Robert Spencer: Why I am not a conservative

I am a devout Catholic so I get labeled this way all the time.

I give a lot of money to Charity, and I volunteer in a nursing home.

I believe in respecting life from Conception until natural death.

And I love the Church.

for this, I am often labeled a Conservative.

So be it. It is funny to hear people say the Church has 'move to the right'

To this I often challenge them; What position do they have today that they did not have 100 years ago that you believe is not 'more to the rigtht'

Of course the person making the claim cannot say.

Its funny some say its too liberal other say too conservative.

For me, Its just Catholic with the same values as usual.

Oh well.

B.T.W.
Bishop McMannus' recent decision concerning you (Robert) Is his personal decision albeit made on behalf of his office. I'm not happy with it. It does not reflect a Church religious policy just a worldly decision; for better or worse.

Anyways; You are one of the bravest men alive and telling difficult truths even if those truths be unpleasant.

Thanks for your fortitude.

Count me in, Robert.

QUOTE: "It is time for a new movement, a genuine movement of freedom, one that is not compromised, not beholden, and not corrupted. Are there enough free Americans left to mount such a movement?"

Is it time?
Robert, many people do not possess the humility you do; they would rather fight with you than agree that a position they have invested in is wrong.

This takes time.

I'm not sure that an aggressive pursuit of the truths you reveal will be accepted peacefully by many.

Many are even afraid that what you say is true!
This scares them because they know then the issues you bring up must be confronted.

I think you are ahead of the times; so I'm not sure you are right when you say "It is time..."

I have been called every name in the book at one time or another...most of them well deserved...
Most political types lean so far in one direction or the other, that they need sticks to hold them up, and, they walk in circles...Those leaning right walk in clockwise circles, those leaning left, counter clockwise...This is why they never seem to get anywhere...If you want to get somewhere, you have to stand up and walk straight...Spencer walks tall and straight, those who are seriously bent over hate that...
What does it all mean? I don't know, I was hoping someone could tell me...

I completely understand Robert's revulsion at being frozen out of the CPAC conference....it was pathetic and unconscionable. And I completely understand his alarm over the penetration of the conservative movement by a) politically-correct politicians like Romney and b) actual water-carriers for Jihad like Norquist and Kahn.

But I submit that the Republican Party, for all its faults, is infinitely more sympatico to the aspirations of human freedom than the Dems. After all, fiery anti-Jihadists such as Tom Tancredo, Rick Santorum, Frank Wolf, Peter King and many others reside in the Republican Party. One would be hard-pressed to name a single Democrat who might qualify.

The larger conservative movement is at a cross-roads. Do we who identify with the anti-Jihad and the Tea Party walk away from the Republican Party and risk splitting the conservative vote, to the great joy of liberals? Do we try to change the Republican Party from within?

These are some hard questions to answer.

"It is time for a new movement,.."

No, it's time for a new America, the old one is dead. You can't fix it, you can't beat a dead horse.
Keep your weapons no matter what.
MOLON LABE.

I'm in, Robert.

I move that Robert Spencer be drafted as our Fearless Leader in this brave endeavor.

Any seconds?

"It is time for a new movement, a genuine movement of freedom, one that is not compromised, not beholden, and not corrupted. Are there enough free Americans left to mount such a movement? That I do not know."

Lead away, Robert!

That said, I do concur with Cornelius' asseessment of the current two parties in the current two-party system of American politics.

So few consistent and true conservatives actually exist anymore anyway.

Perhaps if American politics (Republican and Democrat) weren't under the thumb of a combination of enormously funded political lobbyists from such forces as diverse as the Military Industrial Complex to fundamentalist Christians and, thanks to the very recent political funding laws, had presidential candidates through to congressmen and senators under the control of the handful of billionaires who finance their extremely expensive campaigns (Koch to Soros) -- these wishes for change might stand a chance.

Money creates compromised, beholden, and corrupted. At this point, American politics on a national level can't be separated from money.

Well, I remain happy to be identified as a conservative.

I want to conserve the Christian faith which has ever been the bedrock of morality in the Western world.

I want to conserve the freedoms enshrined in the First and Second Amendments. That has become a conservative position now that the Left seeks to criminalize the expressed beliefs of its opponents and critics of its clients--no matter how responsible and temperate--as "hate speech" and seeks to disarm the citizenry.

In America, if not in Saudi Arabia or Waziristan, living considerately with one's wife and regarding her as a joint heir of the grace of life are instructions accepted on the authority of God the Holy Spirit, who so moved the apostles Peter and Paul to give such instruction. I refuse to demonize patriarchy (heck, I only wish I could be an eighth of the man Abraham was), and I refuse to think that woman is necessarily purer or better than man. To those who scream that "Eve was framed", I'll always retort, "Then how come we're catechized, 'in ADAM's fall, we sinned all'?" That makes me a fundamentalist, and, ipso facto, conservative.

I believe in equal rights under the law regardless of race or color or national origin; but I swear no fealty to the "oppressed" races simply because sometime in the past they may have gotten unfair treatment, and refuse to demonize those dead white men who gave us a pretty good political order, all things considered.

Granted, I think that accommodating the inconvenient rather than killing them prior to birth is the mark of a superior civilization, so perhaps I am not as "hard" as so many claim the "right" to be. I am unashamed of thinking the Left's making abortion into the sacrament of modern, "liberated" womanhood to be a regression to savagery. So here, I am a conservative (and a would-be friend of those on the Left who are also bothered by this).

I'll also gladly admit that the institution of heterosexual marriage is something that we tamper with or redefine to our own peril as a society. Yes, conserve it--and society with it.

I remain very skeptical of schemes to "rationalize" all social and political life (according to the "rationality" of a late 19th century reductionist) or to put political and economic life on a "scientific" footing. I am very skeptical of the Utopian schemes which the political Left is quite eager to foist on the rest of us.

I think that people who are more intelligent, morally better, and more capable in managing this world's wealth are more likely to be better leaders than undereducated proletarians.

I'm for peace through strength and a social ethos that recognizes that charity is something that I should be grateful to receive should I need it, and not something that I may demand out of my neighbor.

Come to think of it, I even see liberty as something instrumental (more conducive to the goal of a godly society) rather than as the ultimate political good. Hence, despite my respect for thinkers like John Dalberg Acton or James Fitzjames Stephen, I suppose I don't even count as a classical liberal any more. And, I suppose that I firmly accept that citizenship means responsibilities as well as rights and liberties.

I remain invincibly skeptical towards the Rousseau-ite doctrine that man is basically good. I see human perfectability through natural means this side of glory as a pipe dream (and I am not a user). And, perhaps, I suspect that the alliance of Red and Islamic Green stems from both heresies' denial of original sin. But my own tradition's skepticism towards the basic goodness of man is something I will heartily conserve.

Yes, I've got my problems with some others in the conservative movement. But it says something that they are the side that can be shamed by moral failure, while their political opponents simply change the standards. It says something for them that they recognize a threat as a threat. They also recognize that there are people who hate us for what we are as much as (or more than) for what we've done.

And I've always thought it foolish to fix something that isn't broken.

So, let the editorial writers of the NYSlimes and Washington Compost go fly the proverbial kite. I gladly identify myself as a conservative.

Case in point: I just received an email from the office of Allen West, that supposedly fearless counter-jihad politician:

"Today I'm thrilled to introduce our new PAC, the Allen West Guardian Fund. When I give the opening keynote address at CPAC on Thursday, I will outline the Guardian Fund's plans to double our efforts to expose and combat the Obama Administration and its progressive plans..."

Any indication that Allen West is outraged by the treatment of Robert Spencer? Anything on his agenda to address this? No. Of course not. How silly to think he would be. He's a mainstream conservative, after all. He's going to participate in CPAC in a major way, giving the opening keynote address, and yet he will ignore the most important problem of CPAC -- its dangerous corruption by Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan. Why would Allen West, that supposedly fearless counter-jihadist, do this? I've gone into this on my blog.

Perhaps Colonel West will surprise us on Thursday, and make pointed, unmistakable mention (not some safely oblique remark between the lines) of all this. Somehow, I doubt it.

The definition of conservative doesn't change when those who call themselves conservative do un-conservative things.

Always praying for you, Robert and, no I won't be attending the infiltrated CPAC.

Third party politics has usually been an outsider's game in the US. But it has happened that new parties have arisen upon the demise of older parties. Thus the Republican Party rose up from the ashes of the Whigs, prior to the Civil War. The issue that undid the Whigs? The slavery question.

Seems like there is a certain resemblance to today's issues. We're facing slavery square in the face and there are few enough discussing the fact, even as the manacles are being dragged into place.

If the Republicans and Democrats refuse to defend the Constitution, let a Constitution Party do so.

From Wikipedia:

"Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative."

In that regard, I am a conservative.

But I am NOT a member of any political party.

I always tell people that I am a Marxist (a GROUCHO Marxist): I'd join no party that would have me as a member.

Great article Robert,the conservatives,who in general refuse to see the truth about Islam(look at the case of the CATHOLIC CHURCH),are their own worst enemies.

But fortuantely the website of the 700 Club always has video talking about the Islamic peril.

They are powerful and many Christians are now aware.

Guys,check out:

"The Evidence is the 1995 Srebrenica Massacre of 8,000 Muslims by Serbs is a Hoax"

http://www.antisharia.com/2012/03/16/the-evidence-is-the-1995-srebrenica-massacre-of-8000-muslims-by-serbs-is-a-hoax/

AND ALSO

"The Koran approves of the Gospel as it Existed in Muhammad’s Day"

http://www.antisharia.com/2013/02/21/the-koran-approves-of-the-gospel-as-it-existed-in-muhammads-day/

With respect, Mr. Spencer, I would contend that you are very much a conservative, a sterling example in fact of a true conservative, one who believes in liberty above all. The Mitt Romneys and John McCains out there, by comparison, are not true conservatives but only semi-conservatives, faux conservatives, confused conservatives, conservatives light, or, God fobid, compassionate conservatives. Damn them for forcing true conservatives to vote for them now and again to prevent something even worse from occurring, i.e., assumption to power of those monumental idiots of our age---modern liberals.

The conservative movement in America, or what's left of it, remains the last, best hope not only for America but for all of the Western world. Yes, it's this dire and those who don't think so need to reconsider things, pronto like.

The big trouble is that even the conservative movement has been polluted by PC/MC rot and that's why a true conservative like Robert Spencer is denounced by faux conservatives and why even a Spencer, quite understandably, can wonder if the label, "conservative," is still applicable to him. It is, but only in the original sense of the word and not in any present, bastardized CPAC kind of way.

Bring back real conservatism in full strength, the kind that believes in personal responsibility, limited government, maximum emphasis on freedom, and no phony-baloney caring about what's politically correct, e.g., pretending that Islam is a religion that should be equally respected along with the other major religions of the world, and freedom will once again have as strong an ally as it could ever have.

I’ve always considered myself “Classically Liberal”, the basic tenants of which give the government only the 3 basic tasks “protection against foreign invaders”, “protection of citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens” and “building and maintaining public institutions and public works that the private sector could not profitably provide”.

As a patriotic Englishman living in Canada, with children, being both ethnic and (probably a poorly) practicing Jew, with strong Zionist tendencies I feel I have many identities and outlooks. None of these identities see any doubt that islam is the biggest threat to all that I am. Politics just doesn’t come into it. It’s about survival and basic human rights.

Robert I have read your articles for a number of years, you come across as quite a traditionally conservative (there is nothing far right about you), these politicians at CPAC are just that, politicians before anything, supporting you risks votes or funding for them, there must be some equation they use, that’s all they care about, but I am sure you know that.

Here’s an article on the EDL which I have supported since its birth, even though they admit they are not generally politically involved, they still use the “far right” label. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9914500/Managers-and-skilled-workers-make-up-bulk-of-far-right-supporters.html

Geert Wilders, who is a supporter of the welfare state, is a "right-winger". Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is a black African feminist, is a :"right winger".

I am genuinely conservative in some ways—for instance, I consider our elephantine deficit madness, and so am a "fiscal conservative". On the other hand, I also support gay marriage. But none of this matters—I an Anti-Jihad, so I, too, and a "right-winger".

Here's Mark Steyn from yesterday on Lars Hedegaard:

"My friend Lars Hedegaard is a dapper, courtly publisher and editor just turned 70. Like many Scandinavians, he speaks very evenly modulated English, but, insofar as I can tell, his Danish is no more excitable. A cultured, civilized fellow, he was for most of his life a man of the left, as are the majority of his compatriots, alas. But, as an historian and a chap who takes the long view, he concluded that Islam posed a profound challenge to Scandinavian liberalism. And so at a stroke he was transformed into a 'right-winger.'"

Surely at this point, "right-winger"—or, more generally, "far right-winger", which puts one in mind of Peronists—is completely meaningless, except as a smear of freedom-loving people.

And then, Jihad-enablers such as Grover Nordquist and Suhail Khan masquerade as genuine conservatives—even though those they support would destroy every tenet of Western conservatism.

What does it matter if someone has conservative cred on issues such as taxes, it they are willing to sell us out to Islam?

Robert Spencer wrote:

So what am I? I am an advocate of freedom: of the freedom of speech, of the equal treatment of all people under the law. Consequently, I am a foe of the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, which are enemies of both those principles. I know that there are many others like me, but neither party seems interested in us right now, and neither does the conservative movement, such as it is.
.............................................

Very true. I still consider the conservatives somewhat more aware of the Jihad threat than are those who consider themselves liberal or left-wing—but all too often these days this is almost by default.

I'd love to just call us freedom fighters—but given that the clueless use that phrase to describe Jihadists intent on imposing oppressive Shari'ah law, even that designation has become corrupted.

I know I am on the right track, when as I talk to Conservatives, they accuse me of being a Liberal, and when I talk to Liberals, they accuse me of being a far-right Conservative.

I call myself a Biblical Conservative, as opposed to a Political Conservative (or Liberal). I believe the Bible is inerrant, and base my beliefs on the best understanding I have of what Jesus taught.

I think it is patently absurd to think that a God who is eternal and beyond space and time would conform to a 20th Century political mold, whether Liberal or Conservative.

And the idea that either party affiliation, Democrat/Liberal or Republican/Conservative reflects Truth is idiocy.

I am an independent Protestant, and Robert Spencer is Catholic. But I do know that following Robert over the years, through his websites and books, I agree with almost everything he writes, and the issues I disagree with are very few and unimportant.

There is such a thing as absolute Truth, and even if none of us is capable of being 100% conformed to the Truth this side of Paradise, the important thing is that we continually strive for that Truth.

Robert is one of the few contemporary authors that consistently strives for the Truth.

Stephen David

http://stephendavid.tumblr.com/

Mitt Romney, john mcCain, norquist are NOT conservatives. RINO or left lagging moderates....seems more like it.

if norquist waddled his weight around and got ROBERT SPENCER "dis-invited", norquist needs a punch in the nose. (i consider myself a conservative, but sometimes things need to be done.)

if SPENCER got "dis-invited" he is in good company. Franklin,the son of BILLY GRAHAM, got the boot and JERRY BOYKIN, a fine GENERAL, got "dis-invited". wasn't that from the MILITARY AIR FORCE ACADEMY of all places!? ramifications of the bully perverts, or bully moslems, i can't remember which. both come from the same CONTROL FREAKY hell. what a crazy world.

PASTOR JEFFRESS who does spectacular work rescuing people from human trafficing was "dis-invited" from obungle's whoope-de-do in january because he preached a sermon about the sin of homosexuality 20 years or so ago. bully deviants. obama rolled over.

beyonce,crass as she gets, was someohow acceptable at the inauguration.....she managed to keep her clothes on, someone noted.

if only obama would get dis-invited from the white house.

jamie foxx, another store bot name, was apparently acceptable at obama's january whoope-de-doo....even though foxx blathered on at the BET awards about his repulsive new movie where he gets to "KILL ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the white people!" this was met by much applause and cheers.

THAT krud was acceptable at the whitehouse.

some places you don't want to be invited too. of course now, due to vindctive obama sequestration, the white house is closed.

this might not have to do directly with SPENCER getting the boot from CPAC.....but it does point out we are living in crazy times.

(Please keep in mind...I have no talent when it comes to writing. Robert exceeds all others when it comes to that talent. With that said....)

As I was reading through the comments (very good comments), I noticed that no one was saying what I was thinking...Until I read Wellington's post. (Well said, Wellington).

Robert, as you well know, islam is a thief. Period. It changes names when it suits it...and steals names to gain an upper hand. Time and time again and again - that is islm. What you are suggesting requires a new name. And so, I have to ask you...what's to stop islam from stealing that new name too? And then we're back to square one again.

You are a conservative Robert.CPAC is not. Instead of finding a new title (name) I say let the real conservatives find (or create) a new CPAC. And one that openly condemns and completely denies acceptance of the koran.

I am a fundamental Christian. That means, obeying the New Testament to the letter:

Do not lie
Do not steal
Do not cheat
Do no murder
Do not covert

(end of carnal Christian commands)

I don't belobg to any group ('religious' or political)...not in this world....never did...never will. But i refuse to keep quite as I watch the pr*cks (word from the New Testament Act 9:5) - (which is what I believe you are dealing with Robert) - as they infiltrate and steal, - in this case - a good name.

Glad to know you are not a "conservative" / "right winger" / whatever. Neither am I.

I have been attacked by these types on here though.

I label myself as a freedom loving freethinker.

Somethings seem to have changed on here since I last peeked in. One was the links seemed to have disappeared till I signed in.

I have this problem in the UK. Opposition to Islamic hegemonism and violence is seen as far right, but my politics are liberal - the balancing of fairness, freedom, equality and community principles.

Couldn't agree more, dear Robert. I label you the same as you labeled me, a human rights activist. Furthermore you're a freedom fighter and a hero.

The world turned upside down and left and right, conservative and liberal don't describe our political views appropriately an more. I always used to be a lefty, a true liberal and now I find myself fighting side by side with those who call themselves conservative. But we've got something in common that's very important: All of us are human rights activists and freedom fighters.

G'd bless you, Robert and carry on.

I was a Conservative. In the 90s. In the 2000s, it's become anything from difficult to impossible. I was a Grover Norquist fan, when he was one of the key forces before the 1994 Contract with America and the GOP victory in the Congressional elections. Most of my political views, with the exceptions of abortion and euthanasia, are Conservative. Yet, these days, I'm more reluctant to admit myself to being one.

So what changed? In one word - Islam! Yeah, throughout my life, I knew that Muslims are evil, and after reading sites like this, FaithFreedom, Debbie Schlussel and others, as well as books from Robert, Trifkovic, et al, I knew that Islam was evil as well. Yet, Conservatives, who were already battling the culture wars against atheists, found themselves on the same side as Christians, and against these other groups. So they decided to ally w/ all religious groups, including Muslims. And that's what started turning it off.

If their naivete could be forgiven prior to 9/11, after 9/11, there was no justification for it whatsoever. Yet, throughout the Bush years, we were subjected to the ROP drivel from both Democrats and Republicans. In fact, one can argue that in some respects, the Republicans were even more pandering to Muslims than Democrats were. For instance, can anybody imagine Osama being taken down had Bush been running things instead of Obama? Bush had a policy of treating Fuckistan as an ally, and never allowed things to be done w/o their cooperation. Obama, otoh, was okay w/ going around the Pakis, and that's what nailed Osama in the end.

In fact, throughout the 80s and 90s, if pro-Soviet dictators like Saddam, Assad, Gadaffi, et al were darlings of the Left, the Islamic sheikhs like the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Emirates and so on were darlings of the Right. The latter loved to be in on the jet setting parties of people who had nothing to do other than watch the cash flow in, as the demand for oil nothing but grew: as Hugh Fitzgerald pointed out, since 1973, $20 x 10^9 has changed hands in the favor of the Muslim losers. Being Muslims, they didn't use that money to transform their countries into the likes of Japan, Switzerland or anything even close: instead, while Saddam and Gadaffi used it to become the biggest customers of Soviet military hardware, the Sauds, the Thanis, the Hanafas and so on used it to fund mosques all over the world, dawa centers as well as people who then spread Islamic propaganda all over the place.

With this being the situation, simple fact is that the 2 party system, which was great when the enemy was Communism, fails hopelessly when the enemy is Islam. For the Conservatives, Islam looks like a backer in the culture wars, as one can see from Jeff Jacoby & Dinesh D'Souza. For the Left, since most, if not all Muslims are America haters, they find them as their perfect bedmates. In fact, Islam is compatible w/ nothing but Islam, and even then, even less, but people on both the Left & the Right are too moronic to realize it, and think that Muslims are their allies. What is true is the converse - that they are the Muslims' allies, but not vice versa. The Allen Wests, the Vijay Kumars, the Sue Myricks are insignificant, and can all be counted on one hand.

Politically, the time has passed when one could look for either Republicans or Democrats to be correct on this issue. I had some hope when a party called the Loyalist Party came up a few years ago, but I haven't heard of them since, and their website is gone. I do hope that they get resurrected, since they have all the right ideas. Personally, if any party or candidate had it fully right on Muslims, and that's Muslims everywhere, not just in Palestinian territories, but everywhere else - Serbia/Kosovo/Bosnia, Chechnya, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and so on, but were opposite me on other things, like say, taxes, gun control, gay marriage and so on, I'd support them in a heartbeat.

For how many of you here is Muslims the #1 issue?

The label "conservative" has come to mean so many things that the word itself has never stood for previous to now.

If CPAC, which has the word conservative in its name, no longer stands for freedom of speech and noting the dangers of creeping shari'a, just who will?

In the 21st Century, we are witnessing the fatal fracturing of conservatism.

I am dismayed that conservatives have grown less and less interested about the root cause of 9/11. Danger ahead!

I will not be attending CPAC this year. Period. I won't take CPAC's constant phone calls, calls which, no doubt, are attempts to get me on board.

Conservatism is based on certain values...When conservatives stray from those values, they become liberals...It seems that CPAC has strayed...They are abandoning 'values', and embracing people of dubious import...while at the same time rejecting Spencer and Geller...
If you are going to act like a liberal/leftist organization CPAC, you are a liberal/leftist organization...It's not too late to make up your vacillating minds CPAC, fantasy or reality, the choice is yours...

Labels such as "Conservative" when applied to politicians necessarily take on a more elastic characteristic and have a tendency to straddle complex problems in order to gain more votes.

It'd seem here that Robert Spencer's definition of his own conservatism is probably closer to what most people think when they use that word "Conservative".

It's a fine line of course, it's a bit like a Christian loudly, publicly and carefully proclaiming his Christianity...implying that his/hers is being more Christian than other Christians....or, name any religion.

Private thoughts always trump public utterances. Again, where does one draw these lines? Who really knows what about anyone else?

Liberal/Progressive Leftists seem to always label anyone who speaks out against Islam or Socialism or who speaks up for the Constitution as Right Wing extremists. The Democrats used to be more individually oriented and the Republican party more big business oriented (i.e., mass jobs platform). Now the Democratic party is Shariah-compliant Socialist, and so the Republican Party absorbed those who did not agree, the Tea Party is in the middle. We need the Constitutional Party to attract the majority and marginalize the other two parties.

There is a huge difference between an oppinion and group membership on the subject of politics. And being in the middle of a war that has grown old, ineffective, and deadly.

The news media never prints the truth or the full story, about any given war, or the ideology of the different sides.

The United States was all on the same page back in 1944. Since then everything has fallen apart because there is knowone you can trust anymore. Short of trust and respect there can be know effectivness on any matter of concern.

Can we all agree there is only one truth?.. Can we also agree that Washington D.C. upholds that truth (daily) know matter the political side?... If we as citizens can be honest on every issue, then why can't we solve any problems?.. I'm 69 years old and I don't recall one new law, or change that has helped solve so much as one problem. That's over half a century of poor politics and lies. How do I know that? Because this nation is getting worse with each passing decade, not better.

Can you imagion how it is that one parent could pay the monthly bills back in 1964 but not not now?.. Can you imagion health benefits and 7 paid holidays per year paid for by your employer?.. Can you imagion 4% unemployment?.. Can you also recall no markets or shopping malls open on Sundays because that was the sabeth and the day for rest. Can you remember making a good living on $9,000.00 a year? Can you imagion woman staying home to watch over the family and house day and night, while the husband worked 5 days a week?.. Can you recall 2 weeks vacations paid for by your employer?.. Do you remember when soldiers and veterans were heros and not killers?..

Our nation has been divided at least 3 ways since 1944. Those that are patroits, those whom think they, and those that don't give a damn because they are just here for the free benefits.

So this nation will never be what it used to be, not ever agian... Why?.. Because you can't pull a rope in three directions. Short of the truth nothing will ever get better.

Who am I?.. I'm one of those "so called" baby killers that lived through Viet Nam....

Bravo RS.
I predict that this CPAC scandal is a sow's ear that will become a silk purse. Freed from the inutile political labels that generate more heat than light, your work as an educator and freedom fighter is sure to gather momentum with a broader and more diverse public.

Interesting posts... The suggestion that the U.S. two party system was adequate for dealing with Communism, but cannot deal with islam (refuse to capitalize) is wrong, but not as you might expect.

It cannot deal with either. Reps and Dems both failed to deal with communism, the Dems more so than Reps, but neither understood the vile opponent they had, and opted for various degrees of containment... Which failed miserably.

The same is true with both parties in dealing with islam (refuse to capitalize). Neither party is even sufficient in part with awareness of how truly evil islam (rtc) is.

And how did the West eventually topple communism (at least for the short term)? By an outsider. Reagan, along with Thatcher, the Pope, and Polish dissidents did it. And Reagan was NOT welcomed by the Rep establishment. He had to fight to get in, and ignored every bit of 'moderate' advice he was ever given.... His experience with communism in Hollywood was supplanted by in depth study, and he knew his enemy. And he stood up for what was good and right in the west (with an emphasis I suspect most of you would be aware of.... ). The situation is remarkable for it's parallels.. Pandering hypocrites, or quisling bastards if you prefer, selling us out, due to ignorance, fear, or personal gain. And one man faced them down in his own country, and a vile wall fell a few years later.

The ‘conservative’ establishment, didn’t want Reagan either. Robert, you are in the best possible company.

Don't give up hope just yet.

Oops, should be 'supplemented', not supplanted.

so everyone pack up and go to CPAC and scream: "WHERE IS SPENCER? WHERE IS SPENCER!"

then everyone, circle the wagons around waddleing GroverNorquist, get very quiet, and scary: "where is spencer? where is spencer?"

so they call you on the phone? every opportunity, ask: "WHERE IS SPENCER?"

I'm proud to be in the company of such upright men and women as I find here. Count me in as a JihadWatcher, counterjihadist, philosemite, and Spencerian devotee

Thanks Robert. Perhaps I know better who I am now. A lover of freedom and the rule of law based on granted freedoms and equal treatment no matter your race, color or creed.

After I proof-read my post - I am embarressed (But I did already admit to being a lousy writer...nevertheless...it's the point that matters)

Please alow me to make the proper corrections...because this is too important....

As I was reading through the comments (very good comments), I noticed that no one was saying what I was thinking...Until I read Wellington's post. (Well said, Wellington).

Robert, as you well know, islam is a thief. Period. It changes names when it suits it...and steals names to gain an upper hand. Time and time again and again - that is is(a)lm. What you are suggesting requires a new name. And so, I have to ask you...what's to stop islam from stealing that new name too? And then we're back to square one again.

You are a conservative Robert. CPAC is not. Instead of finding a new title (name) I say let the real conservatives find (or create) a new CPAC. And one that openly condemns and completely denies acceptance of the koran.

I am a fundamental Christian. That means, obeying the New Testament to the letter:

Do not lie
Do not steal
Do not cheat
Do no murder
CORRECTION:....
Do not covet

(end of carnal Christian commands) (Must add: Anyone condemning a '''''fundamental''''' Christian ...either doesn't know what a '''''fundamental''''' Christian is - or is just plain evil when looking at the commands that a '''''fundamental''''' Christian takes to heart)

I don't belo(n)g to any group ('religious' or political)...not in this world....never did...never will. But i refuse to keep quite as I watch the pr*cks (word from the New Testament Act 9:5) - (which is what I believe you are dealing with Robert) - as they infiltrate and steal, - in this case - a good name.

I pray daily for Robert (and for Pamela) for not only their work to be very prosperous....but for their eternal blessings also. I am HUGE fan of Roberts writings (his character really shines through his writings - a charater that I truly admire and love).

I have never come across any other who is as knowlegable as Robert when it comes to islam's teachings. But I would like to point out to you Robert (and Pamela) that I believe in producing a simple - short-to-the-point piece of fact (for us simpletons) which is sorely needed, so that all (even the very young) can truly understand what is at stake:

Taught in the Koran...

Mass Murder...................009.005 - 033.061
Gang Rape.....................033.052
Beheadings....................047.004
Crucifixions..................005.033
Robbery.......................008.041
Telling lies to non-muslims...003.028 (Shame on you - politicians of the world - Shame on you)
Cutting off hands and feet....005.033
Treason.......................008.067

The koran is online for ALL to see for themselves. It is STUNNING!!! to see, that such teachings (which are illegal in any just system) are being given free riegn - in a world that claims to love peace. No ther recognized religion of the world teaches such viciousness. Aside from all of these facts....there is still another fact that is never brought up:

The koran specifically calls the Son of God an abomination - and ALL of His eye-witnesses (the apostles) liars - by one lone accuser who was not even there with them at the time - offering no proof - but his own say-so.

009.030 - 037.151 - 037.152 - 019.088 - 019.089

How many Christians would STILL be willing to offer open arms to muslims if they knew? The self-appointed 'Christian masters' of this world wouldn't care...but I wonder how much their followers who give their tithing to their masters would care?

If your leader is headed for the pit - then so are you (Mat 15:14)

But, aside from being a ''''''fundamental''''' Christian - where eaxctly do the teachings of the koran leave all those who claim to be humanitarians?

I've always hated the saying "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" - but in this case - It should apply more than it ever has (simply because lives are truly at stake).

(I thank all for allowing me to make corrections - and to add some important, valid, and needed facts - of which, I hope someday - to be presented before whole world).

We1