Spencer: GOP Candidates Must Declare Opposition to Sharia

You wrote: "Michele Bachmann would be even less prepared to defend her positions than Tom Tancredo. But her hiring of Ed Rollins as her campaign manager, who has not hesitated to address groups linked w/ Hamas, demonstrates that even she is short on principles...."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks for bringing this up since Bachmann is now in the top tier of GOP presidential candidates. She needs to be scrutinized along with Perry and Romney. Debbie Schlussel has been one of the more outspoken critics of Ed Rollins.

Read the following exchange between Rollins and Schlussel:

Schlussel concludes: "The question at this point is: what does Michele Bachmann have to say about this? And what will she do? If she says and does nothing, we know she’s a fraud and cannot be counted on. Talk is cheap."

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/38634/troubling-bachmanns-campaign-strategist-ed-rollins-responds-to-schlussel-on-arabism-israel/

June 16, 2011, - 1:09 pm

Troubling?: Bachmann’s Campaign Strategist Ed Rollins “Responds” to Schlussel on Arabism, Israel

Thanks for the link to that article, wildjew. Reading it and some other material over the last day or so has made me realize that Perry ain't the man. In fact, on the matter of Islam he's pretty much clueless. Have already crossed him off my list. Not many left on my list and it keeps dwindling. From one Islamic supremacist to another I hope you're doing well.

Ron Paul? You are joking. Aren't you? Did you hear or read what he said the other night about a potential nuclear (apocalyptic) Iran?

Paul has not met a jihadist group (Hamas, Hezbollah, al Queda, etc.), whose murderous terror he does not defend.

Israel forcibly expelled every single Jew from Gush Katif, Gaza and its surrounds; thousands were dispossessed, homes and synagogues demolished. What did Israel get in return for the Palestinian Muslims? The election of Hamas jihadists as their legitimate government, thousands of rockets on Israel's southern cities, kidnappings, attempted kidnappings for ransom. Finally Israel had enough. They sent the IDF into Gaza, Operation Cast Lead. What was Ron Paul's response?

Listen to the first few minutes of this video as he moves on to other issues:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08gTWqWrI4M&feature=player_embedded

Ron Paul is clueless about the importance of seeing Israel as the canary in the coal mine. He just doesn't get it. He's naive enough to think that if America simply ceased supporting Israel and never interfered in any Middle Eastern affairs (which geopolitically speaking would be highly unwise as well as deeply unrealistic, for instance the necessity of keeping part of the American fleet in the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf area to insure the free flow of oil to the rest of the world, including to a major ally like Japan) that Muslims would have no grievance against us and we'd all get along. Yep, Paul is that naive.

The man knows next to nothing about Islam and is a dangerous isolationist in a world where American isolationism is no longer a realistic option. The projection of American power throughout the world is what keeps the world at peace to the extent that it is at peace. Were America to forego its global responsibilities, as Paul wants America to, far more violence and instability across the world, and not just in the Middle East, would be the result.

Also, I have a sense that Paul really doesn't like Israel and sees it as some kind of aggressor. This is a classic case of blaming the victim. The Israelis have been prepared to live in peace with their Arab Muslim neighbors since 1948 (and even before Israel was created) and the Arab Muslims en masse have responded each time with total contempt for the very existence of Israel. Doesn't fit into the whole dar-al-Islam scenario for them. Israel has fought for its life continually because of the hatred towards it by the Islamic world which surrounds it. And Paul doesn't know this or doesn't give a damn about it. Shame on him.

I don't disagree with your statement about Perry's support for Israel. Bush was also considered a strong supporter of Israel. I questioned Bush's support for Israel early on into his first term and then more so after 9/11, after he cut a deal with the Saudis to establish a Muslim state in Israel. I think Perry has done far more than Bush in his dealings with the Jewish state. How do you gauge the sincerity of a candidate's support for Israel?

"Also, I have a sense that Paul really doesn't like Israel and sees it as some kind of aggressor."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have a sense Paul does not like Jews, period. But since I cannot read a man's heart I cannot be certain. His son Rand, does not appear to like Israel much either. I am all for Israel weaning herself off American aid. It would be good both for the U.S. and for Israel. Israel needs to be entirely self-sufficient. I do not however see this as Rand and Ron Paul's motivation. My guess is they believe without U.S. aid, the Muslims would annihilate the Jews. I think Israel will survive without U.S. aid. I look forward to that day.

Ideally, I would very much prefer that America and Israel have the strongest of alliances. Both are beacons of the way nations should be run, both have traditonally demonstrated great courage and both are an inspiration to all peoples who yearn for freedom. Each is a noble nation and working together is preferable, I would argue, from working apart.

I am not arguing that the two nations should work apart, with the possible exception of where their / our respective interests differ; though they should not differ. (Obama thinks they differ significantly.) I am simply proposing that Israel buy her weapons on the open market. I understand American military aid (which is the bulk of the aid to Israel) must be spent on American-made weapons, manufactured here in the U.S., but Israel would buy American-made weapons at any rate because American made weapons are some of the best in the world. Israel used to buy her jet-fighters (Mirage?) from France. I believe America's F-15 or F-16 is superior to the Mirage. At one point Israel was working cooperatively with the U.S. to build her own Jet fighter, the Lavi. Unfortunately a previous administration pressured Israel to abandon that project which was close to fruition. To me, that was unfortunate. Israel needs to manufacture as many of her own weapons as possible and buy the rest from the U.S. or where ever.

Well she was wrong on the "Only in France" quote as we have seen the latest out of the UK. Still maybe she is the only one standing against the ideology of hate that is islam.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If Bachmann does not waver, she might distinguish herself from Perry and Romney. Rick Santorum I think is pretty solid. I don't know his entire record. Bachmann is now in the top tier with Romney and Perry. She will be under a lot off pressure and scrutiny. Little doubt she might try to stay away from talking Islam unless she schools herself - maybe she is up to speed, serving on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. She says she's been reading Mark Steyn's latest book. She might put one of Spencer's books on her reading list.

"Cain was the only one in the debate to give a answer to oppose Islamic law...."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You are right. Romney's follow up was abysmal. Here's the problem as I see it. Like Mr. Spencer wrote, Cain's statement about local communities having the right to "ban" the building of mosques was clumsy. When he came under intense criticism, he should have sought wise council in order to reformulate his statement slightly. Cain needs a good adviser on Islam and what to say. Instead Cain appeared to panic, bowing to a Muslim Brotherhood-linked imam at a Muslim Brotherhood-linked mosque thereby multiplying making what could have been a minor point a defeat. Former President Bush did the same thing after he referred to the jihadists as "Islamofascists." CAIR called him on the carpet. Bush retreated.

You cannot do that. It demonstrates / projects weakness and capitulation. A lack of back bone. Bachmann says she has a titanium spine. Time will tell.

"He's naive enough to think that if America simply.....never interfered in any Middle Eastern affairs (which geopolitically speaking would be highly unwise as well as deeply unrealistic, for instance the necessity of keeping part of the American fleet in the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf area to insure the free flow of oil to the rest of the world, including to a major ally like Japan) that Muslims would have no grievance against us and we'd all get along. Yep, Paul is that naive.

"The man knows next to nothing about Islam and is a dangerous isolationist in a world where American isolationism is no longer a realistic option. The projection of American power throughout the world is what keeps the world at peace to the extent that it is at peace. Were America to forego its global responsibilities, as Paul wants America to, far more violence and instability across the world, and not just in the Middle East, would be the result."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well put. Hope you don't mind me using some of this on the radio today or tomorrow.

I agree with you that Israel being as independent as it can be is something no American like myself who values the Israeli-American relationship should at all be concerned about. And inevitably there will be times when Israel's and America's interests will differ. After all, you know the old line, to wit, that nations don't have friends, they have interests. I have, though, for a long time wanted as close a relationship as possible with three nations---Canada, Britain and Israel. Sadly, sometimes this has not worked out as optimally as I have desired. The guy in the Oval Office right now hasn't helped foster closer relations with any of these three nations. BTW, respecting radio use of anything I've written, feel free to use it at your discretion.

Wow, Gail! Aside from the "only France" thing, she was pretty spot on. Would you happen to have a link to that quote?

And when you write that column I can guarandamnedtee that I'll be posting it all over the place, and linking to it from my place. ;)
As you well know, Rick Santorum is my candidate of choice, the anti-sharia anti-jihad NON-dhimmi candidate par excellence, BUT I do agree with you, the man needs to make some noise! My research indicates that he is totally where he needs to be ideologically when it comes to islam, but hardly anybody knows it because he's not an "in your face" kind of guy. He needs to learn how to get eyes and ears in his direction. His campaign should contact me, I could help. ;)

You proffered a fair assessment of the candidates you listed (left out Romney though). The most brilliant of the bunch is Gingrich (second for sheer intelligence would be Romney), but he is not electable because of his personality. Actually, there is not a single Republican candidate out there for President who impresses all around (or even three-quarters all around).

All of them (even Ron Paul) are way above average compared to average folks, but it takes a very special person to be able to be both a great candidate and a fine President once elected. Last one like this was Reagan, though Bush showed elements of high moral intelligence, political street smarts, toughness and overall character. Unfortunately, however, Bush was pretty much clueless on Islam, though I did notice that in his last two years or so of his Presidency he stopped making positive statements about this wretched religion.

Still, there is no great man or woman out there who has it all---political savvy, a winning personality, keen regular and moral intelligence, extra guts, coolness in a James Bond kind of way, no major skeletons in the closet, good and sound general knowledge (including a proper knowledge of Islam) and the capacity to win elections and put the extra-liberal leaning MSM in its place time and time again.

Still comin' up short. Damn shame. Because if Mr. Hope and Change gets re-elected the divide between the government and the people will be greater than at any time since the Civil War.

Being from Pennsylvania and a Penn State alumnus like Santorum, I really like the guy and his ideas and voted for him three times for Senator (two successfully), BUT he just doesn't have the kind of personality, the kind of persona, in this telegenic age in which we live to win the Presidency. He comes across as square and awkward many times (looks that way too), has no true sense of humor and he is absolutely despised by the liberals.

What is necessary for a Republican to triumph is a personality that is a winning one even to moderates and some liberals (mostly union types) and one who can deftly deflect virtually all the attacks (and lies) the liberal MSM and their allies will come up with. Santorum, for all his brilliance and sound ideas, falls short here, to put it mildly. A Ronald Reagan character is needed right now (including one who is prepared, based on deep convictions, to convey to the American people at large in a new Evil Empire speech that Islam is all wrong to the core) and I see none on the horizon with the possible exception of Allen West---and he's not running for President---yet.

"Concern troll"

It is you who haven't thought a lot of things through. Ron Paul not caring about Sharia is not nearly sufficient at all because all sorts of federal judges (virtually without exception liberals) could incrementally implement Sharia in case after case----and Ron Paul as President could do nothing about this. High theory minus the real world means zilch. You don't get this nor does Ron Paul. And I write this to you as the attorney that I am.

As for your libel that "the readership of Jihad Watch are very confused and are naive politically," you provided no specifics, and generalizations without examples are worthless. You know this or should know it.

Finally, the link you provided which you claim makes Ron Paul Israel's best friend reveals naivety in the extreme by him. Ron Paul assumes, as apparently you do, that because Israel has the nuclear option, therefore the US need not get involved in Israel's geopolitical situation in the Middle East. Ron Paul (and you) are so simplistic that you really do seem to think that an Iran with nuclear weapons is only a threat to Israel when, in reality, it is a threat to all the West. Israel is in the forefront of the fight by the West against Islamic supremacist designs and Ron Paul and you are so myopic, so stupidly isolationist, that you can't see that a threat against Israel by an emboldened Islamic world is a threat against us all. And you claim that I haven't thought things through? Look in the mirror for a deficient intellect in the extreme. In fact, your support of Ron Paul conveys to more than you realize how little you have thought through just about the most dire problem of our times---ditto for Ron Paul .

Allen West now says he'd consider running for Senate, but has repeatedly refused the idea of POTUS. I can promise you this, if he ran, he'd WIN. He has all of the qualities you speak of he would be to Obama what Reagan was to Carter and to islam what Reagan was to communism. I have no doubt of that whatsoever in my mind. If only we could convince him to RUN!

And, uh, by the way, uh, so far wildjew, as far as I heard, this is an election for the President of the United States. Israel is not a State like an eastern Hawaii. And not only that, you obviously haven't read Ron Paul's position on Israel. He's their best friend in this presidential race. I draw your attention to the facts:

http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-08-14/ron-paul-the-most-pro-israel-candidate/#comments

Now you know. You're welcome

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks for the link. I will try to read it later because I've got to do some work. This is not Paul saying he is the most pro-Israel candidate but his supporters. One of the first things that caught my attention at the top of the piece, he writes when Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, Paul was the only Congressman to dissent against a resolution condemning Israel. If true this is to Paul's credit. Why has he changed? Why does he condemn Israel every time she defends herself against jihad terrorism? Did you watch the first minutes of that video I posted above?

If Paul respects Israel's right to self-defense, if he respects her sovereignty, why is he the first to attack Israel when she defends her territorial integrity? Dr. Paul is the most outspoken critic of Israel when she defends herself.

Why should I believe a President Ron Paul would not side with Israel Muslim enemies, since that is what he has done as a US Congressman in recent years? I understand your point that this is the election of a president of the United States. I believe a US president who sides with Islamic terror against Israel is not looking out for American interests. It is in the interest of America to have a strong Israel. Paul wants a weak Israel who lies down in the face of Muslim terrorism and violence. What else can explain the video I posted above?

Here, please watch it again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08gTWqWrI4M&feature=player_embedded

Nailed it again, BF. Yep, wishin' most times ain't a gettin'.

Abraham Lincoln wrote:

Having read these posts, it's obvious that the readership of Jihad Watch are very confused and are naive and ignorant politically, and will do nothing constructive to prevent the second term of Obama -- that they fully deserve. Too bad for America and the Constitution.
.................................

I'm sorry, but this is terribly silly. Right now, this is a vetting period for Republican candidates, and so far, most of them—perhaps all of them—have come up rather short.

This *does not mean* that many people here are likely to vote for Barak Obama as a result the November after next.

These are two separate issues. It is unlikely that the Republican candidate—whatever his or her lapses, shortcomings, or blind spots may be—will be as enabling of Jihad and Shari'ah as the current Commander-in-Chief has proven.

More:

And, uh, by the way, uh, so far wildjew, as far as I heard, this is an election for the President of the United States. Israel is not a State like an eastern Hawaii.
.................................

Of course not. But it is important for us to support Israel—and the rest of the free West—against Muslim aggression. Only the most absolute isolationist would believe that it makes no difference to our own security whether Israel is destroyed or the rest of the West become Shar'ah states.

Israel's security is not just a moral issue—although it certainly is that—it is also crucial to our own future.

Do you really believe that the destruction of Israel—leave aside for now the terrible event it would be in its own right for human history—would not massively embolden Jihadists?

They would then set their full sights on Europe, the United States, and the rest of the West, and would do convinced that we will do little to stand for each other.

Throwing Israel to the Jihadists would be like Chamberlain's throwing Czechoslovakia to Hitler—appeasement and a green light for further aggression.

Please give me an instance wherein Palin is vapid.

You stole my thunder, PaintedBlue. I would echo your question as to why somebody felt the need to accuse Palin of vapidity without backing up the claim.

"Herman Cain said that his retraction had no bearing on Islamic law, which he still opposes."

traeh;
Agreed, it was about what I heard as well.

Its like tuning into the last debate, and judging Ron Paul on that, and only that showing. He looks to be true champion for the country in just that context.

But, take into account his statements and actions over his many terms, the picture shifts into true focus. Same thing for Perry, and all the rest.

I would hope Herman is judged by his consistant, overall position, rather than a single statement on one sitting.

I want a protector for the country, and we all need time to see where they really stand, not a sound bite.

Since "Abraham's silly ad honim (basically "everyone here is clueless, but I didn't answer the charges against Ron Paul!") has been answered, I'll just add this about Ron Paul:

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/02/17/ron-paul-is-a-vicious-anti-semite-and-anti-american-and-conservatives-need-to-wash-their-hands-of-him/

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/10/17/the-top-8-reasons-ron-paul-is-an-abomination-who-should-be-cast-out-of-decent-society/

Now that you know, your welcome. :)