Vote for the American who behaved in the most pusillanimous, abject, and/or suicidally stupid way in the face of Islamic supremacist bullying and intimidation, peaceful or violent:
(Note: I'm sorry. That should be "Condoleezza." But if I change it now it will wipe out all the votes. Apologies to the Secretary of State.)
Not Carter leading again! Stop beating the dead horse. He hasn't done remotely as much as any other person on this list for this year!
Well, actually Olbermann is a cartoon whose reach is minimal compared to an ex-president. So excluding Olby, my previous statement stands.
Definitely Obama.
Carter deserves a lifetime achievement award, but none have done more damage in this regard to blunt the abject threat of Islam publicly than our very own sitting President.
That is, when he is not holding hands with Abdullah and beging for lower oil prices through increased production.
Rice, Olbermann and Obama have never heard the term "dhimmi" to subscribe to it enough to warrant their name on this particular ballot.
Dubya has no such excuse.
I'm saving my vote for Obama for next year's American Dhimmi.
Jimmy the Dhimmi forever! He deserves to win every year till he's rotting in hell and his presidential library should be nothing but endless shelves of green and gold fake leatherette giveaway Qurans. Why? For his gift to the world, the gift that just keeps on giving and giving and giving.... the Ayatollah Khomeini.
I guess Nancy Johnson isn't well known enough to have made the list.
I agree with awake - Carter should get a lifetime achievement award and be done with. Npabga is right - he's done nothing to deserve it this year. Also, can we avoid re-nominating previous years winners - it's not like the world, or the US, is short of dhimmis.
I also agree with bigshaker - Obama has done nothing spectacular this year to warrant being called a dhimmi. We might be in a good position to make a call on this this time next year.
But I disagree with awake on Rice, who I voted for - it's she who's gotten rid of the term 'jihad' from the State Department lexicon, it's she (more than Bush) who's been pressurizing Israel to make endless concessions to the Palis and it's she who a few days ago backed down when visiting Pakistan. In the wake of the Mumbai attacks, where Westerners too were targeted, she shouldn't have visited Pakistan at all: she should just have issued a statement supporting India, or simply stayed out of it.
Olberman and Esposito aren't influential enough to belong on this list. It would be like giving the anti-dhimmi award to Abul Kasem, who, good as he is, is virtually unknown.
I had to prempt and vote for Obama, with his PLO pals and anarchist advisors having the choice to vote this time next year may be a luxury we wont be able to enjoy.
Carter belongs in the dhimmi hall of fame, but I'm not wasting another vote on him.
Unfortunately, we are going to have plenty of opportunities to vote for Obama in the future, so I'll hold off for this year.
Esposito is a corrupt apologist. His books are used in far too many college courses, but he isn't worth calling attention to.
I can't figure out why NBC News would damage whatever little credibility they have left by making Olbermann the centerpiece of their cable news outfit, but that is the problem for NBC executives and the three people who watch his dreadful show.
My vote is going to Condi Rice, because while the others on the list are propagandists and apologists, Rice is a policy maker who has put the US, Israel and infidels everywhere in danger with her ignorance of Islam and her appeasement and solicitation of Muslim leaders who are not true allies. She is more committed to a Palestinian state than Hamas or Fatah. Her comparison of the Palestinian movement to black American civil rights activists in the South is disgusting. A better comparison for the Palestinians--if we must compare them to non-Muslims-- would be Nazis.
Rice has misunderstood jihad and Islam, weakened our efforts to resist its spread and wasted crucial time as Europe has become increasingly Islamized. Since the President trusts her and considers her among his closest friends and most important advisors in the administration, it is safe to say that she has had a strong influence in his decision to soften his approach to the Islamic enemy.
Robert shouldn't be apologizing for messing up Condie's name. Her parents should. It's supposed to be 'Condolcezza,' if her story is to make any sense.
Awake, Hussein Obama most certainly has heard the word 'dhimmi.' He studied in an Indonesia madrassa for 4 years and has chosen to surround himself with people who have dedicated their careers to Israeli genocide. Don't play into his hands by believing in that ignorant veneer of his. Like, when he says he wants to double aid to terrorist/pedophile nations because he thinks that terrorism comes from poverty. He knows better. He just wants to see 9/11 and Beslan in America every day and to "push the Jews into to sea." He's good at playing ignorant, but ignorant he most certainly is not.
Gotta go with Obama (HUSSEIN is what he prefers now) with what he said and is saying he will do.
If there was a poll choice for CONGRESS, in whole, I believe that would win. ( but then we might not be able to even say dhimmi or islam in this poll)
jdamn: I don't mean to pick a fight with you but when you write that Obama "wants to see 9/11 and Beslan in America every day" this will endear you only to fringe posters and is exactly the kind of language that Cornelius in a previous post from several days ago rightly warned against. I have profound disagreements with President-Elect Obama. I think he is naive, to put it mildly, where foreign affairs are concerned, but to assert, as you do, that he wants more 9/11s in the United States is exactly the kind of ludicrous post that those who detest Jihad Watch, and label it a hate web site, will point to in their attempt to discredit what is one of the most important sites on the entire Internet for informing folks about Islam and what its agenda entails for us all.
jdamn: I don't mean to pick a fight with you but when you write that Obama "wants to see 9/11 and Beslan in America every day" this will endear you only to fringe posters and is exactly the kind of language that Cornelius in a previous post from several days ago rightly warned against. I have profound disagreements with President-Elect Obama. I think he is naive, to put it mildly, where foreign affairs are concerned, but to assert, as you do, that he wants more 9/11s in the United States is exactly the kind of ludicrous post that those who detest Jihad Watch, and label it a hate web site, will point to in their attempt to discredit what is one of the most important sites on the entire Internet for informing folks about Islam and what its agenda entails for us all.
Recognition for George "Dubyai" Bush's services in reducing the West's capability to respond in a coherent way to the Moslem threat is without a doubt long overdue.
1) His ill-conceived military adventure in Iraq has done little if anything to reduce the threat of jihad, hot or stealth but has cost the US taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars and has successfully alienated the US' European allies.
2) Bush failed to recognize the need to develop an effective energy policy --one that would help make the US independent of oil, a commodity controlled by the enemies of the West.
3) His administration has failed to find a legitimate resolution to the Gitmo prisoner situation, to the detriment of the security of the US: If we call jihadis prisoners of war, it would be clear indication that we are in fact in a state of war with the jihadis.
4) And finally, his championing of UAE management of US portlands was criminally negligent (stoopid?), verging on treason.
All that and three major fiscal disasters on his watch (Enron, Worldcorp, subprime) one wonders: Why wasn't this guy impeached?
Wellington,
1) He wants to double aid to Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Algeria, and every other Islamic hellhole so that they can export jihad, the only thing they ever exported. Maybe he's hoping the jihad will take place in Europe or Israel, but in any event, he wants free people to pay endless jizya and die. The only reason why anyone would want to do that is because they want to see non-Muslims get mass murdered, plundered, raped, extorted, and tortured. He's not naive, no matter how much he plays that card. He knows what they will do with that money and that's why he wants to give it to them. Aid "to the Muslim world." Not to Nepal, not Guatemala, not Colombia, or India, or where decent human beings live and need aid -- "the Muslim world."
2) He wants to import more people from those hellholes, again, because he wants more jihad.
3) He wants to roll back the military so we will be defenseless.
4) He wants to weaken our border security, which is already pathetic.
5) He wants to give illegals - like Mohammed Atta - driver's licenses. That floored even Hillary.
He wants to do all these things because he fully supports jihad. One can't support some aspects of it and not others. He wants 9/11 and Beslan in America every day.
jdamn: Being unwise and being traitorous are two different things. Obama is unwise. He is not a tratior. Also, hyperbole does not constitute an argument. For instance, your claim that Obama will make us defenseless is absurd on its face. Cutting military expenditure, which I don't support, and being defensless are two hugely different things. Do you really believe with Obama we won't have aircraft carriers, fighter jets, our vast nuclear weapon stock and the like? Come on. Over the top statements WEAKEN any argument. And maintaining that Obama wants 9/11s here in America is preposterous on its face. The only folks who will listen to you with rhetoric like that will be loony-tunes.
President elect Obama said:
And word on the street says, president elect Obama has backed a 500% federal excise tax increase on firearms and ammunition. So I guess this civilian national security force of his (militia) will need to be well funded first and foremost before it has a 'Hope' in hell of being just as strong and powerful as the military.
Wellington wrote:
Admit it, its not Jdamn or his rhetoric that you need to be worried about, its Obama and his loony-toon following that should have you worried.
No, but I think that leaving our borders wide open will leave us defenseless. I think that Clinton was being naive with his "peace dividend," but cutting back the military (while simultaneously expanding funding for everything else - nice set of priorities) in 2009 is something else. The only reason why he would do that is to bring on another 9/11, or 2, or 500. That's certainly his intention in increasing aid to "the Muslim world," especially "Pockeestohn." My argument was not hyperbolic. I think that where our opinions differ lies in our beliefs regarding Obama's naivete or lack thereof. I don't think he's naive at all. I know that he knows the Koran, he has spent his life around Muslims, and he signed a Sharia MoU with Odinga. Naive my ass. He's seditious and evil. Clinton was naive, but he was a hard-working guy from Arkansas and the worst person he hung around with was Mark Rich. Obama only knows evil. It's all he's ever done, he continually chooses to surround himself with it, and his continued pandering to "the Muslim world" only keeps proving where his priorities lie. They don't lie with us or our safety. They lie with "Pockeestohn."
OLDEngland and jdamn: Look, I think Obama is arguably the least qualified candidate ever elected to the Presidency (Zachary Taylor included, who at least had a moral compass that Obama lacks). I think it most likely that Obama will be another Jimmy Carter-type President (or even worse), which will not only be pathetic but inimical to American interests. BUT, averring that Obama actually wants more 9/11s is simply stupid. Yes, stupid. There comes a point where exaggeration is no longer tolerable but rather enters into the realm of the ridiculous.
Jdamn: Do you actually want to continue to maintain that President-Elect Obama wants America to be hit again and again as we were on 9/11? If you do, you are not a serious thinker; you are a loon.
OLDEngland: Absolutely it is the case that way too many of Obama's supporters are Far Left idiots. But do you not see that asserting that Obama wants more 9/11s in America is also idiotic and deeply pathetic?
Wellington,
I really dont know what Obama wants, but the people around him have made thier ideas very clear, they are the type of people that smiled inwardly when 9/11 was all over the news media. So whos to say what will happen next.
I agree with Wellington - making the above assertions about Obama does make us look like the right wing equivalent of the Kos kids. Ironic, since unlike HotAir and formerly LGF, this is not so much a partisan site as much as an anti-Islamic site. Having said that, if jdamn is making her assertions from Obama's past affiliations with Rev Wright, who did rationalize 9/11 itself, I see precisely where she's coming from. Given that Obama's break with Wright has been seen by a lot as opportunist, is it really so much of a stretch to assume that he shares his sentiments?
But let's meet again on this awards discussion a year from now, and see how Obama has turned out. A lot of us after 9/11 expected Bush to be unapologetically pro-Israel, anti-Islam, and instead, he became the first president to recognize a Pali state and have an ambassador/observer to the OIC. Don't rule out pleasant surprises from Obama - if Mohammedans turn against him like Zawahiri did, he can be vicious. And vicious is what we need in dealing with the Mohammedans.
OLDEngland: People around Obama have made their ideas clear? What are these ideas? Which people? Be specific. Smiled inwardly when 9/11 occurred? Yeah, some Far Left loons did, but do you really think the bulk of those who voted for Obama thought it was a good thing that Islamic nutjobs hit America on that bleak day?
I look upon posting here at JW as a serious endeavor. Reasonable minds can differ about controversial topics. But when the President-Elect, with whom I have more disagreements than could be counted in two minutes time, is portrayed as someone who wants more 9/11s in America, I say ENOUGH! Done here.
Jimmy Carter OR Condoleezza Rice OR Barack Obama. Take your pick.
I voted Bush. He well deserves it.
Wright,
Rezko,
Frank Davis,
Dr. Khalid al-Mansour,
Rashid Khalidi,
Iraqi gun runner Nadhmi Auchi,
Saul Alinski,
Kwame Kilpatrick,
Joseph Aramanda,
Louis Farakhan,
CAIR lawyer Joe Sandler,
NOI founder Elijah Muhammadâs son, Jabir,
Jesse Jackson,
Samantha Powers,
Robert Mally, Brzezinski,
Merrill A. Peak,
Daniel Kurtzer,
Joe Cirincione (who dissimulated on behalf of the Syrian nuke program),
Hagel,
Audra Wilson (NOI),
Jennifer Mason (NOI),
Shakir Muhammad (NOI),
Cynthia K. Miller (NOI),
Ali Abunimah,
Edward Said,
Michelle Obama
Who in this list do you think didn't just smile inwardly on 9/11 but actually partied like it was 1999? All of them. His strategy of empowering jihadists while weakening our defenses in every possible way all point to one thing: he wants more terror in America, and unarguably the replacement of the Constitution with Sharia (the Odinga MoU). What is "loony" is questioning that this is the case. It requires an absurd degree of denial. Naturally we don't want to believe that this the case but it is and he never once even tried to hide it. It was his platform.
@ jdamn/oldengland,
It's important to remember that it is counter productive to assume malice when sheer stupidity will explain the behavior you're seeing.
the biggest problem with lefties is that they just don't believe that Jihad even exists in the way posters here know that it does.Shrinkwrapped and Dr. Sanity have offered some valuble insights on this particular delusion. Check them out.
That being said it in no way detracts from their Dhimmi status. It is true that someone like Obama that's spent his life in the circles he has is incapable of seeing what we see in someone like,e.g.Bill Ayers. Ayers looks NORMAL to him because he's not that different from anyone else in that chic-radical lefty crowd at academia!
BUT... do I believe that the PEOTUS actually wishes ill for America, or indeed anyone? No, I do not.
He's naive yes, and completely unqualified but not evil.
Granted, one is as dangerous as the other.
I only wish I knew the solution.The only thing I can think to do is talk, talk,talk.( yeah I know, the irony's not lost on me.)Talk to people. Tell them the truth!Create an E-mail list. Mine is called Jihad Posse.Send them a steady stream of information. Most people don't scour the net everyday for bad news re: Jihad. I have found though that many people appreciate what I send them.Try it.Getting people to see the truth of the struggle we're in is our worlds only hope.
I pray it's enough.
Sorry, I can see I'm rambling. I'll stop now.
BTW: I'm voting for Condi, not because I think she's evil,because she thinks talk and concessions work with those Jihadi animals.
Allahu??? FUBAR!!!
Obama, surely, is the outright winner. Why is he lagging? Are there some undercover Obamaphile Dhimmi voters skewing the results?
I was never a particularly big fan of McCain, but I think several responses given by the candidates at the Saddleback Forum revealed a striking contrast- most interesting perhaps, their respective answers on the subject of "Evil". Four minute must-see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqsH13unGbM
Note- Obama's explanation of the need to display "Humility" when confronting evil (alluding to his philosophy "We're just as bad, if not worse"), as well as the contrasting audience response. Too bad this difference wasn't borne out in the presidential debates.
I agree with christianatheist: I don't think Obama is intrinsically evil, but I think there is a strong case for arguing that he is an incredibly WEAK individual.
Obama...the next Chamberlain....VOTE OBAMA, AMERICAN DHIMMI 2008.