In Suhail Khan's debate with Frank Gaffney the other night, Khan defamed me repeatedly, but I was not the only recipient of his venom: he also slandered David Yerushalmi, an attorney and expert on legal issues involving Sharia. David Yerushalmi has kindly allowed me to post his response to Khan:
It appears that while Robert Spencer gets several mentions by Suhail Khan, Assistant to the Secretary of Transportation for Policy, as a hate-monger during a debate on Shariah with Frank Gaffney, I also got a special “drive-by” mention due to my legal scholarship pointing out the dangers of Shariah-compliant finance for U.S. financial institutions. Mr. Khan’s description of me is as some “guy who hates blacks, Muslims, women, Asians and liberal Jews.” I have asked Robert for a bit of space to respond specifically and generally to Mr. Khan and he has graciously granted it to me.Keep in mind that Mr. Khan is an Assistant to the Secretary of Transportation for Policy. That is not an unimportant position in the Bush administration. He himself is a protégé of Grover Norquist. Now you begin to understand the danger. No one will be blind to the danger of an Obama presidency in this battle space. But know that the Republicans, at least under the Bush administration, have not been much less dangerous.
Given that predicate, let’s examine Mr. Khan and his ad hominem attack. First, Mr. Khan could have read my legal analysis of Shariah-compliant finance had he chosen to and addressed the substance of my argument. He did not. In fact, he could have read my more political and polemical essays and criticized me for my actual statements. He did not.
Instead, without apparently reading a word I have written, or at least not more than ten words taken out of context, he simply read CAIR’s PR hit piece taking my work out of context and using the “racist” card. In fact, his description of me is a mirror of CAIR’s.I did not respond by defending my written word when CAIR first played its crude race-baiting card against me, and I will not now as Mr. Khan takes up the CAIR mantle.
I will however point out two things that bear on his attack against me and more pointedly against Robert Spencer.
Mr. Khan had a chance to come clean. To tell the debate audience that Shariah is a dangerous doctrine being used by Islamic Jihadists the world over to engage in violent Jihad on the one hand and “soft” or “stealth” Jihad as a Fifth Column on the other. He could have characterized CAIR and ISNA and so many other similar Muslim groups as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood and its Jihad against the West. He did not.
Instead, he reeled off the CAIR narrative from Alif to Tā (A to Z). Attack the critics as racists or Islamophobes and then lie about everything else.
The lies Mr. Khan told were of course legion. Most noticeably, his only substantive response to Frank Gaffney’s description of Shariah and its goal of a world wide hegemony ordered by Shariah and the use of Jihad to achieve that end was to say, “Nonsense. Shariah is ‘interpretive’.” Now, what did Mr. Khan mean by “interpretive”? He wanted the audience to believe that Shariah could mean anything to any one who sought to “interpret” it. In other words, Shariah was personal to the believer and quite subjective. And to make this point, he contrasted Shariah as “interpretive” with Jewish law or Catholic canon—the latter he argued being purportedly far more rigid.
This first example demonstrates that Mr. Khan’s mission was obfuscation at best because no one but a Muslim Brotherhood agent or apologist would actually propose such a contrast. Note that Mr. Khan could have responded by saying that for him and Muslims like him Shariah is “interpretive”, pietistic and subjective. In other words, he could have attempted an argument that conceded the institutional evil of Shariah but proposed that most Muslims are like him and reject this authoritative, institutional Shariah.
But he did not. What he sought to establish was that Mr. Gaffney was lying and that institutional Shariah, which has developed a 1200-year old corpus juris, allows for a plurality of views on all important subjects such as what to do with an apostate or an infidel. Mr. Khan was lying. And, he knew he was lying.
Thus, readers of Jihad Watch, having been educated by a real scholar of Jihad, know that Shariah is only “interpreted” legitimately in the Muslim world by recognized Shariah authorities—the ulema. Further, legal positions previously staked out by the heads of the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence (the maddhahib), which have reached a state of “consensus” (ijma) and are predicated upon specific verses in the Quran or the canonized Hadith, are in fact not open to “interpretation” unless of course it is their application to some new context. But even in this case, Shariah authorities are bound by the rules of interpretation set out in usul al fique (Islamic jurisprudence established by Shariah) and are not permitted to move beyond the bounds of the earlier consensus.
What this means in practice of course is that the fundamental goal of creating a world subjugated to Shariah and the use of violent Jihad to achieve that end is immutable and one can pick up the contemporary works of the leading Shariah authorities today as well as the classical sources of the “Golden Era” and see that to be true.
One very good example of such contemporary scholarship of course is Mufti M. Taqi Usmani, probably the preeminent Shariah scholar on “Shariah-compliant finance” today. He was for almost a decade the leading member of the Dow Jones Islamic Index (until Frank Gaffney and I embarrassed Dow Jones & Company with the public facts and they fired him) and who remains today a “Shariah authority” for more than a dozen other financial institutions around the world, including HSBC and Citibank. This is no crack pot and no “extremist”. He is as mainstream in the Shariah world as they get.
In Usmani’s book “Islam and Modernism”, translated into English in 1999 (the year he went to work for Dow Jones), Usmani dedicates an entire chapter to one theme: why Shariah obligates Muslims in the West to engage in violent Jihad against the West and at the very least sponsor such Jihad with their resources.
For his part, when Mr. Khan was challenged by a Muslim in the audience during Q&A to name just one recognized Shariah authority who rejects these doctrines of violence, he mentioned three “academics” in the West who have no following and who will “soon be publishing books”. A joke if it weren’t simply a dangerous deception Mr. Khan must be repeating to his associates in government at every opportunity. Mr. Khan is a dangerous man.
To bring even more context to this lie of Mr. Khan’s, below is what Harvard professors Vogel and Hayes, the two leading non-Muslim authorities on Shariah-compliant finance, have to say about the authoritarian nature of Shariah and its grip on everything a Shariah-adherent Muslim does:
Islamic legal rules encompass both ethics and law, this world and the next, church and state. The law does not separate rules enforced by individual conscience from rules enforced by a judge or by the state. Since scholars alone are capable of knowing the law directly from revelation, laypeople are expected to seek an opinion (fatwa) from a qualified scholar on any point in doubt; if they follow that opinion sincerely, they are blameless even if the opinion is in error.If what our good professors describe above is “interpretive”, it is an interpretation that is quite at odds with Mr. Khan’s.
And, from an important text authored by a Bahrain Treasury official and an Australian economics professor who specializes in Shariah-economics:
Since Islamic law reflects the will of God rather than the will of a human lawmaker, it covers all areas of life and not simply those which are of interest to a secular state or society. It is not limited to questions of belief and religious practice, but also deals with criminal and constitution [sic] matters, as well as many other fields which in other societies would be regarded as the concern of the secular authorities. In an Islamic context there is no such thing as a separate secular authority and secular law, since religion and state are one. Essentially, the Islamic state as conceived by orthodox Muslims is a religious entity established under divine law.
(Both of these quotes are cited and referenced in my upcoming Utah Law Review article on Shariah-compliant finance.)So we see that when Sunni al Qaeda (and the Muftis of Saudi Arabia etc.) and the Shia Ayatollahs of Iran tell us that Shariah does not countenance Western notions of a separation of Church and State, we see that this view is hardly “extreme” or “radical”. Indeed, it is pedigree and quite authoritative Shariah.
Another lie of course was Mr. Khan’s reference to Maimonides and the Jews of Yemen. Mr. Khan claimed that Shariah’s dictate to engage in taqiyyah or deception as part and parcel of Jihad against the infidel was nothing more or different than Maimonides allowing the Jews of Yemen to “deceive” their Christian inquisitors that they had given up their faith. Mr. Khan most assuredly knows that Maimonides and his community of Spanish Jews were driven out of their homes and out of Spain in the 12th century altogether by the Almohads, a fiercely Shariah adherent version of the Jihadists we see today around the globe. The Almohads took their Shariah seriously. And, the Jews suffered. And, as for the Jews of Yemen, they were not hiding their faith from the Christians. They were being brutalized by the Shariah faithful Muslims. Indeed, Maimonides, a Jewish legal codifier, philosopher, and physician, respected by Jews and non-Jews the world over, lived his entire life under Muslim rule. In fact, in Maimonides’ legal responsa, he makes it clear that Jews should not even enter into theological discussions with Muslims for this will merely anger them and lead to even more Muslim oppression of Jews. He terms Mohammed a wild man (meshugga) who “invented” Islam which resulted in “practices [which] are confused and their opinions [which are] bizarre”. In the letter to the Jews of Yemen to which Mr. Khan alluded, this was what Maimonides had to say:
Remember, my co-religionists, that on account of the vast number of our sins, Gd has hurled us in the midst of this people, the Arabs, who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us, as Scripture has forewarned us, ‘Our enemies themselves shall judge us’ (Deuteronomy 32:31). Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase and hate us as much as they …. Although we were dishonored by them beyond human endurance, and had to put with their fabrications, yet we behaved like him who is depicted by the inspired writer, “But I am as a deaf man, I hear not, and I am as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth.” (Psalms 38:14). Similarly our sages instructed us to bear the prevarications and preposterousness of Ishmael in silence. They found a cryptic allusion for this attitude in the names of his sons “Mishma, Dumah, and Massa” (Genesis 25:14), which was interpreted to mean, “Listen, be silent, and endure.” (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, ad locum). We have acquiesced, both old and young, to inure ourselves to humiliation, as Isaiah instructed us “I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair.” (50:6). All this notwithstanding, we do not escape this continued maltreatment which well nigh crushes us. No matter how much we suffer and elect to remain at peace with them, they stir up strife and sedition, as David predicted, “I am all peace, but when I speak, they are for war.” (Psalms 120:7). If, therefore, we start trouble and claim power from them absurdly and preposterously we certainly give ourselves up to destruction.”So, what do we know now demonstrably? Mr. Khan is a liar. And, he attacks his critics with an ad hominem fierceness because he cannot survive a debate on substance. And, even when he does debate, he continues to lie because he knows the audience is fundamentally illiterate and they won’t take up Frank Gaffney’s challenge to “see for yourself” who is truthful and who is not.
But what have we really learned? We have learned that the Shariah-faithful and their agent-apologists use “race” and “rights” to attack the essence of who we are as a People. If every distinction between acceptable “First Amendment” religions and violent and seditious doctrines such as Shariah can be blurred, if our fear of “discrimination” prevents us from discriminating against our enemies, we will have lost the very will and means to be a distinct People and Nation. Mr. Khan, in his conservative libertarian garb, is no different from the Leftist who demands that we embrace the “ideals” of global liberty and democracy where all men will finally be “equal” and borders will no longer create artificial distinctions or discriminating laws. Mr. Khan adds to the libertarian twist the deception of a man on a mission. He knows that if he can open the door to Shariah, the West will succumb by its “own hands” – a phrase drawn right out of the Muslim Brotherhood playbook for Jihad in America. Mr. Khan wants a One World Government no less than his counterparts at the ACLU or Acorn or MoveOn.org. He dresses his One World Government up in libertarian and free market garb. But in the end, he also knows that Shariah is no libertarian. Mr. Khan is not merely a liar; he is a fraud.
Speak the truth and the base man will avoid you.
Or try to avoid or change the subject.
Right on.
Joseph Stalin reputedly said that Communism would win because Capitalists never look beyond the next day. Fortunately, he was wrong. The same dictum could well apply to Islam, if the current state of affairs is any indication. Many of us would say that we will never submit to a sharia state; however, we have stood idly by while the current administration has repeatedly attacked the Bill of Rights under the guise of the war on terrorism.
We have also slavishly sold out to the Saudi government by permitting them to finance and distribute textbooks that spew this venomous hatred for all things non-Moslem within our own country and watched while entire neighborhoods in Europe and increasingly, here in the US, are taken over by those who would follow a virulently hateful and poisonous ideology.
Our priorities are skewed, our politicians prattle on about unimportant issues; contradict themselves at every opportunity; portray each other as liars and cheaters; and look only to gain elected office from which they can promote their own agendas. These agendas seem primarily to be twofold: get rich and stay in power. Lord Acton was right, and politicians (and citizens alike) fiddle while Rome burns.
So, where do we go from here? I am sure that someone in the Justice Department is impaneling a grand jury to look into charges of misprision of treason against Mr. Khan. What, you think not? How naive of me.
Instead, the few who care enough to notice what is happening are obligated to spread the word to those they know (most will respond as though one has fleas) and hope to awaken enough interest in the coming disaster to facilitate the taking of real preventive measures.
I am new to this and do not claim to have any answers; just hope that I am starting to ask the right questions.
Robert, Thank you for posting this man's response. Two pieces of his article give me little hope, however.
No one will be blind to the danger of an Obama presidency in this battle space. But know that the Republicans, at least under the Bush administration, have not been much less dangerous.
Mr. Khan wants a One World Government no less than his counterparts at the ACLU or Acorn or MoveOn.org. He dresses his One World Government up in libertarian and free market garb.
And what does John McCain want? He has just as much reason as Obama to want a single authority: world TRADE. What is the WTO but a surrender of sovereignty?
Both parties want international boundaries erased. They may each have their own reasons but both seek the same result.
Erry'Bodi Sing "All we are saying is give peeeeece uh chance"
World Peace in our lifetime.
MAKE NO MISTAKE, THE CURRENT FINANCIAL CRSISIS IS NOT UNTENDED. No doubt all that money is working for World Peace right now.
Mr. Yerushalami wrote: No one will be blind to the danger of an Obama presidency in this battle space. But know that the Republicans, at least under the Bush administration, have not been much less dangerous."
Sadly, it is the case; Bush and his administration (Condolezzaa Rice and others) have not been much less dangerous.
I would submit to jihadwatch readers, this is the reason we are in this present fix on the eve of elections. George W. Bush has been the jihadist's best friend yet, until Barack H. Obama.
The most appalling and shocking thing about it is this. Conservative activists, Republican party leaders, conservative talk radio, conservative web masters, etc., have all stood solidly by (for lack of better word) this criminal, this traitor (yes traitor) in the White House as he has given aid and comfort to the enemy.
"If" conservatives do not / did not know President Bush has given aid and comfort to the enemy, they they have their collective heads in the sand. It's a shame. Its criminal how conservatives have stood by this man as he has colluded with America's enemies.
More on Taqi Usmani here, including a link to the full online version of the book David mentioned above:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022863.php#c582316
"Mr. Khan is an Assistant to the Secretary of Transportation for Policy."? I wonder what connections Mr. Khan, and Mr Norquist have with Saudi Arabia, and OPEC? I wonder why the transportation department has done nothing but sit on its loins, as our nation is being sucked dry by the oil cartel? Why the tariffs on the import of flex/bio fuels from places like Brazil that could export them, to help us break the monopoly of this cartel? Interesting this relationship between transportation, flex fuel tariffs, and OPEC! TREASON!
I, too, wish for a World Government. Capitoled in Washington, D.C., and governed by the system of laws created under the United States Constitution.
It would be a beautiful sight: 13 red and white stripes with a couple of hundred white stars in a blue field.
"If every distinction between acceptable “First Amendment” religions and violent and seditious doctrines such as Shariah can be blurred, if our fear of “discrimination” prevents us from discriminating against our enemies, we will have lost the very will and means to be a distinct People and Nation."
Islam is laughing in the face of our 1st Amendment and using our Constitution as protection to spread its "religion." Islam must be recognized as more than just a religion. It is an ideology irreconcilably in conflict with our Constitution.
I personally discriminate every day: is it safe to cross the street, should I buy a used from this man; is Islam a dangerous ideology. To give up the political or intellectual ability to discriminate is suicide.
Side note, from ACT: Here is a sample of some of the English words and phrases translated from the Arabic in this flash card set.
“assassination attempt”
“counter strike”
“attack”
“air strike”
“enemy”
“The army seized power”
“We buried the dead man yesterday”
“to seize power”
“martyr”
“to die in a battle”
Welcome to dadcito!
I just came back from Macy's where I had an interesting conversation with a clerk who grew up in Algeria. I asked if she had been raised Muslim and she said that her father was Muslim and that she had studied all the religions and that the only difference between Islam and the others is that Muslims believe that the merciful god Allah took Jesus to paradise instead of letting him die on the cross. Some point of departure. I asked her about the fundamentalist movement and she began to talk about how the poor people are being trained and supported by the fundamentalists and that the situation is getting worse (talk about a dichotomy).
She then stated that Islam and the Koran nowhere advocate violence against non-Muslims.
I asked if her studies led her to agree that no new acceptable interpretations of the Koran have come out in over 1000 years years and she waffled but agreed. I then said that my studies told me that the principle of abrogation lends credence to the verse of the sword in Sura 9 as being the final say on relations with other religions. Her eyes got as big as saucers, she said "you really have studied this" and then proceeded to agree with what I said, with the caveat that the fundamentalists are the ones causing the problem. I asked what will happen if one billion or more believe this tripe and she agreed that there are two probable denouements: global conflict or the fundamentalists win.
This lady then told me that she could not possibly go back to Algeria where she would have to "use the back door" and be treated as property. I was a bit taken aback by her quick acquiesence to my stated position and asked her how she could support the "religion of peace" stuff and agree with me. She said that she hates to think of these things but guesses she better start, because the US seems to be heading toward the same disaster of sharia courts and stuff as Europe.
I closed by recommending that she google the Gaffney-Khan debate, read the transcript and make up her mind which side of the fence to come down on.
One heart and mind at a time.
With apologies to Otter and Delta House:
"But you can't hold a whole mosque responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole Islamic Religion? And if the whole Islamic Religion is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our religious institutions in general? I put it to you, Robert - isn't this an indictment of the entire Judeo-Christian-Islamic civilization? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!"
The Koran specifies foreign policy, tells the followers when to wage war and make treaties. Islam has a legal system that has been around for 1400 years, with rulings based upon the laws in the Koran.
I don't know of any other religions like this. Maybe at some time in the past, religions had this type of power, but they did evolve.
Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!"
Posted by: Charles Bogle
Huh?
Good posts by all. I particularly enjoyed the conversation of dadcito with an Algerian.
Yes America, like here in the UK and the rest of Europe, you to will have a big problem with Islam, especially as it grows. From what I gather, 25k are converting to Islam every year and have done so since 9/11. I'm sure that figure's growing.
The question I'd like to ask you all and Robert Spencer in fact to, is; "How do we stop Islamisation unless we stop the growth of Islam in the West and impose strict guidelines on where Islam can be taught and openly paraded?
The thing is, I really cannot see anyway out of Islamisation, especially when our government and opposition parties(well here in the UK anyway) are pro Islam and Immigration(apart from the BNP, but they really are amateurs as well as having a large 'racist' element.
How do we stop this from happening because by sheer default, as Islam grows it will simply impose, take over and make the rules, especially when, not only in the West, we are also fighting against our own Left Wing and Liberal movements too?
How long before people realise that peaceful protests, petitions are doing nothing? Let's face facts that from what dadcito's Algerian friend spoke of we have two things to look forward to; "global conflict or the fundamentalists win".
I just wonder how soon it will be before people really start to take action? I propose a series of National & International strikes, starve the governments of their taxes, in turn bringing about resulting chaos and no option but to listen to what the people(majority) want for once and NOT the minorities, for a change.
CB: More multi-culti, moral equivalence from someone infected with politically correctness.
There is a difference between the founding principles of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. LOOK at the world, See where intellectual freedom and physical suffering are and are not.
Take a trip, even a virtual trip around the world. Anyone over 12 years old should recognize the differences. Wait, I suspect 5 year olds in Darfur could tell the differences, that is if they get to live that long.
dadcito-
It appears your clerk at first lied to you and then admitted to doing so when confronted with Islamic Scripture. She's blaming those who follow the Scripture to the letter for the problem. While, at the same time, following it herself. Her admitting to the Lie is the Puzzle.
At some point, these Infidels knowledgeable in the texts of Islam, need to relentlessly press the point of what these Scriptures say and mean.
IMO. Too many Infidels involved in these debates are too sensitive to the PC'ers and their braying at the truth. Leaving the Majority in the audience voiceless.
Put these Muslims on the hot seat and keep them their until the "Silenced Majority" start to react in a fashion that shows their understanding of the points being made.
The whole issue of Muslims being able to lie to infidels should be the easiest point to drive home to an audience. Force the Muslim to prove their Scripture false. Something, by all accounts, is impossible to do. Except, of course, to the ignorant or self deceiving.
Just start out by stating they do not believe a word they say and go from there.
Sorry about pour eNglish.
Islam is only peaceful once everyone is brought under the umbrella of Islam and SUBMITS to ALLAH (and sharia), by invitation or coercion.
Lay out the Constitution and sharia and see where you want to live. Try to think as if you are a woman, look any better?
There is no paradise on earth, just people wanting to live. Those that want to live and let live will always be threatened by those that want to dictate how others should live. Remember Marx, Stalin, Viet Cong, Mao, and Fidel? Mohammed is in their company. Thought control times 10.
Charles Bogle wrote:
With apologies to Otter and Delta House:
"But you can't hold a whole mosque responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole Islamic Religion? And if the whole Islamic Religion is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our religious institutions in general? I put it to you, Robert - isn't this an indictment of the entire Judeo-Christian-Islamic civilization? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!"
Charles you really need up on the founding principles of Islam before comparing them to Christian or Jewish principles. Islam by default is NOT a religion of peace. Answer me this question; "If Christ went around killing lots of people, had lots of people killed, had his armies rape women, torture and hae people tortured, impose taxes on those who were not christian as well as consumate a marriage to a six year old when she was nine, would the religion of Christianity then be described as a Religion of Peace? I'll tell you it most certainly would not, but more importantly a Totalitarean, Death Cult. Change the word Christ above to Muhammad and Christian to Islam and there you have a history of Islam.
It is exactly people like you with your beliefs that Islam is the same as Christianity and Judaism and your ignorance in not knowing anything about Islam, that are the main reasons we are sleepwalking into Islamisation and the subsequent destruction of many cultures and a future life of slavery, servitude, barbarity and brutality as we are all forced into an Islamic World and way of life
Civilus Defendus wrote:
Islam is only peaceful once everyone is brought under the umbrella of Islam and SUBMITS to ALLAH (and sharia), by invitation or coercion.
Islam is never peaceful, even when everyone submits to Allah. Once everyone has been 'brought under the Umbrella of Islam' then what you then start to see is infighting between the various 'sects' of Islam. Look at Iraq and the fighting between Sharia and Sunni Muslims and the Insurgent Islamists. Islam is all about violence and if there's none then they'll make some appear that's for sure.
With apologies to Otter and Delta House:
"But you can't hold a whole mosque responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole Islamic Religion? And if the whole Islamic Religion is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our religious institutions in general? I put it to you, Robert - isn't this an indictment of the entire Judeo-Christian-Islamic civilization? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!"
Posted by: Charles Bogle [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2008 12:44 PM
---------------------
I had no idea that Sam Harris posted hereabouts.
Dadcito: Next time, tell your Algerian friend that a merciful God sent Jesus to the cross to bear the penalty for our sins and iniquities, then rose him up on the third day so we may have new life in him.
The Gospel does not tell us that we now have a wonderful new oppotunity to present our paltry, polluted "good deeds" in the hope that we may bargain with God; but that Jesus has paid for our sins in his own body on the tree, and that with his stripes (wounds and death, too), we are healed and free from the law's condemnation. And, whereas the body of Muhammad lies in Medina awaiting, with all the rest of us sinners, the day when God will judge the quick and the dead, Jesus Christ is risen.
Yes, Mark, I should have placed "peaceful" in quotes. It will be difficult for those raised by the sword to set it aside once the ummah is united.
Aside from the appalling human suffering, if they reduce their own numbers by in-fighting, there will be fewer for us to address.
Give the Algerian woman a mirror and ask her to take a really good look. She is the problem of silent consent in jihad.
The perfect storm may be taking a turn. McCain's latest ad not only links Obama to ACORN and ACOTN to voter fraud, but it links ACORN to the sub-prime mortgage crises. I hope to God the McCain campaign emphasizes this ad over all others and buys time for it far and wide.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/275318.php
Scroll down for the ad.
Respecting the office of the Presidency and praying for our leaders according to 1st Timothy 2:1-2 does not include hiding destructive behavior of the President & not bringing them to light. The bible also tells us to expose works of darkness in Ephesians 5:11...because exposing this garbage holds him to accountability that he is not doing the job we elected him for. Allowing Islamic interests that only want to subvert our system of Government is NOT the job of our President.
"The question I'd like to ask you all and Robert Spencer in fact to, is; "How do we stop Islamisation unless we stop the growth of Islam in the West and impose strict guidelines on where Islam can be taught and openly paraded?"
Mark,
The first step, and the most important, is to cease and desist allowing Muslims to enter Western countries. There is a reason they call our countries dar-al-harb.
How many Germans and Japanese traveled openly and freely to the West while their countries were at war with us?
We have created this "global economy" and it is being used against us. We have what is almost a conceit about how open and tolerant our societies are and, however true it may be, that openness is BEING USED AGAINST US.
We also have this skittishness about doing what needs to be done.
Look at your own words: apart from the BNP, but they really are amateurs as well as having a large 'racist' element.
Okay, so the BNP has a racist element. Does that mean anyone and everyone who is a BNP member is a racist?
And what if they are? You want to stop the spread of Islam in Britain, so what does that say about you?
It's a cliche because it's true: politics makes strange bedfellows.
Why does the BNP having a similar position automatically render your position illegitimate? You're pretty much saying that unless someone other than the BNP takes this position then it's not the correct position, POLITICALLY.
Islam is not a race. Muslims are not a race. Why can't people let go of the "racist" charge? It's apples and oranges.
Mark,
Another observation about the BNP:
For a century after the Civil War, the Democratic Party had a lock on the South. They instituted segregation and racial discrimination. They were the party of the Confederacy, of slaveholders.
There were other Democrats, like John Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey and FDR. There was a racist wing of the Democratic Party but there was also a group that called for civil rights and freedom and equal treatment under the law.
The Democratic Party had a broad range of membership and was allowed to wear two hats. Why does membership in the BNP render someone a racist? You say they have a racist wing but you are pretty much discrediting and marginalizing all other members, because of that one element.
PMK wrote
Okay, so the BNP has a racist element. Does that mean anyone and everyone who is a BNP member is a racist?
And what if they are? You want to stop the spread of Islam in Britain, so what does that say about you?
It's a cliche because it's true: politics makes strange bedfellows.
Why does the BNP having a similar position automatically render your position illegitimate? You're pretty much saying that unless someone other than the BNP takes this position then it's not the correct position, POLITICALLY.
Islam is not a race. Muslims are not a race. Why can't people let go of the "racist" charge? It's apples and oranges.
My problem with the BNP, there amateurishness and their racist element, has nothing to do with Islam as I do not see it as a Race either, as that's just blatant ignorance and stupidity if anyone does. My problem is there inability to see people other that WASP(White, Anglo, Saxon, Protestant) as being British. I do agree with many of their policies and what they say and do agree that there really is no other party in the UK that will effectively remove the threat that is Islam. I am still undecided on voting for them. I am still hoping that another party springs up, hopefully an offshoot of one of the major three that sees the problems we in the UK face.
I do agree that there are many supporters of the BNP who are of course not Racist but it doesn't detract from the organisation itself being so.
We may see other parties spring up to combat the Islamisation and Europe-isation as well and I hope that happens soon. I really do not want to vote for the BNP, but then given the choice of a Racist party or Islamisation and complete control by Brussels of the UK, then there really is no choice and I'll have to vote for them. Once they're in and start changing society, removing the threat of Islam and Europe-isation, then can we work towards bringing stability back and hopefully another 'toned' down party with the same principles but zero 'racism' element behind it.
I was paraphrasing the Delta house hearing scene from Animal House, a movie.
"Knowledge is Good"
CB
I do agree that there are many supporters of the BNP who are of course not Racist but it doesn't detract from the organisation itself being so.
Mark,
But is it, really?
The Democratic Party had a racist wing in its membership. That didn't make the PARTY racist. It generally supported working people. Is everyone in the BNP stained by one group, to the point where they cannot speak for Britons? You seem to be saying yes.
PMK,
I actually do believe that inherently the BNP are Racist Organisation. They did after all break away from Tindall's National Front.
They have also specifically stated that they are a party for the 'White people of the UK', so in turn should really call themselves the WNP and not the BNP.
PMK, until the BNP actively allow Blacks and Asians to join their ranks as candidates, then I will never really change my mind on what I believe they are. I agree in their policies more than any other party, but I just don't think that they are professional enough to run a bath let alone the country. By showing the majority white population that they are allowing Blacks and Asians to run for them, it would do them the world of good and this is where they're shooting themselves in the foot. By their 'race' restriction, they are in fact stating what they are.
I have read their manifesto and you also know that I've posted parts up here, but I am still very, very wary of them. However, I have said that given a choice between Islamisation/European-isation of the UK or the BNP, I know what I'll do.
Southern Demoncrats= Separate but Equal= Multiculturalism.
One just has a prettier word for the times.
Quoth ethoman:
This is a misconception. Brazil produces less than 1 barrel of ethanol/capita/year for a population of roughly 190 million. The USA consumes 26 barrels/capita/year of oil over a population of more than 300 million. Biofuels, from Brazil or anywhere else, have essentially zero chance of replacing US oil imports, let alone Middle East exports. And as long as the Middle East rakes in money from anywhere, it still has unwarranted and dangerous power over us.This is not pessimism or defeatism. This is a fact we must recognize, because going down blind alleys like imported ethanol will delay us from taking the actions which will work. These actions include:
Under the Clinton administration, we had a vehicle program called PNGV which had us on the road to goals 1 and 3; it was set to deliver vehicles to showrooms around 2007. Bush, traitor that he is, cancelled PNGV in 2001. Now we are paying the price.
Obama shows a much greater readiness than McCain to renew our efforts in this direction, so despite his other policy flaws he may actually be the more effective anti-Islamist. I wish we had everything we need in one candidate, but we elect an administration from the candidates we have.