This special edition of The Glazov Gang was guest-hosted by Michael Finch, the president and Chief Operating Officer of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Michael interviewed Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center who writes the blog The Point at Frontpagemag.com.
The two discussed The Presidential Candidates and the War We’re In, focusing on: Who dares to say “Sharia” and “Jihad”?
Don’t miss it!
And make sure to watch the The Anni Cyrus Moment: A Day in the Life of a Woman Under Sharia, in which Anni shares how the Islamic Gulag tried to dehumanize her — and how she shattered its chains and escaped to freedom: CLICK HERE.
The Glazov Gang is a fan-generated program. Please donate through our Pay Pal account, subscribe to our YouTube Channel and LIKE us on Facebook.
John C. Barile says
My candidates of choice are Marco Rubio, and, to a lesser degree, Ted Cruz.
That Rubio speaks of a Huntingtonian “clash of civilizations” telegraphs, to me at least, that he begins to get it. If I were he, I’d be coy and use coded language, too.
I have no problem with exporting democracy and American values to other parts of the globe–like Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Iran. And I think that we ought to find a dog in Syria, rather than leave the field to Iran, Hezbollah, Sunni jihadists, genocide, and destabilizing chaos. Syria’s Kurds are secular, self-governing, egalitarian, and in alliance with Syriac Christians and anti-IS Sunni tribesmen–arm them, give them air cover, advisors, and defy Erdogan by letting them clear the Turkish frontier and setting up a safe zone. Shut down the Ankara-Raqqa Express for good.
Now, why do I prefer Marco Rubio over Ted Cruz? Well, perhaps I’m not impressed by his sycophantic aping of Trump. Mostly, though, I think that Ted is too abrasive and alienating to the general electorate to win, and the very, very last thing I want to see is life under Hillary.
John C. Barile says
His sycophantic aping of Trump–Ted’s, that is.
jihad3tracker says
Hello John — I just got back to my wigwam after going out to stock up on adult beverages for tonight’s festivities, so the dialogue by Michael and Daniel is yet-unread by me.
Here is an item in American Thinker — mostly on Cruz (commendably including liabilities as well as assets in the electability department)
As a former lifelong — age 67 — Democrat, who is totally disgusted with what a once good party has become (ultra-left, America-last due to Barry Hussein Soetoro’s hatred of Western culture and freedom, I could easily vote for Rubio, but currently am in Cruz’s corral, and will volunteer for his campaign soon, unless he does or says something out of character.
My take on his view of the danger Islam presents to America is not sycophantic aping of Trump, but consequent to actually take time and effort to read authors and texts with a grip on facts.
He is liked by a sufficiently significant slice of the electorate without sucking up to The Donald, and their mutually gentle public relationship is, IMO, genuine, and comes from the logical understanding that there is currently no pressing need to criticize each other.
And, admittedly biased because he is already my fave, from reading a number of articles and opinion pieces, I predict increasing voter interest and backing — a climb in polls. Iowa and New Hampshire will shake out the illusions — pleasantly or grimly — which we all have about the candidates.
BTW, as you have probably noticed, Trump is shredding Hillary-Billary so savagely now that we could mistake the rhetoric to be more typical far down the road after the two conventions, with them as nominees. Hillary is an ethically bankrupt disgusting liar who belongs at the bottom of a swamp — with her seditionist “girlfriend” Huma.
jihad3tracker says
OOOPS ! ! ! Here is the omitted link on that American Thinker item:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/rebel_and_designated_driver_ted_cruz_and_ema_time_for_truthem_.html
——————-
John C. Barile says
Of course, there is no ideal candidate. Not quite.
Shane says
Rubio is terrible when it comes to immigration issues. He wants to increase immigration from Muslim countries. Cruz says that he will secure the border and deport illegal aliens, I don’t trust Rubio to do either.
John C. Barile says
J3tracker, if Trump is softening up the battlefield and exposing Hillary’s vulnerabilities, that’s good. Even so, I don’t think Trump is wholly credible, consistent, or competent enough to govern. He strikes me as an improviser, always winging it.
This talk of a “wall”–a “great wall”–doesn’t address the issue. I want to hear about resolute enforcement of our laws, rather.
Trump is good to ever be on the attack–but he has to be, as he can’t hide his own vulnerabilities. I wouldn’t have him as the Republican nominee, because I don’t want a candidate who is himself an issue.
jihad3tracker says
Agreed. Trump — even assuming he “hits the books” every night from now until January 2017 on all important things a president must be deeply informed about — would still be unfit in temperament and incapacity for rigorous analysis.
BTW, here is a brilliant piece by Deborah C. Tyler (also in American Thinker) about why — from the perspective human psychology — so many American’s have trouble clearly seeing Obama’s deliberate wrecking of America.
[If the hotlink bleeds over into the right side text, go to the A.T. website, looking for that author’s name.]
****** PLEASE PASS IT ALONG TO AS MANY FAMILY, FRIENDS, ELECTED OFFICIALS, CLERGY, ETCTERA AS POSSIBLE OVER THIS HOLIDAY WEEKEND WITH SOME SPARE TIME FOR READING. ******
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/why_people_cant_face_the_truth_about_obama_.html
John C. Barile says
Great links. Thanks.
PRCS says
How many times can Cruz regurgitate the idiotic phrase “radical Islamic terrorists” in one interview.
At least five times by my count.
Why does he use such a stupid euphemism? Does he really think there’s a difference between a “radical” Islamic terrorist and the regular, garden variety Islamic terrorist?
Is he pandering to the uninformed and sticking a finger in the eyes of those who know that line is a load of crap?
But, hey:
Trump now uses it, as does Ben Carson.
And most of the other GOP presidential candidates use their own concocted, poll tested obfuscations as well.
As do most Fox News “stars”–even their guests vomit that nonsense.
Just like the media.
John C. Barile says
Hillary doesn’t even say “Islamic.”
Let be be contrary and say that I really don’t think “radical Islamic terrorist” is redundant. The Provisional IRA and the Basque ETA were terrorist, but not Islamic. Terror refers to tactics, radical refers to ideology that’s uncompromising to the core.
The Islamists–the slow jihadists–don’t want us to refer to their active terrorist counterparts–the fast jihadists–as Islamic at all. That allows them to play out the good cop/bad cop routine, one hand complementing the other.
John C. Barile says
Let me be, that is.
John C. Barile says
To clarify, I do think “radical terrorist” is a useless formulation, since all terrorists are radicals, even if all radicals aren’t openly terrorist. But “radical Islamic terrorist” works, if “radical” modifies “Islamic.” It’s an irritating expression, but a politically expedient one.
Atheist kaffur says
Trump is the real leader Cruz and Rubio just follow. What I was surprised to hear was that suddenly everyone is an expert in Islam after Trump said that there was something going on with Muslims and Islam. If Cruz and Rubio were aware and educated about it why then were they not outspoken and forward. Neither had the balls to bring it up even as a question. Yes! what is going on with Muslims? You have to ask the question first before you accuse and shame them for following a hateful religion. You have to catch these terrorist alive and expose them and put Islam on trial. Yes! There is a recipe to minimize the effect of the nasty parts of Islam which I believe is most of it. The radical fringe must go unfortunately. The supporters have to be reeducate and Islam has to be reinterpreted or reformed. However the final solution is in the hands Muslims. They can simply secularize themselves. Except for the first nasty bit the rest is up to Muslims. If Isis is allowed to win there will be genocide for reason of revenge and religion. This propagation of theocratic Islamic fascism will not end well. People will wake up to it. Mr. Spenser is correct when he says that it has to get worse before it gets better. It will be difficult to obscure and spin doctor the mounting evidence of the religious motive and supremiscist ideology behind these groups. Muslims must bear all the burden and responsibility of redefining themselves or pay the consequence. I truly believe that the west is not ready to submit to Islam or Islamic terrorism any time in the near future.