Spencer: Santorum more realistic than Romney and Paul on jihad

Rick Santorum is 'on firm ground', indeed. .

Nice, hard-hitting piece from Spencer. Shows an important, strong contrast between the two candidates. I'm very disappointed to see those quotes from Romney. Such empty stupid false pabulum I might expect from a GWB after 9/11/01. But from a Romney today?

A pity. He seems to have the nomination about sewed up.

Or not a pity. Polls suggest Romney's the only one of the Repub. candidates who can beat Obama. Of course polls at this point might not mean anything...

traeh, re Santorum's ability to "get it right" compared to Bush II, I believe that for most of the American political community as well as the American public, a real education about Islam took place only after 9/11/01. And, paradoxically, I suspect that had Gore been POTUS then, and Bush were running now, I strongly suspect Bush II would only be a slightly more nuanced Santorum on Jihad--nuance coming strictly from associations with individual Muslims rather than any weak view of Islam as a religion.

It's too bad that only Allen West and Newt Gingrich seem able to take a more Jeffersonian/realistic approach to the religion (sic) of bodies in pieces. While Santorum gets a lot of it right, his stance on a whole lot of other issues makes him palatable to me only because, obviously, he would still be better for the West than Buraq Hussein.

In political terms, the fact that a presidential candidate is saying 'Jihad is evil' around a decade after 9/11 is pretty fast. It usually takes longer for public sentiment to gain political traction.

However, Santorum needs to add that anyone who says Jihad is justifiable is just as evil as Jihad. Then Muhammed himself (and Al Qur'an) would be caught in the spotlight!

It just needs one more step toward the obvious!

Ron Paul is a complete ignoramus about Islam, I hope that Rick Santorum will make it and take Robert as his security advisor.

I certainly wish that Romney was more publically critical of Islam. Who knows for sure what he privately thinks. I believe that a lot of politicians and other elites in the West today have begun to have all kinds of private doubts about Islam. Nevertheless, if Romney gets the Republican nomination for President instead of Santorum, which is likely the case, then I would still argue vigorously that Romney should be supported over Obama, not even a close call. Also, and I know here that some would disagree, I think Romney has a better chance of beating Obama than Santorum would because he would be more likely to attract moderate voters and would be a candidate the Left would not be nearly as easy to demonize as Santorum.

Four more years of Obama would lead to a thorough restructuring of the American Republic, not the least way of this happening would be all the judicial appointments Obama would make in his second term, including almost certainly another Supreme Court appointment or two, which would then insure that the highest court in the land is easily majority liberal. Romney would be almost infinitely more likely to appoint conservative justices and this is crucial as America and the West make their way fully into the second decade of this century. Romney would also have a far more effective and realistic economic outlook.

America and the West are still not at the tipping point when Islam will no longer be on the offensive but rather on the defensive most everywhere. Seen this way, Romney would be nothing more than a transitional figure, but I'd rather have a transitional figure in this regard than a President in Obama who will continue to embrace a defense of Islam with utmost enthusiam. Besides, there's always the possibility that Romney will learn on the job. No such possibility exists with Obama.

"After Rick Santorum​’s surprising show in Iowa, he may be the only candidate standing between Mitt Romney​ and the Republican nomination."

So much for keeping a level head and refrain from quasi-endorsing politicians.

In the 2008 version of this practice, the following was said about Mitt Romney:

"Some people have dismissed Romney for using so many qualifiers -- "violent," "radical," "fundamental." On the other hand, I think it is refreshing to see him speak of jihad and Islam at all, and after all, it is undeniable that most Muslims are not fighting today's jihad, or aiding it in any way."

Now Romney is "dead", long live the new Romney..

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag

OT
SKIT: RESIST ALLAH’s ARMY (RAA)
Two men have just come out of a bar and are shaking hands. RUMP: See ya on the weekend. Take care.
MUTT: Yep, Resist Allah’s Army.
RUMP: Whatever. Look, you always say that. What about this religion of peace?
MUTT: Duh!
RUMP: OK man, (squirming) my rhoids are killing me. Give me the ABC and make it fast.
MUTT: A for apostasy. Leave Islam and they kill you—that’s desertion in the face of the enemy. B for blasphemy gets you death—challenging the chain of godly command. C for conquest—all infidels must be killed or dhimmified, hence the need for A and B. Now get going before you bleed to death.
They walk off in opposite directions. Rump stops and turns around.
RUMP: (yelling) Pokermuuuutt!!!
Mutt stops and turns around.
RUMP: (yelling) I get it! Resist Allah’s Army!!!
MUTT: (bellowing) RAA!!!

Seems Romney suffers from the same delusions as the UK's former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith when she insisted that terrorism had to be “un-Islamic activity” simply because it was terrorism.

Here is a quote from the full article in Human Events:

"all of them, with the notable exception of Ron Paul, would be an improvement over Barack Obama, whose policies have seen an Islamic supremacist advance in the “Arab Spring” countries that bodes extremely ill for the U.S. in the long run."

My question is, has Obama really facilitated the huge shift in the Middle East towards democratic, Islamic regimes, or would this shift have occurred anyway? Supplying air power to the Libyan rebels was clearly a crucial intervention, and terribly damaging to US interests.

However, did the diplomatic support of the demonstrators really make the difference, or was the change ready to happen anyway? As seen in Turkey, where the effect of foreign intervention is minimal or non-existent, the Islamists took power in spite of the military, even with a long tradition of secular government.

What is very damaging is the picture of the US throwing its allies to the wolves personally. This was illustrated by the craven Carter administration being unwilling to give refuge to the Shah of Iran. Similarly, the US provided no personal support for Mubarak, a firm ally, even after he was ousted.

But, it would have been very damaging to the US if we had openly supported the Egyptian government shooting demonstrators. It is best in these cases to not respond to specific events, but to also not pull the rug out from our allies by withdrawing our support at critical times.

I think the fact is, governments in Muslim countries will only be able to maintain safety and order by using methods we see as oppressive and violent. But, an Islamic population cannot be suppressed forever. It's better to keep them bottled up in their own territories, and not get too involved in their day-to-day affairs.

Mitt is not ideal on this issue, but I am currently deeply ensconced in the anyone but Obama camp. Unfortunately, as mportant as is issue is, there are other important issues that are critical in the upcoming election.

Maybe Romney can traverse the Islam learning curve quickly. Maybe not, but the alternative of keeping the current administration in power, isn't a viable one at all in my estimation.

Whom ever the repubs get as their nominee for potUS I hope and pray that they see the previous US administation's attempt to "win" over muslim countries to fight the menace of Islamic terrorism as a failed social/political experiment. Islam IS the enemy because it is obvious now that there is no room for compomise. Islam cannot be separated from sharia law any more than fecal material can be separated from dirty toilet paper! To be a "good" muslim means you must be in favor of an apartheid state with it's vicious cruel sharia sentences for those who violate its tennants. The republican nominee and future president must be willing to NAME the enemy, AND ITS NAME IS ISLAM!!!

“we can’t be indecisive about whether Pakistan is our friend. They must be our friend… we must engaged them as friends, get over the difficulties we have, as we did with Saudi Arabia, with respect to the events of 9/11.The terrorists came from Saudi Arabia. And we said, 'What– you know what? It’s important for us to maintain that relationship, in spite of those difficulties.'”
-- Rick Santorum on Pakistan

Robert Spencer endorses friendship with Pakistan, and cooperation with the Pakistani military who is routinely harboring Islamic terrorists. I thought I would never see the day to see this happen. Unfortunately, it did happen.

Romney is the only one who appears serious on illegal immigration, although not encouraging on legal (although he does tend to change his positions a lot, so who knows? The other ones are, however, worse on this issue than what Romney says he would do)

As long as any jihadist can enter the US from Mexico illegally (or legally from Saudi Arabia like Muhammad Atta), there will always be a risk of a new 9/11. Maybe even a nuclear one.

Sorry about the inaccuracy, M.Atta immigrated into the US from Germany, and from his native Egypt there, apparently.

Either way, legal immigration of Muslims into Western countries must stop. The risk is simply too great.

What I saw in my crystal ball:

NH: Huntsman's time to "surge".
SC: Perry's time to "surge".

After all these one state, lamestream-mediated "surges", there's two man standing. One will force Big Gov neo-progressives to defend BHO-bomber on US (or rather, UN) foreign policy.

Cheers,
Sag

Regardless of his stand on Islam/sharia, people will not vote for him. I have learned the hard way that hatred for Christians trumps even concern over jihad and sharia.

Wealthy Islamic nations have been spreading lies about Islam for over 50 years. For example saying the "Islam is the religion of peace". These lies and thousands like it have been spread in our Universities and public schools for many decades. Our presidents Clinton, GWB, and Obama, were all taught in school and college that Islam was good and similar to our Christian Religion.

I'm saying the lies have been spreading since the 1950's. Even Hollywood, and our Churches got in on the lies when making movies and on Sundays concerning Islam.

Is it any wonder then than our society is having such a hard time excepting the exact opposet..?

We are about 60 years too late with our news of truth and concern for mankind. It will be almost impossible to spread the truth at this late date. The administration and Federal Courts wont hear it. We are speaking to deaf ears, whom have made up their mind that Islam is very similar to Christianity.

And the legislators and judges don't know enough about either one to make an educated guess without Islams clerics input.

A friend in the U.K. asked me for my appraisal of the campaign here. This was my reply this morning:

The Republicans I'd vote for are not candidates: John Bolton and Alan West. There are no other Republicans currently duking it out in the primaries that I'd vote for. Gingrich, Perry and Santorum are "social conservatives" and clones of the Bushes, that is, religious conservatives. Santorum has called Sharia law "evil," but he and Gingrich regard Islam as a rival faith, and that's all. It explains their passionate condemnation of it. They're beholden to evangelicals and fundamentalists and that's their appeal. Gingrich and Santorum would try to insinuate Christian ethics into government (although that's already there, the altruist ethic is the foundation of the welfare state, they just don't agree that it should be "secular"). Ron Paul says the right things about fiscal policies but that's from a strictly libertarian playbook; his foreign policy is out to lunch, and I've always wondered by Obama just didn't appoint him Secretary of Non-Defense.

Paul's biggest threat is that he might deflect enough votes in November from the Republican candidate that would give Obama a second term, which would be the end of the U.S. I suspect the SOB knows it. Romney is the gray flannel suit candidate, an establishment conservative whose biggest liability is Massachusetts-Care, a precursor of ObamaCare. He's shifty and waits until he and his advisers see what bothers voters the most and then pronounces a position on the issue. He’s as much a big government spender as were the Bushes and Clinton. He's a follower, not a "leader." Truth, to him, is established by consensus, not by reality or facts. He's much like that nonentity "Head of State" in Atlas Shrugged, Mr. Thompson. He's not an ideologue; he just "goes with the flow." Mr. Spencer’s quotation of him above about Islam and jihad illustrates his political correctness.

There are no viable alternatives on the political scene here. I wish I could report otherwise, but that's the situation here. It's frightening. Yaron Brook remarked that come November, just to get Obama out of office, one may need to vote holding one's nose. But frankly I don't think I could pinch mine hard enough. In terms of voting for candidates, it’s an issue of being between rocks and hard places.

The president Obama administration is pushing other countries in support of Islamist, Jordan relaised billions of dollars that was frozen 6 years ago because of illigality and the use of money to support jihadist.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=252970