| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
I will not endorse a candidate, but I think it is useful to begin discussing what the candidates say they will do about the global jihad and Islamic supremacism.
Now that Hillary Clinton is, unless something unforeseeable occurs, the Democratic nominee and, in all likelihood, the next president of the United States, I think she is a good one to start with. It's interesting to note that in the issues section of her website, she has no section devoted to fighting terrorism as such -- unlike Barack Obama, whose site has a section on Homeland Security and a speech on counterterrorism strategy; John McCain, whose site has a section on national security; Mitt Romney, whose site contains a plan for "confronting radical jihad" (kudos to Romney for use of the forbidden word, even with the silly qualifier); Mike Huckabee, whose site explains his views on "National Security/Foreign Policy: War On Terror"; and even John "The War On Terror Is A Bumper Sticker" Edwards, whose site reveals "John Edwards' Strategy To Root Out And Shut Down Terrorist Cells."
I'll discuss all those in the coming days. Today, Hillary. There is a paragraph, at the end of the section explaining that she will immediately withdraw American troops from Iraq:
She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.
That's all I can find. If I missed anything, please let me know. In writing this I am not looking for statements she may have made about terrorism, because I expect that if they were important enough to her as policy statements, she would have made them part of the section at her website that explains her priorities and policy agenda. However, if that is a false assumption, and she has detailed some plan to fight "terrorism" somewhere else, please let me know.
But from the looks of this, terrorism -- never mind jihad -- is hardly a priority for her at all. It might be prudent in terms of a better defense against the global jihad to give up trying to democratize Iraq, as we have pointed out here many, many times. But Hillary Clinton doesn't give any indication of recognizing what it was that got us into Iraq in the first place. Whether or not going into Iraq was the right thing to do, it was essentially a response to 9/11 -- but the impression from Hillary's website is that 9/11 didn't happen, or had no significance whatsoever. She says nothing about fighting against the spread of the jihad ideology in the U.S. -- but of course none of them do that, with the possible or arguable exception of Romney. She says nothing even about what Edwards has acknowledged: the existence of terror cells in the U.S. Nowhere even close to the radar screen is any concern for the loss of European allies of the United States to Islamization, with the possible catastrophic consquences that could follow -- but there again, no one is talking about that. Global jihad? What's that?
It's a 9/10 policy statement for a 9/12 world, suggesting that -- as clueless and out of touch as the government and media establishment are on this issue right now -- beginning on January 20, 2009, we are in for some tough, tough times.
UPDATE: Jihad Watch reader Kamala has found more here.
We know we need global coalitions to tackle global problems like climate change, poverty, AIDS, and terrorism.
I'm glad terrorism made the list, but after climate change, poverty, and AIDS are no more, I wonder what resources will be left to tackle it.
Senator Clinton takes very seriously the threats we face from terrorism. She believes President Bush's singular focus on Iraq has distracted him from waging the war on terror effectively and emboldened our enemies. As president, she will be tough and smart in combating terrorism.
Whatever Bush has had, and whatever one may think of the Iraq venture, Bush has not had a "singular focus on Iraq." Afghanistan, after all, does exist, and credit must be given for the foiled jihad plots in the U.S., at Fort Dix, the JFK Airport, and elsewhere. It would be good to see her spell out what being "tough and smart in combating terrorism" would look like. Perhaps some evidence is in the following paragraphs:
Hillary has steadfastly fought for Israel's right to exist peacefully and to defend its people against terrorism. She has condemned Hamas's rise to power. She has spoken out against the problem of anti-Semitism in Palestinian textbooks and condemned Iran's conference on the Holocaust. She also successfully helped Magen David Adom join the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement.
All good, as far as they go. Aside from the first, however, they are specific actions, not statements of policy or principle, much less intent. Would she demand, as Bush seems determined to do, that Israel retreat to indefensible borders in exchange for promises of peace? Would she condemn the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism as such, since they have been such engines for oppression throughout history and today? But with that last question, of course, I have entered the realm of fantasy: no candidate is talking about that. And indeed, it immediately gets worse:
She has continued to advance peace in Northern Ireland by maintaining close ties with Irish leaders and promoting business partnerships between Northern Ireland and the United States.
Northern Ireland? Is this 1976? Northern Ireland is so burning an issue in 2008 that it warrants mention in a candidate's basic policy statements? I suspect that Northern Ireland is mentioned here only to offset the impression that "terrorism" is solely a Muslim problem, a la Karen Armstrong's point here.
And finally:
Hillary has been a forceful and consistent advocate for a more robust response to the violence in Darfur since May 2004. She has raised the issue with the Bush administration and pushed for more resources for peacekeeping efforts.
Peacekeeping efforts: this could conceivably end up turning into more Clinton aid for jihadists, a la the Balkans in the 1990s. And no, I do not believe the Serbs were sinless. No one is. But I still don't like to see the United States rush to the aid of people who would subjugate women and religious minorities under Sharia.
Posted by Robert at January 9, 2008 10:26 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I share the opinion that a Democratic administration will give the broader global Jihad a free pass.
Posted by: John C![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 9, 2008 10:59 AM
Huma (the crypto Salafist) tells Hill what she can and can't say.
Posted by: Beagle at January 9, 2008 11:00 AM
It's too soon to consider Hillary the likely nominee. Except for incumbent presidents seeking reelection, New Hampshire primary voters haven't picked a president in twenty years. They chose Paul Tsongas and Bush 41 in 1992 and John McCain and Al Gore in 2000. All of them lost.
Posted by: PMK at January 9, 2008 11:14 AM
She is apparently still intent on recycling Madeline Albright, who is listed as one of Clinton's foreign-policy advisers. Madeline Albright's new book (I looked at it quickly in a bookstore), contains some remarkable statements --remarkably idiotic -- about Islam. I didn't write them down, but perhaps someone reading this has the book, and can post a damning sentence or two here. As I hardly went deep into the dismal thing, please look first at her introduction.
New blood, and a dismissal of the albrights of this world, would be highly desirable. In foreign policy, only those who understand the meaning and menace of Islam, and therefore are opposed to the squandering in Iraq for the right reasons, should be considered.
Call it "change."
Who, nowadays, could be against "change"?
Posted by: Hugh at January 9, 2008 11:15 AM
What matters is what Hillary does or does not think, and what she will or will not do. But as she is superficial, it comes downs to what she says.
Posted by: John C at January 9, 2008 11:15 AM
Robert, you write "Now that Hillary Clinton is, unless something unforeseeable occurs, the Democratic nominee and, in all likelihood, the next president of the United States..."
Well, maybe Barak Obama is the "something unforeseeable"? He seems to be doing very well, Hillary's NH win notwithstanding.
Regardless, I'm looking forward to your analysis on this all-important topic.
at January 9, 2008 11:16 AM
What matters is what Hillary does or does not think, and what she will or will not do. But as she is superficial, it comes down to what she says.
Posted by: John C at January 9, 2008 11:16 AM
What, no Giuliani?
Posted by: awake at January 9, 2008 11:17 AM
But………..but…….if President Rodham-Clinton’s first priority is her constituency, what do any of us have to worry about? Or, as the legendary Alfred E. Neuman once masterfully put it: “What me worry?” Nothing at all to worry about here, folks, just roll over and go back to sleep as we will be in ‘good hands’ with our soon to be new Commander-and-Chief.
Posted by: descendantofacrusader at January 9, 2008 11:19 AM
9/11 is not an aberration, but a turning point. The world should be seen in the stark light of profoundly different, competing values. Religion is more enduring and all-encompassing than mere ideology or socio-economic questions.
Posted by: John C at January 9, 2008 11:22 AM
I'd rather have her effing up our foreign policy and then out of the shambles, dirty bomb or whatever a 'Republican Churchill' can emerge to save us. Both Bushes have tainted everything they've touched with mediocrity and failure. We need some time in Hillary purgatory to pay for our sins.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at January 9, 2008 11:22 AM
I think to judge Hillary's views on terrorism just from the website is a bit unfair. The website is to hit the talking-points she believes she needs to win the nomination, that's all.
In the Democratic debates, she spent more time emphasizing that we live in a dangerous world (and she's the one to deal with that) than any other Democratic candidate except Joe Biden. When asked what to do in the event of another major terrorist attack, she was the only candidate who instantly replied that she would employ military retaliation.
In a rally during the race for the just-concluded New Hampshire primary, she even raised the question of whether Obama's naivete might encourage terrorists to attack us, like they did in Britain when Gordon Brown took over.
Cut her some slack. She's trying to win the nomination of a party whose base seems to think that the entire terrorist threat is a hoax concocted by the Bush Administration to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan.
I'm not worried about Hillary's ability to deal with a terrorist crisis. I'm much more worried about the party she is trying to represent. If she becomes the President, and she doesn't confirm their preconceived notion that the terrorist threat is a Bush hoax, they're going to turn on her too, within six months' time.
at January 9, 2008 11:26 AM
Democrat Carter greased the skids under the Shah, and abetted the rise and entrenchment of Khomeneini. Clinton failed to stem the rise of jihadism and Al-Qaeda. Clinton II or the like is UNTHINKABLY abhorrent.
Posted by: John C at January 9, 2008 11:30 AM
The things politicians say about Islam, and Muslims, boggle my mind.
Do they ever ask themselves what Muslim 'extremists' are being extreme about?
Would Senator McCain be less concerned with moderate jihadists than radical jihadists?
Romney: Jihadism – violent, radical, fundamental Islam – is this century’s nightmare.
Well, does Mitt then realize that following Islam to the letter IS the problem?
Huckabee once refered to Allah as 'their god'.
Where does it end? When do they buckle down and do their homework?
Posted by: PRCS at January 9, 2008 11:32 AM
Right, with Hillary, domestic political considerations and pandering to her base constituency trump everything and render her less effectual in a crises, or--more to the point--in anticipation of crises already in the works.
Posted by: John C at January 9, 2008 11:36 AM
Hillary's top secret plan revealed: she will destroy America's health care system by nationalizing it, making it impossible for Saudi princes to come here for the treatment they cannot get at home. They will expire in emergency room waiting areas just like the rest of us while a government bureaucrat decides how many heart attacks each hospital can service per day.
As an added plus, as people die off the environment will improve markedly (see A World Without Us).
When there are no more people, there will be no more terrorists, will there? All right then.
at January 9, 2008 11:38 AM
To Hillary, stroking her base and electoral politics trump all else, rendering her ineffective in a crisis, and inept in anticipating crises.
Posted by: John C at January 9, 2008 11:41 AM
Obama's probable connections to Odinga, and the latter's connections to the jihadists are troubling. Hillary, on the other hand, has no convictions, loyalties, or visions whatsoever, and will literally say or do anything for money and power. As to which would be a greater disaster for my country, I cannot say. I will vote Romney/Tancredo, and will pray for a Republican victory.
Posted by: Infidel33 at January 9, 2008 11:42 AM
Isn't everyhthing Bush's fault? That's what she's been harping on for the past several months. It's more important to her and her supporters and most/all Democrats and many non-Democrats that some teenager go to college to fulfill his/her dreams than discuss the real issues facing this country/The West.
Seems there are three types of people (with respect to "radical" Islam) in this country: 1) there is no Jihad - just a few bad apples who've hijacked a great religion - the Religion of Peace crowd, 2) never, ever bring up religion to diss, unless it's about some wacky fringe Christian group holding out at his fort in Texas, and 3) those of us here at JW.
Posted by: HOV Dummy at January 9, 2008 11:46 AM
Hillary's dismissive attitude towards 9/11 & terrorism is a very key point, and the # 1 reason why she should NOT be President; but as much as I dislike Hillary and her policies & priorities, I have to say the same for those who voted for her in the NH Primary as they have chosen to follow her lead.
Hillary = The Pied Piper for America
....but that doesn't mean we have to follow her dangerous lead.
Posted by: champ at January 9, 2008 11:46 AM
I hope that the next administration thwarts, curbs, counters and checks Radislam here at home--expose the Ikhwan and the Wahabist networks, fronts, and foreign connections in America.
Posted by: John C at January 9, 2008 11:47 AM
The die is cast for the first major strike on the USA by the Moslem activists. By major strike I mean a nuclear attack on an entire metro area. OBL has promised just that, Putin is looking sneakier than ever, so look for AQ to deliver on this Islamic vision.
Last time around, Bush slammed the door on realistic thinking with his beady eyed and dangerously absurd proclamation that Islam is a religion of peace.
As we reel from the next Moslem activist attack, the first big one, pay careful attention to what's said, not said, what's done, and left undone, in the first few days after.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 9, 2008 11:55 AM
I don't like Clinton or Obama.
I judge Hillary on the company she keeps: primarily her husband's. I suspect they're more alike than not.
Obama lacks experience and conviction. I don't trust a word he says.
I wouldn't vote for someone just because of their gender or race but it seems some folks just might.
I want Rudy to win. He's got the experience and the strength. Unfortunately, I am not an American, so what I want doesn't count.
Vote, people, vote!
Posted by: Josephine at January 9, 2008 11:59 AM
She is just a less likable version of her husband. She, however, is perhaps a little harsher and will throw people under the bus if the polls say so (which could be a good thing).
The BIG problem with her, like her husband, is their ties to the middle eastern oil trade are no different then Bush. They will kiss Arabian butt, just like Bush does, except not in public.
9/11 was a consequence of her husband being soft for so long, and Bush for being too stupid to understand what was coming.
Thus we have a choice between two plans:
GOP plan: Stupid
DNC plan: Soft
Wonderful choice! Hopefully someone from the GOP will get smart....quick.
Posted by: greatcometof1577
at January 9, 2008 12:05 PM
I'd rather have her effing up our foreign policy and then out of the shambles, dirty bomb or whatever a 'Republican Churchill' can emerge to save us.
by poetcomic1
That's a high price for the rest of us to pay. You want to risk destroying the country in order to save it? You'd risk the deaths of millions of Americans to get another Churchill? Careful what you wish for. You just might get it. You can only hope that there is still a country worth saving by the time you find him and that you're still alive to see that momentous occasion.
Posted by: PMK at January 9, 2008 12:13 PM
Dear Robert Spencer:
Please see Fred Thompson's website for his stance on Islamic jihad. Just because he is off the mainstream media's radar does not mean we are all clueless as to his candidacy. South Carolina and super Tuesday primaries may make others sit up and take notice.
So, please include Fred's web policy statements in a future posting.
Thanks.
Posted by: bevc at January 9, 2008 12:15 PM
Would Barack Obama's Islamic connections (His father was a Muslim, and Obama himself spent some of his childhood living in Indonesia)compromise his position in dealing with the Islamic threat to America?
That's what I would like to know (and I'm not even American).
Posted by: Amicus at January 9, 2008 12:17 PM
First off it is not a given that Hillary will win the Dem nomination, let alone the presidency. However, the main threat is the further socialization of this nation and restriction of our God given rights as protected by the Constitution. The single worse thing that can happen in this nation is restriction on free speech. In this the socialist, such as Hillary, lead the way. They are the ones that point to Europe as the model on how this country should be, completely ignoring the failures of socialism. Things are bad enough as it is, but not terminal as a commentator or two have mentioned here. Our first goal as a nation should be to halt further erosion of our culture as a republic, and once that line is strengthened to move forward and engage islam overseas. I am by no means stating we just completely leave the world stage, but rather rethink our strategy against militant islam, i.e. those that have chosen to actively engage the West in warfare with guns and explosives. Keep them guessing and off balance overseas, while we get our crap here in order. Who knows, it could even buy Europe time it needs to combat the elements there. So as far as Hillary goes, she can say or not say what she wants in regards to jihad. Her social programs are a sure road to the destruction of this nation.
Posted by: Kevin at January 9, 2008 12:23 PM
I would love to see Obama become president if the jihadist label him an apostate.
Posted by: John_Doe at January 9, 2008 12:26 PM
I would love to see Obama become president if the jihadist label him an apostate.
Posted by: John_Doe at January 9, 2008 12:28 PM
I would love to see Obama become president if the jihadist label him an apostate.
Posted by: John_Doe at January 9, 2008 12:28 PM
sorry for the triple post. I only hit the button once.
Posted by: John_Doe at January 9, 2008 12:33 PM
I am Canadian, and while I cannot vote in your election, I keenly watch the results as what happens in the US has an impact on Canada.
I don't hold much hope for any of your candidates when it comes to understanding Islam or dealing with it in an appropriate manner. I would say the same about Canadian politicians in the same breath. I do not consider either Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green Party, Democrats or Republicans politicians to be leaders because the nature of politics is to serve itself, not its constituency. A leader is the person who will preserve a moral point of view in the face of opposition and not cave into the relativistic, politically correct, multicultural nonsense that has permeated our post-modern society.
Tolerance involves respect of individuals equally regardless of point of view, but holds to a single worldview consistently. It is logically impossible for all worldviews to be equal, so stop pretending that they are.
The problem with this campaign, and with the Clintons in particular, is that depending on who they are addressing, and whether the moon is blue, they can perform a chameleon and change color in an instant. And since their word is not worth the sound byte that it exists in ("a sound byte is not sworn testimony" - The Distinquished Gentleman), it truly remains to be seen what they will do after they are elected. No matter who you elect, all bets are off as to what they will truly do.
As to the Clintons, if I were a Republican, I would ask one simple question: "Do you want Bill back in the White House, in any capacity?" There is so much corruption both personal and corporate past of that particular camp, how could you expect that it will change if they regain the presidency?
All I can wish you is a lot of luck or divine intervention.
Posted by: OolongChung at January 9, 2008 12:35 PM
I fear that Hillary is more intent on stifling free speech in this country (ditto Obama and all the Democrats) than in stifling Radislam. I am quite sure that Hillary or Obama will embrace the Ikhwan in America, and cater to petrodollar influences, rather than curb them.
Posted by: John C at January 9, 2008 12:39 PM
Hillary's top secret plan revealed - AnneCrockett
Good golly, that's the funniest thing I've read in a while.
And hey, zero population = No taxes!
Posted by: MarisolJW at January 9, 2008 12:42 PM
We need a President with consistency, principles, and sound, perceptive advisors.
Posted by: John C at January 9, 2008 12:49 PM
i doubt very much the usa is ready for a lady president or a black man either. in spite of what the polls tell or say.
Posted by: zionist122 at January 9, 2008 12:53 PM
Re: The candidates on the jihad: Hillary Clinton
I agree with Robert that Hillary is likely to get the nomination. I was listening to Bloomberg the day before the primary and Tom Keene was interviewing a political science prof from a major University (I forget which). He predicted that she would win New Hampshire. He pointed out that Obama's support is really among more affluent "liberals", but that Hillary is doing well with blue-collar workers. He predicted that she will win the nomination if she continues to do well among that segment of society.
The truth is that the Clintons screw everybody sooner or later, and they will screw the union and blue-collar workers if it suits them. However, Union and labor support will probably carry her to the nomination. But there is no Perot in this campaign and she may have a hard time against a strong GOP ticket. More people see through the Clintons in 2008 than they did in 1996. A lot of folks have given up the Clinton-Kool-Aid.
at January 9, 2008 12:53 PM
Marisol, that's Osama's pitch--NO TAXES If You Embrace ISLAM!
Posted by: John C at January 9, 2008 12:55 PM
Something that is disturbing, to me at least. After Iowa I either heard or read, sorry, a comment that apparently "likability" will be key. I hope I heard wrong, for that is a BS reason to vote for someone. And yes I understand that politicians want to viewed as likable, it still is troubling though.
Posted by: Kevin at January 9, 2008 1:01 PM
Posted by: John C at January 9, 2008 12:55 PM
Not true. The 2% Zakat exists.
Posted by: awake at January 9, 2008 1:05 PM
The Embarrassing Republican Candidates
http://www.usorthemonline.com/wordpress/?p=95
at January 9, 2008 1:05 PM
"Nowhere even close to the radar screen is any concern for the loss of European allies of the United States to Islamization, with the possible catastrophic consequences that could follow -- but there again, no one is talking about that. Global jihad? What's that?"
I am far from supporting or endorsing Hitlery in any way or form. Indeed I feel she can go to hell and stay there.
However, let's also remind ourselves that the present administration supports Turkey in the EU. And that in the face of turkish obstructionism in Iraq. The ways of which have been documented and detailed on JW/DW and many other competent websites.
Turkey in the EU will only serve to drive a deeper wedge between the USA and Europe and I can only think there is money involved.
Not even the bumble-Bush can be THAT shortsighted and unable to see the obvious as it unfolds before his very eyes.
same goes for Hitlery. She is selling us out for expediency. She gives a rat's ass about this country and she will sell her own mother and daughter to the devil [she sold off Bill long ago] just for the sake of being "the fist female" President.
The way things are going she will also be the last.
I remind everyone that she is the Original Arafart-Hugger.
So much for her anti-jihad stand.
Posted by: Allah Schmallah at January 9, 2008 1:07 PM
Let me see if I can wing this by--
If I managed Osama bin Laden's "Campaign for An Islamic America," I'd publicize THIS winning campaign slogan:
"A Slave In EVERY Believing Household, and TWO Islamomobiles [becha thought I'd say 'CAMELS'] in EVERY Garage!!"
Posted by: John C at January 9, 2008 1:10 PM
Huckabee once refered to Allah as 'their god'."
I don't like the tax-and-spend cut-em-loose from prison dem-in sheep's clothing Huckster one bit but the above statement is as good as it's going to get for now.
He said '*their* god'.
Reverse conclusion: NOT *our* God.
That's pretty damn good in my eyes.
Vastly preferrable over Hitlery.
Posted by: Allah Schmallah at January 9, 2008 1:11 PM
Awake--Let's not let FACTS get in our way--OSAMA SAID IT (idea credited to "Azzam Al-Amriki"), NOT ME!
Posted by: John C at January 9, 2008 1:14 PM
I want Rudy to win. He's got the experience and the strength. Unfortunately, I am not an American, so what I want doesn't count.
Vote, people, vote!
Posted by: Josephine
Same here Josephine. In fact, he's the only one who can beat any of these dhimmicrats. And his ACTIONS have shown him to be anti-jihad all the way.
Too bad Americans vote for hair rather than substance so it will likely be Romney to go up against whatever evil the Dhims have in sotre for us.
Better than Huckalery.
Posted by: Allah Schmallah at January 9, 2008 1:16 PM
Besides, Snooze, that's TWO AND A HALF percent.
(Just being flippant.)
Posted by: John C at January 9, 2008 1:19 PM
Given how close NH has been, it's too early to write off Barack Obama, given that both Clinton & Obama are nationally @ 33%. I think it is okay to write off Edwards - his only chance last night would have been had Clinton been trounced by double digits.
I agree with another poster above - why no Giuliani? His is a Super Tuesday strategy, and right now, in CA, his is the only ad running. Debbie Schlussel had a column today on how Romney is likely to lose MI due to all the Dems voting in the GOP primary (since the Dems have only Hilary running in the Dem side of MI primary), and how in 2000, they tilted it against Bush.
In short, analyze Clinton, Obama, McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee and Romney. No others.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 9, 2008 1:41 PM
This fait accompli attitude of a Hillary presidency by a number of people I respect, besides being a letdown, shows a lack of respect in the American people, regardless if it's intended or not. Americans will not allow America to be given over to this power hungry socialist, Most especially in a post 9/11 world.
at January 9, 2008 1:43 PM
Giuliani's ad in CA - for anybody who's seen it - looks like a preview of the movie obsession. Only beef I have with it is an inane use of the phrase 'a religion betrayed' while describing what the terror acts do to Islam. As we all know, it's an affirmation of Islam. It's depressing that Rudy has been sucking up to those who'd like to sugarcoat Islam.
Right now, he's my 2nd choice - he'd be my first only if Romney goes under before Super Tuesday.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 9, 2008 1:45 PM
Delegate count so far - why jump to conclusions about Hilary being the nominee?:
States allocating pledged delegates to date:
Iowa, Wyoming (GOP), New Hampshire
Republican Delegates (1,191 needed to win nomination)
Candidate Delegates
Rudy Giuliani 0
Mike Huckabee 31
Duncan Hunter 1
John McCain 7
Ron Paul 0
Mitt Romney 29
Fred Thompson 3
Total 71
Democratic Delegates (2,026 needed to win nomination)
Candidate Delegates
Hillary Clinton 24
John Edwards 18
Mike Gravel 0
Dennis Kucinich 0
Barack Obama 25
Bill Richardson 0
Total 67
Source: The Associated Press
Popularity: 2% [?]
Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 9, 2008 1:47 PM
...will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.
This invitation looks rather similar to a party her husband planned.
Small numbers of infidels, oh say about 175, will present themselves as targets for your jihad in cities near you. RSVP BYOT (Build Your Own Technicals)
Unfortunatly, As much as I like the FairTax, Huckabee's positions seem similarly naive. "Snatch and Grab" doesn't well happen without either the principled cooperation of allies or the coerced inaction of would-be beligerents staring at their toes as they finish counting our battle groups.
Posted by: maccusgermanis at January 9, 2008 1:48 PM
But Hillary cried!
My liberal friend in the next cube thinks it's great that we finally have a politician that's sensitive. That's what we are up against! She knows which buttons to push for the majority of the 'where have all the hippies gone' crowd. And these boomers are the voters. Peace, love, joy..... and stick it to the man!
Why can't we all just get along?.
Posted by: Abrog8 at January 9, 2008 1:49 PM
Posted by: John C at January 9, 2008 1:19 PM
I stand corrected on two counts. It was indeed 2.5 percent and he did not refer to the zakat as taxes, but rather alms for the poor.
My apologies.
Posted by: awake at January 9, 2008 1:51 PM
“Now that Hillary Clinton is, unless something unforeseeable occurs, the Democratic nominee and, in all likelihood, the next president of the United States.”
Dear Mr. Spencer, you are undoubtedly one of the world’s top Islamic scholars and annalists. However, I hope you are not adding “prophet” to your curriculum vitae. For if you’re a prophet, we’re definitely screwed.
Posted by: patagonianplato at January 9, 2008 1:58 PM
Now that Hillary Clinton is, unless something unforeseeable occurs, the Democratic nominee and, in all likelihood, the next president of the United States
Good gawd! Maybe living under islamic law is so bad after all? How do we get sowdie citizenship again?
Posted by: witness at January 9, 2008 2:24 PM
In the article it is stated that Hillary has spoken out against Hamas. However there was no mention of Fatah. So really no change on the Israeli front. Just proof she will continue the failed two state policy. But in all honesty, I have yet see any candidate speak out against the two state policy.
Posted by: Kevin at January 9, 2008 2:26 PM
Now that Hillary Clinton is, unless something unforeseeable occurs, the Democratic nominee and, in all likelihood, the next president of the United States
Good gawd! Maybe living under islamic law isn't so bad after all? How do we get sowdie citizenship again?
Can it really be worse than living under hillary? I'm not so sure....
at January 9, 2008 2:27 PM
Methinks that in the event of an al Qaeda-inspired coup d'etat in the US the front-running lady will respond by throwing on a burka and heading for the hills with her partner in crime
Everyone, start donating burqas to the national Democratic Party as they're going to need hundreds of them to go around.
Burqas for Hitlery!!!
Posted by: pythagoras at January 9, 2008 2:27 PM
Josephine
I like Rudy too..I like his instincts regarding Islamists and I can sense that he has the steel constitution to protect America. I loved it when he told that saudi clown prince to shove his money after insulting our alliance with Israel. I wish he had some other attributes that I value but no matter, the aforementioned is the critically important one. So what if you aren't an American..you can still vote...thousands of illegals here vote, why not you? How much is postage to your domicile?
Posted by: pismopal at January 9, 2008 2:28 PM
patagonian,
You DARE question, nay, INSULT, our Unholy Antiprophet? And just WHO'S being prophetic here, anyway? "We're definitely screwed," says ye? Are you prophesying against The Unexpected One? But for the Merciful Forebearance of our Great Leader, you would be virtually stoned, dismembered, or banished to Outer Darkness!
Posted by: John C at January 9, 2008 2:43 PM
No Democratic candidate for President is anywhere near to being realistic about Islamic terror. The Republicans are definitely better here, though I have to wonder if anyone of them understands, even though not prepared to speak out about it, that it's not just Islamic terror that's a threat to the West and America but all of Islam. I do believe, though, from the standpoint of tactical effectiveness that Giuliani is the best electable candidate out there respecting who can deal most efficaciously with the Islamic nutjobs across the world.
Posted by: Wellington at January 9, 2008 2:52 PM
Wellington:
Romney may prove to be the exception to your observation.
It looks like he's our best shot.
Posted by: pythagoras at January 9, 2008 3:12 PM
**Huckabee once refered to Allah as 'their god'.
Where does it end? When do they buckle down and do their homework?
Posted by: PRCS at January 9, 2008 11:32 AM
**Huckabee once refered to Allah as 'their god'."
I don't like the tax-and-spend cut-em-loose from prison dem-in sheep's clothing Huckster one bit but the above statement is as good as it's going to get for now.
He said '*their* god'.
Reverse conclusion: NOT *our* God.
That's pretty damn good in my eyes.
Vastly preferrable over Hitlery.
Posted by: Allah Schmallah at January 9, 2008 1:11 PM
**Well then, does Huckabee's statement demonstrate knowledge of Islam, or ignorance of it?
Posted by: PRCS at January 9, 2008 3:16 PM
pythagoras: Romney would be OK with me. He's a man with much ability and comes across as a realist, though I still think of all the candidates Giuliani would be most likely to effectively stick it to Islamic terrorists, even though Romney may be more electable. Actually, what I'd like to see, and hope we do see come, say 2016 or so, is a dynamic, electable candidate for President who shrewdly and convincingly tells the American electorate what they need to hear and that is that Islam is not just another religion but something very different from all other major faiths and we have to treat it as such. Don't yet see that person out there.
Posted by: Wellington at January 9, 2008 3:47 PM
To John C and Awake.
Why not split the difference and call the zakat a “poor tax.” (Either way, sounds like wealth redistribution to me.)
at January 9, 2008 3:53 PM
This race is just beginning and Rudy Giuliani has a chance. Check out his web site for many detailed and solid statements on "staying on offence" in the "terrorists war against us." Within his 12 major policy sections are several that directly apply to the counter jihad; among them;
He is the strongest of any declared candidate in fighting Islamofascism.
Iraq
Energy independence
Winning the terrorists war against us
Homeland security
Shared values
Vetrans
Most of the rest are also related to the counter jihad (ie economy, immigration, etc.)
Posted by: Papa Bear at January 9, 2008 4:01 PM
People are going to think this is horribly sexist of me but I will say it anyway.
Question: what is a likely unintended consequence of a Hilary Clinton Presidency?
Answer: a catastrophic downturn in America’s birth-rate.
We often hear how Europe’s birth-rate is so low, below replacement levels, that Europe is destined to disappear this century.
American birth-rates are still at replacement level but only just. This is often attributed to the fact that America is socially more conservative than Europe.
So what went wrong in Europe? Was it the legalisation of abortion or the availability of the contraceptive pill?
All theses played a part but there is another factor.
There is considerable evidence that the real demographic decline set in, not in the Sixties or Seventies, when damaging legislation was passed, but in the Eighties.
And what happened in the Eighties? Well Britain elected it’s first woman Prime Minister.
Don’t underestimate the power of a role model. Millions of young women emulated her and thought that getting to the top in any career was possible. You have got to be focused to do this which usually means that children are viewed as a responsibility to be avoided by use of contraception or abortion.
The “Maggie” effect was felt not only in Britain but throughout Europe. The new attitudes to careers and families have been with us ever since which is why European families are often 1.4 or 1.6 children on average.
The demographic situation in America is not as bad as in Europe but if Hilary Clinton becomes president then most educated American women will probably follow her example and put their careers ahead of their families which means that the birth rate will plummet.
Islam has never had a women’s lib movement and probably never will which means that Muslims will outbreed you in a few generations.
Welcome to Amerabia.
at January 9, 2008 4:09 PM
"We know we need global coalitions to tackle global problems like climate change, poverty, AIDS, and terrorism"
Is this like the recent U.N. Climate Change Conderence in Bali, where the local airport issued a warning to the attendees that there wasn't enough room to park all their private jets.
Posted by: Rob at January 9, 2008 4:10 PM
Ms. Clinton could not possibly make a Policy statement that would even come close to supporting a policy of Confrontation, no matter how mild, without losing 30-50% of her Support/Money. The Leftist wing of her party would jump to the next surrendersist Candidate.
Given Her reputed dislike for the Military and her more resent comments during the Congressional hearings about the surge. It is hard to fathom how any self respecting Military Officer could possibly continue serving under her.
Like a Sailboat on a windless day. Going nowhere except by the drift of the Tide. May we all pray the Tide leaves her adrift on the open Ocean of her Ambition.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at January 9, 2008 4:15 PM
A lot has been written about whether Obama may, or may not have an affinity to the Muslim persuasion. I don’t know about that but, at least his sartorial inclinations are properly rooted in Muslim tradition.
The Prophet PBUH said, "Do not wear silk, for those who wear it in this life shall not wear it in the Hereafter."
Fashionista Nicholas Antongiavanni recently observed in the Wall Street Journal that:
“Mr. Obama skips the tie at major indoor events, not just outdoor rallies and Rock the Vote concerts sponsored by MTV. He goes tieless not merely in his shirtsleeves, or even with a blazer. He carries the open-necked look into a realm it was never meant to go: with the two-piece, dark business suit.
Barack Obama -- unquestionably the hippest candidate for the presidency since John F. Kennedy -- may do to the tie what Kennedy helped do to the hat. It's a myth that JFK killed the hat simply by not wearing one to his inauguration -- actually, that was the one instance when he did wear one. But by ostentatiously eschewing a hat everywhere else, at a time when the hat's place in the male wardrobe needed all the high-level support it could get, a very public "nay" vote from that suave, young, handsome patrician helped tip the balance against it.
This heresy earns the young senator praise from today's keepers of the style tablets. The Washington Post's Robin Givhan -- the acid-penned Madame Blackwell of the Beltway -- could hardly contain herself. "[Obama's] tieless suit," she gushed, "[is] a cross between the style of a 1950s home-from-the-office dad and a 1990s GQ man about town. It is warmly, safely, nostalgically . . . cool."
Others have noticed something else. Take the impeccably liberal Jeff Greenfield. "Ask yourself," he challenged his CNN audience, "is there any other major public figure who dresses the way he does? Why, yes. It is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, unlike most of his predecessors, seems to have skipped through enough copies of GQ to find the jacket-and-no-tie look agreeable."
We can thank Mr. Greenfield for being reckless enough to say what many were thinking. But he mistakes Mr. Ahmadinejad's source. Mr. Obama may have gotten the idea from GQ, but the Iranian President got it from the Ayatollah Khomeini.
One of the lesser-known outcomes of the 1979 Iranian revolution was the stigmatization of the tie as a tool of Western Imperialism. The Ayatollah even denounced some of his perceived enemies as "tie-wearing cronies of the West." Today in much of the Islamist world, the tie is seen as not merely pro-Western but anti-Islamic, even though no prohibition of the garment can be found in Islamic law. There is a stricture against men wearing silk, but Muslim dandies can get around that by wearing cashmere or linen ties -- and many do.
It's hard to think of anything less hip -- or less intended to be hip -- than Islamist dogma on personal grooming. Yet despite traveling radically different routes along the way, Messrs. Obama and Ahmadinejad somehow manage to wind up in the same sartorial spot. Sort of like the way Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich share virtually identical foreign policies.
We should hope that the tie survives. It is too noble a garment to let go for light and transient, or dark and sinister, causes. The good news is that Mr. Obama's foray into tielessness does not stem from deeply held ideology. When it really counts, he does the right thing. No doubt, should he make it to the end, his neck will be covered on inauguration day. Just like JFK's head.“
The Prophet (peace be on him) forbade men to wear fabric decorated with large, loud, or bold designs. In his Sahih, Muslim reported 'All as saying, The Messenger of Allah (peace be on him) forbade me the wearing of a gold ring, a silken garment, and clothing with bold designs.
Muslim also reports a hadith from Ibn 'Umar, who said, "The Messenger of Allah (peace be on him) saw me wearing two garments having bold designs, and he said, "This is what unbelievers wear. Do not wear such things."
'All reported that the Prophet (peace be on him) took some silk in his right hand and some gold in his left, declaring, "These two are haram for the males among my followers." (Reported by Ahmad, Abu Daoud, al-Nisai, Ibn Hayyan, and lbn Majah, who reports the additional phrase, "but halal for the females.") 'Umar reported that he heard the Prophet (peace be on him) say, "Do not wear silk, for those who wear it in this life shall not wear it in the Hereafter." (Reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim. A Similar hadith is reported by them on the authority of Anas.) On another occasion, referring to a silken garment, he said, "This is the dress of a man who has no character.'' (Reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim.)
The Prophet (peace be on him) made concessions in the wearing of silken garments for medical reasons, as he gave 'Abd al-Rahman bin 'Auf and al-Zubayr bin al-'Awwam, both of whom suffered from scabies, permission to wear silk. (Reported by al-Bukhari.)
at January 9, 2008 4:16 PM
i doubt very much the usa is ready for a lady president or a black man either. in spite of what the polls tell or say.
Posted by: zionist122
Think that if you want to. I'm so sick of these blanket pronouncements. I hear them almost every day from Democrats saying the country is too racist to vote for Obama. All you're doing is making excuses for why your candidate won't win. I'll have you know I'm more than ready for a woman president but I don't want Hillary Clinton. The same with a black president. Show me one I can support. Obama isn't it. He's way too liberal, to the point of being radical, for my taste and I won't be pressured into voting for him just to prove something.
So keep thinking whatever you want to think about Americans. You will, anyway.
Posted by: PMK at January 9, 2008 4:21 PM
So if she becomes president, and any Islamic PM's refuse to shake her hand because she is a woman and/or not wearing a hijab, what's she gonna do, cry?
Posted by: LH at January 9, 2008 4:22 PM
"I'll have you know I'm more than ready for a woman president but I don't want Hillary Clinton. The same with a black president."
Me too. I'd vote for Margaret Thatcher or Colin Powell any day over the inexperienced-naive clowns we have in the running now.
Posted by: LH at January 9, 2008 4:25 PM
PMK: I'm completely with you in being tired of hearing that America isn't ready for a woman or a black President. America is more than ready to elect a black or woman Chief Executive as long as it's the right person. I certainly am and I know no one well who isn't. For me, neither Obama nor Clinton comes anywhere close to being the right candidate. Obama, though it seems he's a good guy, is quite naive and thinks government can solve way too many problems and Clinton is a semi-socialist and deeply corrupt (e.g., cattle futures {made over a hundred thousand dollars on her first try}, Castle Grande {a real estate fraud from the outset and she was the lawyer handling the legal matters}, Whitewater {where she and hubby claimed they didn't know that their half of the mortgage was being paid for for seven years by someone else}). If an FDR or Ronald Reagan type comes along and is either black or female or both, they'll easily be elected to the highest office in the land.
Posted by: Wellington at January 9, 2008 4:42 PM
Robert said
Would she condemn the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism as such, since they have been such engines for oppression throughout history and today? But with that last question, of course, I have entered the realm of fantasy: no candidate is talking about that.
The candidate who came closest to saying something like this was Tom Tancredo, and he was forced to withdraw from the race due to lack of public support.
I wish a political candidate (of any party) had the knowledge and the bravery to openly state the truth about Islam. But it's a very open question what the public response would be. We've had these "Religion of Peace" and "All Religions Are the Same" lies drummed into us for decades. Such a candidate would be a big hit with JW/DW readers, but they would be savaged by the pundits and "Middle East Experts (tm)" and by their opponents. Until we have someone strong enough to survive that onslaught, we should resign ourselves to getting the public to understand Islam and jihad; the eventual Presidential winner, no matter who he or she is, will need the support of as many of us as possible when they take that step of naming "The Hate That Must Not Be Named".
Now that Hillary Clinton is, unless something unforeseeable occurs, the Democratic nominee and, in all likelihood, the next president of the United States, I think she is a good one to start with.
Maybe you're still disheartened by the withdrawal of Tom Tancredo, but that is a remarkable bit of towel-throwing. We've got a looooong way to go yet.
My personal feeling is that anyone who is allegedly brutal enough to allegedly help their husband reach the top of the worldwide drug cartel centered in Little Rock Arkansas, and able to allegedly shoot a former lover in the head in a park and allegedly make it look like a suicide, is brutal enough to confront the jihad. Hillary will do just fine. Allegedly.
Posted by: special_guest at January 9, 2008 4:48 PM
LH said
I'd vote for Margaret Thatcher or Colin Powell any day...
Colin Powell? Saints preserve us.
Posted by: special_guest at January 9, 2008 4:50 PM
LH said
So if she becomes president, and any Islamic PM's refuse to shake her hand because she is a woman and/or not wearing a hijab, what's she gonna do, cry?
That, or put a bullet in their head and make it look like a suicide.
Posted by: special_guest at January 9, 2008 4:53 PM
Special_guest
Somehow, HRC needs to get to look at Islam & Muslims the way she looks at conservatives - evil. IF and when she gets to loath them that way, she'll do fine.
But given her record with Suha Arafat, Benazir Bhutto and her presumed support to Kosovo (which, if any, of BJ's policies does she oppose?), I doubt it'll happen.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 9, 2008 4:53 PM
Odysseus--
Yes, I'd have to say I disagree. I question the validity of the "Thatcher Effect" you mention above; that was a long time coming: Education -- in the Western tradition -- liberates the mind to seek greener pastures, both in terms of intellectual enrichment, and in instilling a sense that one has a right to improve his/her lot in life. Historically, this has been a province of nobility, but also convents, as the Church did not teach that everyone must be hurried off into marriage for marriage's sake. At issue there are freedom of conscience, and the freedom to seek one's purpose in life, rather than having it dictated. I would not deny anyone those freedoms (and not simply because I have a vested interest as a woman in not being sidelined).
More recently in U.S. history, one may cite the women's suffrage movements (also a product of education), and the rise of high schools (I wasn't around, but I have read this was especially the case during the Depression, in order to free up jobs for older breadwinners). Then there was World War II. While immigrant and poor women had been in the workforce for quite some time, the necessities of the war moved that role into the mainstream. We proved ourselves as equals when the stakes couldn't have been higher.
For that matter, however, you seem to overlook the role of men in declining birthrates: The institution of fatherhood is in incredible disrepair, a casualty of the broader decline of personal responsibility. So many men (yes, and women, too) feel entitled to a perpetual childhood, rather than having children themselves. Marriage and children are seen as a necessary evil undertaken in exchange for sex and household chores. An acquaintance told me last week that 75% of church attendance is composed of women (I can vouch for their often holding at least a majority), many of whom are likely looking for a potential mate in addition to being there to worship. But where are the men?
Yes, there is a problem. But it wasn't caused by Margaret Thatcher, and I don't think Hillary as president wouldn't change things in the U.S. Moreover, the solution is not to apply the injustice of relegating women to the role of baby machines on equal par with our Sharia-seeking enemies, but 1.) to end the welfare states that enable the unrestricted expansion of families in Europe, 2.) stop turning a blind eye to polygamy, and 3.) re-examine our own priorities as a society, rather than blaming one gender.
Posted by: MarisolJW at January 9, 2008 4:54 PM
Infidel Pride said
Somehow, HRC needs to get to look at Islam & Muslims the way she looks at conservatives
Blaming it on A Vast Islamic-Wing Conspiracy? I like it. I think you're on to something here.
Posted by: special_guest at January 9, 2008 4:57 PM
imho....there just are no quality people running it seems. not hillary/billy, not obama not mccain. maybe rudy has some guts.
and these are the facts:
13.1 million jews world wide that is it. we should be on the endangered species list and soon will go be the way of incas/mayans.
over 1-2 billion islamic with some 400-600 million arabs.
22 arab nations which are nearly all racist, so if anyone out there thinks jews are not entitled to some land that is 40 miles wide by 200 miles long they are mistaken. 5 million jews in usa, 7 million in israel, few others scattered around.
1 billion christians, or catholics
rest variety ot non religious ie, china etc.
the islamic got us beat by sheer numbers alone.
only 300 million americans
do the math, it aint hard to figure out how this is all gonna play out in a few years
Posted by: zionist122 at January 9, 2008 4:59 PM
Posted by: patagonianplato at January 9, 2008 3:53 PM
I like it!! John C, you in?
at January 9, 2008 5:01 PM
We are a nation at war. The most important trait a president can have in a time of war is that he/she be a warrior president. The Democrats have not fielded a viable warrior president/warrior nominee for president since John F. Kennedy.
Yeah, thats right. How many of you would be comfortable having the U.S. going into a real war with LBJ, Hubert Humphry, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or John Kerry at the helm? I wouldn't give you a plug nickel for the warrior qualities in the whole lot of them. As for the present day Democrat offering, there is absolutely nothing in Hillary's background that leads me to believe she could be a warrior president, ditto for her Democratic rivals.
Democrat presidents are survivable when we think we can afford the luxury of burning up the "peace dividend."
Now is not that time.
Posted by: Paleologos at January 9, 2008 5:06 PM
Allah Schmallah -- I hope "the best man wins" regardless of his hairdo (and I do mean man in this case).
pismopal -- LOL!
Posted by: Josephine at January 9, 2008 5:10 PM
and as a jew -i am scared. dont think for one minute that i feel safe here in the usa or in israel.
the hatred out there is very palatable to say the least.
i know that some evangelical christains are aligned with us in our efforts to keep our lands together.
but when you can see the entire world coming down around your feet it is hard to keep hope going when the numbers are what they are.
this is a scarey world we live in -for us all in the west
Posted by: zionist122 at January 9, 2008 5:11 PM
Odyessus -- I would say it has more to do with raising taxes to support programs such as socialized medicine.
Case in point: Canada. We are more heavily taxed than Americans are because we have more socialized programs. When these were instituted, taxes went up and it became increasingly more difficult for families to live on one salary.
I know the recent banking/mortgage bust has changed things but my guess is that there are still more middle-class Americans who can afford to buy a home than Canadians.
Posted by: Josephine at January 9, 2008 5:26 PM
Robert-
Thank you so much for doing this series! I hope that you'll do a extended version when it's time for the general election
Posted by: s at January 9, 2008 5:28 PM
zionist122:
Sometimes all we have is hope. Try your hardest to maintain it. As long as one has hope, one is willing to fight. When one loses hope, all is lost.
MarisolJW:
True. True. Hillary as a cultural influence is non-existent. The policies that would be enacted under her administration are what would have an impact. Social programs don't solve any problems. They just become bottomless money pits and create a "lazy" society. Socialism is a juvenile ideology. Why worry about anything when you know someone there will be present to take care of your problems? But Hillary affecting the American culture just because she is a woman president? Don't see how.
at January 9, 2008 5:37 PM
I remember reading or hearing something years ago when Bill Clinton had just left the White House. The man really really covets power. I got the impression that he would do anything to get back into the White House.
Now we can speculate all day about the relationship between Hillary and Bill, but we just don't know. What I see (in a deceptive and devious way) is Bill back were he has wanted to be eight years ago. He will be getting his POV into whatever he thinks is important when he rides Hillary's coat tails/skirt into power.
For the record, I am totally against any of the Democratic candidates. Why, because they don't get it on just about everything that I hold as valuable and worthy of protecting. And, any of their solutions will waste the wealth of the country.
Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at January 9, 2008 5:57 PM
I am predicting Huckabee to be our next President, and I may not vote for him. I use the very unscientific 75% method of candidate evaluation.
Those who are 50% right, are on the low end, but they are honest. Those on the other end 100% right, are lying and dishonest. Those who are 75% right and mostly honest as well, will win. There is only one 75%'er, and It's Huckabee...Forget Hillary, watch Mike...
at January 9, 2008 6:39 PM
PP and [half]-awake,
Speaking as a faux Islamist spokesman, I only offer spin here, not substance (think Saddam's Info Minister). It's that whole taqquiya/kitman thing. I don't care how it's put together, or even if it REALLY flies, just so long as the masses BELIEVE it does (think Al-Buraq--mythical body/legs of a horse, head of a talking sphinx, wings of an eagle, tail of a peacock!).
So call it what you like, as long as it funds noble causes, like killing infidels who don't pay jizya!
Posted by: John C at January 9, 2008 7:02 PM
Marisol - hear! hear! I second all your points. (I've been thinking along similar lines).
To odysseus - average family sizes in the western world dropped LONG before Mrs Thatcher. Well before the 'womens lib' of the 1960s, too. Some pundits in the western world were weeping and wailing about the failure of women (it's always the women's fault; never that of men!) to 'do their duty', in, oh, 1901 or thereabouts! Do the research and find out exactly when, and why, child endowment and council 'healthy baby' clinics were introduced. I suspect, too, it happened across the board, in countries with wildly varying tax systems, for example, and differing dates of introduction of female franchise.
I'm a bit of a family history enthusiast. This means I've written the family 'stud book' for no less than twelve family lines from 1800 to the present (I wanted to know who all my and my husband's cousins were) and one of the things I did with the data was work out the average family size in each generation.
In rough terms, among all my and my husband's relations a near-halving of family size occured around 1900 as children reared in very large mid-late Victorian families of 17 or 15 or 14 children, themselves produced smaller families averaging about 8 in number (remember, this happened *before* reliable or widespread means of contraception; these were not wealthy, highly educated people, either, but mostly laborers, artisans or small farmers, and many of them were pious churchgoing christians); then another drop happened in the 1920s/ 1930s, with the family sizes averaging out at about 4 or 5. So whatever principle was at work then, it had nothing to do with Maggie Thatcher or the 1960s 'sexual revolution'!
(My guess is that the main factor may have been better public health measures causing a major drop in infant mortality rates - perhaps the Muslim/nonMuslim imbalance is that whereas non-Muslim couples 'adjust' to the better survival rates of their babies, by happily having fewer babies, since they can therefore lavish increased love and resources on each child, the Muslims don't 'adjust').
zionist122 - it ill behoves a Jew to speak with such fatalistic despair. The future is open. YHWH is *the* god of surprises.
You're forgetting two 'wild cards' (and who knows what other 'wild cards' may be in the offing, as yet unperceived).
1. Christianity is spreading very fast in China - after it hits the ten percent mark, perhaps we should look for some kind of 'tipping point' change occurring there.
Likewise, if some kind of sweeping Christian revival occurs in Russia (and such things are not unprecedented in the history of 'christendom'), all bets may be off. What happens if even twenty percent of those Russian conscripts and officers who get their free Bible courtesy of the Bible Society, take it seriously and 'get religion', Wesley style? Russia freed at long last from the deadly handicaps of vodka, organised crime, tyranny and civilisational despair...the Muslim world wouldn't know what had hit it.
2. AIDS-HIV (and polio etc. thanks to crazy imams with conspiracy theories preaching against vaccination) is spreading like a bushfire behind closed doors in the Ummah. They won't admit to it. But it is. It *has* to be, given their rampant sexual double standard, rampant closet homosexuality, refusal to practise basic hygiene, and shame/ honour culture. The Muslim population boom could become a bust far more quickly than anyone expects.
In the long, long term the deleterious genetic effects of perpetual inbreeding (all those first-cousin marriages) coupled with the loss of genetic diversity produced by widespread polygamy, make the Muslim system appear to me to contain the seeds of its own collapse.
Any biologist can tell you that diversity = resilience and resistance to diseases, whereas the more limited and homogeneous the gene pool, the more vulnerable it is to outside shocks (and the nastier the recessives that start to emerge).
I once met a nurse who had done work on congenital diseases in Saudi Arabia. Basically, all those first-cousin marriages, generation after generation, have produced just the result any geneticist could have predicted; the society is rotten with physical and intellectual disabilities. ( I understand similar problems are manifest among Pakistani Muslims in Britain, and among the 'Palestinian' Muslims).
at January 9, 2008 7:04 PM
To John C.
You should take your show on the road. You have quite a talent for sarcasm.
at January 9, 2008 7:13 PM
Respecting Hillary Clinton, arguably the single worst thing that could come from her being President, even for only four years, is all of the liberal judges, including Supreme Court judges, she would appoint. Just about the weakest link here in America regarding the prevention of Islamic groups from using the Constitution to subtly work their religion more and more into American culture is the non-conservative portion of the judiciary, which would grow significantly under a President Clinton. And I have no reason to think Obama or Edwards would be any better in this regard. That's why getting someone into the Oval Office, such as Giuliani or Romney, who would appoint strict constitutionalists (rather than the "living, breathing Constitution" folks) is imperative.
A Democratic President come 2009 will, over the ensuing period of their term in office, weaken America even more in the fight against Islamic totalitarianism by making the judicial branch of our government far more compliant to all kinds of Muslim demands. If one votes Republican this November for only this reason, it is more than reason enough.
Posted by: Wellington at January 9, 2008 7:37 PM
Hill's no better than Bill--perhaps a tad worse. (She once kissed Mrs. Arafat after that one accused Jews of gassing the "poor, poor 'Palestinians.'") It'll be a horrid time if she gets it. Yes, sad to day, worse than Bush (and we thought that was impossible once).
She--sad to say again--belogns to the Useless B******s of the 60s. It takes a village. The whole fr***ing world's that village, and we're only one of the houses in it. All houses are equal, must me cared for alike etc.
Ay mi madre! Oy Gevalt! Merde alors! What's one to do?
Posted by: unicorns62000 at January 9, 2008 7:41 PM
YoFellas,
As long as The Big Guy, Lord of The Ringrr--Worlds--gets His 20% cut, and I get MINE; well, then, count me IN!
Posted by: John C at January 9, 2008 7:45 PM
patagonianplato,
If you mean I'm a pipsqueak who's outclassed by Adam Gadahn, who competes with potted plants for attention, yeah--rub it in!
Posted by: John C at January 9, 2008 7:53 PM
unicorns62000,
After all, "It Takes A Village To Raise An Idiot."
Posted by: John C at January 9, 2008 7:58 PM
re my post above. I am not really at my wit's end. If the country gets into the grip of the Moslems. I know what to do. And so do many others. Not the majority. But you do not need that. "We few, etc. "
Posted by: unicorns62000 at January 9, 2008 8:01 PM
Lets see, bush holds hands with a muslim and gives kisses, nancy beligose hides under a rag and gives kisses, hanoi hilary, i mean hijab hilary ,as president, she will be tough and smart in combating terrorism , really she can't even be tough and smart with her own bubba, she even breaks down emotionally during campaigns, is this the leadership qualities we really need now!!I have nothing against a women becoming president of this powerfull country, but i would rather have a maggie or goldie type personality.
at January 9, 2008 8:36 PM
Posted by: John C at January 9, 2008 7:02 PM
Now, now, John C. I know that our exchange, including my last one mas made "flippantly", with tongue planted firmly in cheek, and that I absolutely was corrected and admitted so on the exact wording of the September '07 Bin Laden audio release, but is there a reason or an advantage that you feel you are gaining by repeatedly making fun of my moniker?
I assure you sir, I am FULLY awake.
"I only offer spin here, not substance "
Well, sarcasm is certainly appreciated here, and it is common, but substance is equally, if not more important.
Posted by: awake at January 9, 2008 10:56 PM
Here is her updated record on illegals, allowing aliens in, and statements..
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_dem1.html
Remember, Bill Clinton promised NOT to raise taxes..
How easy is it to lead, how easy is it to follow what is said, again and again?
at January 10, 2008 12:05 AM
Just yanking your chain to see you FULLY AWAKE;
As I said, as a FAUX ISLAMIST, I'm all spin over substance (never use substances myself, strictly haram).
Playful jibe and mock hostility--you know, that truculent Muslim thing. You want maybe I be sensitive teary-eye like Clintoun wou-man?
Posted by: John C at January 10, 2008 2:09 AM
Obama has spoken candidly and thoughtfully about Jihadism. Several times in fact. But the most poignant was during a long interview with the editorial board of the Boston Globe (they interviewed everyone, and eventually endorsed Obama). Anyway, Obama is very cognizant of the threat. He said the consensus among his team is that while the ideology of radical Islam is a threat generally, there are only about 30,000 hardcore jihadist willing to blow themselves up to kill Americans. You may or may not quibble with that number, but at least the man is not afraid to broach the subject. It's worth noting that the editorial board did not press him on the issue or ask pointed questions. He volunteered most of it without prompting.
Posted by: mike at January 10, 2008 3:27 AM
mike,
You know, we find it quite comforting that there are, as Obama says, ONLY 30,000 WALKING BOMBS in all of Dar al-Islam. Of the remainder, 70% ONLY want Islam to triumph everywhere over everything, and ONLY 40 or 50% want OPEN JIHAD NOW. Most of the rest are content to bide their time until an opportune moment or advantage shows up.
GEE, I'M SOooo RELIEVED!!
Posted by: John C at January 10, 2008 1:37 PM
If the terrorists do anything to us Hillery will cry and then they will be sorry and be nice to us. Obama, however, is a different question. I don't think anyone knows the question or its answer. I just hope we never have to find out.
Posted by: timothy222222 at January 15, 2008 9:24 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)