department official, Flynt Leverett, speaks of taqiyya as a doctrine employed only by non-Sunnis to protect themselves against the Sunni majority. Expect the same type of gibberish about jihad from whomever is elected, given that Tom Tancredo appears set to bow out after the World Series.

"Not that mainstream, passive-aggressive jihad would constitute an improvement."

Good one Marisol. I don't come to Jihad Watch for laughs, but I got a good chuckle out of that one.

I think the glass is half full here, we should all take heart that Romney and Giuliani are at least using the term jihad. Even with the preface of terms such as "radical", "violent" etc.

It may be they understand the threat but for political reasons use such phrasing.... who knows?

I really like Romney, but due to his being a Mormon I think he is going to have a hard time in the primaries.

I think this is a good sign for the Republican party, it shows on some level a few of the canidates "get it". Its clear that Guliani wont be in the pockets of the saudis like Bush is.

I will say this much, besides Ron Paul, ANY republican canidate will be a much needed alternative to Bush....

Giuliani is down to earth. For example, he knew how to treat the presently dead Areafat in a down to earth manner when he had the NYPD escort Areafat out of the Metropolitan Opera House. He killed two birds with one stone when he did that: he did the right thing, and the politically savvy thing at the same time. He's smart.
by Frank

Frank,

Giuliani had more leverage as mayor of NYC than he would have as president. He could thumb his nose at Arafat. He won't have that luxury in the White House. Remember the flak Bush took in his first months in office for refusing to meet with Arafat. It didn't matter that Arafat had responded to peace overtures with a new round of terrorism. Bush wasn't allowed to ignore him and Giuliani, in a similar situation, will face the same recriminations.

Hugh:

While I share some of your positive thoughts on Romney, I think he is less likely than the other candidates to take the extra steps that you want. As a Mormon, Mitt is not going to question or challenge any particular religion faith per se because he knows there are people out there with strong negative conclusions about LDS. Thus, Mitt is always going to use modifiers such as "radical" or "violent".

There is probably a 0.01% of any current candidate going as far as you would want, but the chance with Mitt is 0.00%.

Rudy is a pure pragmatist. If he were to start reading the results of the polls/surveys such as that Rasmussen poll from a couple of months ago, I think he would come closest to your point of view.

Good on Mitt.

I can live with most of the top tier Republican candidates.

But OT and high importance

Marisol and Hugh monitering this.

Gaza terror master using Google Earth to find targets in Israel.

I should also add that Fred Thompson repeatedly shifts focus on Iraq war questions to the broader conflict . That and the fact that he has written about apostates (the Cold War equivalent of dissidents) give me reason to hope. Of course, there is that Spence Abraham person to deal with . . .

OT but for an absolutely shinning example of Gov. Reps who have some Cojones, see this at Debbie Schlussel’s blog:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ “These Men From Oklahoma Have Cojones”

Be sure to email Oklahoma State Rep. Duncan to congratulate him for all his courage!

Event this week in Romney's former home, Boston, Massachusetts, see below. Sponsored by Barack "the Dhimmi" Obama's UCC church:

-------------------------------------------------
Boston Globe: Criticism gone too far
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe wrote an excellent column last week that does a very good job of describing Sabeel in light of their conference this weekend at the United Church of Christ "Old South Church" in Boston. From the Boston Globe:
IN CIVILIZED circles it is considered boorish to speak of Jews as Christ-killers, or to use language evoking the venomous old teaching that Jews are forever cursed for the death of Jesus. Those circles apparently don't include the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, an anti-Israel "peace" organization based in Jerusalem, or its founder, the Anglican cleric Naim Ateek.

Sabeel and Ateek are highly regarded on the hard-line Christian left, and regularly organize American conferences at which Israel is extravagantly denounced by numerous critics. So far this year, such conferences have been held in Cleveland, Berkeley, Calif., and Birmingham, Ala.; another begins Friday at Boston's Old South Church.

Just as critics of the United States are not necessarily anti-American bigots, critics of Israel are not necessarily biased against Jews. But Sabeel and Ateek's denunciations of Israel have included imagery explicitly linking the modern Jewish state to the terrible charge of deicide that for centuries fueled so much anti-Jewish hatred and bloodshed.
posted by UCCtruths, Wednesday, October 24, 2007

PMK-

Yes, it's true that President Giuliani has to look at a larger picture in his words and behavior. But I think 911 made a powerful impression on him re the nature of this Islamofascist enemy and he sees through the Islamofascists' and their 1939-style-Nazi-Left friends. I think he gets it re the totalitarian mine-field that we will all have to walk through if we are to get to the promised land of individual freedom and personal responsibility. There may be another Totalitarian danger after this one, but my hunch is that Rudy is the right guy to deal with this one.

I am certain that the Jihadists fear him. He has to be very careful on the campaign trail and even more careful if-when he is elected president. PMK, Rudy is not Bush. They know that. Let's not mix Apples and Coconuts.

woooo hooooo THE CAT IS WAY OUT OF THE BAG!

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-qurans-returned,0,4576630,full.story

Okla. Lawmakers Return Qurans
By RON JENKINS | Associated Press Writer
7:23 PM EDT, October 24, 2007
OKLAHOMA CITY

Two dozen Oklahoma lawmakers plan to return copies of the Quran to a state panel on diversity after a lawmaker claimed the Muslim holy book condones the killing of innocent people.

The books were given to Oklahoma's 149 senators and representatives by the Governor's Ethnic American Advisory Council.

"Most Oklahomans do not endorse the idea of killing innocent women and children in the name of ideology," Rep. Rex Duncan said.

He said he has researched the Quran on the Internet and believes it supports such killing.

"That's exactly what it says," Duncan said. "I think it's pretty straightforward. By their own admission those are the exact words. They don't all practice that."

Duncan, a Republican, expressed his feelings about the Quran in a letter to colleagues Monday. By Wednesday evening, at least 24 legislators had notified the panel they will return the gift.

Marjaneh Seirafi-Pour, chairwoman of the council and a Muslim, denounced Duncan's assessment of Islam.

"I know he referred to Islam as an ideology. That is not a fact. It is a religion. It is very peaceful, very inclusive," Seirafi-Pour said.

In Washington, spokesman Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Duncan's statement is "disturbing" and "offensive" to Muslims.

"It just points to the amount of education about Islam and the American Muslim community that is needed in all levels in our society, including elected officials," Hooper said.

Seirafi-Pour said the gift was a way to introduce the council to lawmakers so they could use it as a resource to "serve their offices and constituents." Oklahoma lawmakers also received a copy of the Bible earlier this year from The Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma.

"It's one of the nicest things I've received in my three years in the Legislature," Duncan said of the Bible.

Seirafi-Pour estimated between 30,000 and 50,000 Muslims live in Oklahoma. No state funds were used to purchase the books, she said.

more articles in /news/nationworld/wire

Copyright © 2007, The Associated Press

Is anyone listening to Laura Ingraham right now? Dinesh just called the great Robert Spencer a 'spearchucker'!

On FNC right now, 20 members of the House in Oklahoma have sent the embossed copy of the quran back to sender.
CAIR calls this "offensive". You "vill take the quran!"
The march to conquer the US continues.

"Marjaneh Seirafi-Pour, chairwoman of the council and a Muslim, denounced Duncan's assessment of Islam.

'I know he referred to Islam as an ideology. That is not a fact. It is a religion. It is very peaceful, very inclusive,' Seirafi-Pour said."
-- from an article about the current brouhaha in Oklahoma, included in a posting above

Of course is an ideology. It is not merely a collection of rituals of worship, but a collectivist faith with a clear geopolitics. At its heart is the division, so central to Islam, between Believer and Infidel. And following upon that, is the inculcated central duty to engage in a "struggle" or "Jihad" to spread Islam, to tear down or remove any barriers, including, of course, the political and legal institutions created over time by and for Infidels, in their own lands, and to ensure that Islam does not merely spread to every corner of the world, but that it comes to dominate, and Muslims to rule, everywhere.

Does this lady from Iran deny that? What does she make of 9.29 and another hundred verses in the Qur'an? Does she think that her own personal Islam, an Islam that chooses to ignore the clear and immutable texts of Islam, that may be her own private Islam, should prevail over the...other kind? Does she think that Infidels are not entitled to study the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the figure of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, as presented to Muslims over the past 1350 years?

What does she expect Infidels to do? Ignore all this? Ignore it despite the evidence of 1350 years of the history of Islamic conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims, including the Zoroastrians in this lady's native Iran? Why should we do that? On what theory of politics or what definition of common sense ought we, the Infidels, everywhere in the world, be asked to continue to ignore the texts, the tenets, the attitudes, the atmospherics of Islam? Because a nice Iranian lady living in Oklahoma thinks we should? Because otherwise she, and some others, will be, or will pretend to be, offended?

Islam is not merely an ideology" but a Total System. It prohibits, it commands. It tells you everything: it offers Total Regulation of Daily Life (clothes, food, hairstyles, personal hygiene, relations with Infidels, attitudes toward women, you name it) and a Total Explanation for the Universe. It is not merely an ideology but, in its completeness, potentially and, as in present-day Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, practically totalitarian in its control, or attempted control, of every aspect of life.

The more this Serafi-Pour stands fast with her absurdity, the more she will be regarded with suspicion, for the rapidity with which she has become a practitioner of taqiyya. This cannot be tolerated, and many -- who may not tell her, but will keep their new thoughts to themselves -- will see Seirafi-Pour, charming as she no doubt outwardly is,in a new, quite different light.

"Marjaneh Seirafi-Pour, chairwoman of the council and a Muslim, denounced Duncan's assessment of Islam.

'I know he referred to Islam as an ideology. That is not a fact. It is a religion. It is very peaceful, very inclusive,' Seirafi-Pour said."
-- from an article about the current brouhaha in Oklahoma, included in a posting above

Of course is an ideology. It is not merely a collection of rituals of worship, but a collectivist faith with a clear geopolitics. At its heart is the division, so central to Islam, between Believer and Infidel. And following upon that, is the inculcated central duty to engage in a "struggle" or "Jihad" to spread Islam, to tear down or remove any barriers, including, of course, the political and legal institutions created over time by and for Infidels, in their own lands, and to ensure that Islam does not merely spread to every corner of the world, but that it comes to dominate, and Muslims to rule, everywhere.

Does this lady from Iran deny that? What does she make of 9.29 and another hundred verses in the Qur'an? Does she think that her own personal Islam, an Islam that chooses to ignore the clear and immutable texts of Islam, that may be her own private Islam, should prevail over the...other kind? Does she think that Infidels are not entitled to study the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the figure of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, as presented to Muslims over the past 1350 years?

What does she expect Infidels to do? Ignore all this? Ignore it despite the evidence of 1350 years of the history of Islamic conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims, including the Zoroastrians in this lady's native Iran? Why should we do that? On what theory of politics or what definition of common sense ought we, the Infidels, everywhere in the world, be asked to continue to ignore the texts, the tenets, the attitudes, the atmospherics of Islam? Because a nice Iranian lady living in Oklahoma thinks we should? Because otherwise she, and some others, will be, or will pretend to be, offended?

Islam is not merely an ideology" but a Total System. It prohibits, it commands. It tells you everything: it offers Total Regulation of Daily Life (clothes, food, hairstyles, personal hygiene, relations with Infidels, attitudes toward women, you name it) and a Total Explanation for the Universe. It is not merely an ideology but, in its completeness, potentially and, as in present-day Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, practically totalitarian in its control, or attempted control, of every aspect of life.

The more this Serafi-Pour stands fast with her absurdity, the more she will be regarded with suspicion, for the rapidity with which she has become a practitioner of taqiyya. This cannot be tolerated, and many -- who may not tell her, but will keep their new thoughts to themselves -- will see Seirafi-Pour, charming as she no doubt outwardly is,in a new, quite different light.

Maybe all of the politicians should be issued a quran, and then be given an exam afterward...maybe RS or Hugh could be the tester. Heh

Man you are smart, Hugh. I say that as an Outdoor cat who likes his own territory, too-LOL. I just copied this one for study.

GrennBeck (and those who post without following thread):

“THE CAT IS WAY OUT OF THE BAG!”

He’s been out awhile now please see my earlier post.

Democrats haven't accepted defeat in the war against jihad. But they have been conspicuously quiet on the subject. These candidates are attempting to become President of the United States, a leader in any sense of the word. A leader needs to lead, not stand quietly in the shadows in the name of political expediency.

If the candidates believe that the teachings of the Qur'an are not in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, or that there is no common ideology linking the thousands of jihadist attacks around the world and throughout history, then they need to explain that to us.

On the other hand, if they believe that something is not quite right with Islam, they need to explain how they would deal with that issue if elected.

It's the conversation that no-one wants to have, but it's the one that we need to have.

Romney used the word "jihad", albeit qualified by "violent" or "radical" or "extremist"? Kudos to him. It's something.

Sorry crusader, will you please provide your email so I can clear future posts with you or should I refrain from posting all together?

GrennBeck:
Neither is necessary just a little prior attention will nicely suffice.

"(and those who post without following thread)"

I'm certainly guilty of that charge. Afraid I don't have the time nor the patience to read every single post, especially when a thread gets long and tedious. But I'll try!

Is anyone listening to Laura Ingraham right now? Dinesh just called the great Robert Spencer a 'spearchucker'!
Posted by: Goob

I heard him refer to Hitchens as a "spearchucker" too.

Frank,
The only thing Rudy has over GWB is that he is a better public speaker, but he'll have no more authority, moral or military, than our current president. Rudy isn't Bush, but Mayor Rudy Giuliani and President Rudy Giuliani will not be the same, either. Bush wasn't Clinton, but that didn't matter to the jihadists. There is no reason for jihadis to fear a President Giuliani who can be hamstrung by the likes of Nancy Pelosi. He'll face the same obstacles in New York (on the East River) as GWB, and he'll have the same problems in Congress. We shouldn't count on him to solve this problem. He's not Superman and he's not God. I'm not even sure he's a Harry Truman. Unless he's willing to defend this country first and answer the allies' questions later (not a likely scenario) he'll face the same limits.

"spearchucker"???....but Robert looks Italian.

Call Robert a TruthTeller -- that will really rile the savage beasts.

PMK: "They might be more dangerous than the Dems for one reason: they'll give us a false sense of security."

PMK, there are plenty of things wrong with the way some Republicans are positioning themselves in response to the global jihad. That being said, your statement that they might be more dangerous than the Democrats is absurd. I will pose the same question to you that I have posed to Hugh (who never responded)...

With the exception of Joe Lieberman, who isn't running, name me one Democrat presidential wanna be who will better handle the threat of global jihad than any of the Republican presidential candidates (please exclude Ron Paul).

Romney doesn't have to win the presidency in order to help the USA prevail against Islam's holy war against it, the west and Christianity.

All Mitt really needs to do is help convince the American people of the need to face the reality that Islam HAS declared religious war against them and of the need to defend their homeland against jihad, exactly as he has been doing.

The fact that he has never questioned that America is worth defending speaks volumes about his integrity and that in itself should inspire Americans to rally around him.

Whether the Dems have accepted defeat......?

The Dems are so in denial - these aholes dont even recognize the dimensions of the threat coming at us. They have few values except resentment and victim mentality. They have no leaders, only resenters and political correctees. Their only instinct is to tear down, to tax, to accuse, to lie, to posture, and to speak in code (only 'we' are righteous, and 'you' bad).

They have not accepted defeat, because they are too mixed up to know we are in a struggle for our culture and our freedom.

Screw the Dems (why would some otherwise intelligent persons be of that party - it must be embarassing).

Recoveringhog,

Last night on the FoxNewsTicker, I saw a story that said "Duncan Hunter has been researching Quran on internet and concludes islam approves killing of innocents". I've been searching this morning and can't find anything else.

Did anyone else hear about this?

The answer is addressed in one or two posts below your original post, concerning the refusal to accept free Qur'ans by several Oaklahoma legislatures, including Representative Rex Duncan.

lol @ "accepted defeat"
hell, they haven't even accepted responsibility to begin with...but that's another thread...
oh, man...lol

Contrary to what one commenter said above, Giuliani doesn't much use the word "jihad," at least not as far as I'm aware, though I have heard Giuliani say "Islamic terrorism" and "Islamic terrorists" dozens of times, and lambaste the Democrats for their political correctness in never saying those words. I think Giuliani's relentless use of the phrase "Islamic terror" rather than "Islamist terror" represents a bit of progress for public discourse. He's also come out against a Palestinian state unless the Palestinians unambiguously acknowledge Israel's right to exist and unambiguously renounce terrorism. That's why we've been hearing lately about the desire of such and such Palestinian to murder Giuliani. They'll probably find it difficult. The Mafia put contracts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars on Giuliani's head, and it doesn't seem to have helped them much. He put a lot of those guys in prison.

As for comparisons with Bush, Giuliani works three or four times as hard as Bush. Giuliani often barely sleeps. That was how he as a conservative could dominate a New York City that was like 6 to 1 Democrat. At the moment, it looks like he has the best chance of beating Hillary, and nationwide polling shows him way ahead of the other Republicans. But there's a long way to go yet in this election cycle, and everything can change very quickly...

The Democrats do not accept defeat of Jihad.

They have now become the Jihad.

Infiltration(Muslims) is everywhere in our society. They are running for office. Some terror supporting politician wannabees are being uncovered like a Governor of Virginia's recent appointee.

"...name me one Democrat presidential wanna be who will better handle the threat of global jihad than any of the Republican presidential candidates (please exclude Ron Paul)."

Paleologos,

I can't name one, but that wasn't my point. I also can't name one GOP candidate (other than Tancredo) who would do anything differently from the Democrats. In any case, Tom Tancredo will soon be out of the race - either to run again for the House or to prepare for a Senate campaign.

Just look at the many former candidates and government officials who are now on the Saudi payroll. Do you really think any Republican president will go against his former colleagues? Not if he wants to cash in like they did, at the end of his term in office.

If you're voting based on how the candidates will fight jihad from the WH, you're sure to be disappointed. None of these candidates can be your knight in shining armor. The expectation that Republicans will be any better than the Democrats at fighting terrorism is a false one. You need only look at Clinton/Bush. It's been sixteen years. Which of them accomplished anything? People point to how Bush "kept us safe" after 9/11, but how is he any different than Clinton? The WTC was bombed in the early days of the Clinton administration, too. Subsequent attacks (unless you believe TWA Flight 800 was also brought down by terrorists) occurred offshore.

Republicans used to be strong on defense. That was a different time. Today being strong on defense means fighting groups that want to enter the US and use our freedoms against us. That means limiting their access to technology and to the US. How else do you keep jihadist terrorism out of the US except by keeping Muslims out? Try telling a private company that they can't sell certain items to specific groups/countries and hear them howl. Fighting the ummah is bad for business. That's true for Republicans as well as Democrats.

O.K. PMK, you got it all figured out, what is your contribution to progress?

PMK,

Just what exactly would the Democrats do? What Democrat even remotely "gets" the Islamic threat, besides Lieberman?

I am comfortable that Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani all "get" it to some extent. Romney is using the "J" word, jihad. Giuliani turned down the $10 million dollar donation from a Saudi prince because of what he said about Israel. Giuliani will not get bought off. I have read some of Thompsons polemics about Islam, and I think he understands the threat.

The Democrats are not "equal" to the Republicans on this. Most of the Democrats don't even acknowledge the threat of Islam (read: John Edwards). Hillary's husband is openly on the Saudi dole, he has collected millions from them for speaking engagements.

Bush and Clinton are not the same. I don't like the Bush ROP bs, but at least he knows we are in a war. Clinton treated the first attack on the WTC as a criminal action. We haven't been hit since 911, and the Taliban got their butt kicked in Afghanistan. That counts for something.

The Democrats want to gut the Patriot Act and give enemy combatants greatly expanded judicial rights. Does that sound "equal" to what the Republicans want?

The Republican response to the threat of Islam is admittedly flawed, the Democrat response is, what is the word I am looking for? ... missing.

Well said, Paleologos.

Thank you for blowing away the "they’re all corrupt, they’re all the same" FOG.

Such nihilist rants only confuse and already complex issue.