Robert Spencer wins CPAC award, as long as he doesn't criticize Grover Norquist

Useful idiots?

Sad...but yes...they are. Even the conservatives haven't the radar to recognize stealth jihad. They don't know the basics of Islam: taqiyya, supremacism, misogyny, discrimination, entitlement.

Keep blowing the bugle and WAKE THEM UP!

"Robert Spencer wins CPAC award, as long as he doesn't criticize Grover Norquist"

Sound familiar? ...as in, don't criticize islam!

In either case, speaking the truth is off-limits.

We ex-Muslims living with Islam's formal and informal death penalty for apostasy know that the cruel, über violent cult of Mohammedanism is a despicable fraud.

And speaking as an ex-Muslim, I would say that Suhail Khan should easily make the top 10 list of America's worst enemies. The reason being is that for a Muslim with his background and level of intelligence, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE that he is unaware of the evils of Islamic theology and the jihad doctrine. It is fair to say that Suhail Khan and Muslims like him are the personification of evil with smiling faces.

If Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan are not exposed and ousted from the Republican Party, you may as well kiss it goodbye.

>>>>>

Along with the 164 jihad verses in the Qur'an that make jihad a central tenet of the Islamic creed, there is this:

At least 75% of the Sira (biographies of Muhammad and quotes attributed to him) is about jihad.

The largest part of the Islamic texts (the Qur'an, hadith and sira) relate to the treatment of unbelievers, kafirs. Approximately 67% of the Qur'an written in Mecca is about the unbelievers, or politics. Of the Qur'an of Medina, 51% is devoted to the unbelievers.

Mohammed preached his religion for 13 years and garnered only 150 followers. But when he turned to politics and war, in 10 years time he became the first ruler of Arabia by averaging an event of violence every 7 weeks for 9 years. His success did not come as a religious leader, but as a political leader.

Political Islam asks: What is the real jihad? The jihad of inner spiritual struggle, or the jihad of war?

Statistical analysis of the Bukhari hadith (considered by Muslims to be the most authentic of the hadith collections) show that Muhammad repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari, 97% of the jihad references are about war, and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle.

There are 146 references to Hell in the Qur'an. Only 6% of those in Hell are there for moral failings — murder, theft, etc. The other 94% of the reasons for being in Hell are for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Mohammed, a political crime.

Islam is no “the religion of peace”. Islam is primarily a religion of “injustice, intolerance, hatred, and violence.” The fact is, if we non-Muslims were to say about Muslims what the Qur'an says about us, we would be arrested for hate speech. The Qur'an largely preaches discrimination, death, and imposition of its dogma on everyone. Certainly some Muslims will be offended by such statements, but frankly, so what? Judaism and Christianity, the world’s two other major monotheistic religions, have had to face the harshest of scrutiny and criticism for several hundred years which continues to this day. Islam must not be granted any special privileges or be exempt from such treatment – the implications are of tremendous importance.

Here is a recent statement from a group of Bangladeshi apostates living in the UK explaining the reasons why they have abandoned Islam:

"One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives (Qur'an 33:50). He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way...

The statement continues,

Muhammad was a narcissist, like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified."

Maybe this episode will finally convince RS that the continued attacks on the so-called "left" are a poor strategy in the battle against the spread of jihad, sharia, and Islamic influence.

Firstly, "left" (and liberal) have never been well defined here at JW. By far the most common defintion here is tautological, i.e., those who don't oppose Islam are, ipso fact, leftists. Moreover, the definitions of these terms are not well defined in most general public debate despite the fact that they are bandied about as if their meanings were mathematically precise. The fact of the matter is that, like Einstein's theory of relativity, the real meaning of these political terms depends entirely upon the position of the one evaluating and utilizing them.

For example,the big media that is mind numbingly lambasted as "leftist" in JW is considered the domain of rich, conservative Republican owners in most circles. Even the NYT would be considered on the right to those who oppose the foreign policy of Israel and to many progressives who believe the dangerously unfair distribution of wealth in the US needs to be addressed more vigorously.

Another example of the inexactitude of terms like leftist and rightwing is Geert Wilders. He favors an economic policy that is consistent with that of socialist-leaning Hollande of France and is considered liberal, whereas his policy on immigration is considered conservative. Is Geert a leftwinger or a rightwinger?

Yet another example of the inutility of painting with too broad a left/right brush is the frequent, almost kneejerk, abuse heaped upon critics of Islamic ideology as bigoted rightwingers. After all, wouldn't those who don't actively oppose such a repressive (death for apostasy and blasphemy), homophobic, misogynistic system be the real rightwingers?

I hope RS will reconsider his strategy in the fight against jihad and the spread of the influence of theocratic sharia law and Islamic ideology. I, and I suspect many others, think it would be better to tone down the angry rhetoric against so-called, ill-defined leftists. It's not about left vs right nor is it about one religion being better than another. It's about civil and human rights. It's about values for social organization that reflect the reality of the modern world and that are not frozen in the 7th century.

RS, good luck in the diocese later this month.

Maybe this episode will finally convince RS that the continued attacks on the so-called "left" are a poor strategy in the battle against the spread of jihad, sharia, and Islamic influence.

Firstly, "left" (and liberal) have never been well defined here at JW. By far the most common defintion here is tautological, i.e., those who don't oppose Islam are, ipso fact, leftists. Moreover, these terms are not well defined in most general public debate despite the fact that they are bandied about as if their meanings were mathematically precise. The fact of the matter is that, like Einstein's theory of relativity, the real meaning of these political terms depends entirely upon the position of the one evaluating and utilizing them.

For example,the big media that is mind numbingly lambasted as "leftist" in JW is considered the domain of rich, conservative Republican owners in most circles. Even the NYT would be considered on the right to those who oppose the foreign policy of Israel and to many progressives who believe the dangerously unfair distribution of wealth in the US needs to be addressed more vigorously.

Another example of the inexactitude of terms like leftist and rightwing is Geert Wilders. He favors an economic policy that is consistent with that of socialist-leaning Hollande of France and is considered liberal, whereas his policy on immigration is considered conservative. Is Geert a leftwinger or a rightwinger?

Yet another example of the inutility of painting with too broad a left/right brush is the frequent, almost kneejerk, abuse heaped upon critics of Islamic ideology as bigoted rightwingers. After all, wouldn't those who don't actively oppose such a repressive (death for apostasy and blasphemy), homophobic, misogynistic system be the real rightwingers?

I hope RS will reconsider his strategy in the fight against jihad and the spread of the influence of theocratic sharia law and Islamic ideology. I, and I suspect many others, think it would be better to tone down the angry rhetoric against so-called, ill-defined leftists. It's not about left vs right nor is it about one religion being better than another. It's about civil and human rights. It's about values for social organization that reflect the reality of the modern world and that are not frozen in the 7th century.

RS, good luck in the Worcester diocese later this month.

Now you see with whom you deal. These Republican front organizations are by and large sell outs to the politically correct agenda of today. I hope I am wrong, but I soon see a time where Republicans and their so-called conservative ilk will be fomenting anti-semitism along with the chorus of the liberal left.

Now you see with whom you are dealing. These Republican front organizations are by and large sell outs to the politically correct agenda of today. I hope I am wrong, but I soon see a time where Republicans and their so-called conservative ilk will be fomenting anti-semitism along with the chorus of the liberal left.

The T party is losing it's direction... CPAC bans Geller and attempts to gag Spencer...and for what? To please Allah? To protect Grover and his brother Khan? Has Nathan Lean taken over?
Around here, the T party is asking for donations on local radio...I'm going to give the leader a call and ask him what's up with that?

Darmanad:

I have never shied away from criticizing the complicity of Republicans and conservatives with jihadists and Islamic supremacists. Search the archives and see the treatment G.W. Bush got here.

That said, the fact that Grover Norquist is in league with Islamic supremacists doesn't somehow cancel out or excuse the fact that the Left is generally working hand-in-hand with jihadis and Islamic supremacists. And I will continue to point that out.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

"I have never shied away from criticizing the complicity of Republicans and conservatives with jihadists and Islamic supremacists. Search the archives and see the treatment G.W. Bush got here."

The real ability to address this support of true "Republicans and conservatives" comes from the hidden agenda of the progressives.

They loosely hide inside both party's leadership and rank, and my guess is that the "Grover Norquists, and Suhail Kahns" are really part of the progressive movement.

Real conservatives inside the GOP party are rare, and they are under attack by the Carl Rove types, and Bush was another progressive, which may help explain the attacks he got here at J.W.

It is the progressive movement that is the true supporter of islam, for they both share a number of goals for world control.

We will find out that the "right" will become as politically correct as the left, but it will seem so much more comfortable to the American Dream (Dreamers) who wish freedom from any and all suffering. Essentially Islam is the glittering sword of the Almighty's judgment against unbelieving nations and unbelieving religious persons, even those who call themselves christians but are wolves in sheep's clothing. Islam will pressure those who are unwilling to die for jesus to convert or pay the jizya. And it seems certain that Islam is THE end times anti-christ religion which will deceive the whole world. They will require their own mark in order for anyone to buy or sell!

~~~~~~~ r U red E 2 C Jesus?