• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

John Podhoretz to Robert Spencer: “You piece of sh*t”

Oct 2, 2016 12:09 pm By Robert Spencer

This unfolded on Twitter, where you can read the entire exchange (minus Podhoretz’s tweets, which, interestingly enough, he deleted). It began when Commentary senior editor Abe Greenwald rushed to the aid of dishonest “journalist” Sohrab Ahmari:

abe-greenwald

In response, I invited Greenwald to debate me; he responded that to do so would be “punching down,” whereupon I pointed out that I had sold far more books than he or Ahmari, and thus in debating me and, presumably, defeating me, he could end my baneful influence forever.

That’s when John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary, columnist for the New York Post, and contributing editor of the Weekly Standard, jumped in:

john-podhoretz-name-calling-spencer-1

john-podhoretz-name-calling-spencer-2

What on earth set John Podhoretz off on this juvenile tantrum? Did I take his lunch money? Did I pull the football away when he was about to kick it? No, I’ve never met John Podhoretz. I’ve never had any interaction with him at all. So what accounts for his frothing-at-the-mouth, unhinged rage and hatred? Well, obviously he doesn’t like the things I say and the positions I take, although I would be surprised if he has read anything I’ve written and expect that he only knows my work from the characterizations of it by those who oppose it.

But that isn’t the point here. The point is that an increasingly large segment of the American intelligentsia — primarily on the Left but also putative conservatives such as Podhoretz — do not engage intellectually those whom they oppose, but resort only to mocking and vilifying them, as if to disagree with the positions taken by someone like Podhoretz or Greenwald, or others who do this such as Reza Aslan, is evidence not only of stupidity but of a moral failing (note Podhoretz above saying I’m a “disgrace” not only “intellectually” but “morally,” as if noting that Islam is not a religion of peace is tantamount to molesting children or stealing the savings of old ladies).

Podhoretz and others like them think that the truth of their positions, and the falsehood of mine, is self-evident and thus needs no discussion or debate: he will assert that my work is somehow destructive and obviously false, but when asked to defend his claim, contemptuously refuses. Those of us who hold the positions to which he objects, whatever they exactly are, just have to take his word for it: he is smarter than we are, he knows the subject better than anyone, and doesn’t have to demonstrate a thing or produce any evidence.

This is how political leaders and the mainstream media are behaving in all sorts of contexts these days, and people are getting fed up. The Brexit vote and the ascendancy of a man with no political experience to be the nominee of a major party are indications that growing numbers of people are tired of the elitism and contempt of people such as John Podhoretz. We don’t believe him, we don’t accept what he says at face value, and we have nothing but contempt of our own for his refusal to defend the positions he asserts with such such foul-mouthed swagger.

These emperors — John Podhoretz and so many others — have no clothes. We know it and they know it. Hence their rising fury, their static and impotent rage as their vacuity is increasingly exposed.

(Thanks to Mohamed the Atheist for the screenshots of Podhoretz’s tweets.)

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Featured, Robert Spencer, Useful idiots Tagged With: Abe Greenwald, John Podhoretz, Sohrab Ahmari


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Michael Laudahn says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    I think I can indicate here that similar things seem to go on in other language areas, because this website just is a benchmark for everyone no matter where, but this can’t be explained in details for obvious reasons.

    • mortimer says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 1:37 pm

      Cursing is proof that an opponent has no argument and realizes he has lost the debate.

      Podhoretz is yet another COWARD who can through scatology, but wouldn’t last a minute in a debate with the MIGHTY ROBERT SPENCER, a genuine expert on the jihad doctrine.

      In debate, Podhoretz would be exposed as the grandiose circus clown he is … a pompous, total know-nothing on the subject of Islam.

      John Podhoretz is a poseur. He likely doesn’t know the names Islam’s foundational source texts…let alone anything that’s in them.

      • mortimer says

        Oct 2, 2016 at 1:42 pm

        Correction: can THROW scatology

        • Phil says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 7:24 pm

          Very Well said mortimer. And Mr. Sperncer. I hope that Trump gets elected and we continue saying these idiot, foul mouthed emperors have no clothes.

        • Praeceptor Maximus says

          Oct 3, 2016 at 5:43 am

          Wholeheartedly agree, mortimer.

        • Jeff says

          Oct 3, 2016 at 8:17 am

          If Trump loses, and I fear he will, Huma Abedin and Loretta Lynch may engineer a purge of anti Jihadist voices in America. The US Supreme Court may uphold “hate speech” laws, which will kill dissent in America. Then it’s every man for himself.

      • Louise from Canada says

        Oct 2, 2016 at 4:16 pm

        I love that name: MIGHTY ROBERT SPENCER! That is why nobody wants to get near him because they would ALL fall down! Love you Mr.Spencer!

      • JIMJFOX says

        Oct 3, 2016 at 2:26 pm

        My email to Commentary Editor—

        You are doubtless [uncomfortably?] aware of the juvenile, potty-mouthed Tweets your ‘columnist’ sent to Robert Spencer; when challenged to debate, this cowardly Mr Potato Head declined in more childlike tantrums of foul verbal diarrhea.
        My question is- Does this buffoon add anything to you credibility as a serious publication? Is it high time you gave him his marching orders?
        I look forward to your reply

        Regards
        Jim

      • Shane says

        Oct 3, 2016 at 5:07 pm

        Perhaps he is taking money from rich Saudis, as the Bushes and Clintons have. Clearly these clowns know they will lose in a debate with Robert, so they use vicious personal attacks against Robert as Islamists and liberals have been doing for many years.

      • WHY says

        Oct 4, 2016 at 12:48 am

        So when John Podhoretz takes a crap, whats on his hand? He sure knows what a piece of shit is. He represents sick liberalism and cannot reply with meaning

    • jihad3tracker says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 1:53 pm

      WOULD YOU LIKE TO LET JOHN PODHORETZ KNOW THAT HIS MANLY BITS HAVE BEEN SHREDDED BY ROBERT ??????

      This is an email path that is likely to reach him: service@commentarymagazine.com

      MAKE THE SUBJECT LINE DECEPTIVE SO IT WILL ACTUALLY BE OPENED AND READ.

      Something appropriately pompous and diffuse, such as: “Recent media dialogue on rigorous logic in apostatic instances” — referring to Sohrab Ahmani.

      BE CREATIVE + HAVE A BIT OF FUN — AND GIVE HIME THE LINK TO THIS POSTED ITEM.

      • gravenimage says

        Oct 2, 2016 at 4:20 pm

        jihad3tracker wrote:

        MAKE THE SUBJECT LINE DECEPTIVE SO IT WILL ACTUALLY BE OPENED AND READ.
        …………………………

        With all respect, jihad3tracker, you have counseled this before–but the fact is that we have truth on our side, and *do not have to* resort to lying and deception to get our point across.

        That is, in fact, the whole point of the Sohrab Ahmani story.

        • jihad3tracker says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 4:56 pm

          Yes, agreed, gravenimage, we do have truth on our side. But in my readings by media “elites” like Podhoretz, they are very nervous, avoiding a run at full speed into facts, not wishful fantasy regarding Islam’s essential mandate for subjugation and violence.

          An email titled “Robert Spencer responds to the Greenwald-Ahmari event” might be opened, but I’d bet it would discarded without reading if there were also a large number of similarly honest respondents lurking thereabouts at his Commentary account.

          However, I avoid future advice cheerleading for misleading email subject lines — taking your comment as well-advised. (Now bailing out of this thread to do annoying chores — see you elsewhere on JW later!)

        • le mouron rouge says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 5:48 pm

          gravenimage.

          Amen!

          In these very difficult times, especially with the left bending and shaping the language, it is most important that those of us on the right continue to take the high road.

          True, it’s a difficult path, taking the high road, especially in this generation where “emotion” seems to rule the day and all is relative, however, the reward far out-weighs the need for instant gratification.

        • gravenimage says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 6:24 pm

          Thank you, jihad3tracker and le mouron rouge!

          I always look for your comments.

      • Carmel says

        Oct 3, 2016 at 5:50 pm

        I send an email to the suggested ” path ” to annoy the man at least a little and I received an automatic answer .

    • Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 7:16 pm

      Dear Michael Laudahn,
      You write, “I think I can indicate here that similar things seem to go on in other language areas, because this website just is a benchmark for everyone no matter where, but this can’t be explained in details for obvious reasons.”

      Whenever I see the phrase “for obvious reasons”, a mental warning goes atwitter, because most of the time — as here — I can’t figure out what the reasons are. Further questions are: “similar” to what in what way?, and what other language areas? (do you mean on websites in languages other than English?)
      Could you please restate you point so that it might be understood by an intelligent but ignorant child.

      • Michael Laudahn says

        Oct 2, 2016 at 8:32 pm

        I will try to. See, I work the internet in a number of languages. Something like jihadwatch.org and its author is nowhere else to be seen. But the problems these other countries are facing are the same like yours.

        Given the fact that english is a/the universal language, what would suggest itself more but confronting the local ignorant bigshots with this source, and preferably with a number of copies sent to their not only entourage but also adversaries? This will probably lead to gradual cracks in the ideolgical concrete.

        The nature of this fight is partially similar, partially different from what it is in the US, as a consequence of the overall circumstances. Still, we can draw profit from this website and the associated video clips, according to my impression. And we thankfully continue to do do, not least in the assumption that doing so is not against the author’s intention.

        • Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says

          Oct 3, 2016 at 12:07 am

          Thank you for your kind reply. I still don’t know what the obvious reasons are or what they are reasons for. But thanks for the reminder that Jihadwatch.org is unique, and not just one of many similar websites monitoring the daily doings of jihadis. Would it be feasible to have Jihadwatch echoed in other languages (Arabic, French, German), possibly automatically using something like Google Translate? As it is even now, I can’t keep up with all the items that appear on Jihadwatch every day. Jihadis, please stop creating so much news!

        • Michael Laudahn says

          Oct 3, 2016 at 5:51 am

          The ‘obvious reasons’ are complicated to explain here, but are actually self-evident the moment you find yourself in this situation. .)

          Regarding further spreading, the only thing that can be done (according to my view) is keep on drawing people’s attention to it, and a practical method is to use email to the opponent (best after he’s made a declaration where he showed his ignorance or whatever it is), his entourage, plus some of his detractors. ‘ Ça va faire parler’ ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8yaiN6ew_g , second 55).

          jihadwatch.org is unique as is its author, so there is no way of translating it adequately, let alone by a machine.

  2. Jewish Crusader says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    You let them so called smarter than you crowd have it Robert,nobody has even hear of those two retards,they are pissed at the world cause when they were growing up they got there lunch money taken from them bye the school bully,poor little retards.

    • Christianblood says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 8:37 pm

      Jewish Crusader

      I like your moniker! “Jewish Crusader! “. Love you!
      Keep it up bro! You rarely hear such a “Crusader” sentiment from our Jewish bros.

      • Lioness says

        Oct 3, 2016 at 12:43 pm

        I find it particularly painful when Jews like Podhoretz and Greenwald buy into the islamic doctrine and vilify anyone who criticizes extremism and jihad. Glaring example, of course, is the vile Soros. As much as I admire Jews and support Israel, it always puzzled me why so many Jews, particularly in America, are so rabidly leftist. I am sure that their support and admiration of islam is not reciprocated by muslims, who still hate their guts and at the first opportunity would be happy to slit their throats, but for the time being are using them as useful idiots for their own agenda.

  3. El Cid says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    Robert,

    Do you have any idea what John takes offense to? Or why they think you are intellectually inadequate?

    Can you ask him for some feedback for all of us?

    For me, I admire that you are always willing to confront the questions head on. That’s the Western way.

  4. Kepha says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 12:36 pm

    This is rather surprising. Of all the publications which ought to be wary of Jihadism, I would think that _Commentary_ would be out in front. Could it be that Podhoretz is himself influenced by a climate of opinion in which Leftist mud-slinging on behalf of their clients has dirtied his own powers of judgment?

    • Steve Klein says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 12:45 pm

      I don’t know where Mr. Podhoretz stood on former President Bush and his many misleading assertions about the religion of Islam. Lots of Jewish conservatives (so-called “neo-conservatives”) abandoned Israel in their support for George W. Bush, his war in Iraq, his lengthy occupation of that country, his democratisation scheme, nation building, winning hearts and minds, etc. Bush made the establishment of a Muslim enemy state in Israel a formal goal of U.S. policy, early October 2001, days after the 9/11 attacks. I don’t remember reading or hearing any dissent from Jewish conservatives over that unconscionable betrayal of an ally, sadly.

      • Wellington says

        Oct 2, 2016 at 2:21 pm

        I don’t get, Steve Klein, where you come up with the idea that “Lots of Jewish conservatives (so-called ‘neo-conservatives’) abandoned Israel in their support for George W. Bush, his war in Iraq……..” You do know that a very, very large portion of Israeli Jews supported the taking out of Saddam Hussein. When the recently deceased Shimon Peres was asked by a reporter if he thought what Bush did in removing SH was a good thing, he replied, after collecting himself for a moment that anyone could ask such a dumb question, that of course it was something good. And remember, Peres was someone who could be found on the left in Israeli politics.

        As for your claim that “Bush made the establishment of a Muslim enemy state in Israel a formal goal of U.S. policy…..”, all Bush did was assert what even Israel from 1948 onwards has asserted and that is that it is prepared to live in peace alongside a Palestinian state if said state will live in peace with Israel, recognize it with no tricks, etc. Bush made the establishment of a Palestinian state quite conditional (frankly, I think Bush thought it was highly unlikely that the so-called Palestinians would meet his terms but he made the proposal for form’s sake), including that said state would be a true democracy, live in peace beside Israel and, if I’m not mistaken, even be disarmed. Bush proposed no more than many, many Israeli politicians have proposed since the 1947 UN partition plan was accepted by the Jews but not by the Arabs.

        Where Bush did err was in thinking that real democracy could be established in a country like Iraq. What Bush should have done was get rid of SH—–which he had to do because SH was a megalomaniac out of control who was regularly violating the truce terms of the 1991 war (e.g., firing almost daily on British and American jets in the two no-fly zones over Iraq) and because ever major intelligence agency on the planet thought he was not coming clean about WMDs—–keep most of the Iraqi army in tact, and select from it an officer who would have been an authoritarian like Mubarak in Egypt but not someone like SH who was a brutal nut job. But Bush’s ignorance of Islam blinded him in this regard and so he made an attempt to install democracy in a Muslim land which is virtually an impossible thing to do.

        • Steve Klein says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 3:16 pm

          “As for your claim that “Bush made the establishment of a Muslim enemy state in Israel a formal goal of U.S. policy…..”, all Bush did was assert what even Israel from 1948 onwards has asserted….”

          Wellington, I only want to comment on one point for now because I am in a bit of a rush. Other than Spencer’s books on Islam, I did a fair amount of research post 9/11 on the Bush family and their incestuous relationship with our Saudi enemies. Why didn’t you? I voted for Bush in 2000, sadly. President George W. Bush (like Hillary Clinton) is very compromised, he and his father. Let me post some excerpts from a couple of books. Let’s discuss it since you are not as well informed as you should be on this issue:

          David Ottoway wrote: August 2001, Saudi Crown Prince “Abdullah ordered (Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. Prince) Bandar to lodge a diplomatic protest immediately with Bush and Powell over (an) Israeli incursion and mistreatment of Palestinian civilians (following bloody ‘Palestinian’ suicide bombings and jihad terror).

          Abdullah told the prince that he had a lot more for him to relay to the U.S. president and that he was dispatching a courier overnight with his “talking points.” Never mind that it was a lazy August weekend when most senior Bush officials were on vacation and out of town like the president. When the courier arrived the next morning with Abdullah’s talking points, Bandar was shocked. He found they went on for twenty-five pages and at times were so menacing in tone that he asked the crown prince to reconsider. He argued that it was “not the right time” for a confrontation, but Abdullah insisted. So Bandar delivered the message to the two highest officials he could find still in Washington at the end of August, Powell and Condoleezza Rice.

          “From Roosevelt to Clinton, we had more agreements than disagreements,” Bandar opened in summarizing the message’s gist. “But the disagreements we understood why. We never thought, never had any doubt, that America would protect its national interests in the region, and that Saudi Arabia’s interest is part of America’s national interest. “However, now we believe there was a strategic decision by the United States that its national interest in the Middle East is 100 percent based on Sharon. Not even Israel. Sharon’s policies. We really believed that this was not true. And everybody denied this to us for these last few months.

          (Saudi brinkmanship)

          “In that case, it changes the equation between our two countries. We respect America as a superpower. We respect America to make its decision as a sovereign nation, and we respectfully disagree with you. Starting from today, as they say, ‘You’re from Uruguay. I am from Uruguay. You go your way, I go my way.’* “From now on, we will protect our national interests regardless of where America’s interests lie in the region politically, militarily, and security-wise . . . We have to get busy rearranging our lives in the Middle East.”

          Bandar said he had never carried a message “more plain, more depressing, more painful” to the White House. He felt personally betrayed by Bush because he had been making excuses for him back home for the past six months, pleading with Abdullah to “just give them time.”

          (George W. Bush capitulates)

          Shocked by this ultimatum, (Condoleezza) Rice told Bandar that there had been no change in U.S. policy. She agreed to take the message to the president.

          For his part, Bush still had no intention of getting involved in the sticky Middle East peace process. Nevertheless, Bush was so stunned by the Saudi threat that he immediately did an about-face.

          Bandar had thought it would take four or five days to get a reply from the White House. To his great surprise, the administration went into overdrive, and thirty-six hours later he had Bush’s response in hand. It was just two pages long and “very classic Texan” in its bluntness, as Bandar remembered it.

          Bush rejected the notion that the blood of a Palestinian child was any less dear to him than that of an Israeli one. “I believe innocent people’s blood is the same— Palestinian, Israeli, Jewish, Christian, Muslim.” Bush even directly addressed Abdullah’s cry of pain over the mistreatment of the elderly Palestinian lady by the Israeli soldier, saying, “I don’t accept the humiliation of people.” He also rejected those who said, “When you kill a Palestinian, it’s defense; when a Palestinian kills an Israeli, it’s a terrorist act.”

          He laid out what he thought both Arafat and Sharon had to do to get negotiations going, exhibiting a balance of blame and responsibility that had been so notably lacking in Saudi eyes at his Crawford press conference.

          Finally, Bush committed the United States for the first time in writing to seeing a Palestinian state established alongside Israel.

          (Craig Unger wrote: “Abdullah had played the game well. He had banged his fist and the United States had jumped. He was so thrilled with his victory, the Post reported, that he proudly showed off his correspondence— Bush’s two-page letter and the long message he had given Bandar— as trophies to Arab leaders in Syria, Egypt, and Jordan.

          At Abdullah’s invitation, Yasir Arafat came all the way from South Africa to Riyadh especially to read it. Then Abdullah sent Bandar back to Washington to help transform the words into deeds— and to convince the president to make public that he was calling for a Palestinian state.”)

          Bandar was overwhelmed. He hadn’t thought the young Bush had had it in him. He described the tone of his letter to Abdullah as “almost rhythmic” and “very flowery.” He had never seen this Bush expressing such humane concerns. “We found this guy really has feelings and emotions.

          (“The King’s Messenger: Prince Bandar bin Sultan and America’s Tangled Relationship With Saudi Arabia,” by David B. Ottaway, David pages 149- 153, Elsa Walsh, The Prince)

        • jihad3tracker says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 3:18 pm

          Hello again Wellington — Thank you for another fact-based lucid condensation of events.

          IMHO, Bush could not be a realist on the likelihood of lasting non-rigged popularly elected representational governance in Iraq because the 20th Century’s “nation building” (AKA the Wilson Doctrine) yielded positive results along with failures, and thus was irresistible to well-intended Americans.

        • Steve Klein says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 3:29 pm

          “But Bush’s ignorance of Islam blinded him in this regard and so he made an attempt to install democracy in a Muslim land which is virtually an impossible thing to do….”

          You will recall Bush and Rice strongly pressured the Israelis against their better judgement to let Hamas participate in the January 2006 elections. Bush and Rice were sure ‘Palestinians’ would choose “moderate” (Jew-hating) fatah jihadists over genocidal (“Islamist”) Hamas jihadists. Palestinians elected Hamas in elections Bush and Rice called open and fair. Then the Bush administration refused to recognize the “democratic” will of the Palestinian peoples. Bush was a disaster. Is any wonder we got 8 years of Barack Obama?

        • Steve Klein says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 3:37 pm

          jihad3tracker, it wasn’t Mr. Bush’s misguided democratization scheme, nation building, etc., it was his false conception of Islamic religion, history and culture (Islam is a religion whose “teachings are peaceful and good” Bush insisted) that he conveyed to the American people to the end of his second term. It had disastrous consequences for this nation. We continue to pay for it.

        • Wellington says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 3:59 pm

          You keep switching topics, Steve Klein. I asserted that Bush’s proposal for a Palestinian state, which you denounced in your 12:45 P.M. post, that would live in true peace along side Israel was no different than what Israeli Jews have been prepared to accept since the 1947 UN partition plan and you then, without answering me here, went on to another topic—–the Bush/Saudi relationship. That’s not cricket and you know this or should know it.

        • gravenimage says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 4:27 pm

          Fine post, Wellington.

        • Steve Klein says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 4:28 pm

          Wellington, I did not switch topics. George W. Bush was the first American president to make the establishment of a ‘Palestinian’ (jihadi) state in Israel’s heartland a “formal goal of U.S. policy.” What Israeli Jews have been prepared to accept is not the point. I am not an Israeli. I am an American citizen. Bush made this formal policy pronouncement early October 2001, only weeks following the September attacks in keeping with a pledge he made to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. Maybe you remember the following?

          CNN LIVE TODAY

          Aired October 5, 2001 – 12:06 ET

          THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

          ARIEL SHARON, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: We can rely on ourselves, only. We are currently in midst of a complex and difficult political campaign. I call on the western democracy, and primarily the leader of the free world, the United States, do not repeat the dreadful mistake of 1938, when enlightened European democracies decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a convenient, temporary solution. Do not try to appease the Arabs at our expense. This is unacceptable to us. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. Israel will fight terrorism. (END VIDEO CLIP)

          WOODRUFF: Sharon’s criticism coming after statements by the Bush administration, just a couple of days ago, that they do foresee a Palestinian state at the end of the process of peace negotiations in the Middle East. Joining us now our White House correspondent John King, the White House not very happy with Mr. Sharon.

          JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Not happy at all, Judy, and a very rare public criticism, rebuttal of what the prime minister just said there; but also behind the scenes an effort, a private diplomatic effort to try to turn down the volume, if you will, and get this relationship back on track. First the public criticism. The White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer today telling reporters — quote — “[T]he prime minister’s comments are unacceptable. Israel has no stronger friend and ally in the world than the United States. President Bush is an especially close friend of Israel. The United States has been working for months to press the parties to end the violence, and return to a political dialogue.”

          But it is that United States’ effort that has the prime minister so upset, and at the highest levels of the administration they understand that. They don’t like what he said. But I’m told that Secretary of State Powell spoke to the prime minister yesterday afternoon, and then again this morning; asking him to try to calm down the rhetoric anyway. But the administration saying, he’s very frustrated. That is frustration talking, and you can’t blame him. We have put him in a very difficult position.

        • gravenimage says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 4:35 pm

          Steve Klein wrote:

          “As for your claim that “Bush made the establishment of a Muslim enemy state in Israel a formal goal of U.S. policy…..”, all Bush did was assert what even Israel from 1948 onwards has asserted….”

          Wellington, I only want to comment on one point for now because I am in a bit of a rush. Other than Spencer’s books on Islam, I did a fair amount of research post 9/11 on the Bush family and their incestuous relationship with our Saudi enemies. Why didn’t you? I voted for Bush in 2000, sadly…
          ………………………………

          Steve, I note that you do not address what Wellington had to say about Israel at all, where he is absolutely correct. This has not just been a Bush policy, but an American and Israeli one for many decades–on paper, at least.

          As for the Bush family’s ties to Saudi Arabia, Wellington has spoken critically about this here several times. Your idea–which came out of left field–that he is ignorant about this is quite mistaken.

          As to your last point, above: even with all George Bush’s shortcomings, the implication that Al Gore would have been a better hand at the helm than was Bush post 9/11 is, I believe, *very* debatable.

        • Wellington says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 4:47 pm

          You bring up Sharon, Steve Klein, but Sharon was the PM who decided to give up Gaza, that in hindsight was clearly a mistake (which at the time I said so to an Israeli whom I taught, one who had been in the IDF, and who supported Sharon in this initiative but years later conceded that I had been right), a deed far more problematical than Bush’s “mere” proposal for a peaceful Palestinian state living along side Israel IF certain conditions were met.

          You also didn’t address my contention, refuting yours in your 12:45 P.M. post, that a very large majority of Israeli Jews DID support the taking out by Bush of Saddam Hussein. I provided you an example with Shimon Peres. Frankly, I’m not a fan of your debating style.

        • Spot On says

          Oct 4, 2016 at 9:04 am

          Nice discussion but not relevant when we lose in the end. Bush was short sighted and forgot that winning is paramount. In WWII, the goal was to win or else and PC be damned. All focus was to win and the hell with any justification for losing. Bush was short sighted to compromise winning war efforts to maintain support for the war. This is what happened in Vietnam. Wars should not be started unless they can be won. Bush foolishly thought that Islamic people would jump at the chance to have Western freedom.

          Obviously the Bush family has problems that we do not understand. Their support for crooked Hillary who openly flaunts the law to spite Trump’s win over Jeb is another example of foolish behavior and very bad judgement. It seems the Bush family is not what they appear to be.

      • Steve Klein says

        Oct 2, 2016 at 5:00 pm

        gravenimage, I did not vote for Al Gore in 2000. I voted for George W. Bush. I expected better, especially in the aftermath of the September attacks. Didn’t you? The point isn’t what Israel’s leaders will accept or support. I am an American citizen and a conservative. Shouldn’t we expect better from our leaders (George W. Bush) than the misleading thing he said about Islam and how Israel illegitimately “occupies” Muslim land? You do know that is the kind of nonsense Bush, Clinton and Obama peddle? It is false. Isn’t it? When you say, “all Bush did was assert what even Israel from 1948 onwards has asserted….” who speaks for Israel in your view?

        Israel accepted the 1947 United Nations partition plan. All the Arab (Muslim Arab) states rejected it outright, opting for wars of annihilation. Israel “repossessed” what rightly belonged to her in the 1967 Six Day war. US policy has aimed at wresting this land from Israel, giving it to the ‘Palestinians’. Do you support this policy? You might have noticed, the delegates to our 2016 Republican party platform jettisoned Bush’s immoral language envisioning a Muslim-enemy state in Israel’s heartland. George W. Bush betrayed fundamental conservative principles. You aren’t denying it are you?

        Rep. Alan Clemmons (South Carolina delegate) who introduced the 2016 Republican party platform language, said: “The false notion that Jewish state is an occupier, is an anti-Semitic attack on Israel’s legitimacy. It is impossible for the Jew to be an occupier in his own ancestral homeland, a region that has been known as Judea since time immemorial…”

        • Wellington says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 5:14 pm

          You did it again, Steve Klein. You convoluted the creation of a Palestinian state IF it met several conditions with the admirable Republican position in 2016 that Israel is not an illegitimate occupier of certain lands (UN Resolution 242 is, of course, a key factor here and I hope you understand at least this).

          You also moved to the January 2006 elections where the Bush Administration stupidly advocated Hamas participation but did not address your initial charge that Bush in 2001, arguing for a peaceful Palestinian state, was doing something awful, when in fact it only mirrored what Israeli Jews have been ready to accept since the late 1940s and which many previous Presidential Administrations endorsed de facto. Bush merely moved it to de jure status. Or don’t you realize even this?

        • Steve Klein says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 5:25 pm

          Wellington, you wrote: “your initial charge that Bush in 2001 argued for a peaceful Palestinian state was doing something awful…”

          Yes it was awful. Yes is was evil. It was and is delusional. Do you entertain these delusions Wellington? Remember Bush called arch-terrorist (Holocaust denier) Mahmoud Abbas, “a man of peace; a man of vision”? It’s crazy. It is evil. It is awful. I hope you don’t likewise embrace these horrid fantasies Bush embraced. Do you?

        • Wellington says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 5:52 pm

          Per your 5:25 P.M. post, Steve Klein, if Bush in 2001 was doing something evil by advocating a Palestinian state along side Israel that would fully recognize Israel, live in peace with Israel and be fully democratic, then you cannot escape the conclusion that from 1947 onwards, from Ben-Gurion onwards, Israeli Jews were also doing something evil since they were prepared to accept the same damn thing.

          And I sense in your latest comment emotion overtaking reason. Oh yes I do.

        • gravenimage says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 7:22 pm

          Steve Klein wrote:

          gravenimage, I did not vote for Al Gore in 2000. I voted for George W. Bush.
          …………………………….

          I know–that you said. But you also noted “I voted for Bush in 2000, sadly”. There were only two choices. Despite his many mistakes, I still think that Bush was the better choice. I voted for him in 2004, despite his shortcomings, because the alternative was clearly worse.

          More:

          I expected better, especially in the aftermath of the September attacks. Didn’t you?
          …………………………….

          I don’t know if I expected better–certainly, I had hoped for better.

          More:

          The point isn’t what Israel’s leaders will accept or support. I am an American citizen and a conservative. Shouldn’t we expect better from our leaders (George W. Bush) than the misleading thing he said about Islam and how Israel illegitimately “occupies” Muslim land? You do know that is the kind of nonsense Bush, Clinton and Obama peddle?
          …………………………….

          I have always strongly supported Israel and her right to exist–as anyone who have been reading here even a short period would know. I do not consider Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria to be “occupation”.

          But I do not consider all of these presidents to be of a piece. Clinton was a fairly run-of-the-mill supporter of Israel, Bush was generally a staunch supporter, and the appalling Obama has many times thrown Israel under the bus.

          The Jerusalem Post thanked George Bush for regularly asserting that “Israel has the right to defend itself”

          The article goes on to say:

          “While it may be easy to view Bush’s support as the mere continuation of a process which can be traced to Johnson, Reagan or AIPAC, Bush took the “special relationship” to the next level. Reagan had been friendly to Israel but often chastised it, while Ford and Bush I had exhibited outright hostility. Bush virtually rid the Republican party of such hostility and replaced it with diehard support.”

          http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Thank-you-George-W-Bush-313254

          More:

          It is false. Isn’t it? When you say, “all Bush did was assert what even Israel from 1948 onwards has asserted….” who speaks for Israel in your view?
          …………………………….

          Actually, I did not say that–Wellington did. But I agree–many people, both American and Israeli–have hoped for a “two-state solution” to work.

          When I first heard of the “two state solution” as a teenager back in the 1970s, I thought it was a great idea. Was this because I wanted to see Israel come to harm? Anything but–I hoped it would bring peace to the region. I just–like so many other people–did not understand the nature of the Muslim Jihad against Israel. I have long since realized that this will never work–Islam wants to see the destruction of all of Israel.

          But that does not mean that everyone who has supported the idea of the “two state solution” at various times wishes Israel ill–not at all. And despite your assertion, delusion–while it may *enable* evil, is not always evil in and of itself.

          There are many clueless people who mean well, but who are misinformed or laboring under delusions. They are different in kind from those who actively seek to do evil.

          Why you have the idea that Wellington and myself–of all people!–do not support Israel is unclear to me.

        • Ballantine1979 says

          Oct 4, 2016 at 11:58 am

          “Steve Klein, if Bush in 2001 was doing something evil by advocating a Palestinian state along side Israel that would fully recognize Israel, live in peace with Israel and be fully democratic, then you cannot escape the conclusion that from 1947 onwards, from Ben-Gurion onwards, Israeli Jews were also doing something evil since they were prepared to accept the same damn thing. ”

          The only good thing about all those attempts by Israel and American Presidents like Bush is that they exposed how the Muslims don’t really want peace at all (or at least exposed that to people who have eyes to see). But to think that most of those Israeli leaders and American politicians (especially “religion of peace” Bush) were not idealistic and naive and didn’t really sincerely believe the absurd notion that evil Muslims want peace, is just another kind of naive.

    • Bezelel says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 12:46 pm

      No doubt

    • heidi says

      Oct 3, 2016 at 3:23 am

      Podshitz is no conservative. the correct term is “cuckservative”. A “cuckservative” a so-called conservative who joined forces with wealthy liberal globalists in openly supporting a massive immigration invasion, relying on bad ideology, outdated economics, and historical myths to falsely claim that immigration is a moral imperative, an economic necessity, and in the national interest. (paraphrased from Vox Day book on Cuckservatives, How conservatives betrayed America–a must read!)

  5. Steve Klein says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    I am not a regular Commentary reader. If I have the website Bookmarked, it is somewhere on my sidebar, not at the top of the screen with Jihad Watch, Pamela’s site, Washington Free Beacon, Israeli news sites, etc. Does anyone here read Mr. Podhoretz? What is his position on the religion of Islam, jihad, sharia, etc.?

    • gravenimage says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 4:51 pm

      As I posted below in my 4:13 pm comment, Steve, that is what makes this so odd. John Podhoretz, while he has spent most of his time recently bashing Trump, is nonetheless pretty solid in his opposition to violent Jihad:

      “The Paris Horror Was Not ‘Contained’

      https://www.commentarymagazine.com/terrorism/isis-paris-horror-not-contained/

      I don’t think he knows much about the tenets of Islam from which Jihad originates, but his unhinged animus toward Robert Spencer still seems bizarre here.

      • Steve Klein says

        Oct 2, 2016 at 5:17 pm

        Power Exercised By The Majority In America Upon Opinion In America, when the majority has once irrevocably decided a question, all discussion ceases…..

        “In America the majority raises very formidable barriers to the liberty of opinion: within these barriers an author may write whatever he pleases, but he will repent it if he ever step beyond them. Not that he is exposed to the terrors of an auto-da-fe, but he is tormented by the slights and persecutions of daily obloquy…..

        Before he published his opinions he imagined that he held them in common with many others; but no sooner has he declared them openly than he is loudly censured by his overbearing opponents, whilst those who think without having the courage to speak, like him, abandon him in silence…..

        The sovereign can no longer say, “You shall think as I do on pain of death;” but he says, “You are free to think differently from me, and to retain your life, your property, and all that you possess; but if such be your determination, you are henceforth an alien among your people. You may retain your civil rights, but they will be useless to you, for you will never be chosen by your fellow-citizens if you solicit their suffrages, and they will affect to scorn you if you solicit their esteem. You will remain among men, but you will be deprived of the rights of mankind. Your fellow-creatures will shun you like an impure being, and those who are most persuaded of your innocence will abandon you too, lest they should be shunned in their turn. Go in peace! I have given you your life, but it is an existence in comparably worse than death.”

        “Democracy in America,” by Alexis de Tocqueville – Volume 1

        • Mark Swan says

          Oct 3, 2016 at 1:14 am

          It is Just pecking Order, used by Birds such as Chickens, but Birds just have brains,
          Humans on the other hand have minds, their capacity is infinitely superior, except
          for human nature which begins its development from birth, Human potential is a
          wide open one, but hampered by human nature which fights us all the way.

          Winston S. Churchill —

          ‘Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them
          pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.’

      • Ballantine1979 says

        Oct 4, 2016 at 11:59 am

        “Podhoretz, while he has spent most of his time recently bashing Trump, is nonetheless pretty solid in his opposition to violent Jihad:”
        “The Paris Horror Was Not ‘Contained’

        I read that just now, there’s nothing in there about jihad, or even Islam or Muslims. He’s just talking about ISIS like that’s the only problem.

  6. Bezelel says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    El Cid, It is doubtful that John has an idea about his offensive posturing or he would be willing to discuss it.Character assassination is mud slinging and this is election season. Facts are too uncomfortable to deal with and don’t suit the agenda.

  7. Wellington says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 12:45 pm

    There was a time when I had admiration for John Podhoretz. No longer.

    What makes this all the more troubling is that he is not a leftist, in fact far from it. His conservative credentials have been know by all for a long time now (e.g., he was a speechwriter for President Reagan). You expect demonization from the Left but when it comes from the Right as well against an intrepid and knowledgeable man like Robert Spencer, it’s not just irritating but depressing. And it makes it more likely, not less, that Islam will prevail after all.

    Profound shame on you Podhoretz. Profound shame.

    • Steve Klein says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 12:49 pm

      Wellington, Reagan is a kind of god within conservative circles. Fact of the matter is – as terrific as he was enunciating conservative principles here at home – he stumbled badly in the Middle East like almost every other American president.

      • Wellington says

        Oct 2, 2016 at 2:33 pm

        I agree Reagan did not do well where the Middle East was concerned, ditto for so many other Presidents, because Reagan as with other Presidents had little knowledge of Islam. Reagan’s enemy du jour was Communism and it is here where he was quite successful. As Alexander Besmertnykh, Gorbachev’s Foreign Minister, said, “Reagan’s military build up and Strategic Defense Initiative accelerated the demise of the Soviet Union.”

        You fight the principal enemy of your time, even if you have to make a bargain with a loathsome person or regime. A classic case of this is America’s aligning with Stalin against Hitler. Only naïve idealists and intellectual types can’t see this since they tend to imagine the world as they want it to be rather than as it is. As JFK put it, he had rarely met an intellectual “with both feet on the ground.”

        • Steve Klein says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 3:52 pm

          I agree Reagan knowledge of Islam was limited but that isn’t the point. It did not take a thorough knowledge of Islam to realize, not only did Israel do the US a favor when she destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, 1981 – Reagan ordered UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick to condemn Israel in the UN Security Council – but Reagan was apoplectic over Israel’s Operation Peace for the Galilee (1982-1983). Israel would have cleansed Lebanon of PLO and other jihadists, returning the country to Christian rule. Reagan went nuts; ordered Begin to retreat. He sent in the U.S. Marines as part of an international effort to assist the PLO, along with Yasser Arafat escape to Tunis, along with their sidearms. U.S. Marines displaced the IDF; they occupied Beirut. Remember the 1983 U.S. Marines Barracks (Iranian / Hezbollah) suicide bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines? The late Osama bin Laden did not forget how the U.S. fled Lebanon in the bombing’s aftermath. Osama bin Laden was greatly inspired by the retreat.

        • gravenimage says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 5:02 pm

          Reagan was extremely concerned and knowledgeable about the threat of Communism–but like so many, did not appear to be able to grasp that we could have more than one enemy at a time. As great as he was on Communism, he appears to have completely missed the threat of Islam.

          Of course, that was true of most at the time.

          I was alarmed over the threat to Israel and over the Hostage Crisis in Iran–but I have to be honest, I don’t think I really particularly linked these issues with each other, and I *certainly* did not think that Islam would be the existential threat that it would reveal itself to be in just the last few decades.

        • Wellington says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 6:45 pm

          That condemnation in the UN Security Council, Steve Klein, was purely pro forma. My God, aside from the fact that you can’t approach even remotely a defensible objectivity about Reagan and the Bushes, you also seem to be completely incapable of understanding any aspect of Realpolitik.

          I’m reminded here of that great film, The Lion in Winter, when Henry II (played magnificently by Peter O’Toole) says to his mistress when she asks him why he said what he did to others, most especially to his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine ( played equally magnificently by Katherine Hepburn), who is his political enemy, “Good God, you don’t think I really meant it, do you?”

          Grasp the essence of this, Steve Klein, and perhaps you will develop a better understanding of how the world really works. If you think this comment of mine is meant to be condescending, then thankfully you grasp at least this.

          Finally, you simply can’t seem to comprehend that THE reason Reagan stumbled in the Middle East was due, above all other reasons, precisely to his dearth of knowledge about Islam——as I stated. And yet you averred in your 3:52 P.M. post that Reagan’s limited knowledge of Islam isn’t the point. But it is PRECISELY the point. If Ronald Reagan had understood Islam as well as he understood Communism, do you really think he would have acted as he did in ALL of his Middle Eastern dealings? Contemplate this if you will.

    • Jay Boo says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 12:51 pm

      I wrongly assumed that Podhoretz was a Leftist. He must be watching too much Saturday Night Live.

    • Jay Boo says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 2:06 pm

      Maybe someone hacked his Twitter password and account.
      Here is one good article by John P. criticizing Obo

      “Obama says we are to blame not Islamic terrorism for Orlando massacre.”

      http://nypost.com/2016/06/12/obama-says-we-are-to-blame-not-islamic-terrorism-for-orlando-massacre/

      • underbed cat says

        Oct 2, 2016 at 2:40 pm

        Obama and his administration word purged national security. Protecting Islam. Sure sign of misinformation in action and word. Weird times.

        • underbed cat says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 2:43 pm

          Back to topic, Robert Spencer is an expert….this misinformed Republican Pod could just read one of Roberts books or peak inside the Quran….

    • JIMJFOX says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 2:43 pm

      He is a spewer of verbal diarrhea of the foulest stench…

    • William says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 3:45 pm

      It seems shocking that someone like Podhoretz would attack Mr. Spencer, but it is not so shocking if you accept as a fact that a major realignment is going on in this country. The old allegiances and labels no longer hold. Ever since Trump, I am constantly being surprised by people willingly exposing and outing themselves, taking positions that appear contrary to expectation. Folks, a profound re-alignment is happening before our very eyes. The ground is shifting below our feet, and I am not sure what form America will take when the tremors cease. We are living an epoch changing moment. Smell the roses!

      • Ashley says

        Oct 2, 2016 at 4:43 pm

        Thank you for your refreshing comment, William.

        I live in Massachusetts…the epicenter of liberal politics, liberal colleges and universities, and liberal ideology. Although a registered Independent, I generally vote Democrat (I DID vote for William Weld and Mitt Romney for governors of my state…along with the majority of The Commonwealth…both Weld and Romney were elected). It wasn’t so much that Massachusetts was “crazy” about Weld and Romney, just that the Democratic candidates at the time really sucked.

        I’m guilty. I voted for Obama…twice. The first time with great hope, the second time with little enthusiasm and a spirit of resignation. Please…don’t rub my face in my foolhardy ways. I do that on my own every day…

        My point is this. I see what you see…the ground shifting. Here on Martha’s Vineyard I have only seen TWO Clinton/Kaine bumper stickers on cars. I’ve seen FOUR Trump/Pease bumper stickers. A scant eight years ago, the island was a sea of Obama/Biden stickers and lawn signs. Ditto four years ago, but not quite as “loud” as in 2008.

        Folks here are keeping their political views close to their vest these days…an anomaly. I strongly suspect there are many “closet” Trump supporters here on the island who dare not “advertise” their chosen candidate via stickers and signs.

        I don’t care for Donald Trump. But there is no way in hell I can vote for Hillary Clinton.

        I may have to sit this election out…

        Your comment resonated with me. To borrow from Buffalo Springfield…”There is something happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear…”

        • gravenimage says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 5:08 pm

          Just so you know, Podhoretz has spent most of the last several months doing almost nothing but bashing Trump. Here are his “Commentary” articles:

          https://www.commentarymagazine.com/author/john-podhoretz/

        • Jeff says

          Oct 4, 2016 at 1:24 am

          Sitting home on election day is a vote for Hillary Arafat and Huma Abedin Arafat Weiner. I never liked Trump, but I decided to vote for him after his “muslim ban” speech. Nothing is more critical than keeping muslims out of the US.

  8. Jackson03 says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    I would love to witness a Spencer-Podhoretz debate. However, I expect it would in the end be fruitless: The likes of Podhoretz and his followers are as impervious to real evidence as the most desperately held religious faith healers.

    • Keith says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 1:08 pm

      Impervious he maybe but the idea of a debate isn’t to convince your opponent of your position and get him to abandon his position but to allow both sides of the argument to be aired equally and fairly to an audience who then make up their minds about the contents of that debate.
      If you can convince your opponent to change his position that is an added benefit but not very likely.

      • gravenimage says

        Oct 2, 2016 at 5:11 pm

        Very true, Keith.

    • billybob says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 2:44 pm

      Problem is, Spencer can’t debate with anyone, because he is right, and Islam is indefensible. Nobody can defend a pack of lies in a real honest debate.

      Interestingly, I just watched an old YouTube video with Robert in it, published on Aug 21, 2012. It was a CNN panel debate featuring Christiane Amanpour and a number of panelists, both for and against Islam. (Robert was on the “against” side – but you already guessed that.) When he spoke it was an irrefutable, clear and concise condemnation of Islam, so they didn’t let him speak after that. However, they had Anjem Choudary appearing via video link from London. He confirmed everybody’s worst fears about Islam, and told the moderate Muslim she should be covered.

      So how could Robert debate with someone like Anjem Choudary, for example? He would agree with everything Robert says!

      https://youtu.be/3o27hCRkJd4

      • Champ says

        Oct 3, 2016 at 3:20 am

        Billybob wrote:

        “Problem is, Spencer can’t debate with anyone, because he is right, and Islam is indefensible. Nobody can defend a pack of lies in a real honest debate.”

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        Indeed, since islam is *wholly* evil, and so was their pedophile-prophet! …only a soulless, evil perp would defend that criminal and believe him to be a true prophet of God.

  9. Jay Boo says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    These people are so used to being wildly applauded at Leftist Circle-Jerks for spouting vacuous politically correct insults they feel threatened by reality intruding on their tenuous grasp at self esteem.

    • Jay Boo says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 12:49 pm

      I wrongly assumed that Podhoretz was a Leftist.

  10. Matt Edwards says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 1:00 pm

    In a world gone CRAZY, Robert Spencer and his Associates who contribute such sterling commentary and educational references that shine the light of truth on to Islam is a bastion of sanity in the free West. Sadly apart from Pat Condell, the UK is bereft of such brave people.
    Stay Safe.

    • Pumbar says

      Oct 4, 2016 at 2:28 am

      Douglas Murray, Milo Yiannopolous, Dr Randomercam, Sargon of Akkad, Tommy Robinson are just a few names that spring to mind Matt Edwards.

  11. Mc Pence says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 1:13 pm

    His reaction reminds me of someone who lashes back in panic when they have no reasonable argument against the position they oppose and/or no reasonable argument to support the position they hold. This is what our universities are churning out too.

  12. Christianblood says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 1:13 pm

    Who is this (John Podhoretz?)
    Another Clueless Roman Catholic ‘Monsignor’?

    • gravenimage says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 5:16 pm

      No–he is an American writer and editor, and is Jewish, not Catholic.

      Catholic dhimmis do not a corner on combative cluelessness.

      • Christianblood says

        Oct 2, 2016 at 5:32 pm

        gravenimage

        Thank you very much ‘gravenimage’. I really do appreciate your feedbackn, Graven! I am feeling that (not Israel) but the American Jewish secular groups and their intelligentsia groups are really getting more and more pro-islamic and more and more anti-Christian, anti-conservative and anti-Russia in their political views. Are you getting the same conclusions? What do you think?

        • gravenimage says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 6:06 pm

          Christianblood, I was noting that Podhoretz is Jewish, not Catholic–that does not mean that I am bashing American Jews.

          The stalwart Anti-Jihadist Pamela Geller is also Jewish, and she is not anti-Christian, anti-conservative, or anti-Russia.

          http://pamelageller.com/category/russia/

          She partners with Robert Spencer, who as you know is devoutly Christian, on a regular basis.

          Debbie Schlussel is also very good, as is David Horowitz, Diana West, Bat Ye’or and the late David Littman. There are others.

          I have a good friend, “Matt”, who is Jewish and staunchly Anti-Jihad. I went with him to hear Nonie Darwish speak.

          American Jews are like many other groups in the US–some are indeed clueless dhimmis; many are not.

        • Jay Boo says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 6:41 pm

          C.B.

          When I read your original comment about R.C Dhimmi-Doos I assumed you were probably just spamming ….. again.
          Russia?? — really now.

        • Christianblood says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 8:52 pm

          gravenimage

          How do you see USA vice president, Joe Biden being openly very thankful to the Jewish secular organizations for furthering the “LGBTQ” agenda in the USA? Read it below please:

          http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/biden-jewish-leaders-drove-gay-marriage-changes.premium-1.525296

        • Jeff says

          Oct 4, 2016 at 3:19 am

          “Their (the Jews’_ motive is multicult so they won’t be perceived as the only non assimilating group.
          ——————————

          Most jews in the US are assimilated, but for the orthodox. According to a fairly recent New York Nazi Times article, 50% of all jews, and 75% of secular or reform jews, intermarry.

        • Christianblood says

          Oct 4, 2016 at 8:36 am

          CROSSGUARD3 posted

          (..While on the surface it seems irrational for Jews to be pro-islam when islam clearly intends genocide for the Jews..)

          You are exactly right, CROSSGUARD3!
          Keep up the good work!

    • Angemon says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 5:27 pm

      Good to know where your priorities lie, CB – mocking and deriding Christian Catholics seems to be more important than, for example, denouncing the persecution of Christians in shiite Iran.

      • Christianblood says

        Oct 2, 2016 at 5:41 pm

        Angemon

        No one persecutes Christians and other religious minorities like Saudi Arabia and their Sunni salafist/takfriri groups and states do. Twenty thousand islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 and none of them is Shiite- perpetrated? Prove my point. Prove me wrong!

        • gravenimage says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 6:19 pm

          Christianblood, I know you like to think that Shia Iran is not a threat, because Russia’s Putin is allied with them, but I’m afraid this is not the case:

          “Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Not Just the Saudis: Iran’s Huge Role in 9/11 Also Covered Up”

          https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/07/robert-spencer-in-pj-media-not-just-the-saudis-irans-huge-role-in-911-also-covered-up

          “Iran expanding jihad terror network in Latin America”

          https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/08/iran-expanding-jihad-terror-network-in-latin-america

          One could make the argument that since most Muslims are Sunni, that Sunni Islam is the greater threat. But the fact is that while these sects vehemently disagree on some tenets, they both embrace the concept of violent Jihad.

          Iran regularly screams death to America, death to Britain, and death to Israel. The Mullahs brutally liquidated all members of the Communist Tudeh Party, who had close ties with the Soviet Union at the time of the Iranian Islamic revolution.

          Islam as a whole presents a threat to Infidels everywhere.

        • Angemon says

          Oct 28, 2016 at 6:34 am

          Indeed. The disparity in the ratio of sunni/shia terrorist groups is explained by the disparity in the sunni/shia numbers. There are way more sunni than there are shias, so the number of sunni terror groups is larger than the number of shia terror groups.

          Arguing that there are more sunni terrorist groups than shia and tehrefore shia islam is different is outright enabling shia terrorist groups by keeping non-muslims oblivious to them. It’s something that no genuine counter-jihadi would say. A destabilizing agent from a foreign government with an agenda to push, however, would not hesitate to push that logic forward.

        • Christianblood says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 8:45 pm

          Angemon

          Find me a Shiite suicide bombers blowing up Christian churches, beheading ‘infidels’ on video or selling Yazidi or orphaned Christian girls as sex slaves. In comparison to that, from Indonesia to Nigeria and from Sweden to Australia and all across the globe, that is what Saudi-backed, Sunni Takfiri/Wahhabi/Salafists are doing to others, including to the Shiites on in every single day. It is true, that the Iranian mullahs pose a dangerous threat to Israel but even the Shiite Iranian mullahs are not as suicidal as their Sunni Takfiri/Salafi/Wahhabist counter parts. The Iranian people are the most civilized, most progressive, more cultured and much more smarter than their Arab, Pakis, Turkish counter parts and generally (apart from the Iranian regime of mullahs), Shiites are by far more moderate than Sunnis who make up over 90 percent of all muslims and you even see in places like Lebanon and Syria, Shiite militia (Hezbulah) protecting Christian monasteries and other Christian holy sites and villages from ISIS and other American-backed genocidal Sunni jihadists.

        • Angemon says

          Oct 28, 2016 at 6:52 am

          Christianblood posted:

          “Find me a Shiite suicide bombers blowing up Christian churches, beheading ‘infidels’ on video or selling Yazidi or orphaned Christian girls as sex slaves. In comparison to that, from Indonesia to Nigeria and from Sweden to Australia and all across the globe, that is what Saudi-backed, Sunni Takfiri/Wahhabi/Salafists are doing to others, including to the Shiites on in every single day.”

          And the deception continues. As I have explained, the disparity in numbers between sunni and shia terror groups is explained by the difference in numbers between sunni and shia, with sunni being 85-95% of muslims worldwide. Is the biggest islamic terrorist group today sunni? Yes. Do shia texts justify things such as destroying temples belonging to other faiths or taking non-muslims as slaves? Yes. Would shias be doing the same were the situation reversed? Undoubtedly, because their texts say so.

          Shias read the same quran, sira and ahadith as sunnis. Shia terrorist groups exist, and they’ve claimed the lives of innocent people. Iran is the largest shia country in the world, and religious minorities are routinely persecuted. And yet I’m supposed to believe that shias are somehow a benign form of islam? Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining while pulling my other leg and saying you have a bridge to sell me.

          “It is true, that the Iranian mullahs pose a dangerous threat to Israel”

          And to the rest of the world. Including its enabler, Russia.

          “but even the Shiite Iranian mullahs are not as suicidal as their Sunni Takfiri/Salafi/Wahhabist counter parts.”

          That is blatantly false. The Twelver sect believes in starting a nuclear war with Israel to usher in the return of the Mahdi. Iranians have been promising to nuke Israel. And you have the gall to tell me they’re “not as suicidal as their Sunni Takfiri/Salafi/Wahhabist counter parts”? Liar. Shame on you for actively defending and enabling the biggest suicidal sect in the islamic world.

          “The Iranian people are the most civilized, most progressive, more cultured and much more smarter than their Arab, Pakis, Turkish counter parts”

          Citation needed. I could point to some cultured Iranians. They all happen to be former muslims. Same for Saudis, Pakistanis or Turks – cultured, smart people amongst them tend to be non-muslims.

          “and generally (apart from the Iranian regime of mullahs), Shiites are by far more moderate than Sunnis ”

          Citation needed. Also, explain why they keep voting the “extremists” into power.

          “and you even see in places like Lebanon and Syria, Shiite militia (Hezbulah) protecting Christian monasteries and other Christian holy sites and villages from ISIS ”

          Huh, is that supposed to be something phenomenal? That shia groups and Christian groups join to fight a common enemy? That circumstances force shias into allegiances with someone who, were the conditions right, they would persecute as infidels, like they do in Iran?

        • Christianblood says

          Oct 2, 2016 at 9:01 pm

          gravenimage

          The (Islamic republic of Iran is made in America). At the start of the Iranian islamic regime, the US told a Khomeini envoy that they were – in principle – open to the idea of changing the Iranian constitution, effectively abolishing the monarchy. And they gave the ayatollah a key piece of information and that the Iranian military leaders were flexible about their political future. When they USA realized that the Iranians regime is very independent and unfriendly to them, they started hating them and demonizing them so much. More on the BBC link below please:
          http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36431160

        • Angemon says

          Oct 28, 2016 at 7:04 am

          Christianblood posted:

          “The (Islamic republic of Iran is made in America).”

          Huh, no. It’s made in Iran. Hence the name: the Islamic Republic of Iran. And it’s backed by shia islamic tenets.

          “At the start of the Iranian islamic regime, the US told a Khomeini envoy that they were – in principle – open to the idea of changing the Iranian constitution, effectively abolishing the monarchy.”

          So?

          “And they gave the ayatollah a key piece of information and that the Iranian military leaders were flexible about their political future.”

          Look, if you’re going to copy/paste from somewhere else, try not to mess it up. The article you quote reads “And they gave the ayatollah a key piece of information – Iranian military leaders were flexible about their political future”.

          The key piece of information was that the Iranian military leaders were flexible about their political future, not something else you left unmentioned.

          Oh, and here are some important things you left out from that article:

          If President Jimmy Carter could use his influence on the military to clear the way for his takeover, Khomeini suggested, he would calm the nation. Stability could be restored, America’s interests and citizens in Iran would be protected.

          At the time, the Iranian scene was chaotic. Protesters clashed with troops, shops were closed, public services suspended. Meanwhile, labour strikes had all but halted the flow of oil, jeopardising a vital Western interest.

          Of course, stating that Carter was played by Khomeini into believing that American citizens in Iran would be safe and calm would return to the country if Khomeini came into power doesn’t add up with your claim that “The (Islamic republic of Iran is made in America)”.

          “When they USA realized that the Iranians regime is very independent and unfriendly to them, they started hating them and demonizing them so much.”

          And here it is, your usual whitewashing of Iran and its regime. It’s not that Khomeini said that America was the “Great Satan”, it’s not that the Iranian regime declared war on America, it’s not that the Iranian regime is doing so in accordance with islamic texts, it’s just that the Iranian regime is “very independent” and “unfriendly” to the US, so the US are “demonizing” it. This on the very same topic where you try to pass the Iranian regime as being as “extremist” as any sunni regime.

          Please explain how you can”demonize” someone who routinely calls for your death and declared war against you. Go on, I’m waiting.

        • Mark Swan says

          Oct 5, 2016 at 1:05 am

          Christianblood, do You deny that Iran sponsors Terrorism?

        • Angemon says

          Oct 28, 2016 at 6:30 am

          Christianblood posted:

          “No one persecutes Christians and other religious minorities like Saudi Arabia and their Sunni salafist/takfriri groups and states do.”

          Well, I’m sure that the Christians being arrested in Iran for being Christians can rest easier knowing that Saudi Arabia would be harsher on them /sarc. off…

          That there are more sunni terrorist groups is easily explained by the distribution of muslim in sects: 85-95% of muslims worldwide are sunnis, so saying that most islamic terror groups are sunni is meaningless – one would expect that to be the case considering the numbers.

          If you’re going to argue that shiites are a “good” islam because they allegedly don’t commit terror attacks you are thinking backwards because, by that logic, one can say that most sunnis worldwide are waging terrorist attacks and therefore the terrorism waged by sunni groups has nothing to do with islam. Are you saying that sunni islam is peaceful because because most sunni muslims aren’t committing terror attacks?

          Oh, and where was your “righteous” “indignation” here:

          jihadwatch.org/2016/01/four-iranian-christians-prosecuted-for-spreading-christianity

          Or here:

          jihadwatch.org/2016/10/islamic-republic-of-iran-arrests-at-least-25-christians

          You are not anti-jihadi, you’re merely anti-islamic-countries-that-are-aligned-with-the-US. When it comes to countries aligned with Moscow, you make like a tree and leave. If a Christian in Saudi Arabia is told to hide his Bible you’ll be on the comment section to spit venom. If a Christian in Iran is executed because of his religion the comment section becomes to you what sunlight is to vampires. You don’t oppose islam, you follow geopolitical guidelines, and some of the countries you condemn for being allied with the US just happen to be muslim-majority countries.

          “Twenty thousand islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 and none of them is Shiite- perpetrated?”

          If you’re referring to TheReligionOfPeace counter, that includes attacks by islamic terror groups. Anyway, to answer your question we need to peruse the comprehensive list so we can check the group behind each and every of them.

          “Prove my point. Prove me wrong!”

          Huh, what? The one responsible for proving your point is *you*. You have proven my points on several occasions, but you did so inadvertently while trying to prove tours. And proving your point are proving you wrong are mutually exclusive options – which is it?

  13. Transmaster says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    It is apparent these people have their collective panties in a bunch because of the verbal “wedgies” Donald Trump is hitting them with. They are enraged whenever they see his visage on the screen and hear him talking about the Muslim immigration issue.

  14. cheryl s. says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    Podhoretz has disgraced himself. He reveal his true nature in this most public rant what a pathetic and small man he truly is.
    I would not be surprised, after this adolescent tirade, that his career quickly spirals downward and he is fittingly and forever relegated to the dust bin of time.

    • Ashley says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 2:11 pm

      I agree, Cheryl. Podhoretz has made a colossal ass of himself and he knows it. Thus why he deleted his tweets.

      Podhoretz owes Robert an apology and explanation. My guess is that he may have been drunk as a skunk when he took to his keyboard last night. I hope he feels humiliated and remorseful.

      Kudos to “Mohamed the Atheist” for grabbing the screenshots.

      Sorry, John. As the saying goes, “the internet is forever.”

  15. pdxnag says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    Isn’t spewing hate at the right targets the whole point of Virtue Signaling?

  16. Adrian says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 1:45 pm

    They will never understand, even after the November tsunami, this movement is not about Robert Spencer, or Donald Trump – but about the legitimate questions and anger of the people who are sick and tired of being lied to… the world is quickly passing by the dinosaurs like Podhoretz and the rest of the “elites”… good riddance

  17. Michael Brennick says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 2:01 pm

    Potty Podhoretz uses his Twitter feed as an attack tool. The thin skin nevertrumpers assign to Trump is endemic to Potty Podhoretz. His alleged conservatism is mythical. He’s intellectually impoverished and ihis current positions are the rewards of nepotism.

  18. duj swami says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    Put your money where your mouth is John…Cheap shots are easy, it’s a little harder to man-up…can you do it…

  19. Terry Gain says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 2:08 pm

    It is disappointing to see Podhoretz engage in what is clearly an unhinged attack on one of the most knowledgeable defenders of western civilization. I suggest that Mr. Spencer challenge Podhoretz to debate who knows more about Islam, Spencer or Podhoretz.

    Podhoretz wouldn’t dare take up the challenge, but the point would be made.

    • JIMJFOX says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 2:40 pm

      Robert already did that- can’t you read the exchange??

      • Terry Gain says

        Oct 4, 2016 at 4:16 am

        Thanks for pointing out my error. I was in a rush.

        • Mark Swan says

          Oct 5, 2016 at 1:24 am

          Actually this began when Abe Greenwald rushed to aid Sohab Ahmari. Mr. Spencer
          then challenged Greenwald to debate Him—that is when John Podhoretz, jumped in
          with His filthy crack at Mr. Spencer—Mr. Spencer says “No, I’ve never met John Podhoretz. I’ve never had any interaction with him at all.”

  20. D.C. Watson says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    Oh no…. Not another Twitter Tough Guy.

  21. Shmooviyet says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    Had to laugh at Podhoretz accusing RS of being an intellectual disgrace, then displaying his own stunted intellect by using terms such as “slime” and “pos”. He resembles a triggered SJW-type.

    Caught without one’s grown-up pants, simply delete the tweets!

  22. Pal says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    Keep on – Robert – Keep on ! -:)

  23. Steve says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”― Edmund Burke

    Robert Spencer is a good man who is doing something to stop evil. Thank you Robert Spencer.

    • gravenimage says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 5:17 pm

      Hear, hear!

      • Mark Swan says

        Oct 3, 2016 at 4:37 am

        Absolutely Steve.

  24. JawsV says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 2:23 pm

    Pod is an asshole.

  25. Jeff says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    Unfortunately, many Jews cannot face up to existential threats to their community, which is exactly what islam and unchecked muslim immigation pose. They couldn’t face the reality of the Holocaust either, until it was too late to stop it.

    • gravenimage says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 5:22 pm

      I don’t think the Jewish people were ever in a position to stop the Holocaust, Jeff. Some did recognize the threat early on, though, and tried to get out.

      But you are right–many were in denial then, and many are in denial over the threat of Islam now.

      • chanah says

        Oct 3, 2016 at 4:36 am

        25.000 Austrian Jews where give visa to Palestine but waited too long so when Hitler invaded Austria it was too late also the Germans offered rich Jews to buy 70.000 Jews for a price of 35$ per head and guess no one bought even 1 so what did the Germans do well they rounded them up all together in a factory and burned them alive they could had been saved by rich US and UK Jews but, oh no one wanted to rock the boat same with EU Hitler wanted at first to send millions of Jews to Palestine, and could had but oh no they were first and foremost Europeans, and then well Jews, too bad that Hitler saw it differently, to him they were Jews, and then the grand mufti came to Berlin and then things changed that’s when the Nazis started to build gas-camber, it was the brainchild of the mufti, see he didn’t want the Jews to come home just like Pharaoh didn’t want the Israelites to leave Egypt
        USA with the help from IBM and Ford helped Hitler to round up Jews overseas, some Jews collaborated with the Jews in order to save themselves, and I have a well written book called PERFIDY by Ben Hecht an USA Jewish journalist
        A seemingly insignificant refugee from Hungary accuses an important member of David Ben- gurion’s Mapai party of collaborating with the Nazis during the murder of Hungary Jewry. The Israeli government files suit for slander. Represented by a brilliant lawyer, the refugee turns the table on the government as Ben-Gurion’s colleague, Rudolf Kastner, is trapped in lie after lie. The Judge finds that the employee of the Israeli government did indeed collaborate with the Nazis and acquits the Hungarian refugee of the charge of slander.
        Here’s the bio on the refugee
        Malchiel Greenwald, whose teeth were all knocked out of his mouth, whose tongue was slit, whose arms and legs were broken and whose head bashed in, who was left for dead in a street of murdered Jews; whose fifty-two close relatives were all incinerated by the Germans, whose son died fighting on Mount Zion-now at seventy-two, this Malchiel Greenwald walks under a tilted fedora, briskly swinging a cane, unafraid of any authority but the truth in his own heart. That such a man exists impresses me.
        p.s it impresses me too; my great grandfather came from Hungary

  26. Champ says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 2:29 pm

    John Podhoretz tweets:

    “It would be punching slime, you piece of sh*t.”

    And …

    “It is. And you are a disgrace–morally and intellectually. You destroy serious efforts to study the subject you caricature with your crap.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Ironically, John Podhoretz has defined and described himself here.

    • Ashley says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 2:48 pm

      Indeed he has, Champ. 🙂

      I find it very telling that Podhoretz deleted his own juvenile tweets. Guess he didn’t really want to own his words come the light of day…

      He deserves to squirm. Robert could have a field day sharing those tweets and exposing John’s true nature.

      Hope you are well, Champ!

      • Champ says

        Oct 2, 2016 at 6:33 pm

        Hi, Ashley! Great comment!

        Hope you are well, too! 🙂

  27. JIMJFOX says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    MR Potato-head knows his limitations- which are legion. His sole recourse must be foul-mouthed
    blather, his tiny mind can conceive of nothing else. Case closed.

  28. Georg says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    Although I’m angered he spoke to Robert in such a rude and belligerent way, it is a good sign to be so srongly disliked by a champion of the present insidious nonsense. I’d like to think Angela Merkel would prefer me killed.

  29. Mark Berlinger says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 3:44 pm

    Devolution Of Thought

    Allows non sequitur reasoning and ad hominem fallacy attack to go unchallenged as valid argument. All thanks go to the moral inversion of public education, purveyors of indiscriminate modern liberalism.

  30. gravenimage says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    John Podhoretz to Robert Spencer: “You piece of sh*t”
    ……………………….

    Well, this is just grotesquely unprofessional. That it was the *first* offering by Podhoretz, rather than the end of a heated exchange where he might conceivably have “lost it”, is even less excusable.

    And characterizing someone who opposes the horrors of Islamic beheadings and stonings as “disgraceful…morally” says little for *his* moral standing.

    The odd thing is that he has in the past sounded as least reasonably anti-Jihad himself:

    “Obama: ‘We’ are to blame, not Islamic terrorism, for massacre”

    http://nypost.com/2016/06/12/obama-says-we-are-to-blame-not-islamic-terrorism-for-orlando-massacre/

    So–what is his actual disagreement with Robert Spencer? Whatever it is, it is enough to have him frothing at the mouth here. Professional jealousy, perhaps?

    Whatever it is, it does not reflect on him–or on his profession–well at all.

    And colleague Abe Greenwald fails to note how Sohrab Ahmari’s denial of having left Islam and smearing Jihad Watch over the matter–while later confirming that he had indeed left, without apologizing to JW for his slander–is “fighting tyranny”–unless he believes truth to be “tyranny”.

    Journalism is a keystone profession–a dedicated and honest press is vital to a free society–but the actions of this trio does not reflect well on what should be an honorable calling.

  31. Red Bee says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    Ah.. the ‘expert’ argument. This is the argument of those who have no arguments. Unfortunately they still manage to hold on to their positions and salaries paid by people who earn money. The ‘experts’ are parasites just like Mohammed & his soldiers of Allah.

    http://redbee.website/

  32. Georg says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    Here is a picture of “Pod” in his natural element.

    https://s13.postimg.org/6rsswvp0n/mrpos.jpg

  33. yohananw says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    Commentary (as well as its parent AJC) have long since lost their following. The now non-profit journal celebrates a nepotistic editorship, where son John succeeded father Norman Podhoretz. Shame on the Commentary editors Abe Greenwald and Norman Podhoretz for their gutter journalist ad hominem twitter attacks on Robert Spencer.

    Needless to say, Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch reported accurately and fairly Ahmari’s response to the jihadist murder of Fr. Hamel. See https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/07/journalist-sohrab-ahmari-announces-conversion-to-christianity-after-priest-murder-then-denies-published-reports-that-he-was-muslim

    In his books, lectures, videos and in this news and comment webiste, Spencer’s criticism of supremacist, conquest-bound, inquisitional jihad Islamic theology is scholarly and well documented. Despite the hazards and opposition, Robert Spencer is always civil and well spoken.

    It’s stupid to curse the messenger of bad news.

  34. ploome says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    Robert……from wiki

    At The Weekly Standard, one staff member said, Podhoretz’s “arrogance and egotism had a psychological effect people can’t quite believe.” At The Washington Times a colleague reported, he was “permanently frozen in juvenalia.” Glenn Garvin, the Central American bureau chief of the Miami Herald, once said that at the Times, Podhoretz “constantly complained that his brilliance wasn’t appreciated.”[4]

    On January 1, 2009, Podhoretz became editor of Commentary, succeeding Neal Kozodoy, who had been editor since 1995, when Norman Podhoretz retired. Kozodoy is currently Editor-at-Large.

    he is an a** whole….:[)

  35. Crusades Were Right! says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 5:20 pm

    “piece of sh*t”
    John Poo-dough (retch)
    You see what I did there?
    ; ¬)

  36. gravenimage says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    And Abe Greenwald has Tweeted witless things like this:

    “Congratulations, America. You’ve stopped terrorism with semantics not guns.”

    https://twitter.com/AbeGreenwald/status/777371779534843904

    Of course, Jihad terror has not been stopped at all.

    But even he, like Podhoretz, has been at least sporadically right about the Jihad threat–on that same Twitter feed, he acknowledges that Muslim “refuges” constitute a violent invasion.

    The problem is, when one fails to embrace reason–as is so grimly common these days–being rationally consistent is virtually impossible.

    • gravenimage says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 5:34 pm

      And this is actually a good article by Greenwald, which I read back in June:

      “When Terrorists Can’t Be Muslims”

      https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/liberals-democrats/radical-islam-terrorists-muslims/

    • Mazo says

      Oct 3, 2016 at 5:43 am

      Cravenmirage apparently can not tell that he was being sarcastic in that tweet. As evidenced by the replies of his followers.

  37. TheOldOligarch says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    Another arrogant leftist blowhard, no doubt lashing out in frustration, and, as Robert says, impotent rage. I’ve noticed many such people slowly realizing that their empire is in decline, and the hegemony they hold over acceptable discourse is set to deteriorate rapidly over the next years, and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.

    Ultimately he can say whatever he wants, Robert is worth a thousand of him.

  38. Bob says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 5:47 pm

    When you’re getting flack you’re over the target,..stay strong and keep fighting the good fight.

  39. Phil Copson says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    Attacking those why are trying to save you from the enemy is a standard coward’s reaction.

    “Don’t fight them ! you’ll make it worse for me !” – closely followed by:

    “Look – if I say that you’re a Religion of Peace, do you promise not to kill me ?”

    Like those Mayors in Naples and France naming streets after murderers, educators re-writing history etc, these people are on their belly grovelling before anyone’s come near them.

  40. Sheykh Yer Weeni says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 6:27 pm

    All of these people, the leftists/globalists, and all those who enable Islamization, will find that ISIS will be glad to cut their wagging tongues out. Better still, perhaps ISIS will take their whole heads at once, and let birds eat their tongues.

    I, the Infidel Imam, find it hard to decide who is more despicable: at least the Muslims (ISIS, the Islamic State) are following exactly what they are supposed to, and with a vengeance; while these alrrakhawiat, these molluscs, who criticize Mr. Spencer, obviously have never done a bit of critical thinking.

  41. duj swami says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    you piece of sh*t.” …

    Thant’s what ‘SHE’ said at 2AM….’you are a disgrace and have no morals at all…can you come back tonight’?

  42. Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 6:46 pm

    Thesis for an essay on regression to the mean:
    There has been a generational decline in intellectual vigor

    from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Podhoretz
    to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Podhoretz

    and from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol
    to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kristol

  43. Jay Boo says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 7:04 pm

    Mr. Pod has Poo-Poo pants.

  44. Mark A says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 7:06 pm

    Such intellectually sophisticated, reasonable and well argued comments from John Podhoretz.

    It has been many years since I have read the NYT. Is this John Podhoretz typical of what passes for commentary and editorial opinion in the NYT these days?

    • gravenimage says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 8:54 pm

      Podhoretz writes for the New York Post, not the NYT–generally, a less dhimmi newspaper. But all of this is often just a matter of degree these days…

  45. Allan says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 7:34 pm

    It will help to bear in mind the troubles which the neocons are experiencing in the Levant right now. The chaos which they have been spreading there is bringing the USA to the verge of war with Russia, and the neocon vermin are being condemned for fruits of their extreme recklessness. Even worse, at least from the vermin’s perspective, Russia and China are showing signs that they will not just roll over on their backs in submission to the American empire. And of course there is the Trumpening to increase the frustration experienced by Podhoretz et al.

    This interview of Paul Craig Roberts is informative.

    Will We Exist Tomorrow?
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/10/01/will-we-exist-tomorrow/

  46. Doglicka says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    “The point is that an increasingly large segment of the American intelligentsia — primarily on the Left but also putative conservatives such as Podhoretz — do not engage intellectually those whom they oppose, but resort only to mocking and vilifying them, as if to disagree with the positions taken by someone like Podhoretz or Greenwald, or others who do this such as Reza Aslan, is evidence not only of stupidity but of a moral failing”

    This paragraph is telling. So right. The left are narrative-based units that attempt to work reality into their narratives, and not work narratives into reality.

    Just the other day I was discussing something or rather with an intelligent leftist friend of mine who happens to be a university lecturer, when she brought up Lord Monkton – criticising me for liking a post of his. I said, Monkton is brilliant. What work of his do you disagree with? She replied with, ‘she’s only seen ‘snippets’ from MSM – so nothing really I suppose’. I was gobsmacked. She quickly realised the ignorance she’s just fallen into and backpedalled, but still.

    I saw the same thing another couple of days ago when an interviewer asked some angry feminists outside of a Milo talk what Milo has said that they disagree with. They couldn’t name a SINGLE thing. They could only repeat the leftist mantras they’ve learnt from their professors or from salon etc.

    This is a cultural disease that is infecting more than just intelligentsia, although I think it is waking more and more people up from their slumbers.

  47. Tim says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 8:09 pm

    I have observed that the intensity of rage in liberals is proportional to their ignorance of the topics they attack or defend – aptly illustrated by John Podhoretz.

  48. jude says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 9:41 pm

    I used to be amazed at older men who still can’t have a reasonable debate, thinking that along the years their vocabulary would have widened and a debate with them would be engrossing to watch.
    Sadly, disappointment turned to resignation that these people never mature past the bratty school boy age in mentality. I also realised it’s the leftist mindset that stunts their growth. No wisdom, learning or new ideas, or examining an opposing viewpoint for it’s merits ever enter their mind.
    Leftism is a disease and to be avoided at all cost, it poisons, degrades and takes away any morals or decency in those affected.

  49. Charles R.L. Power says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 10:01 pm

    Even considering the crude insults, I think it would be more profitable to try to come to an understanding with figures like John Podhoretz who probably have positions much in common with Jihad Watch, rather than feuding with them. I’m not saying that the reaction is unjustified, just that may be unwise.

  50. Richie says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 10:47 pm

    leftists tend to be obnoxious and vulgar

  51. TJFreedomjihad says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 10:48 pm

    God, we and certainly I, do love your thorough correct analysis and professional rock-steady calm. It is to be envied and admired, which I certainly do, Robert, along with the rest of us.

    You so nailed it on so many levels, so very well.

    The free world is so unknowingly, but blessedly fortunate that you tell the horrible truths of a masquerading gang of wolves in the skins of sheep (truly the most vicious feral ones). People of the ilk of Podhoretz, acting as a fifth column, who have long ago chosen to follow the wrong path of radical progressive left thought, clearly with no God, G-d, to give him any knowledge, nor value and virtue driven direction.

    I would have no surprise, nor doubt, that Podhoretz likely is a clintonian operative, who when the full evidence based record is viewed, is found to also lack judgement, wisdom, ethics, virtues and values, and of course lack God, G-d. As a clinton operative, it is one of their many efforts to strike out against those who are strong and fight evil of all kinds, to attempt probes into clintons weak minded miseducated public, which they would hope might include we here, in truths’ central. His behavior is too close to the perfect nature of all dictators, and wannabe dictators, ala Alinsky and Machiavelli.

    Robert, it is so very well that you have for so long excellently followed the path of virtue and values, helping in the greatest exemplary way to enrich we, and the world, in illuminating the evil truths of the ultimate greatest danger to the world, as islam is a font of examples of nothing else but evil, with zero saving grace, and evils unending. Robert, you set a high example for others to follow.

    Robert in these precarious times, under danger, you serve, as a professional, the epitome of the goal of none the less than THE John Locke himself: “THE IMPROVEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING IS FOR TWO ENDS: FIRST, OUR OWN INCREASE OF KNOWLEDGE; SECONDLY, TO ENABLE US TO DELIVER THAT KNOWLEDGE TO OTHERS.” – John Locke You give life to Aristotle’s wise advice: “COURAGE IS THE FIRST OF HUMAN QUALITIES, BECAUSE IT IS THE QUALITY WHICH GUARANTEES THE OTHERS.” ― Aristotle

    The realities also are stated by many others: Czech President Miloš Zeman CALLED THE ISLAMIC TERROR STATE “ANTI-CIVILIZATION”, describing them as cannibals with whom it would be impossible to negotiate. – http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/10/milos-zeman-on-the-islamic-state-cannibals-and-the-enemies-of-civilization/
    “Let love be without hypocrisy. ABHOR (HATE) WHAT IS EVIL. Cling to what is good. Be kindly affectionate to one another, with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another;” -Romans 12:9-10

    Whom people associate with, shows more than all protestations, such as with the clintons, and is in massive evidence here, along with, how their associates behave, evidenced in photos and video. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/10/02/team-clinton-spray-paint-graffiti-on-new-trump-international-hotel-in-dc/#more-122553 Clintons themselves and their associates, employees, at the White House, are thieves, destroyers, envious devils, for what integrity they don’t have, never can have, anymore, after a lifetime dedicated to zero ethics, lies and incompetence, along with an absence of any class, utterly none. That is the true clinton legacy, available all over the web with complete integrity, along with far more that is wrong. Is Podhoretz, indeed, of this bunch of poor grunge?

    • TJFreedomjihad says

      Oct 2, 2016 at 11:38 pm

      Overlooked was this inclusion that was to be added above, of these two references, of merit regards the nature of the whole clinton group, including her party, and her incompetence, and dirty tricks displayed as Howard Dean taking point on sabotage, by this dirty trick of a “faulty mike” that brought non-existent “sniffles” to Trump, falsely, and some strange quick mumbling double talk excuses:
      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-30/debate-commission-admits-there-was-issue-trumps-microphone
      The Complete A To Z Of Nations Destroyed By Hillary Clinton’s “Hubris” – http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-30/

      No handy reference right now, but it is alleged that hrc herself took advantage, I think I read it was used in her foundation, of the same commonly used, long time legal, ‘loss credit carry forward’, on taxes, that Trump properly needed, wisely, to use. She broke so many other laws, in major intentional and long term ways, (emails, server, phones, intentional scrubbing of evidence after official order to prevent, (just like the irs lerner did), nefariously, for her own greedy gain, and threatened so many, many women of the “bimbo” status as she says, paid off highly some, she has no ground of any basis to stand upon, but when does the public learn or care about the deep evil she practices, for over thirty years? Which so many of her abettors freely take part in! And it is massive, just what we have evidence of, which begs what else, not yet known?

      Is Podhoretz involved in abetting such a group that goes against American security, by abetting and aiding our enemy, islam? (They have attacked us and made war on us since our Founding and almost certainly before, and have declared war on each of us true Americans, lest anyone forget)

  52. Alarmed Pig Farmer says

    Oct 2, 2016 at 10:56 pm

    News Corp has always been a safe haven for intellectual cowards. People get especially afraid when it comes to Moslems. We’ve known for years that Podhoretz is a self serving bowl of crap, his aspersion would best be pointed into a mirror.

  53. TJFreedomjihad says

    Oct 3, 2016 at 12:39 am

    With Podhoretz recent Trump bashings, (gravenimage says October 2, 2016 at 5:08 pm Just so you know, Podhoretz has spent most of the last several months doing almost nothing but bashing Trump. Here are his “Commentary” articles: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/author/john-podhoretz/) (usually because their panties got into a wad, over crudeness, et al, as I had for a while of some confusion, ‘till the clinton focus came into view sharply and clearly) it seems clear, at least likely, that Podhoretz has become a clintonian operative, in whole or part, literally or figuratively, sold out the greatest principles of all, which puts him in a no longer conservative or ethical category, as he obviously can’t figure out what for a writer of his past putative orientation, he should be bright enough to know real right and good from real, real dangerous bad, and for the equivalently challenged, hrc is the real, real dangerous bad!.

    • TJFreedomjihad says

      Oct 3, 2016 at 12:58 am

      What difference is there between this guy: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-30/meet-young-virginia-democrat-registered-19-dead-people-vote-virginia and what Podhoretz is doing and has been doing? Both lack intelligence and ethics, have fallen for bad examples, clintons crookedness, and others of this ilk also associated with her, and alike set bad examples, in deficient thought, and (humiliating to their heritage), actions!

  54. TJFreedomjihad says

    Oct 3, 2016 at 2:12 am

    For something uplifting, here it is:
    Here is a fascinating apparently genuine young woman apostate immigrant, who talks about her reality, and why she supports Trump, as she can clearly tell the difference of who is not a danger to her, and who is-which is hrc and her refugees!!! She spells it out, in less than 5 mins. in an upbeat bright and clear Kuwaiti fashion. Definitely a cheering interview, and like the election, has some crude or salty language, but you will never-the-less be impressed. Fascinating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhSQLmfbQ6Y from here, make sure to read the cheery, the heartening 80 plus comments, so you can feel refreshed at: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/10/02/young-kuwaiti-trump-supporter-stuns-audience-during-milo-speech-at-usf/#more-122598

  55. Srinivas Vasudevan. says

    Oct 3, 2016 at 2:21 am

    He went to U Chicago, a top university.

  56. Dacritic says

    Oct 3, 2016 at 2:38 am

    “Did I pull the ball away when he was about to kick it?” This just cracked me up.

    Islam leaves a trail. Effort is always made to silence those who know the truth and want to tell it.

    How’s the 2-on-2 with David Wood, Considine and Aslan coming along Mr Spencer?

  57. sparker says

    Oct 3, 2016 at 4:02 am

    “The Brexit vote and the ascendancy of a man with no political experience to be the nominee of a major party are indications that growing numbers of people are tired of the elitism and contempt of people such as John Podhoretz. We don’t believe him, we don’t accept what he says at face value, and we have nothing but contempt of our own for his refusal to defend the positions he asserts with such such foul-mouthed swagger”. Nailed it. No more to be said.

  58. Mazo says

    Oct 3, 2016 at 4:03 am

    Sohrab Ahmari is an ex-Muslim who opposes the ideology of jihadwatch. Ex-Muslims still retain control of their mental faculties. Most ex-Muslim atheist Palestinians are anti zionist. There are ex-Muslim atheist Syrians who support their Islamist family members and ex-Muslim Saudis who support the monarchy, ex-Muslim Iranians like Maryam Namazie who are Marxists and anti western.

    Sohrab did not wanted to be associated with jihadwatch and he has the that right. He doesn’t want praise from people he does not like.

    • Mirren10 says

      Oct 3, 2016 at 7:12 am

      ”Sohrab Ahmari is an ex-Muslim who opposes the ideology of jihadwatch”

      That is no excuse for gratuitous rudeness and lies. If he opposes the ‘ideology’ of jihadwatch, then his supposed apostasy is open to doubt, since what Robert does here is to publicise the koranic texts and hadith that pious mohammedans use to justify their murders and atrocities. No ‘ideology’ about it, just simple truth.

      A genuine apostate would have no problem with that, since presumably enlightenment on those points, and the baleful character of mohammed would be the reason he/she apostasised in the first place.

      ”Sohrab did not wanted to be associated with jihadwatch and he has the that right.”

      He doesn’t have the right to be gratuitously rude and abusive, neither does he have the right to deliberately *lie*. He may have apostasised, but there’s still a big chunk of mohammedanism in there, obviously.

      ”He doesn’t want praise from people he does not like.” See above.

      Mazo, you espouse an evil and violent creed. That makes you evil yourself, since you not only choose evil, but come here specifically to defend it. Of course you don’t understand those of us who choose goodness and decency.

      Why have you posted this meretricious nonsense on a thread which has nothing to do with Sohrab Ahmari ? Oh, I know, you were afraid no-one would notice your identical comment on *that* thread. Silly mohammedan. 🙂

      • Mazo says

        Oct 4, 2016 at 4:04 pm

        jihadwatch has a Zionist, anti “leftist” ideology. There are ex-Muslim Saudis who support their monarchy, Palestinian ex-Muslims who are anti Zionist.

        • Kay says

          Oct 5, 2016 at 1:36 am

          Actually jihadwatch commenters would prefer that Jewish people were safe and free in all countries of the world, including their ancient homeland, the only Jewish nation in the world.

          “Leftists” are unwitting (or intentional) supporters of an ideology that promotes jihad.
          This website opposes jihad. Hence it is called jihadwatch.

    • Angemon says

      Oct 28, 2016 at 7:57 am

      Mazo posted:

      “Sohrab Ahmari is an ex-Muslim who opposes the ideology of jihadwatch. ”

      This article is about Podhoret’s thuggish attitude and potty mouth. Try to stay on topic, mkay?

  59. Elizabeth in Delaware says

    Oct 3, 2016 at 9:31 am

    Could this firestorm be due to a simple – but profoundly irresponsible – case of mistaken identity? Another opinion journalist blasted Robert Spencer for the racist hateful sins of Richard Spencer. In so many ways I expect much better from a respected editor and journalist like John Podhoretz, but if his appalling attack can be explained by shoddy mis-identification, he really has indicted his own reputation for thoughtful argument.

    Robert Spencer does God’s work, and I pray for him.

  60. Richard Paulsen says

    Oct 3, 2016 at 9:37 am

    Do not understand why leading intellectuals like Mr Podhoretz and Mr Greenwald avoid discussing serious problems.
    Therefore enlightened persons and views are so desperately needed, in order for free speech to win and survive for the benefit of Mankind.

  61. Carolyne says

    Oct 3, 2016 at 10:58 am

    This sort of indicates the limited vocabulary the editor for the NYT has. But I always knew that some of them were barely functioning illiterates. When one needs to use such language, you can be sure that they are ignorant of words which are acceptable in a civilized society. Obscenity will never win him a Pulitzer prize unless there is reason to it.

  62. Carolyne says

    Oct 3, 2016 at 11:06 am

    So is Trump supposed to tell his accountants not to use perfectly legal deductions which will save him taxes–money which will go to Washington to be wasted on pork? I would if I could. Most of us are not in a position to do this, but I certainly don’t blame him for using perfectly legal accounting.

  63. John G says

    Oct 3, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    Your a great writer Robert, witty, and you have courage to put your money where your mouth is……its a pity others cannot debate you as invited if they feel so strongly against you in an adult way……

    The arrogance of some people is astonishing……..i guess its part of the human fall!
    I read a lot of your articles and seen a lot of debates/talks on YouTube and you know your stuff. No one can beat you in my opinion. I admire you for defending Christianity……

    I do wonder though what is the ultimate aim of your work? I mean is Islam/Jihad really a global threat when the reality is maybe (what do I know) that most Muslims don’t take everything in the Qu’ran seriously, especially more educated Muslims? It is good to be aware of what is not being reported by the media and so on and that’s great…..but does too much of what could be SEEN as Islam bashing doing more damage than good? I don’t necessarily think so or not I but i would love to hear some of your thoughts on it?

  64. Richard Paulsen says

    Oct 3, 2016 at 12:32 pm

    Seriously. German unity day in Dresden. Church bells tolling. People protesting against Merkel. ” At last, leave office. ” ” Not welcome. ”
    https://twitter.com/hashtag/TagderEinheit?src=hash

  65. John Magne Trane says

    Oct 3, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    http://www.phrases.org.uk/images/emperors-new-clothes.jpg

    Sorry about the disgusting pic of Podhorets.

  66. wildibill2u says

    Oct 3, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    Dehumanizing someone by calling them names [eg, piece of shit] for having an opposing viewpoint is not only anti-intellectual, it is the first step down the long road to Auschwitz.

    The Nazis first dehumanized the Jews and Gypsies and they then took their word-conditioned countrymen to the position that Jews weren’t good Germans and then to the ultimate degradation of concentration camps and genocide.

    • le mouron rouge says

      Oct 3, 2016 at 2:15 pm

      wildibill2u,

      Good point, especially the use of the word “conditioned” which has been ongoing in the U.S.A. since the early 20th Century.

      The American people have been deliberately and systematically “dumbed down” and are being conditioned to accept a One World Government.

      A very short list of books that address this topic:

      The Closing of the American Mind – Alan Bloom

      The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth, and Power – Melanie Phillips

      Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is becoming Our Reality – Cheryl K. Chumley

      Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children – Alex Newman

      The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds – Tammy Bruce

      Totalitaria: What If The Enemy Is The State – Ian Wishart

      “I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion.”
      – Alexander the Great

  67. Champ says

    Oct 3, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    Robert Spencer ==> Hero!

    Podhoretz ==> zero

    You can even spell “zero” in his name, lol! 😀

  68. Pal says

    Oct 3, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    No one on Earth does know islam better than Robert Spencer does.
    There are muslim ‘scholars’, of course, however they are definitely biased.
    In addition, Robert Spencer has a global view.
    They don’t have any view outside of their islam ‘view’. They can not see any farther than their Muhammad’s beard.
    As for Podhoretz, he doesn’t know even what Muhammad is.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • Walter Sieruk on Iranian top dogs approve bill to end UN nuclear inspections, increase enrichment
  • Dude on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’
  • Infidel on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • Infidel on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • Mojdeh on Audio: Robert Spencer on Muslim Brotherhood influence in a Biden/Harris administration

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.