Jesus said to hate the sin but love the sinner.
On that basis, any one of us should be allowed to say "I hate Islam" without being accused of hating Muslims.
I hate a belief system that renders me a second class citizen because of my religion and I despise the government and/or leaders, be they religious or civil, that say it is perfectly acceptable.
Hate is not always a bad thing. Sometimes it forces you to make positive changes in life.

Posted by: PMK at July 26, 2008 3:03 PM

We have all been in this situation personally. I just thought of using this rebuttal to the hate all Muslims logic.

Do you hate Nazism? Does that mean you hate all Germans? I hate Islamic teachings that subjectes and motivates all that the violence that is being caused by a minority fulfilling the dictates of the Koran. I do not hate Muslims who do not practice theses teachings.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at July 26, 2008 3:16 PM

Nevertheless, my invitation to debate him is still open.

Don't hold your breath Robert. He knows he's a Muslim lapdog and debating you would just prove it.

Posted by: Dsinc at July 26, 2008 3:20 PM

Grover Norquist is living proof that while most of the uninformed assessments of Islam by Americans come from the Left, some of it does indeed come from the Right. Norquist is not doing America any favors by continuing to put forward a characterization of Islam which is far too rosy and indicative of a superficial understanding of Mohammed's creed.

Particularly irritating is Norquist's refusal to debate Robert Spencer. What is Norquist afraid of? How easy it is to just call someone a hater so you don't have to talk with them. Very cheap. I used to admire Norquist, but I don't anymore. He's actually doing his own country grave harm while blithely thinking he is doing it good. Societies are so often hurt by the well-intentioned fool. It would be difficult today in America to find a more foolish man who thinks he's benefitting his nation than Grover Norquist. Oh, by the way and for what it's worth, if Norquist did debate Spencer he'd get his clock cleaned. I bet way down inside Norquist knows this.

Posted by: Wellington at July 26, 2008 3:23 PM

how can you debate a person with his head in the sand. you can only keep throwing at him your logic and words of truth, and when a person is ready if ever they will see the light. and it aint islam!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at July 26, 2008 3:24 PM

"I engaged Samah in questions and she didnt proselytize at all, but attempted to explain that Islam truly does stand for tolerance of all people and faiths and that people have taken isolated verses of the Koran out of context."

from Alan

There is a huge problem with the Norquists' resistance to the truth: a nation is being run by people who "have taken isolated verses of the Koran out of context" and that same nation is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. The founder of that theocracy spoke of the Muslim nation and it was enshrined in their constitution.

All Muslims shall be considered as one single nation and the Islamic Republic of Iran shall make its general policy on the basis of coalition and unity of all Muslim people and shall constantly make every endeavor to realize the political, economic and cultural unity of the world of Islam

- Iranian Constitution

"We shall export our revolution to the whole world. Until the cry 'There is no God but God' resounds over the whole world, there will be struggle."

- Ayatollah Khomeini

We are now negotiating with these "extremists".
Then again, these were the same people whom we were told were Islamic "extremists" right after our embassy was seized. Now it seems just about all of Shia Islam really loves us, according to Norquist and company.
So suppose everyone who attacks us is an "extremist" and no one else takes Islam to the extremes an al Qaeda group does. What is our defense against the extremists other than to pretend they don't matter?
The history of the world has been written by extremists. Most major events can be attributed to extremism of one form or another.

Posted by: PMK at July 26, 2008 3:26 PM

Anyone who loves Muslims - for they're human beings just as well as everyone else - will work to free them from Islam and get a better life.

Posted by: Henrik at July 26, 2008 3:26 PM

It is impossible to fathom Norquist's exact motivations. They are irrelevant in any case. For him to say Spencer hates moslems can only mean he is ignorant or in bad faith. Probably both.

That Norquist has been tolerated these several years after his mohammed-worshipping hucksterism has been known, is a symptom, at least, of the perilous indifference of our governing class to the welfare of America and the West.

Posted by: Moonzoo at July 26, 2008 3:31 PM

"The continuing general ignorance among conservatives of the political aspects of Islam..."

Robert,

I appreciate that you used the qualifier "general" in the sentence, but I have to admit I'm still troubled by your episodic branding of conservatives in this regard...I see it as a form or moral equivalence, where you burnish your non-partisan credentials by portraying conservatives as little different to liberals in recognizing the dangers of Islam, when this couldn't be further from the truth.

Yes, Grover Norquist is a menace and as active a fifth columnist as there is here in America...and yes, there are many other conservatives who are indeed ignorant of the political aspects of Islam. But it must be pointed out that almost every detractor of political Islam in America today IS a conservative. People like yourself and Steve Emerson keep your politics close to the vest for institutional reasons, but Victor Hanson Davis, Diana West, David Horowitz, Charles Krauthammer, Ann Coulter, Ayan Hirshi Ali, Tom Tancredo, and a host of other conservative politicians and personalities are strong exponents of the anti-Jihad.

Please, can someone point out a single Liberal/Leftist who is a critic of political Islam?...(Note: Andrew Sullivan, Chris Hitchens and Joe Lieberman are all considered apostates of the Left).

Posted by: Cornelius at July 26, 2008 3:35 PM

That was Victor Davis Hanson of course...

Posted by: Cornelius at July 26, 2008 3:38 PM

Grover Norquist, a non-Muslim man married to a Muslim woman? Impossible. He must have converted and that fact would then more readily explain his position.

Has anyone ever challenged Norquist on this?

As far as him debating Robert, I am fairly sure that Norquist knows little about Islam, and realizes that having little knowledge of the subject matter is not a good remedy for success in debates.

Or at least he should.

Posted by: awake at July 26, 2008 3:40 PM

Grover the Revert must be Osama Bin Laden's public affairs advisor, prompting OBL to assure us Americans, "Remember, there are no taxes [for Believers] in Islam." Coo, coo.

Posted by: John C at July 26, 2008 4:03 PM

Cornelius:

I appreciate that you used the qualifier "general" in the sentence, but I have to admit I'm still troubled by your episodic branding of conservatives in this regard...I see it as a form or moral equivalence, where you burnish your non-partisan credentials by portraying conservatives as little different to liberals in recognizing the dangers of Islam, when this couldn't be further from the truth....

Victor Hanson Davis, Diana West, David Horowitz, Charles Krauthammer, Ann Coulter, Ayan Hirshi Ali, Tom Tancredo, and a host of other conservative politicians and personalities are strong exponents of the anti-Jihad.

Obviously I wasn't referring to them. If you search the archives here, you will find many instances of my praising West, Horowitz, Hirsi Ali and Tancredo. Ann Coulter was kind enough to endorse my last book.

Nor was I engaging in any moral equivalence or attempt at non-partisanship. While this is not really a Left/Right issue, there is no doubt that the Right in general cares and the Left doesn't. However, there is a significant portion of the conservative establishment that insists that Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists -- including, off the top of my head, George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Dinesh D'Souza, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, etc. etc. etc. And the media types among them will never discuss the jihad ideology or Islamic supremacism fully and honestly, for fear of "offending Muslims" or being portrayed as bigots. This also is in good part due to the influence of Norquist.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at July 26, 2008 4:05 PM

Any opposition to Islamic supremacism must first and foremost be based on knowledge, on an accurate assessment of the ideology of Islam as sourced in the Koran, Hadiths and Sira, as well as taking into account the historical record. Since the advent of the "War on Terror" on 9/11 has been very recent, there's obviously a lot of catching up to do by the hitherto uninformed, and judging from some of the patently naive statements coming out of our leaders' mouths, that catching up still has a long way to go.
There are elements on both sides of the political aisle who are more or less likely to swing one way or another based on their interests. On the Left, there is a tactical advantage in making an alliance with Islam against the US and the West. On the Right, there are strong economic incentives by the plutocratic wing to ally with the oil-rich states and become essentially hired guns. Perhaps that's Norquist.

Posted by: jewdog at July 26, 2008 4:28 PM

Grover Norquist represents conservative causes in Washinton. As Robert has pointed out very eloquently, just because he is a conservative does not mean that he does not believe that Islam is not a religion of peace. G.W. believes this and so do most of his administration in Washington.

I have heard President Bush and other leading conservatives in the administration also call those that disagree with them names.

I am thankful that Robert has brought us the truth about Islam with well researched evidence in his masterful works.

Posted by: Spot on at July 26, 2008 4:31 PM

This man Norquist should not hold any governmental position higher than that of dog catcher.

Posted by: DCWatson at July 26, 2008 4:46 PM

Cornelius has a great point when he challenges anyone to name a major figure on the Left, who is not considered a heretic by the liberal establishment, who has boldly challenged the totalitarian aspects found in Islam. Can anyone do so? Yes, there are too many conservatives (even one would be too many) who think the Islamic faith is just fine and it's been hijacked by extremists and all that rot. But is there any prominent liberal anywhere who has called into question the major tenets of Islam and still remains a respected voice in the liberal community? Virtually all the ground work done so far in preparing America and the West for Islam's designs on us has been done by folks on the right side of the political spectrum. As usual, the Left is clueless.

Posted by: Wellington at July 26, 2008 4:49 PM

DC Watson,

I believe that you are showing insufficient concern for dogs.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at July 26, 2008 5:03 PM

Grover Norquist was a guest speaker at the RightOnline Summit, a conservative bloggers conference here in Austin along with Michael Steele and Michelle Malkin on July 19th weekend.
Now Robert reveals the pin in the back of Norquist’s neck so that we know whose side he is really on. Thank you for the statistics Robert, as opposed to the lies and damned lies going around. How else would we have known? The Islamic infiltration is both insidious and comprehensive and we need you.

Posted by: rishika at July 26, 2008 5:16 PM

Samah is so lucky to have such an open minded, tolerant, Christian man to take cair of her.

Posted by: Jewel Atkins at July 26, 2008 5:16 PM

I had the unfortunate opportunity to work with Grover Norquist when I was working on the Hill. Attended his weekly Wednesday morning meetings (Gaffney was still there at the time too).

Honestly, I don't think Grover got into this for ideological reasons. Grover is a greedy little bastard, and all the Islamists had to do was wave money at him and he was converted (so to speak). Grover is bought and paid for, regardless of who his clients are. If the money ever stopped flowing, he would change allegiances in a heartbeat. But he will go all-out for his clients as long as the financial pipeline isn't disturbed.

A co-worker and I once made the mistake of attending one of his infamous parties/orgies at his home. We weren't there long. That was the atmosphere in the Americans for Tax Reform crowd. For instance, Grover was outspoken about an office policy he established that he would pay for any female ATR staffer to get pierced. And I'm not talking earrings. And it was common knowledge that Grover played for both teams, his Muslim wife notwithstanding (she came on the scene after my time).

Grover not only uses money to buy influence with politicians, but with the policy wonks themselves. An excellent example is the money he made available to pay for state-based policy groups to attend events, like the annual American Legislative Exchange Council conferences. His house parties are an instrument of that as well, appealing to the basest instincts of those (usually) new to DC with just about anything you could imagine - and Grover's longtime cronies there to prey upon them. I could go on...

Robert, wear your attacks by Grover Norquist as a badge of honor.

Posted by: scanderbeg at July 26, 2008 5:20 PM

Please turn in your Episcoslamic Hymnals to page 666:

What a friend we have in Judas,
Saudi water he will bear.
What a privilege to marry
Samah with wink from CAIR.

Yes, our country he would forfeit.
Filthy Lucre's everywhere.
Saudis got themselves a mouthpiece,
Jews and Christians must beware.

Posted by: Jewel Atkins at July 26, 2008 5:38 PM

Cx: Samah, with a wink from CAIR. Sorry. I must be sunk or dromething.

Posted by: Jewel Atkins at July 26, 2008 5:40 PM

Wellington,

Thanks for the support.

Robert,

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

I would only point out that - whatever their short-comings in understanding the nature of Islam, neither Hannity nor O'Reilly falls into the category of psychological dhimmi. Both advocate a hard-line against the violent Jihadists abroad and certainly O'Reilly has gone out of his way to publicize incidences of dhimmitude-run-amok here in the States.

I understand and appreciate your effort to build a "big tent" for the anti-Jihad Robert. For the time being, it appears the only feasible course, particularly as the Left appears headed for temporary ascendancy in America. But might I suggest the possibility that a mass repudiation of the Liberal/Left and a triumph of conservatives is the only real hope for the eventual success of the anti-Jihad.

Posted by: Cornelius at July 26, 2008 6:09 PM

Cornelius and Wellington

Hirsi Ali is a liberal by Christian conservative standards. So is Bruce Bawer. Also there are many who are not easy to classify like Richard Dawkins and Pat Condell (both are brits however). You see the problem is using words like conservative, liberal, left, and right are just not useful anymore when we discuss who understands Islam. It is true that if you came up with a full list of people who at least “sort of get it” the majority would be in the conservative column, but it is still a very small list. The simple fact is many Conservative parties in the west are in the hands of people who do not get it.

In the last eight years of the Bush administration for example:

(1) We have continued our protection of the oil trade from the Arabians. Who use the money to fund Jihad against us.

(2) We have continued aid to nations like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and others, and to continue to call them allies despite all the evidence to the contrary.

(3) We have pushed for democracies without a western style bill of rights in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine, which has gained us nothing. In fact, we made things worse in Palestine and Iraq for non-Muslims.

(4) We have increased pressure on Turkey to get rid of their secular government, and to allow more freedom of religion (Islam in this case), and warned their military not to get involved even if those secular principles are challenged.

(5) We have made it harder on the Israelis to defend themselves by making the Palestinians seem like the victim (example Condi). We have continued the farse of supporting the roadmap to hell (I mean peace).

(6) We have opened our markets up to Middle Eastern (Islamic) investment in our economic exchanges, media institutions, ports (G.W. was all for that one, so was McCain), and other institutions, which will give Islam more power in our life, not less.

(7) Bush has gone out of his way, along with many in the GOP, to call Islam the religion of peace, to visit mosques, to do outreach programs with groups like CAIR, to even limit the vocabulary we use and issue bans on words like Jihad to prevent any linkage of terror to Islam in the U.S. Government.

The point is even if conservatives are ahead on the scorecard of who really gets Islam, it is not enough to stop the stupidity of the elites who run conservative parties. If we can't get conservative parties to do the right thing (in terms of protecting the west) we are in real trouble.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at July 26, 2008 6:11 PM

The stupid that is islam - again.

The wailing and whining from these people just is neverending - as is their wars.

Posted by: R_not at July 26, 2008 6:23 PM

Grover Norquist hates america. That Norquist rails against Spencer is proof that Spencer must be hitting some major nerves among the hate america crowd.

Posted by: stickman at July 26, 2008 6:38 PM

greatcometof1577: Again, I think we may agree more than we disagree. A few points, though, I'd like to make to your thoughtful response. First, the only way that I know Hirsi Ali might be considered a liberal is because she is not religious, at least not as far as I know. I'm not sure about the others you mentioned but isn't Dawkins that great religious skeptic?. That in itself doesn't make one liberal. I too am not religious, indeed I'm an agnostic to the core (or, as the Catholic Church,, for which I have considerable respect as an institution, would see me------one of the invincibly ignorant) but I never think of myself as liberal except as it was understood some two hundred years ago in Jefferson's time (shortly after the Founding Fathers' generation passed away liberalism began to be infiltrated by socialistic thinking, from which it has not only not recoverd but has actually gotten worse).

It's true the Bush Administration has continued all kinds of contacts with certain Middle Eastern countries, but any President will more or less have to do this as long as we (and other major nations like Japan) are dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Telling Islam to go to hell and energy independence go hand in hand and here, as with so many other issues, it's the left side of the political spectrum which is dragging its feet far more than the other side.

Am in complete agrement with you that pushing Turkey to democratize more is a mistake because Islam is parasitical where democracy is concerned. It doesn't play fair and manifests great ingratitude to democratic principles, although often being helped by them. Also in agreement with you about the feckless road map to peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It's a joke because Muslims don't want any Israel, though I think it should be pointed out that a slew of Israelis, including hardliners like Sharon and Rabin, have miscalculated at least as much as any American administration has. Finally, I am in accord with you as well that everyone in America and the West needs to understand that Islam is not just another religion. It's far more than that and almost all of the "far more" parts are inimical to Western interests. Hopefully this is something that liberals, moderates and conservatives will eventually all see, though for now the conservatives are ahead of the curve here. Take care.

Posted by: Wellington at July 26, 2008 7:02 PM

"His [Grover Norquist's] house parties are an instrument of that as well, appealing to the basest instincts of those (usually) new to DC with just about anything you could imagine - and Grover's longtime cronies there to prey upon them. I could go on.."
-- from a posting above

Please do. I'm all ears.

Posted by: Hugh at July 26, 2008 7:06 PM

Yes, Islam is a great religion because:

1. Muslim-born people aren't allowed to convert. They have the right to die only.

2. Muslim women have to live their lives behind thick clothes all year round and aren't allowed to choose their spouses.

3. Human Rights are regarded as alien and 'unhuman'. Criticizing Islam is a mortal sin and is punishable by death.

4. It permits hatred towards people of non-Muslim origin.

5. It allows cruel and unusual punishments like stoning, cutting of hands and other limbs and lashing of individuals for 'crimes'.

6. It allows the beating of women and children by parents because after all, they own them anyway!

7. It doesn't allow anyone else to convert Muslims, but cries foul when Muslims are denied visas to go and convert people in non-Islamic countries.

8. It glorifies a man who married a 6 year old and consummated the marriage before she was even an adult.

9. It allows for the taxation of non-Muslims solely because they are non-Muslims.

10. It is a religion of peace who's adherents have fought more wars, shed more blood and kill more people than all other religions combined!

Posted by: AtheistAfghan at July 26, 2008 7:11 PM

Response to PMK @ July 26, 2008 3:03 PM: "Jesus said to hate the sin but love the sinner."

Bollocks! Jesus made the open claim that He was God, and God hated both wicked men and their wickedness. Also, reading through the prophecies of the Old Testament, God is going to slaughter a lot of sinful men during the last days! (See: Isaiah 66:15-16 or do a phrase search on 'day of the Lord'.) Next I expect to hear that Jesus said not to judge...geesh! Regardless of your motives, please stop mis-representing both God and His Word, sir.

Concerning Mr. Spencer's post here: both he and others have documented how the American federal government, state governments and local principalities have been infiltrated with Islamic apologists, if not practicing Muslims. It's a fact that this has happened, yet Mr. and Mrs. John Doe appear more concerned with the outward appearances of normalcy then the reality of their children's future. Thank you liberal multiculturalist's and pasty faced peace activists. There are claims that the DHS has been affective in stopping attacks upon American soil, but is it possible that well financed attacks have ceased (for the moment) for a greater emphasis towards infiltration of the American society? The increase in mosque building, Islamic schools, public school indoctrination of Islamic cultural traditions, funding and acceptance of acceptable school board members across America - could this be the current battlefield today, along with the 'civil rights' legal lobby of Islam? If so, then Iraq and Afghanistan would be the perfect foil for the leaders in Jed'dah and Mecca. These brush wars would bleed America financially while disposing the hot headed trouble makers in the Ummah, allowing the Mullahs to plot and plan in relative peace.

Posted by: David at July 26, 2008 7:56 PM

In honor of the great borderline anarchist himself…Grover Norquist

I give you his greatest quotes over the years…

(1) “Being married is kind of like being a Ken-doll: You don't get to dress yourself anymore." Grover Norquist

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/events/washingtons_funniest_celebrity_contest_27318.asp

This explains the power of his wife….he is a Ken-doll!

(2) “My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” Grover Norquist

Hmmmm…I agree on the Taxes…but no government at all? Islamic forces would love that!

(3) "I have been a long time advocate of outreach to the Muslim community." Grover Norquist

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/561786/posts

(5) "American Muslims look like members of the Christian Coalition," Grover Norquist

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/561786/posts

(6) "[t]oo many American politicians have been able to take their shots at Muslims and at Muslims countries." Grover Norquist

(7) "Bush's talk about outreach and inclusion had extraordinary results--the Muslim community went 2-1 for Bill Clinton in 1996 and almost 8-1 for Bush in 2000,", "George W. Bush was elected President of the United States of America because of the Muslim vote." Grover Norquist

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/561786/posts

He of course is not right, Muslims went Dem in 2000, but hey whatever world you live in I guess..

(8) "Qatar has taken great strides to enshrine values of universal suffrage, a free press, and human rights." He continued, "[S]he really means it on being a reliable ally." Grover Norquest

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/561786/posts


(9) "We can't knock it off; we want them (CAIR and AMC) on our own team," Grover Norquist

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/561786/posts

(10) "If her (Condi Rice) goal was to convince everyone she would be a good president and, therefore, a good vice president -- she hit it out of the ballpark," …"would be a great president. And, yes, a great vice president." Norquist

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/04/grover_norquist_endorses_condi.html

(11) “This is terrible. Karl's (Rove) upset because we're insulting the people who helped Bush win the election." Norquist on the evils of Frank Gaffney

also Norquist said.… "said the president and Rove were angry at the conference." and in an e-mail said.."[t]he White House and the press are increasingly angry with [the American Conservative Union] for some indefensible statements and actions at CPAC this year." Norquist on Gaffney and his speech

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york031903.asp


 

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at July 26, 2008 7:57 PM

Many who have posted here may be interested in reading a Daniel Pipes article about Grover Norquist written back in 2005. The link is

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/04/is-grover-norquist-an-islamist.html

Posted by: Wellington at July 26, 2008 8:09 PM

If Grover Norquist hasn't 'reverted' (ironically and unintentionally true terminology) his wife is in violation of sharia law and a likely candidate for honor killing.

Posted by: Beagle at July 26, 2008 8:16 PM

Infiltration on the highest levels.

Scanderberg above tells it like it is. Thanks for that, mate!

Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and many others (like George Negus here in Australia) used to be a lot more outspoken and much more eager to attack the problem at its roots in the past. If you watch the old youtube video's from a few years back most of them are much more on the ball than they are now.

Especially memorable the interview between Negus and Ayaan Ali Hirsi: Negus knows, and understands a lot more about Islam than he lets on, but as with Hannity or O'Reilly, I got the impression they are under heavy pressure from their networks to steer clear of Islam and anything to avoid that 'racist, bigot, Islamophobic" labeling that comes instantly on your head like a ton of bricks.

The same goes for the columnist Andrew Bolt. His blog is now chocker's full of global warming but no Islam, for weeks. Its becoming unbearable...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at July 26, 2008 8:16 PM

Norquist hates Americans.

Posted by: exposesithlords at July 26, 2008 8:17 PM

"That Norquist has been tolerated these several years after his mohammed-worshipping hucksterism has been known, is a symptom, at least, of the perilous indifference of our governing class to the welfare of America and the West.
from Moonzoo above.

You have that right, Moonzoo!

At least George Washington recognized Benedict Arnold for what he was. Instead of prosecuting Norquist for treason, Bush has him in for dinner, probably halal dinner at that.

Posted by: Jimmy Bones at July 26, 2008 8:33 PM

Does Grover believe Allah is God? Does he believe that Mohammad was/is the messenger of Allah? If he does he is a muslim, by definition if not Shahada. If he does not, I wonder how he explains that to his muslim wife.

I read the Gaffney report. 2003...how much damage since then?

I don't care if Grover is a conservative or a Wiccan, he does not belong in high, or any public office. I don't care if he thinks he is helping America or not, he is not, has not, and will not.
Throw that bum out with the rest of them...

Posted by: duh_swami at July 26, 2008 9:14 PM

David,
The love just oozes from your post!!!

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Posted by: PMK at July 26, 2008 9:25 PM

PMK,

Jesus said to hate the sin but love the sinner.

Hate the sin, love the sinner.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948)

That is, NOT a Christian doctrine. 1 Cor 5.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at July 26, 2008 9:55 PM

Concerned Citizen,

Thank you for your post. I stand corrected.

As for David, the love still oozes.

Posted by: PMK at July 26, 2008 10:03 PM

Grover Norquest is the worst kind of snake; a lying, fraudulent, Taqiyah practicing convert to Islam (in order to marry his Palestinian-Kuwaiti wife); and someone who thru his "party" affiliation, has only been too willing to infiltrate and fool and dangerously naive Bush Administration, that thinks only interms of "Democrat" and "Republican"

Posted by: Dale in Atlanta at July 26, 2008 10:13 PM

Grover Norquest is the worst kind of snake; a lying, fraudulent, Taqiyah practicing convert to Islam (in order to marry his Palestinian-Kuwaiti wife); and someone who thru his "party" affiliation, has only been too willing to infiltrate and fool and dangerously naive Bush Administration, that thinks only interms of "Democrat" and "Republican"

Posted by: Dale in Atlanta at July 26, 2008 10:16 PM

Interesting and ballsy post Dale. And I concur 100%.

I asked a question many moons ago in this thread if anyone ever challenged Norquist on his current religious faith adherence status.

No answers, but tons of speculation. So be it. I, like Hugh, are equally interested in the personal happenstances of Grover Norquist, if they be reliable, but then again, I am alwys skeptical to anything nearly anyone tells me.

The main point, NORQUIST IS A TRAITOR, is obvious, and although "Cornelius" had some valid criticism of Spencer in his "general" criticism of conservatives, the fact is that conservatives are the only potential pool of anti-jihadists. This is obvious to me.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at July 26, 2008 6:11 PM

Bingo!

Posted by: awake at July 26, 2008 10:46 PM

"Honestly, I don't think Grover got into this for ideological reasons. Grover is a greedy little bastard"

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at July 26, 2008 11:34 PM

I, like Hugh, are equally interested in the personal happenstances of Grover Norquist...blockquote>

Because, as we all know, issues of moral turpitude are much more likely to end a political career in America than being a subversive, terrorist-facilitating traitor.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at July 26, 2008 11:40 PM

awake

"NORQUIST IS A TRAITOR"

Considering Norquist does compare himself to a Ken-Doll...I hate to do this..because I am a guy and well I don't anything about Ken and Barbie but I could not help myself.....so after a quick search of the internet...

Behold the Grover Norquist-Doll!

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i301/dolllinks/DanArabianWMGiftSetKen.jpg

and his four (3 future) wives...once he goes full tilt and reverts!

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/09/22/international/22doll650.1.jpg

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at July 26, 2008 11:57 PM

Norquist is the one problem I have with the NRA.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at July 27, 2008 12:07 AM

It is not a question of love or hate. it is a matter of survival and information.
Islam is fooling everyone at the beginning . It takes a long time or a personal experience to really see the danger and the real face of this so called religion..

Spencer . Pipes and Gaffney are not Muslim haters. they are walking warning encyclopedias about Islam. They are blowing the whistles like some others did before the holocaust and before sep 11. It is a free country .... you can listen and think about it or you can label them and forget about it.

But I wish fo the sake of this country that the medias give more attention to those people because they are speaking the truth and we should wake up to day because to morrow will be too late.

Posted by: Tartine at July 27, 2008 12:23 AM

interestingconundrum,

Thanks for the heads up.

http://www.nraleaders.com/grover-norquist.html

Letters need be written.

My@NRALeaders.com

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at July 27, 2008 1:22 AM

Because, as we all know, issues of moral turpitude are much more likely to end a political career in America than being a subversive, terrorist-facilitating traitor.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at July 26, 2008 11:40 PM

Possibly, or maybe this is just a personal fetish of mine, but for sure, I appreciated and undestood your sarcasm here.

In that regard, Hugh is excluded, or so I think?...

Posted by: awake at July 27, 2008 1:24 AM

Wellington,

You're certainly right about Hirshi Ali. She's employed by a conservative think-tank and is a harsh critic of liberalism and multiculturalism.

As for Bruce Bawer, he thoroughly repudiated liberalism in his book, 'Why Europe Slept'.

And you're right about our inability to flip-off the Muslim world due to energy dependence.

Of all Greatcomet's points, #7 is the most valid; Bush went out of his way, particularly in the months after 9-11, to validate Islam as a "religion of peace." There were obvious political pressures to due so...as he prepared to wage war against portions of the Muslim world. But it certainly nauseated me to hear it.

Posted by: Cornelius at July 27, 2008 1:25 AM

Regarding PMK @ July 26, 2008 10:03 PM : Thank you for your post. I stand corrected. As for David, the love still oozes.

Nothing changes: "Regardless of your motives, please stop mis-representing both God and His Word, sir." Revelation 21:7-8, 22:19

You would serve yourself better by concentrating on a love for the truth rather than on your 'feelings' and pride, but I doubt that you'll accept that either.

Posted by: David at July 27, 2008 1:28 AM

Of all Greatcomet's points, #7 is the most valid;

Posted by: Cornelius at July 27, 2008 1:25 AM

ALL of "greatcomets" points are valid in my estimation, regardless if I personally agree with all of them or not.

Number 7 is core, I agree. And that is the seque-way to describe where we are right now.

Posted by: awake at July 27, 2008 1:35 AM

Posted by: David at July 27, 2008 1:28 AM

Possible fight coming up, but that is just an educated guess on my part.

Posted by: awake at July 27, 2008 1:39 AM

scanderbeg - you said, 'I could go on'.

Our Hugh expressed extreme interest in the extra details.

I advise that if you can indeed, 'go on' with specifics of the kind of parties a certain person gives, and who attends, and what happens, you might get in touch with Mr Spencer [you can do that - check the main page here to find out how] and he can pass you on to a private channel with Mr Fitzgerald.

*This* is a public venue, and the walls have ears.

Separate thought: Norquist has a Muslim wife who has not apostasised. I am reminded of another tireless advocate of Islam, and probable traitor/ quisling, Gorgeous George (Galloway) in the UK, one-time Mayor of London, who was *also* married to a Muslim woman who had not apostasised. (Curiously, both women, Norquist's and George's, were so-called 'Palestinians', Arabs from the area in and around Israel).

It does make one wonder, once one knows about the sharia rules: Muslim man can marry non-Muslim woman, but the reverse is absolutely forbidden, on pain of death for both parties.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 27, 2008 1:52 AM

Sorry about lack of clarity - I should have written, 'Muslim man can marry non-Muslim woman, but the reverse (Muslim woman marrying non-Muslim man) is absolutely forbidden...'.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 27, 2008 1:54 AM

It does make one wonder, once one knows about the sharia rules: Muslim man can marry non-Muslim woman, but the reverse is absolutely forbidden, on pain of death for both parties.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy

Maybe this doesn't apply to infidels aiding Islamic expansion, but when Islam has prevailed, the shade of the sword will , no doubt, soon fall on their necks.

http://www.humanrightsdelegation.org/bio.asp?id=21

Andrew Feinstein was an ANC Member of Parliament for almost eight years. Prior to serving in Parliament he worked as a facilitator in various negotiations processes that led to South Africa's first democratic elections. Andrew is the author of the best-selling political memoir After the Party: A Personal and Political Journey Inside the ANC. He is currently writing a book on the global arms industry and how it undermines accountable democracy. His journalism has been featured in the Guardian, the Telegraph, Prospect, the New York Times, der Spiegel, the BBC's Focus on Africa, Africa Report and a host of South African media. He regularly provides comment and analysis on the arms industry, corruption, public policy and South African politics on the BBC, Sky, CNN and Al Jazeera. Andrew is the son of a Holocaust survivor and is married to a Bangladeshi Muslim

Posted by: Dsinc at July 27, 2008 3:04 AM

Spencer doent hate Muslims, like all of us he just hates the fact that they want us dead.. and the fact that their religious books and their moon god tell them to do it..

Personally I thought it would be logical that anyone would hate any writings that wanted them dead.. We are suposed to be against hate speech yet Muslims are allowed to get away with it every day and whats more their religious books are allowed to get away with it,, yep sure sounds like we have equal rights eh..

Posted by: Gaye at July 27, 2008 3:38 AM

Well, at least his wife sounds nice. Brainwashed, but nice.

Posted by: Bingo at July 27, 2008 6:16 AM

I'm still a registered Republican. How long can I remain a Republican as my party seeks to recruit jihadists?

Posted by: Wild Jew at July 27, 2008 7:07 AM

sexuellen Hörigkeit

(from Dreigroschenoper)

Posted by: fox2! at July 27, 2008 9:24 AM

Cornelius

Hirsi Ali..you mean the woman who is an atheist, pro-abortion, pro-gay, liberal on drug usage, etc etc, you mean that one? Just because a she worked for a conservative think-tank and is a harsh critic of multiculturalism does not mean she was welcomed by social conservatives in the GOP. You see by many conservatives definition she is a liberal. Hell, I have seen some call her an ultra-liberal. The only reason some think she is a conservative is because she 1) Is fighting Islam, 2) She has allied herself with some conservatives to fight Islam, and 3) She is not a fan of multiculturalism.

Now if we are talking about MC, last time I looked the GOP was infected with it as well. Not as bad as the Dems, but if they don't get their act together, and I mean soon, then they will be no better. That is my point, the road the GOP has been going down is not good at all.

It is possible for a liberal not to be multiculturalist. Do remember that...

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at July 27, 2008 11:03 AM

"And it isn't even true. I don't hate Muslims. In fact, I like Muslims so much that I don't want them to fall victim to the stonings and amputations and denial of the freedom of conscience mandated by Islamic law. As I said here, "I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc." Is all that "anti-Muslim"? The Muslim correspondent to whom I first wrote that thought so."

No but you want Muslims expelled from the west, arrsted, mosques closed , and Muslim countries bombed and generally denied equal rights.

Your call is rights for non-Muslims - no rights for Muslims

If that isnt anti-Muslim Goebbels (your predecessor in hatred) wasnt anti-Jewish!

Posted by: istanbulnotconstantinople at July 27, 2008 11:14 AM

Gaye

"Spencer doent hate Muslims, like all of us he just hates the fact that they want us dead"

Right so promoting the idea that 1.3 bn Muslims want all non-Muslims dead and should be treated as an enemy ISNT about hating Muslims

Replace Muslim with Jew in your comment and its could be from Mein Kampf

Posted by: istanbulnotconstantinople at July 27, 2008 11:16 AM

istanbulnotconstantinople, your nickname tells it all.
Why do you want to live in the West? What is your purpose?
You can point fingers at RS and the rest of us, but you know what your quran tells you, you are to conquer the world in it's entirety. You are to give the "infidel" 3 choices, convert, become a dhimmi, or die.
You have a lot of nerve to feign indignity.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at July 27, 2008 11:21 AM

No but you want Muslims expelled from the west, arrsted, mosques closed , and Muslim countries bombed and generally denied equal rights.

What rights do Christians and Jews have in Islamic countries? Can I have a Bible in KSA?
Were Jews expelled from Islamic countries?
Why does Israel have to have a WALL to keep bombers from killing school children?
Moslems, always the victim....

Posted by: interestinconundrum at July 27, 2008 11:30 AM

Grover Norquest is got his hands in way to many influences.

http://mapper.nndb.com/start/?id=49335

Posted by: Mackie at July 27, 2008 11:54 AM

Istanbul, that's rubbish! We should keep out lesser jihadists and shari'ah supremacists, monitor extremist mosques (would you like a Red Mosque, for example, in your neighborhood?), keep America safe from bombers given haven in certain Muslim paradises, and safeguard genuine equality (our conception of rights is individual, not collective--there are no legitimate rights that foster and "protect" the Muslim collective, the Umma,, that free people are bound to observe).

Posted by: John C at July 27, 2008 11:58 AM

That's what I think of your "straw man" argument, Istanbul cowboy.

Posted by: John C at July 27, 2008 12:01 PM

istanbulnotconstantinople: No one here thinks all Muslims want all non-Muslims dead. Stop the hyperbole. But most eveyone who posts here has come to the conclusion that there are many, many things wrong with the Islamic faith that are not found in other religions.

From its brutal founder who also got all kinds of convenient revelations from the deity justifying his sexual desires, to a legal system (sharia) which requires at least four male witnesses in order for a woman to substantiate a rape charge, to the fact that in Islam the separation of church (mosque) and state is blasphemous but such very separation in the West is a hallmark of Western democracy, to the fact that non-Muslims are in Islamic religious law treated as the equivalent of human waste, to the extremely childish view of heaven (72 virgins and all that rubbish) and to the fact that almost everyday in the world Muslims somewhere engage in terrorism, all make for deep skepticism, even loathing, of Islam. I wish most Muslims well but what I really wish is that such folks leave Islam, which, by the way, would mean under sharia that they are to be killed.

I'll put all this to you another way. Islam is spiritual fascism, as Bertrand Russell observed, and no other religion is. I don't like the Islamic faith. I think it crushes human liberty and thought. It's awful. And anyone telling me I'm closed-minded for thinking this would mean no more to me than if someone told me I'm closed-minded because I despise Nazism and Marxism. And yes, I am most definitely comparing Islam to Nazism. They have much in common. Much. I'm done here.

Posted by: Wellington at July 27, 2008 12:36 PM

"Grover Norquest is got his hands in way to many influences."

Thanks for the link, Mackie.

Makes you wonder about Heritage Foundation reports like:
"Sovereign Wealth Funds No Cause for Panic,"
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/467478/heritage_foundation_analyzes_foreign.html

By the way, what is Curious George doing associating with this big government, carbon credit, universal health care, tax-and-spend boondogle?
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/ten_big_ideas_for_a_new_america

Samah isn't exactly a passive trophy wife either:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Samah_Norquist

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at July 27, 2008 12:37 PM

No but you want Muslims expelled from the west, arrsted, mosques closed , and Muslim countries bombed and generally denied equal rights.

Posted by: istanbulnotconstantinople at July 27, 2008 11:14 AM

Generally speaking, every statement you attempt to attribute to Spencer above is patently false.

Sure, he advocates incarcerating and deporting jihadists, but expelling Muslims from the West in totality? Not so. Not even close.

Mosques closed? Simply closed without reason? nonsense. Monitoring mosques that preach hatred, sure. So what?

Muslim countries bombed? That is a bald-faced lie. You can never attribute that sentiment to Spencer. I challenge you to state othewise with a single example.

Thanks for stopping by and wasting everybody's time, especially your own.

Posted by: awake at July 27, 2008 12:47 PM

Comet,

I'm not religious myself, am a social libertarian...and consider myself a conservative without reservation. What do you want to bet Hirshi Ali is a McCain supporter?

COMET: "It is possible for a liberal not to be multiculturalist. Do remember that..."

RESPONSE: Please identify a single so-called liberal who has openly repudiated multiculturalism and remains in the liberal fold.

Posted by: Cornelius at July 27, 2008 1:15 PM

Cornelius

I did...Hirsi Ali. She has called herself a Classical Liberal. Her views do not fit into the GOP or conservative party in America. I don't divide the western world in terms of liberals and conservatives anymore. I divide it into PC/MC and those that are not.

It is also possible for a conservative to be a PC/MC...

See: G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney (for economic reasons), Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Condi Rice, etc...

John McCain is sort of stumbling away from that label, but he could just as easly stumble back into it with his next speech.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at July 27, 2008 2:02 PM

The Downside of Diversity
A Harvard political scientist finds that diversity hurts civic life. What happens when a liberal scholar unearths an inconvenient truth?
By Michael Jonas | August 5, 2007

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at July 27, 2008 2:17 PM

Here's another, weirder one:

"The multicultural paradigm presupposes a false totality within which are subsumed a set of false particularities. These differences are represented and packaged as "lifestyle choices" and "ethnicities", commodities to appease the genuine passion for genuine difference with mere "traces" and images of "dignity" and even of "rebellion". Against this, cross-cultural synergism proposes actual autonomy, whether for individuals or cohesions of individuals, based on radical consciousness and organic identity. In this sense, cross-culturalism can only oppose itself to "multiculturalism", either through a strategy of subversion, or through open assault. Either way, "multiculturalism" must be destroyed."

Peter Lamborn Wilson
http://www.t0.or.at/hakimbey/multicul.htm

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at July 27, 2008 2:33 PM

Cornelius

Let me put this another way...

Being a Liberal or Conservative (whatever those two terms mean today) is not dependent on if you are a Multiculturalists and Politically Correct.

Four types of the MC/PC conservatives:

Conservative MC/PC Type 1: You could be for low taxes, small government, pro-business, for free trade, and yes be multicultural and politically correct. You would be called a conservative based on the common usage of the word in America today. In fact there is a benefit to being MC/PC because it is good for business, especially if you deal with the Islamic world (like oil). No one wants to offend their business partners. Some examples: Dick Cheney, Grover Norquist

Conservative MC/PC Type 2: You could be a social conservative who dislikes atheists, abortion, evolution, gay rights, uppity women, etc. You have concluded that the greatest threat to the world is liberals and also secular governments. Thus you have concluded that an alliance with other “religious folks”, like Muslims, is needed to preserve “traditional values” across the world. The prime poster child would be: D’Souza

Conservative MC/PC Type 3: You feel that all cultures and religions are more or less equal, but the real trouble is dictators and authoritarian rulers who misuse culture and religion for their own purposes. You feel democracy is the solution. Once exposed to democracy the natural goodness of the culture, or religion will shine forth, men will be free, and it will bring peace and harmony in the world. Example: Paul Wolfowitz

Conservative MC/PC Type 4: You know full well MC/PC is a farce, however you are too afraid of being called a racist by all the other MC/PC types (liberal or conservative) so you act like you are one to be cool! Example: Glenn Beck

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at July 27, 2008 2:42 PM

istanbulnotconstantinople.

Before Mein Kemp there was the Koran. A lot of the verses in Koran would give the impression that the verses were from Mein Kemp.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 27, 2008 3:07 PM

Dumbledores,

you mentioned Galloway along with Norquist.

Rest assured they both said the 'shahada' when they married their spouses. As you know: its easy to get in, but much harder to get out...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at July 27, 2008 7:25 PM

greatcometof1577: Well, you've thought the conservative MC/PC types through pretty well. You've made a strong argument for your position. I would only point out that however MC/PC any conservative might be, they are rarely, if ever, as MC/PC as any liberal, and not just with regard to Islam but in so many other controversial areas as well. Put another way, the more liberal one is the more MC/PC one will be. It's a directly proportional relationship. It's also not an either/or situation. There are gradations. And, while there are no liberals except a handful who are considered traitors by their fellow leftists who have bucked the MC/PC trend, one can find loads of conservatives who have nothing but contempt for the idiocy of political correctness and multiculturalism. Bottom line: The demarcation between conservatives and liberals respecting MC/PC is a valid one, though with provisos such as you have proffered.

Posted by: Wellington at July 27, 2008 8:13 PM

Wellington

"one can find loads of conservatives who have nothing but contempt for the idiocy of political correctness and multiculturalism."

Where? Perhaps in the general public, yes you are right about that, but in any kind of leadership position? Now there are many conservatives who will talk a good game, say they are against MC/PC, but their actions say something different.

I cannot stress this enough, greed and money are great motivators for keeping the truth about Islam silent. It amazes me how some conservatives seem not to understand how dangerous it is to have the Arabian oil industry as such a close ally. How dangerous it is to have a VP who has such deep ties to Haliburton. How dangerous it is to have people like Grover Norquist giving advice, and having some kind of influence within very powerful circles in the GOP.

This is not some wild eyed conspiracy talk either. Ignoring it will not help, and saying “the liberals are worse” won’t make it go away either. Wellington, I point this stuff out, not because I hate the GOP and conservatives, but because, I want to see them get their act together. I do it because I want them to have a real plan, not the half-assed plan they have been using up until now. They need to understand that the enemy is within, and perhaps it is time for a GOP civil war. Multiculturalism and Political Correctness is in charge of the GOP if you have not noticed. The rank and file better wake up, or there won’t be a party worth saving.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at July 27, 2008 8:50 PM

greatcometof1577: With the exception of your contention that Cheney still has ties to Halliburton (I believe they have all been severed and that, actually, Cheney is no longer highly regarded by this company), much that you aver is simply true. Ah, again we converge more than a first look might lead one to conclude.

You're right about the Republican elite. With few exceptions, they don't get it (and that's the reason why they did so poorly in the 2006 election----which they still don't comprehend). But the Republican rank and file, in significant numbers, do. In fact, they're so disgusted with their own Republican party, that many are contemplating leaving it. And this goes to the core of my argument, which is that your basic conservative type, the ordinary Joe and Mary, intuitively grasps that our country is in significant danger because we still cozy up to the Islamic world. Meanwhile, though, virtually no member of the Democratic party gets what's going on. Yeah, I know there are those old Truman Democrats out there. You know, the kind that conservatives can disagree with on a lot of domestic issues but who are in one accord respecting the importance of civilization standing up to anything that would erode American freedoms, but these folks are almost completely silent. You can find a hell of a lot of registered Republicans who are sick of their party moving to the left and who say so loudly, but how many registered Democrats do you ever come across who manifest disgust with the extreme leftward lurch the national Democratic Party has taken as of late?

It comes down to the common folk, the backbone of America. Right now, the conservative folk are ahead of the liberal folk by a landslide. I wonder if we can't agree on this. What do you say?

Posted by: Wellington at July 27, 2008 9:55 PM

Wellington,

With you all the way my friend.

Comet,

Playing games with semantics will get you nowhere here. A "classical liberal" is a contemporary conservative, no ifs ands or buts.

I asked you to point out a single liberal who has repudiated multiculturalism and has remained in the liberal fold.

You couldn't.

Case closed.

Posted by: Cornelius at July 27, 2008 10:40 PM

COMET: "Being a Liberal or Conservative (whatever those two terms mean today) is not dependent on if you are a Multiculturalists and Politically Correct."

Absolute nonsense.

Where are the Tom Tancredo's and the Rick Santorum's of the Democratic Party?

While the Repulican fold debated the threat of Islam during the nomination process in EXPLICIT terms, none of the Dems touched the subject or dared even utter the words "Jihad", "Islamo-fascism", or even "Islamic extremism".

You mentioned Bill O'Reilly as PC...then why has O'Reilly gone after the Minneapolis airport footbath story?...the honor killings in America story?...and other politically incorrect exposes on Islam in America?

Posted by: Cornelius at July 27, 2008 10:56 PM

I asked you to point out a single liberal who has repudiated multiculturalism and has remained in the liberal fold.

Two are listed above.
An academician:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021954.php#c562180
And a wacko:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021954.php#c562182

But, really, what's with the flame war? Seeing who can alienate whom? We need all of you.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at July 28, 2008 1:18 AM

Cornelius

Not so fast my Iraqi Democracy fighter!

Hirsi Ali is a LIBERAL. How hard is this to understand? She is for ABORTION. She is for GAY RIGHTS/MARRIAGE. She is a HARDCORE FEMINIST. Just because she is not a MC/PC does not mean she is now a conservative.

Her own quote: Hirsi Ali: “Because I thought they would be religious, and I had become an atheist. And I don’t consider myself a conservative. I consider myself a classical liberal.” on her joining AEI.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/122457.html

You said name a liberal and I did. Her name is HIRSI ALI. By her own words she is not a conservative. Thank You…

But I will do you one better! The Sue Myrick Anti-Jihad Caucus also has a several democrats in it! My god the world has tuned upside down!

Bud Cramer (D-AL) and Ben Chandler (D-KY) are both co-founders. This thing includes a well known lib Jane Harmon (D-Calif). Did I hear that right…Jane Harmon!

BTW this is the same Jane Harmon who wanted to prosecute the NY Times for leaking NSA stuff if I remember, also check out this story…

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215330934009&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

In which…

“Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) and Rep. Jane Harman (D-California) sent a letter to US President George W. Bush Wednesday urging him to speedily deploy an American ballistic missile defense early-warning radar to Israel, which follows on language in the 2009 defense authorization bill calling for such a deployment to be explored between the US Department of Defense and Israel.”

Now calm down Cornelius, I know must be a shock for you, “Jane Harmon”…come on you can say it…I know you can…..

The Greatcometof1577 is right…..

As for Bill O'Reilly, he lost me when he supported the UAE taking over our ports and called anybody who was against it: Nativist...

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at July 28, 2008 1:43 AM

BTW CORRECTION: The correct spelling is "Jane Harman" with an "a"…..it is late...

I will never be accused of being a great speller, or confused with the literary skills, and proper English of the great Hugh Fitzgerald...who knows proper comma usage down to an art form…

But…Thank You Jane Harman...for saving my ass! I shall sleep the sleep of the just tonight…

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at July 28, 2008 1:57 AM

Comet,

I've heard several conservatives over the years describe themselves as a "classical liberal"...it's a term denoting the philosophy of 18th and 19th century liberals, something as profoundly different from today's liberals as there is.

No sir. Ayyan Hirshi Ali is the antithesis of a liberal, which is why she is demonized by the European Left, which is why she works for a conservative think-tank, and which is why she denounces the hypocrisy and myopia of today's liberals on almost every occasion she speaks publicly.

Meanwhile, I'll check out this Jane Harman.

Posted by: Cornelius at July 28, 2008 6:09 AM

Concerned.

The first example you provided was an interesting one. I remember when the study came out; I read the article with fascination and a great sense of validation. The only problem is, the researcher has not gone on to become a bona-fide detractor of multiculturalism (at least, not that I'm aware of). He seems to be an academic who did a one-time study of the phenomenon, found it wanting, and then moved on. Hardly the political personality I was looking for. But one does wonder how the treatment of this man by his colleagues in academe might have changed after the release of his study?

The other example was a wacko indeed who barely qualifies as rational, much less someone of import.

Still, nice try.

Posted by: Cornelius at July 28, 2008 6:22 AM

Comet,

Jane Harman is consistently described as a "conservative Democrat" by the sources I came across. Me thinks that - like Hirshi Ali - she hardly qualifies as a liberal. But I appreciate you bringing her to my attention. By all accounts, she's a remarkable woman and a serious proponent of national security.

One can be a Democrat without being Liberal...just as one can be Republican without being Conservative (e.g., Arlan Spector). The meager response from both you and 'Concerned' only serves to confirm my beliefs.

I think it is very evident that - just as Wellington wrote - conservatives are far, far ahead of liberals in their support for the anti-Jihad.

I wish Robert well in his "big-tent" efforts. But my experience debating Leftists tell me that hoping for an anti-Jihad epiphany among the liberal/Left is like counting on the triumph of a moderate Islam: it's not in the cards because it's not in the doctrine.

Posted by: Cornelius at July 28, 2008 6:35 AM

"I had the unfortunate opportunity to work with Grover Norquist when I was working on the Hill. Attended his weekly Wednesday morning meetings (Gaffney was still there at the time too).

Honestly, I don't think Grover got into this for ideological reasons. Grover is a greedy little bastard, and all the Islamists had to do was wave money at him and he was converted (so to speak). Grover is bought and paid for, regardless of who his clients are. If the money ever stopped flowing, he would change allegiances in a heartbeat. But he will go all-out for his clients as long as the financial pipeline isn't disturbed."

Posted by scanderbeg July 26, 2008 5:20 PM

I thank scanderbeg for his first hand account and all the rest for bringing us up to speed on Grover Norquist. I know lobbyists like that. With Norquist’s wife as a “Muslim Outreach” activist working as a PR agent of the Arabs and Muslims, the two of them have a direct pipeline to the middle eastern money. A perfect setup for a “greedy little bastard”.

We watch “Muslim outreach” daily in the news. Every Muslim suicide bomber believes that he is engaging in some kind of “Muslim Outreach”. I wonder what kind of “Muslim Outreach” Mr. Norquist’s wife advocates. Ultimately, if the lobbying efforts of Grover Norquist and his wife are successful, we will indeed have the same kind of “Muslim Outreach” here.

Washington is obviously for sale. Foreign interests spend tremendous amounts of money to influence our legislators and our citizens. A certain percentage of either party (with dems leading by miles) will go for the money first and think about us last. Others are duped into believing that Islam is a religion of peace. It is disgusting and getting worse, not better. This issue is at the heart of our illegal immigration and other terror related problems.

Robert (and all of Robert’s friends) should be complimented to have a pathetic creep such as Grover Norquist criticize him.

Posted by: Spot on at July 28, 2008 8:26 AM

"Conservatives"

"Liberals"

All kinds of frauds and fakes on both sides. In the present day, in These Great Times, where the meaning of such words keep shape-shifting, and mean so little -- in fact, no one really knows what they mean, and they are tossed around like tiddlywinks -- and few take the time in these exchanges to note that always one must distinguish between the good and intelligent embodiment of either strain or wing or tendency, and the crappy careerist who, "conservative" or "liberal," merely mimics having any real views at all.

Henry Jackson was a "liberal." Grover Norquist is a "conservative." Whose world-view do you prefer?

In England, Winston Churchill was a Tory. Ernest Bevin was Labor. Whose world-view would you have preferred, especially in 1948?

In France, Philippe De Villiers is on the right, Jacques Chirac in the center-right, Pascal Bruckner on the left. Whose world-view do you have preferred?

In Italian terms, Oriana Fallaci was on the left. Andreotti was always on the right. Which one was principled, which one the pro-Arab crook?

Who is a "liberal"? Someone who listens to NPR without intermittently becoming enraged at the coverage, and the parody of fairness they so often represent?

Who is a "conservative"? Someone who listens without becoming enraged at the so-called "conservative" talk-radio hosts, and the parody of thought they represent?

Why bother with this stuff when such words cannot possibly cover all kinds of views on many and varied matters, as varied as Islam, the rise or fall of incomme (or estate, or consumption) taxes, the morality of affirmative action, the effect on different kinds of health care of different kinds of health insurance plans, including a one-payer system, the wisdom of NAFTA or other free trade agreements, the usefulness of subsidies to trains and urban transit, the efficacy and usefulness to this country of continued spending on foreign aid, the need to bomb Iran now and not rely on others to do so, the state of mass education, public and private, what can be done to mitigate the effects of anthropogenic climate change -- hey, isn't it all a fiction anyway, one more of those stories the MSM and the "lefties" want you to believe? -- and why the sun is boiling hot, and whether pigs have wings.

Posted by: Hugh at July 28, 2008 8:45 AM

Cornelius

Hugh has already said pretty much what I was going to say, but here it is anyway…

You Say: "I wish Robert well in his "big-tent" efforts. But my experience debating Leftists tell me that hoping for an anti-Jihad epiphany among the liberal/Left is like counting on the triumph of a moderate Islam: it's not in the cards because it's not in the doctrine."

Ok, I am confused now, you just moved the goal post?

(1) Your definition of a conservative includes Jane Harman, Hirsi Ali, and I guess that means all blue-dog Dems as well. I would call that a big tent! If it is so easy for you (and good for you, I agree) to allow these folks into the "conservative" tent, why is it going to be so hard for Robert Spencer to do the same thing? All he needs do is just call them "anti-Jihadist", just as you have called all these folks "conservative".

(2) Does someone like Jane Harman mean the Democratic party is not all losers and leftist? Does this mean there is hope for the Democratic party? Plus does this mean Jane Harman is in the same situation as someone like Sue Myrick is in the GOP, trying to fight the good fight against the elites in their respective parties?

(3) Now you are telling me that moderate Islam is hopeless, yet you were the one lecturing me on the wonders of Iraqi democracy and our deep friendship with Tunisia? You said calling Islam for what it was would offend our Islamic friends! If moderate Islam is hopeless, why are we wasting time and money building up an “Iraqi Democracy”?

All this just proved my point. What one calls a conservative or a liberal is in the eyes of the beholder. Considering this site is called Jihadwatch, would it not make more sense to dump these terms and simply define people on how they view Islam and Jihad? We have a gradient of understanding of Islam in the west. Some are closer to the truth than others. I tend to divide people into four camps: Those who get it, those who semi get it, those who don’t get it, and those that are 5th columnist. Most Republicans and Democrats are in the last two camps. That is not good. The GOP has more in the first two camps as of now, but that is not saying much. They are so few in number that they will be lucky to even meet the elites in the party.

Someone should put together a poll, or classification system to rate our public figures in relation to their understanding of Islam. It should not be a static thing either. Sort of like the college football poll….or better yet, a grading system. A, B, C, D, and F.

Obama has a D, McCain has a borderline C, and G.W. has a big fat F!

Of course they can always study and improve their grades…

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at July 28, 2008 9:18 AM

I think Spencer loves muslims - they give Spencer a great opportunity to chriticise them and become very successful and rich doing it.

Posted by: American at July 28, 2008 10:55 AM

I don't think Spencer is "getting rich." And I certainly am not -- though all donations will be gratefully pocketed -- so apparently there must be other reasons why someone would find something wrong with Islam. How much money does Magdi Allam, or Geert Wilders take in, that could possibly compensate for the kind of precautions they must take, the kind of lives they now must lead? Don't be absurd.

Posted by: Hugh at July 28, 2008 11:13 AM

COMET: "Now you are telling me that moderate Islam is hopeless, yet you were the one lecturing me on the wonders of Iraqi democracy and our deep friendship with Tunisia? You said calling Islam for what it was would offend our Islamic friends! If moderate Islam is hopeless, why are we wasting time and money building up an “Iraqi Democracy”?"

RESPONSE: You're quite a piece of work. You've totally misrepresented my positions on both countries.

1) I think Democracy may or may not take root in Iraq...but my primary concern and the focus of my arguments have always been about security, i.e., denying Al Qaeda and/or Iran dominion over the country.

2) I never, ever advocated the position that "calling Islam for what it was would offend our Islamic friends." Quite to the contrary, I've always maintained that white-washing Islamic intolerance undercuts the position of Muslim reformers.

3) My support for the government of Tunisia is a reflection of that country's policies, in which the state has used all the mechanisms at its disposal to repress political Islam, from discouraging the wearing of head-scarves to the encouragement of breaking the Ramadan fast...and to support the West unreservedly in the war against Islamic terror. How sad that you and others are unable to distinguish allies and potential allies from enemies in the Muslim world. As Robert has said many times, there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Not to someone like yourself, who apparently sees an enemy in every Muslim.

4) If you were being honest with yourself for one minute, you'd admit that Jane Harman is an anomaly among Democrats...that the soul of the Party is the Obama/Hillary wing that fought over the nomination....that a true centrist like Joe Lieberman couldn't even attain his Party's nomination for re-election to the Senate...that every Presidential contender in the primaries was a flaming Lib. If there is a Democrat here and there who is favorable to our cause, he/she is in no way representative of the Party or its ideology.

5) I just watched an extended interview with Hirsi Ali...discussing the Liberal obsession with multiculturalism...in which she expressed the frustrations of "conservatives and even liberals like myself". So if Ms Ali refers to herself as a Liberal, far be it for me to say otherwise.

Nonetheless, her views are not welcome among liberals, which was always my qualifier:

"I asked you to point out a single liberal who has repudiated multiculturalism and has remained in the liberal fold."

I was commenting extensively at a Left-wing European blog last year and found nothing but animus for Hirsi Ali from the Left.

Hugh,

Philosophies such as "conservative" and "liberal" have profound significance for a society when determining tax policy, defense policy, environmental policy, and a plethera of other policies. Suggesting otherwise is just as relativist as multiculturalism.

Posted by: Cornelius at July 28, 2008 11:42 AM

It shall be CONSTANTINOPLE once again.

That's a promise.

Posted by: CGW at July 28, 2008 11:58 AM

"I've always maintained that white-washing Islamic intolerance undercuts the position of Muslim reformers."

Having any concern at all about whether or not the position of Muslim "reformers" is undercut -- is one more way of whitewashing Islam(ic intolerance).

Posted by: DenverRodeo at July 28, 2008 12:50 PM

Well, this has been an interesting back and forth about conservatism and liberalism. I find myself aligning with Cornelius pretty much across the board but, greatcometof1577, I concede you made many interesting observations and several valid points. And, Hugh, I'm sorry but I'm with Cornelius respecting the continuing validity of the labels 'conservative' and 'liberal.'

I would add a few observations of my own. First, there is a significant difference between modern liberals and old-fashioned ones. The 1960s is what began the change. Old liberals like Harry Truman and Scoop Jackson (Attlee and Bevin as examples in Britain) were just as prepared to stand up to the barbarian as were conservatives, in fact actually a bit more so back then considering the Robert Taft isolationist wing in conservative and Republican circles had a good bit of strength. It was Eisenhower more than any single individual who almost snuffed out this isolationist sector of the Republican party (Pat Buchanan does an exceedingly poor imitation of Taft nowadays).

Second, though I agree with greatcometof1577 that the present Republican elite is behind the eight ball on proper awareness of Islamic supremacist initiatives, as I already wrote above there is no way that a large portion of conservatives in America today don't "get it" where taking on Islam is the issue. By contrast, very few liberals understand either 1) the need to kill Islamic radicals in bunches or 2) stealth jihad. I would say it's overwhelmingly obvious that those who understand these two phenomena are to be found on the right side of the political spectrum. And those few liberals who do get all this have been ostracized from liberal land in a way that hardly mirrors what is going on in the conservative world. And you can find this with a lot of other matters as well where a difference of opinion is allowed in Republican circles far more than it is in Democratic circles. The abortion issue comes foremost to mind here.

Third, all of America is moving leftwards. I don't like this but it's true. So, conservatives today are not as conservative as they were some fifty years ago. In Britain this is far more the case. The inexorable envelopment of society by government in every nook and cranny of life proceeds at a steady pace. Conservatives can only slow it down, not reverse it. Even President Reagan was not able to get rid of a single government program. And if he couldn't, who can? The current President has sometimes signed on to spending bills so large that he makes FDR look like a deficit hawk. And so on.

Finally, hey we're all on the same page here with respect to Islamic tenets and intentions. I consider our disagreements minor compared to where we agree-----Islam is to be watched and dealt with as no other religion is. It is bad news for freedom and democracy. Whether we work with some Muslims against others or not (a place of disagreement here at JW) I don't believe any of us are under any illusion about the Islamic faith. It is antithetical to values and traditions we cherish and vigilance must be constant. To Cornelius, greatcometof1577, Hugh (of course) and others I wish you the best.

Posted by: Wellington at July 28, 2008 1:19 PM

Cornelius

I do not think I misrepresented your view. If I did I am sorry, but you should see why it is possible..

See this for reference: http://jihadwatch.org/archives/021099.php

I remember this debate well, because you called Hugh the “resident Machiavellian genius”.

I said, by staying in Iraq (using the current strategy) we will hurt the anti-jihad movement by keeping alive the idea of a moderate Islam.

And you said again above: "How sad that you and others are unable to distinguish allies and potential allies from enemies in the Muslim world.", which is the same thing you basically said in the original debate on this.

So how did I misrepresent your view on that?

You also said in the original debate on this (see link above):

“Malaki and Karzai are very different creatures than Bin Ladin and Zawahiri, with different agendas that don't include orchestrating a global terror campaign against us. These differences are PROFOUND!”

I am sorry if I am not as profoundly impressed by the “M & K Co.” as you are, or you seemed to be at that time. By continuing to support these two knuckleheads we have accomplished what? Considering Malaki is supporting the Obama Iraq plan, what do you think of him today?

Look I am not trying to misrepresent your views. You want to stay in Iraq, because you think American security depends on it. I just don’t, because I don’t think helping the Islamic world helps Non-Muslims. We don’t get any return on our dollar.

I will admit I have been wrong before. Just to prove I am an honest fellow:

(1) I was wrong about Lee Bollinger of Columbia University, I thought he was making a patriotic stand…it turns out he is the same Ivy league coward he always has been.

(2) I was too quick to praise Obama for a few of his speeches. It turns out he has speeches for everything, and for both sides of any issue…who knew.

(3) I was way too harsh on Charles Johnson/LGF for his support of the Iraq War (even though I disagree with it still). I should not have said he did not u