CPAC blog award update: John Hawkins of Right Wing News does damage control for Norquist and CPAC, throws Spencer under the bus

A few days ago I wrote here about how Jihad Watch had won — overwhelmingly — a vote for the “People’s Choice Blog Award,” to be awarded at CPAC. You can see the vote here. However, as I explained in my initial post, I noticed that some of what was promised to the winner had not been delivered: the TeaParty.net voting site says that “the winner will get special linkage at the top of our website,” but as you can see, there is no such “special linkage.”

So I contacted John Hawkins of Right Wing News, who had initially told me I was nominated for this award, and he told me that the Tea Party people and others whom he had been asked not to name had told him to tell me that during the award ceremony I must not criticize Grover Norquist or Suhail Khan. I was surprised, as I hadn’t intended to do any such thing anyway, but the request itself impressed upon me how dangerous their links to Islamic supremacists really were, as well as their mad attempt to quash all criticism and discussion of those links, so I told John I couldn’t agree to that. He said he would go back to his higher-ups and explain that to them and let me know what they said, and at the end of the call it was quite clear that my agreeing not to talk about Norquist and Khan was a condition of receiving the award.

When I didn’t hear back from him as promised, I figured that that condition was not going to be removed, and so after more than a day had passed I wrote this post, refraining from mentioning John Hawkins by name as a courtesy to him. It was picked up in a few places, and now Hawkins is in full damage-control mode, apparently contacting every site that picked up the story and offering a highly disingenuous version of what happened, accusing me of lying and fabricating the whole controversy.

The ironic thing is that I could have lied to Hawkins, but didn’t. One obvious response to his saying that I could get the award as long as I didn’t criticize Norquist and Khan would have been to say, “Sure, John, no worries, I won’t do that,” and then at the awards ceremony itself say, “I told John Hawkins that I wouldn’t do this, but it is just too important a matter for me to keep silent, and so I’m sorry, John, but here are the facts about Grover Norquist’s ties to Islamic supremacists and the dangers of his influence over CPAC and the conservative movement…” But I just don’t operate that way, and also had too much respect for John Hawkins to do that. And in response, he is now accusing me of lying all over the Internet. You know the old saying: no good deed goes unpunished.

Here is what Hawkins wrote at the American Thinker:

I am the one who talked to Robert Spencer. I told him that I didn’t care what he said about the ACU to bloggers, in interviews outside the door, on radio row or anywhere else at CPAC, but I’ve known Robert for years and I asked him as a personal favor not to rant about his feud with the ACU when he received his award.

He said he couldn’t do that. If he got his award, he absolutely had to trash the ACU after he received it.

That was basically the end of the conversation because there was just nothing left to say after that.

But, it’s extremely important to note that at no point did I tell him not to come or say he wouldn’t be allowed in the room. So, any suggestion that he was banned from attending is absolutely, unconditionally not true. In fact, my assumption was that he would be there to get his award until I saw that post on his website, which was extremely disappointing.

Robert did win the award, I personally ordered his plaque today and per an email I received earlier, I believe someone will be there to pick his award up for him at the ceremony.

Ultimately, I thought the blogger awards should be about bloggers being recognized for the great work they’re doing. Robert apparently thought it should be about the problem he has with the ACU. I’m very sorry he feels that way and I’m extremely disappointed that he went so far as to falsely claim that he was barred from getting his award to drum up PR for himself.

And at the Right Scoop he writes even more strongly:

I”m John Hawkins and I”m the one who spoke to Robert on the phone.

Just to give you some background, I helped Pamela get the room she used at CPAC last year. TheTeaParty.net, the group that’s co-sponsoring the blogger awards this year, provided that space. Pamela and Robert were both at the blogger award ceremony last year and Pamela won an award. I”ve also interviewed both Robert and Pamela at http://www.rightwingnews.com, linked them from my blog and I considered Pamela a friend and Robert a friendly acquaintance before this happened.

I asked Robert, as a personal favor, to just pick up his award without ranting about the ACU. Some people may disagree, but I don’t think asking someone not to pull a Kanye West at an award ceremony is a big imposition. The awards are supposed to be about awarding unappreciated bloggers for the good work they”re doing, not about Robert Spencer airing his personal grievances with the ACU. When Robert refused to agree to that, it was the end of the conversation because there was nothing else to say. Let me note that I absolutely, unconditionally did not tell him that he was “barred from receiving his award.” In fact, I thought he was going to be at the ceremony until his post claiming he was “barred from receiving his award” came out.

Additionally, Robert did win the award, I personally had the plaque made for him and as late as yesterday he was even going to have someone receive it on his behalf, although I”ve been told he changed his mind about that. Either way, he will have a plaque and I promise to put up a picture of it when the pictures of the award ceremony come out if he doesn’t want to have someone pick it up for him.

Last but not least, if anybody has a problem with this, they can feel free to blame me for it. I”m the one who talked to Robert Spencer and I”m the one who’s saying that I think demanding the right to throw a tantrum as a condition of accepting an award is unacceptable. All I can say beyond that is that I hope lying to get his 5 minutes of PR was worth burning people who”ve been supportive of him, because he is dead to me.

Note that in neither of his responses does he address the central question and say that I can receive the award and say anything I like. Clearly the prohibition on my talking about Norquist and Khan is still in place and very much real. Anyway, I wrote this response to the Right Scoop, which published it, and sent it also to the American Thinker:

John Hawkins” account below is highly tendentious to the point of being outright dishonest.

John represents his telling me not to speak about Norquist and Khan’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic supremacists as a “personal favor” he was asking of me, not to “rant” and “throw a tantrum.” The ties that Norquist and Khan have to islamic supremacists are not a matter of a rant or tantrum, but a serious issue that is causing immense damage to the conservative movement and the Republican Party”s ability to oppose Barack Obama’s consistent enabling of Islamic supremacism domestically and internationally. It needs to be raised, yet as I told John when we spoke, I had no intention of doing so at the awards ceremony until he conveyed to me the order not to do so “” which order only impressed upon me anew the need to call attention to this problem.

Also, John never represented this to me as a “personal favor.” He stressed to me repeatedly that he was conveying an order from higher ups which he told me he was further ordered not to name to me. And while he did make clear that I was welcome to come and accept the award, he also made it quite clear that I was not to say anything about Norquist and Khan (the ACU was actually never discussed), and that one was conditional on the other.

I ask in the interests of fairness and accuracy that if you print his highly misleading and disingenuous remarks below, that you also print these.

And there is more. Let’s take Hawkins’ claims one by one:

I am the one who talked to Robert Spencer. I told him that I didn’t care what he said about the ACU to bloggers, in interviews outside the door, on radio row or anywhere else at CPAC, but I’ve known Robert for years and I asked him as a personal favor not to rant about his feud with the ACU when he received his award.

Actually we never discussed the ACU. We discussed Norquist and Khan, whom he is careful not to mention in these messages. He never said anything about not caring what I said in interviews, or on radio row, etc. He never asked me not to speak about them as a personal favor, but repeatedly conveyed the prohibition on my saying anything about Norquist and Khan as coming from higher ups whom he was not at liberty to name. And I do not have a “feud with the ACU.” I am one of the people who has raised questions about Norquist’s and Khan’s unsavory ties to Islamic supremacists. For that, as Suhail Khan has boasted to me, I am banned from speaking at CPAC.

He said he couldn’t do that. If he got his award, he absolutely had to trash the ACU after he received it.

Remember: this wouldn’t have come up at all if he had not raised it, at the behest of his employers. I didn’t call John and tell him I could only receive the award if I spoke about Norquist and Khan — he brought them up.

That was basically the end of the conversation because there was just nothing left to say after that.

Actually he said he would talk to his superiors and get back to me, but he never did. Apparently he can’t acknowledge that now because they seem to have required him to take the hit for them by claiming that he did this all on his own initiative.

But, it’s extremely important to note that at no point did I tell him not to come or say he wouldn’t be allowed in the room.

Straw man. I never claimed that he told me not to come or said that I wouldn’t be allowed in the room.

Ultimately, I thought the blogger awards should be about bloggers being recognized for the great work they’re doing. Robert apparently thought it should be about the problem he has with the ACU. I’m very sorry he feels that way and I’m extremely disappointed that he went so far as to falsely claim that he was barred from getting his award to drum up PR for himself.

Again, remember: none of this would have happened if he hadn’t informed me that his bosses told him to tell me not to talk about Norquist and Khan. They raised the issue. I am a free speech activist — what else was I going to say in the face of a gag order but that I would defy it? And this business about doing this for PR — in this Hawkins is beginning to ape the Islamic supremacists and their enablers for whom he is carrying water, in making this an ad hominem attack rather than dealing with the issues at hand.

I am dead to him, eh? So also is his integrity.

"The people who voted for Robert Spencer voted for him precisely because of the rare message he brings to CPAC"
Robert Spencer and Michael Coren on the CPAC blog non-award and more
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    John boy…Spencer does not ‘rant’…It is you who are ranting John boy…I don’t know you John boy and I don’t want to know you, you are not ‘right wing’ enough for me…You come off like an emotionally out of control liberal John boy…CPAC has also been tested and comes up short…a shadow of it’s former self falsely calling itself ‘conservative’…Sell outs is more like it…

  2. says

    Use of the word “rant”, to describe Robert’s measured and principled reply to the “request” to spare the hides of Norquist and Khan, belies an argument short on historical fact and based firmly on emotional hyperbole.

    Just what in the hell is John Hawkins asking personal favors of “friendly acquaintances”
    like Robert Spencer anyway?

    CPAC once again, like so many others, has been weighed and found wanting, as Hugh would routinely iterate.

  3. says

    I never, in a million years, thought I would come to know Hawkins as a, dhimmi tool. Sad very sad the widening compromise of the conservative bulwark.

  4. says

    John Hawkins’ credibility has been shredded and Grover Norquist functions as a cancer in the conservative movement. The cancer is spreading.

  5. says

    If he got his award, he absolutely had to trash the ACU after he received it.

    I’ve never met Robert, but I do have some feel for how he responds. My sense of him is that saying, “I can’t agree to that” is more consistent with his style than an in-your-face, “I absolutely have to trash the ACU” kind of statement.

    Does this prove that Mr. Hawkins is lying? No, but it is suggestive, to me at least, that he exaggerated in an effort to impugn Robert. Moreover, the greater specificity in Robert’s description- viz. Norquist and Khan- as opposed to Hawkins’ non-specific reference to “the ACU” suggests to me that Hawkins is deliberately not being entirely forthcoming. Astute Spencer watchers may be aware there is some, shall we say, personal history between Spencer and Khan.

    Conclusion: This smells to me of a situation in which Hawkins is trying to hide something, and by paraphrasing Spencer to and extent as to be outright misleading, is being, well, misleading. I am trying hard to be tactful.

  6. says

    “Robert did win the award, I personally ordered his plaque today and per an email I received earlier, I believe someone will be there to pick his award up for him at the ceremony.”

    Yes, Sacheen Littlefeather picked up the award for Spencer.

    All seriousness aside (as Steve Allen used to say), there is a peculiar obtuseness I’ve noticed about many conservatives over the years — and it only comes to the fore, like pus from a squeezed blackhead, when one single issue, and only one single issue, comes up: the problem of Muslims.

    And this shows most acutely the psychocultural power of PC MC — a power which requires internal assent in the heart and mind, not external imposition, to be truly effective.

    And so, on the one issue of the problem of Muslims, the majority of conservatives seem to have come to Love Big Brother (of the Ikhwanate, that is).

  7. says

    John Hawkins is obfuscating the issue with his sophistry over what is understood in this context to mean “receiving the award.” In this context of a political organization’s event, receiving the award means that an intelligent speaker and thinker shows up at an event and gives an acceptance speech in which that speaker expresses relevant ideas; it is not really about receiving the damn plaque. Receiving the award is a social, not a mere physical procedure. In this context, it is not only a social act, but it is a particular kind of social act that has strong moral significance. This is not a spelling bee or a sprinting competition, ffs. Hawkins or his higher-ups have violated the understanding of what is meant by receiving the award by imposing, post hoc, an arbitrary condition on its reception, a condition which, like the award itself, properly understood, has social and moral significance.

    In any case, if there were any doubt at all as to what Robert meant that he was barred from receiving the award, Robert explained that in his earlier posts on this topic.
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/03/the-grovers-choice-award-jihad-watch-wins-cpac-award-barred-from-receiving-it.html

  8. says

    The problem is that the organizers of the CPAC and perhaps the ACU love money too much.

    Norquist and Khan represent the power of money. They are the ones allowing CPAC to meet in a 4-star hotel. They arrange contributions to Republican politicians, so the politicians can live in style and have plush offices and homes, rather than commuting on the subways.

    The Tea Party, having begun as a revolt against the separation between the political center of the country and the actual needs of the society, seems to have turned towards the siren song of political power.

    Politics, like money, is a means to an end. The political process involves compromise and negotiation. Politicians are useful and valuable, as long as they don’t try to short-circuit the political process through the accumulation of undeserved money.

    The United States needs to enforce its laws concerning foreign contributions to the domestic political process. I find it difficult to believe the Norquist and Khan are able to wield such tremendous financial resources purely from domestic contributions.

  9. says

    NOTHING in the above article, or any of the other similar articles on this topic, provides the required data and proof, to lead to the conclusion that a “majority of conservatives seem to have come to Love Big Brother (of the Ikhwanate, that is).”

    It has been my (subjective) experience that PC/MC does exist in the “conservative” crowd, but they are a small minority and that most conservatives are generally accepting of information on Islam. With Liberals, it is a rarity to find one who is not infected with the PC/MC religion and thus they choose to remain forcefully and willfully ignorant.

    All that having been said, it is depressing to find Islamists at the very top of the leadership of the Conservative movement. We must change this – and the way to change this is to educate the vast majority of Conservatives who are ignorant about Islam, but not willfully so.

    So how best to reach those who will listen? Certainly Robert, with his knowledge of Islam and masterful and articulate presentations does tremendous job of outreach. Those of us in the Tea Party movement need to be much more energetic on this issue.

    A sometimes overlooked, but invaluable asset in this critical campaign, are ex-Muslims, who should be sought out and encouraged to speak to receptive conservative groups.

  10. says

    Hawkins is obviously a messenger. My reaction is ‘don’t shoot the messenger’.

    I agree that an award ceremony is not the time or place for political speeches. The place is in a popular blog like this one.

    This sounds like a misunderstanding due to imperfect communication. Both sides need to be adult and kiss and make up. Conservatives need to stick together.

  11. says

    John Hawkins has no news sense. This is like Watergate. The break-in was no big deal, but the cover-up was. Once he told Spencer not to speak about Norquist THAT becomes the story. It has to be the story.

  12. says

    “…until I saw that post on his website, which was extremely disappointing.”

    John Hawkins reveals his disappointment in Robert Spencer, which mad John *very* angry and motivated John to demonize Robert and to go on a smear campaign against Robert: by intentionally lying about what Robert actually said, and by ramping up the rhetoric: Robert “rants”, and he needs to be contained. Bologne!

    John also intentionally gives the false impression that he’s the adult here who’s only trying to control Robert from getting out of control.

    John is basically presenting himself as the “good guy” and Robert as the “bad guy”. This of course is a false presentation. Instead, John revealed just the opposite and exposed himself as the liar here.

  13. says

    Call his bluff, Robert. He has made it clear that you are welcome to show up and accept your own award, regardless of your acceptance speech.

    You show up to collect your own award. No need to send a substitute. Let him know in advance via the Jihadwatch website. You can “rant” in the calm, sophisticated manner you always do, and he and his bosses can eat crow.

  14. says

    I believe that Mr. Spencer is a man of integrity–if I didn’t, I wouldn’t be here. So, I believe his report on these exchanges is accurate and true. It’s his call, of course, on how he wants to handle this. But…just thinking out loud here:

    Why not show up and claim the award? He won it fair and square, after all. It’s an opportunity to thank all the folks who support him. He can talk a little about JW’s purpose and history–express his satisfaction that his message is getting out–despite efforts among “some” to the contrary–and even make some subtle references to the ACU leadership (he doesn’t have to name names). And he can remind that leadership not to forget about that link on their website they promised him. All of this delivered politely and honestly, right in Norquist and Khan’s faces. That sounds to me like beating them at their own game, on their own turf, in his own way.

    Again, this is 100 percent Mr. Spencer’s call–I’m just thinking out loud here…

  15. says

    Also if there was any miscommunication it was Hawkins responsibility to try to effect an understanding with Robert personally regardless of what was printed in jihad watch. Right? After all he initiated the conversation. And after all he represents the award granting organization which has a duty to present itself graciously in all situations. These people have a lot to learn about decorum before they publicly castigate a private blogger-one they seek to honour!!!

  16. says

    I have heard via the grapevine that CPAC has received many calls and emails in angry reaction to the attempted control of Mr. Spencer’s acceptance speech.

    Based on the chronology, I believe that Hawkins is in damage-control mode. Most in that mode DO lie — or so I have observed in numerous contexts.

    I hope that we have not forgotten that Pamela has been shut out of CPAC 2013 in that she is not permitted a conference room. For some years running, she WAS permitted that conference room.

  17. says

    Robert – you have won the blog award, meaning there are proportionally enormous number of people like to read Jihadwatch.org. That means they know your manner of conduct with the others which is consistent the way you are stating. I would have doubting Hawkins’s version of your statements because that is not the way you make statements. Hence, in my view he has shot himself in the foot in the front of JW community.

    The higher-ups are strangely lower-downs. Those are no other than the dirty rats Norquist and Khan. This crap is all loaded up by these two.

    I like Geroge’s suggestion above, meaning go there and you can still beat them on their own turf. In the future, recording any conversation with the rats is always useful, of course you can also inform them that you are recording the call – whether you actually do it or not doesn’t matter. It will at least stop them spreading all kind nonsense about you.

    That was my two and bit cents worth.

  18. says

    It is not just Robert Spencer that Hawkins is throwing under the bus. Consider what just yesterday this savant tweeted .

    ” Republicans like McCain & Graham are why the GOP loses, Republicans like Rand Paul & Ted Cruz are how the GOP can win ”
    Regardless of the great conservative merits of Mr. Paul and Cruz, suggesting that especially Graham, possibly the truest conservative in the US senate, or McCain are both to blamed for republican losses is an unproven libel and worse it is what the left wants everybody to think in order to weaken the republican party from the inside. Hawkins, unwitting mole, clueless, difficult you decide.

  19. says

    It’s quite clear that Mr. Hawkins is scared, afraid.
    He is unable to publicly make the simple assertion , I do not want to allow Robert Overreaction criticize Norquist.
    Hawking is not speaking all of the truth.
    The central question Hawking is running away from and scared to address is: Why is he intimating Robert is not to criticize Norquist’s associations with islamic political interests?
    .Is not clear to Mr. Hawkins that by definition a concern for a vigilant and strong national defense is Conservatisms linchpin?. Additionally , indisputably amongst conservatives the consensus is that greatest threat to world peace menacing the world today is the theo-political driven jihad. Given this reality how is it possible for Mr. Hawking to pretend Roberts are inappropriate?
    In light of this it is apparent Mr. Hawkins seems to have lost, hopefully just temporarily , his bearing

  20. says

    As a former lifelong registered Republican, an always Constitutional Conservative, nicknamed by friends during one period of college, “The Great American”, as one who is wandering politically these days, as never before for reality based Patriots, who are dedicated to the actual founding principles of America, can’t find them in Libertarians, Republicans, not too sure of Tea Partiers, but for an organization which knows one key, among many, of a true Patriot is to recognize the major role of islam as a fundamental enemy of America. Forever, Period.

    If ACU wants to save itself, and Freedom, not just pad their wallets with influence moneys, same with CPAC, who clearly, to me at the least, is behaving in shameful manners, more deserving of typical leftist liberal organization, they had better rid themselves of Grover and Kahn, sooner rather than later, as in right now!

    So far as I’m concerned, so long as those two are continuing to influence the organizations ways, the organizations no longer deserve respect, and I am looking for a muslim-islam free Patriotic conservative organization, as in political party of regular intelligent Americans, of any religion or non religion (and that does not include islam as a religion, it ain’t one, I wasn’t born yesterday!).

    I have no problem with true, apostates, just with believing muslims. Period. And no, it is not possible to be true muslim and an American, Period, ever. The clash will always come.

    Hawkins, become a whistleblower, show some backbone, reveal the truth, who is your puppet master, who is controlling you, why not be brave, practice being a Patriot. This is supposed to be Freedom of Speech America, isn’t it? You might bring yourself a reason for personal pride yet, instead of running around like a little scared mouse, for your unpatriotic masters.

    I too, know Robert doesn’t rant, by listening to his echoes, nor does he lie. I personally, may rant, but I have been most impressed by Robert’s continued long term steady, even tempered style, and never ranting behavior.

    I’ve always considered Robert to be a professional at his work, not to mention heroic, far more than any ACU-CPAC member, particularly these days. Robert maintains a very high standard as a writer-author-speaker against the fraud of islam.

    And I’ve read the islamic nonsense trilogy, in heavy measure, for myself and I too, know the truth of evil of islam, through and through, although I am more severe in my judgment, than perhaps Robert’s expressions, of the concept of islam, and the evil fraud that it is, and always has been.

    No, say I, rid the ranks, the influencers, and the leaders of any semblance of islamic involvement in ACU-CPAC, before it is too late.

    Islam cannot be a part of America, in any way, ever. It’s absolute ultimate eternal and not changeable purpose, is written throughout the trilogy texts, and reinforced by the majority of so called modern clerics, and MB, forever to conquer America, atheists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and all, and turn them into a dictated totalitarian, oppressed never free, women as cattle caliphate, for all eternity, constantly at war, against each other!

  21. says

    CPAC blog award update: John Hawkins of Right Wing News does damage control for Norquist and CPAC, throws Spencer under the bus
    …………………………………………………

    Well, this is disappointing, to say the least. I had thought that Hawkins was generally quite Islamo-savvy, as well as familiar with Robert Spencer. Here’s his interview with Robert (even though this is dated early 2012, it sounds as ugh the interview itself was conducted in 2003 or 2004):

    “An Interview with Robert Spencer”

    http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/an-interview-with-robert-spencer-2/

    And here’s his “10 Questions You’re not Supposed to Ask About Islam”

    http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2010/09/14/ten_questions_youre_not_supposed_to_ask_about_islam/page/full/

    More:

    So I contacted John Hawkins of Right Wing News, who had initially told me I was nominated for this award, and he told me that the Tea Party people and others whom he had been asked not to name had told him to tell me that during the award ceremony I must not criticize Grover Norquist or Suhail Khan. I was surprised, as I hadn’t intended to do any such thing anyway, but the request itself impressed upon me how dangerous their links to Islamic supremacists really were…
    …………………………………………………

    Why isn’t John Hawkins himself concerned about this?

    More:

    …I’ve known Robert for years and I asked him as a personal favor not to rant about his feud with the ACU when he received his award.
    He said he couldn’t do that. If he got his award, he absolutely had to trash the ACU after he received it.
    …………………………………………………

    Not only is this disingenuous, but”more importantly”this makes it sound as though Robert Spencer is having some little personal spat with Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan”not that Norquist and Khan are *enabling Jihad*. Describing this”as he does later””pulling a Kanye West” or “throwing a tantrum” is simply grotesque.

    More:

    Robert did win the award, I personally ordered his plaque today and per an email I received earlier, I believe someone will be there to pick his award up for him at the ceremony.
    …………………………………………………

    Will whoever is there to “pick his award up for him at the ceremony” be able to say anything about Norquist or Khan? Of course not…

  22. says

    As I expected, your answer with that lengthy preamble of inane qualifications is laughable. And predictably problematical.

    For starters you conjoin “conservative” with “right wing” as if they were synonymous. You would probably find many conservatives who would take offense at the merging of those terms inasmuch as right wing tends to be a derogatory term, but ignoring that lack of distinction, you assert this group “believes in the founding documents of the United States of America and the in (sic) principles and ideals which they define”, ideals and principles which you identify as:
    1)Individual freedoms (which are “God given”, no less);
    2)Limited government; and
    3)Equality before the law.

    It’s hard to get any more “founding” than the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The former was chiefly authored by Jefferson, a slave owner, and the latter legitimized slavery and second class status for women by disenfranchising them. Is that exemplary of the individual freedoms and equality before the law with which you define conservatives? Hmm. I suggest you go back and consider revising what conservative means to you as you have obviously contradicted yourself.

    As for “Limited government”, how would you place the Libertarian Party on the political spectrum? Is the name a misnomer? After all, The political platform of the Libertarian Party reflects the ideas of libertarianism, favoring minimally regulated markets, a less powerful state, strong civil liberties (including support for same-sex marriage and other LGBT rights), the legalization of cannabis, separation of church and state, open immigration, non-interventionism and neutrality in diplomatic relations (i.e., avoiding foreign military or economic entanglements with other nations), freedom of trade and travel to all foreign countries, and a more responsive and direct democracy. “Libertarian Party:Platform”, Official Website of the Libertarian National Committee. Retrieved on June 6, 2012. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States).

    In fairness, you do specify a difference in definition based upon one’s views on gay marriage and unidentified social values, but you don’t identify those social values nor does your earlier reference to “historical social values” clarify much. I am surprised you didn’t get into the death penalty, the right to bear arms etc. I am not surprised you didn’t get into fiscal and economic policy, international relations as those subjects get short shrift at JW.

    I could go on, but your reliance on the role of “god” as a measure of the distinction between conservative and liberal insures we would only have a bitter exchange. I don’t believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, Judeo-Christian concept of god so for me this part of your answer is a poor joke, but my personal beliefs aside, I wonder whether many liberals would object to being identified as less religious than conservatives. I’m reminded of these words attributable to Ataturk, the founder of “modern” Turkey:
    “Islam, this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives. I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap. My people are going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth and the teachings of science. Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will; every man can follow his own conscience, provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him against the liberty of his fellow-men.”

  23. says

    p.s. How would Jesus Christ would have designed a just social order? What do you think Christ would have thought about unchecked capitalism? Would he been in favor of safety nets for the poor and less fortunate? Would the “Christian” social order include concepts that are regarded as socialistic by today’s right wingers?

  24. says

    “Did it ever occur to you that many who regard themselves as liberal, leftist or progressive also believe that the Islamic belief system is violative of basic human and civil rights?”

    No.
    Because it isn’t true.

    The vast majority of people who have taken the time and effort to educate themselves about Islam and thus recognize the threat are on the political right, to some degree, and an as yet numerically undefined group in the “center”.
    You, Veritas and a small handful of others are the exception here.

    Which is why the question of “”So, what’s a puffed up, snarky Liberal, such as yourself, doing in a place like this?” is not entirely flippant. It is certainly direct and to the point, but is also not hostile, unless the reader chooses to interpret it that way.

    But here you are, so perhaps on some level you do wish to have a discussion, so let’s start with:

    I agree with your statement;

    “It’s not about left vs right or my religion vs yours. At its core, it’s about human and civil rights and by extension about the political turmoil in the mideast that is the cause of so much misery.”

    You might find that we agree on other points as well, once the invective has been cleared away – or at the very least find that you disagree with me but understand WHY I believe the way I do – and have some respect for the fact that I didn’t arrive there by my “fuzzy thinking” .

    Let’s try a few shall we?

    GOD AS THE GRANTER OF OUR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS

    An idea plainly stated in our “Declaration of Independence” and carried through in the language of the “United States Constitution”

    It is of benefit for all Americans (and by extension everyone else) to support this concept, even those who are Atheists.

    This is because if they are granted by something other than a human entity, they cannot be rescinded by any human entity.

    Who would you choose as the granter of the freedoms that you believe in?

    HOW WOULD JESUS CHRIST HAVE DESIGNED A JUST SOCIAL ORDER?

    How the Hell should I know? You think I’m a Christian?

    Why don’t you tell me how YOU think Jesus Christ would have designed a just social order?
    On second thought, forget it; I’d rather hear it from a REAL Christian.

    “What do you think Christ would have thought about unchecked capitalism? Would he been in favor of safety nets for the poor and less fortunate? Would the “Christian” social order include concepts that are regarded as socialistic by today’s right wingers?”

    Whole bunch of questions in there. As far as I’M concerned:

    DO I BELIEVE IN UNCHECKED CAPITALISM?

    No

    DO I BELIEVE IN SAFETY NETS FOR THE POOR AND
    LESS FORTUNATE?

    Yes

    ARE CHRISTIAN CONCEPTS “SOCIALISTIC”?

    I dunno, go ask a Christian

    See how easy this is?

  25. says

    No, the problem is not greed. The problem is ideological. Were Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist accused of racism against Muslims, or against blacks, or even (unfairly) rumored to have been — all the money in the world wouldn’t change their sudden pariah status, and the entire CPAC, ACU and Republican Party would drop them like a hot potato.

    It is reasonable to suppose that only a very tiny rare minority of American conservatives would knowingly, for mere money, aid and abet what they know to be the mortal enemy of the USA.

    Thus, the only reasonable thing to conclude is that most conservatives can’t see that Muslims are our mortal enemy. And why is that?

    Well, because of the amazing blinders which PC MC is able to cause, when people let it affect their hearts and minds. It is a psychocultural phenomenon.

    I suppose I will keep having to hammer home this point in 2023, to those in the Counter-Jihad who simple-mindedly feel forced to explain the phenomenon of the West’s myopia through recourse either to

    1) Evil Machinations of a Cabal of Dastardly Elites, or

    2) the Esdrujula Explanation

    (or a combination of both).

    The third explanation, though more complicated (I know one doesn’t want one’s brain to hurt with too much thinking and imagination), is the only one that isn’t ridiculous and that doesn’t strangely and profoundly impugn the very foundations of the West.

  26. says

    George I like your thinking. This is a very good plan.
    Btw speaking of rants, don’t they very often end in a petulant ejaculatipn such as “He is dead to me”!!! Lol. Cut the drama if you want to be taken seriously Hawkins!!

  27. says

    “NOTHING in the above article, or any of the other similar articles on this topic, provides the required data and proof, to lead to the conclusion that a “majority of conservatives seem to have come to Love Big Brother (of the Ikhwanate, that is).”

    I infer it from the fact that the rank-and-file conservatives at organizations like CPAC aren’t doing anything about this. If the rank-and-file conservatives wanted to, they could put a stop to Norquist and Khan today.

    Since they aren’t doing anything to support Spencer in any way that counts (words are cheap), I reasonably infer that they don’t really have their priorities straight on the problem of Muslims. And the reason for that must be a degree of PC MC in their systems; since again the Esdrujula Explanation and the Evil Cabal explanations violate Occam’s Razor (not to mention common sense).

  28. says

    You wrote:
    “It has been my (subjective) experience that PC/MC does exist in the “conservative” crowd, but they are a small minority and that most conservatives are generally accepting of information on Islam. With Liberals, it is a rarity to find one who is not infected with the PC/MC religion and thus they choose to remain forcefully and willfully ignorant.”

    This is a theme that is repeated ad nauseum at JW. Would you please define the terms “conservative” and Liberal?

    I have great respect for RS’s scholarship on matters Islamic. His writing also reflects a good-natured, witty guy. I remain confused about JW’s (and your) definitions of the these terms (as well as the term “leftist”). Some of my confusion derives from my observation that while JW promotes such values in the area of civil and human rights considered classically liberal (e.g. free speech, freedom of religion, gender and sex-orientation equality), there is almost no discussion of tax/economic philosophy, which I believe is generally considered to be critical in the definitions.

    p.s. I support RS 100% in his exposure of the scandalous conduct by promoters of the contest, but I am bewildered that no more than 5000 votes were cast. Doesn’t that reflect poorly on those who promoted the contest as well as the importance of the contest, itself?

  29. says

    In fact, the data indicate that the rank and file of conservatives, reject Islamists, as evidenced by the fact that they overwhelmingly voted for Jihad Watch over 14 other blogs. It also is indicative of an audience that is highly receptive to more information about Islam. In short, a population that is ripe to be roused to fight, in the battle against Islam.

    But of course, those who are preoccupied with such mindnumbing foolishness as the “Esdrujula Explanation” or the Ejaculation Explanation, etc. might fail to recognize this perspicuous insight.

  30. says

    Incidents such as this only serve to highlight why Debbie Schlussel is right every time she points out that Conservatives and Republicans are as much in bed w/ Muslim activists as are Leftists. In fact, in quite a few congressional races, the GOP candidates have happened to be more pro-Islamic than their Dem opponents. This is why we need to stop pretending that the GOP are the good guys and the Dems are the bad ones. While too much of the Dems are compromised and problematic, the same is true about too many Republicans as well.

    The ones who are good about the problem of Islam – Sue Myrick, Alan West, Vijay Kumar, et al are people one can count on one hand. That certainly doesn’t paint any picture about even Conservatives at large, much less Republicans.

  31. says

    “Would you please define the terms “conservative” and Liberal?”

    Now THAT is a discussion that could last decades. It is fraught with all manner of pitfalls, land mines, nests of snakes, opportunities for miscommunication and for ill intentioned persons to terminally twist the conversation in knots.

    Problem is, the terms have shifted over time, such that values that were once aceppeted as “liberal” are now seen as “conservative”. So today, there is wide disagreement on what this tern means, even among those who claim to be “conservative”. It depends on individual interpretation and also the point in history in which we are attempting to define the term.

    If you are asking ME how I would define the terms, well, with great trepidation, here’s the short version:

    “Conservative”, “Right Wing”, etc.

    One who literally believes in the founding documents of the United States of America and the in principles and ideals which they define.

    •Individual freedoms, which are God given

    •Limited government

    •Equality before the law

    Socially, Conservatives believe in traditional marriage and historical social values.

    “Liberal”, “Progressive”, “Leftist”, etc.

    One who believes the founding documents of the United States of America are to be taken as guide, and can be interpreted as the “need” of the times dictate.

    •Individual freedoms exist but not from God

    •Government exists to ensure
    social “equality” and “justice”

    •Government exists to “help” people in need
    (thus should be ever expanding)

    •Equality before the law, unless you are in a
    special protected class, then you are more
    equal

    Socially, Liberals believe in ever expanding definitions of “marriage” and social values.

  32. says

    “In fact, the data indicate that the rank and file of conservatives, reject Islamists, as evidenced by the fact that they overwhelmingly voted for Jihad Watch over 14 other blogs.”

    Voting for Jihad Watch is not enough; as I said, to make it count effectively, the rank-and-file conservatives must go further and pull the rug out of Norquist and Khan.

    As I said, they could do it today. The fact they haven’t, and won’t, speaks more volumes than a mere vote for Jihad Watch as their favorite blog.

  33. says

    “Voting for Jihad Watch is not enough; as I said, to make it count effectively, the rank-and-file conservatives must go further and pull the rug out of Norquist and Khan.”

    Agreed.

    So it is incumbent on the rest of us to prod, provoke and harass these slumbering folks to action – which they SHOULD have already taken, but as of yet, have not.

  34. says

    “As I expected, your answer with that lengthy preamble of inane qualifications is laughable. And predictably problematical.”

    So, you didn’t really want to have a discussion about this, you just wanted to pick a fight.

    You then proceed to do so, by spewing the well worn Liberal sewage about Jefferson being a slave owner, which of course invalidates ANYTHING he may have said or done, doesn’t it? (All Liberal heads nod) And then you snigger on about gay rights, God in government and the usual Liberal trash.

    Well, about God being the granter of our individual freedoms. As is plainly stated in “The Declaration of Independence” “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Please note the “endowed by their Creator” part.

    But to bypass the efforts of “ill intentioned persons to terminally twist the conversation in knots” and get to the meat of the subject, what is it about Liberals that make them much less inclined to listen and accept the truth about Islam?

  35. says

    The founding fathers were Deists, particularly Jefferson who cut and pasted the Bible to suit his beliefs. Hardly a born again Christian as the Right envision or try and portray him.

    As for equality before the law, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (albeit with some qualifications) sounds very much like a leftist credo rather then a GOP manifesto, which is not that unusual since the founding fathers were much influenced by the events of the French Revolution before it went haywire. And as you recall, the French Revolution toppled the monarchy and aristocracy to create a more inclusive and egalitarian society.

    I agree, the term Leftist is used so often on this site but it is never properly defined. Geert Wilders and late Oriana Fallaci for example are both European Leftists were it counts – economic and social policy – yet they are vehemently anti-Islam.

    One should not forget that thanks to the internet you have a world-wide. And since the Left is not considered a bogeyman in Europe and other countries, in fact some of the best countries and with the highest standard of living in the world like Norway, Denmark, France etc. are based on a Democratic Socialist model; JW’s derision does tend to create confusion with your world wide audience.

  36. says

    My point is that the terms left, liberal, and conservative are ill defined and misused at JW. You attempt to clear the air only fouls it.

    You are not any more cogent in your latest reply than you were in your original effort to define conservative and liberal. Your confessed “trepidation” at attempting to do so above – even after a lengthy, inane disclaimer – was fully warranted.

    I didn’t intend to pick a fight. I wanted to have a discussion, but you seem incapable of doing so. What you call “liberal” sewage on my part (there’s that term again) was simply articulation of the very obvious contradictions littering your attempted definitions.

    Being slave owners and disenfranchising women didn’t invalidate all that Jefferson and the other founding fathers did, but it certainly does undermine your argument that one of the distinguishing hallmarks of conservatism is adherence to their principles of freedom and equality for all under the law upon which those revolutionaries supposedly founded this country.

    Now you endeavor to defend yourself by distinguishing conservatism/right wing from liberal/leftist via faith in the existence of (your) god or some such religious mumbo jumbo by which the former are deservedly elevated over the latter. Does separation of church and state mean nothing to you?

    You also appear to argue that Thomas Jefferson and other American revolutionaries were conservative/right wingers! Is that really an argument you want to maintain? Hmm.

    And what do you mean by your reference to the usual Liberal “trash” about gay rights? Do you not believe gays should have equal rights as straights?

    Your convoluted rants only go to prove what I have commented upon previously, to wit, the angry rhetoric demonizing the so-called left which characterizes this site is misdirected. Apologists for the inherent abuses of Islamic ideology deserve to be called on their uncivilized mind-set (and hopefully to be educated in the process), however, incessantly railing against an ill-defined left only serves to alienate many who would otherwise lend RS and his freedom fighting allies a more attentive ear. It undermines the efficacy of the fight against the spread of jihad, sharia and Islamic influence.

  37. says

    “And since the Left is not considered a bogeyman in Europe and other countries, in fact some of the best countries and with the highest standard of living in the world like Norway, Denmark, France etc. are based on a Democratic Socialist model; JW’s derision does tend to create confusion with your world wide audience.”

    Once again, why is it that leftists overwhelmingly chose to be willfully ignorant about Islam?

  38. says

    And furthermore,

    “As for equality before the law, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (albeit with some qualifications) sounds very much like a leftist credo rather then a GOP manifesto, which is not that unusual since the founding fathers were much influenced by the events of the French Revolution before it went haywire.”

    A little education for you, my historically fact challenged friend, the French Revolution happened AFTER the American one. So, if anyone was influenced by events in a revolution it was the French who were influenced by the Americans. I fully realize that Continental sensibilities are horrified by this, but as someone once said “facts are stubborn things”.

    As for the French revolution “going haywire”, leading to mass murder, sham trials, executions, and the general trampling of liberty and the life blood of the populace – this happened due to the unfettered, rabid pursuit of “Liberal” ideals.

    Recall the “Goddess of Reason”, conceived by the enlightened French, to the constant tune of the whistling thud of the guillotine. The only thing that ended the murderous madness and saved the French from themselves was the brutal dictator Napoleon – which is another chapter in the painfully slow progress of human rights in Europe.

    And still, despite all this, they seek salvation in the “Big Government” Socialist model. Who will save them from themselves the this time?

  39. says

    “I didn’t intend to pick a fight. I wanted to have a discussion..”

    No you didn’t, you wanted to spew insults, which you did.

    So, what’s a puffed up, snarky Liberal, such as yourself, doing in a place like this?

  40. says

    If I wanted to pick a fight, I would not have originally asked you to simply define the political terms you used. It was only after your response to me by that I tried to condemn your muddled thinking for what it is – stupid, inane nonsense complete with the kind of ideologic reliance on god as Islam. You deserve to be insulted because of your asinine remarks.

    You have failed to address my criticisms of your definitions. Your only response is to attack me by calling me a puffed up, snarky liberal. If you had a functioning brain you would see the irony in that response.

  41. says

    DaveGB wrote:
    “So, what’s a puffed up, snarky Liberal, such as yourself, doing in a place like this?”
    …………………….
    It now occurs to me that this comment deserves a special reply because it drives home my point that your fuzzy thinking about so-called liberals and leftists limits the effectiveness of the fight against Islamic ideology, jihad and sharia.

    The fair import of your remark is that “this place” should not welcome those who identify themselves as liberals, leftists and progressives. So you think it is appropriate that only those who think of themselves as conservative or right wing should be reading RS? Did it ever occur to you that many who regard themselves as liberal, leftist or progressive also believe that the Islamic belief system is violative of basic human and civil rights? Would you limit the expertise and information available at this site only to those who passed as conservatives and right wingers?
    It’s not about left vs right or my religion vs yours. At its core, it’s about human and civil rights and by extension about the political turmoil in the mideast that is the cause of so much misery.

  42. says

    You wrote:
    “Did it ever occur to you that many who regard themselves as liberal, leftist or progressive also believe that the Islamic belief system is violative of basic human and civil rights?”
    No.
    Because it isn’t true.
    The vast majority of people who have taken the time and effort to educate themselves about Islam and thus recognize the threat are on the political right, to some degree, and an as yet numerically undefined group in the “center”.”
    ………………..
    And the evidence to support your claim is??????