About Me

Name:Cary Wesberry
Email: carywesberry@sbcglobal.net Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Attention!

Due to technical problems with AFK's blogroll, I have created a new site under my name.  All of my work from this point forward can be found there.  Thanks to everyone who has linked me up here in the past year-and-a-half and especially to all the readers here at Townhall.com.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bill Clinton Is Like American Hero Joe McCarthy?

SALEM, Ore. (AP) - Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign is trying to clarify comments by former President Clinton that seemed to question Barack Obama's patriotism - comments an Obama aide likened to Joseph McCarthy.

Clinton's campaign said the comments were being misinterpreted and quickly posted a clarification on its Web site. But retired Air Force Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak said he was disappointed by the comments and compared them to those of McCarthy, the 1950s communist-hunting senator.

The former president made the comments while speculating about a general election between his wife and Republican John McCain.

"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country," said Clinton, who was speaking to a group of veterans Friday in Charlotte, N.C. "And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

McPeak, a former chief of staff of the Air Force and currently a co-chair of Obama's presidential campaign, said that sounded like McCarthy.

"I grew up, I was going to college when Joe McCarthy was accusing good Americans of being traitors, so I've had enough of it," McPeak said.

 
 
If Bill Clinton is like Joe McCarthy he would be honest, which he's not; and he would have been a good President, which he's also not.  Any questions?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"78 Months After 9/11" by Hugh Hewitt

MSM is full of five-year anniversary stories dating to the invasion of Iraq, and the Washington Post's is typical in opposing the good news connected with the surge to the "tourniquet" school of retreatists among Democrats who can't seem to embrace victory even as it unfolds before them.

It has been 78 months since radical jihadism struck America. We have not been struck since at home, and two countries which menaced the U.S. have had their regimes changed and the long, very difficult work of reconstructing them begun.Syria is out of Lebanon, Libya is disarmed, and Hezbollah badly smashed though Israel did not triumph in 2006.

The point is that it isn't the fifth anniversary of the war, but the anniversary of the start of a central battle in a wider war, one that is going on around the world and which will continue for a very longtime. My lengthy interview with Robin Wright yesterday was an extended exercise in combatting tunnel vision about the wider war.

Here's one exchange from yesterday's interview that underscores the absurdity of trying to discuss Iraq outside of the context of the entire Middle East:

HH: Robin Wright, to set up our conversation about Palestine and Lebanon, I want to start with the very basic question. In your opinion, is radical jihadism metastasizing or contracting? And by that, I mean radical Islamists who are willing to use violence up to and including suicide violence in order to further their perceived agenda.

RW: There’s no question that it’s metastasizing in the sense that there are al Qaeda cells now operating in virtually every Arab country. But at the same time, one of the things that struck me in going back to the region after covering it for 35 years, trying to get an assessment of what’s going on inside countries, is the sense that people are growing increasingly angry or frustrated with militant Islam as a potential solution, because while the al Qaeda cells can destruct, they can’t provide constructive alternatives to the challenges of everyday life, be it jobs, education, some kind of independent future, housing, health care. There’s a recognition, and we’ve seen this even in Iraq, where the trial sheiks in Anbar Province, the most volatile of all Iraq’s regions, turned on al Qaeda after fostering them, aiding and abetting them, because they were just too brutal. The tribal sheik that turned the movement had lost his father and two brothers to al Qaeda. And there are people who were increasingly angry. And the tribal sheik, Sheik Sattar, mobilized not only his peers to form an awakening council, but also recruited 90,000 Iraqis, Sunnis, to form a police and a military unit to push al Qaeda back. So I think this plays out in so many regions, where they’re tired of the violence themselves, and they’re tired of living in fear.


Al Qaeda and other radical jihadists of the Sunni variety are trying to nest throughout the region, even as radical Shias, trained and exported by Iran and Hezbollah are engaged in the same export of terrorist cells. The only chance the region has, and thus Israel and the West, is by winning the race towards reform and economic growth throughout the Middle East. 2006 was a terrible year for that effort and not just because of the violence in Iraq but also because of Israel's inability to defeat Hezbollah. 2007 was by contrast a great year even though the cost in lost lives was high because of the success of the surge and the beginnings of a world effort against Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The Vets for Freedom I spoke with on Friday from the Midway are very clear eyed about this war. They know the terrible cost in lost lives and wounded comrades and they never fail to mention those Americans who died in the war and those who are recovering from wounds.

But unlike most Americans, they have seen the enemy and know the savagery and ruthlessness of radical jihadism. They also know that the Coalition is defeating them decisively in Iraq and needs to continue to do so until the Iraqi Defense Forces are fully capable of suppressing the jihadists by themselves.

As you read the various "look back" pieces, count the number of active duty military being quoted, or veterans of the combat operations there in 2007. If MSM is going to offer up assessments of the progress of the battle for Iraq and the wider war, more veterans of the recent battles please, and less pull quotes from Congressmen urging defeat.

The Vets for Freedom Heroes Tour is in San Antonio Texas today, and Austin tomorrow. That's where the MSM ought to be if they want the full story on Iraq five years after the invasion, and the U.S. 78 months after 9/11.
 
 
 
An excellent column by Hugh Hewitt here at Townhall.com.  Follow the link above to make your way to the audio of his interview with Robin Wright.  As Hugh clearly explains, tunnel vision is a dangerous thing.  One should never lose sight of the broader war against Islamo-fascism in the Middle-East and around the world.  Iraq is but one battlefront in long war.  We must fight Islamo-fascism wherever and whenever we can, both as individuals and as a nation. 
 
Why am I so aggressive and focused on the evils of Islam?  Because what I've seen is a small fraction of what our soldiers engaged in the war face on a daily basis along with that of the Jews in Israel.  And what I've seen is horrible beyond accurate description with words.  If you are honest and realistic, seeing what our enemies do will change you.  Which is why if you look at the Featured Posts on this site you will see a link to a video of a 12 year-old boy of the Taliban hacking and sawing off the head of a man our enemies branded an infidel.  The video is about three minutes long and he's not through by the time the video ends.  The link to that video will stay posted on this site as long as it exists.  I hardly recommend allowing your children to see it, but I certainly recommend that you watch it yourself.
 
Our enemies are animals, monsters who have fallen so far from humanity they no longer have the right to live with us in this world.  The Islamo-fascists have deteriorated so much that the last hope we can give them is a journey directly to God.  It is my accute belief only He and Christ can help them now.  If we don't fight them, our enemies will kill you, your families, and all we hold dear.  They have no intention of stopping, and I'm sure they wouldn't know how if even they wanted to.  We have made considerable progress through conservative values and a will to face evil.  We have little room to falter. 
 
78 months after 9/11.  It's not just what they've done, it's what they continue to do.  Islamists don't divide the world they wish to conquer between armies they can fight and those they can't.  You're either an infidel or you're not, and I'm proud to be an infidel.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Christos Anesti" by Jerry Bowyer

 
When He rose, empires fell...

I wonder if the people sitting in churches this week understand how very much Jesus of Nazareth’s last week of life was driven by clashes pertaining to wealth and poverty, freedom and tyranny. Probably not. Theologians generally don't study history. Historians usually don’t study theology, and neither study economics.

Here’s what happened: For over half of a millennium, Israel had been passed from empire to empire. Each new world power treated Jerusalem as a cash cow, diverting its wealth into imperial coffers in order to finance imperial ambitions. First there was Assyria, then Babylon, Persia, and Macedonia. Then finally Rome was given its turn. It was at this time that Jesus of Nazareth came into the world.
 
Rome didn’t care much about places like Nazareth; it was much more interested in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was a company town, and the company was The Temple. The Temple was the Herod family business, and it had been created for one reason and one reason only — to squeeze enough money out of the region for Herod and his dynasty to buy their way back into favor with Caesar Augustus.

Rome needed money to buy off the urban mob, and Herod needed Rome to keep down the Palestinian rabble. And so when the people came to Jerusalem to make their offerings to God, they were met at each step in the process of religious devotion with another checkpoint at which tolls were extracted. The journey to Jerusalem often meant crossing a Roman checkpoint — ka-ching! Since the trip was long and hard on the animals, it was better to travel light and buy the sacrifices in Jerusalem — ka-ching! You can’t use pagan Roman coins for that sort of thing, of course, so off to the money-changers — ka-ching again. Tithes, offerings, sacrifices, festivals, Rome got her cut — ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching. In fact, that’s the only reason there even was a temple or a King Herod. Rome would have long ago plundered it and killed him, except you don’t kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

If the temple was the bridge between heaven and earth, Herod was the troll who lived under the bridge. Every pilgrim was forced to pay the toll. That’s what kept Herod in power: no ka-ching, no king. Ordinary Jews hated the regime, and the anger was boiling over, but Herod didn’t care what they thought; he had Rome on his side.

Into this world steps the young son of a Galilean entrepreneur. Joseph was a tekton, a skilled contractor. His adopted son, Jesus, was a rabbi, who gathered around him a small group of apprentices (mathetai, disciples) and set off for Jerusalem. Along the way he said and did things that implied that the temple was losing its status as the exclusive provider of access to the presence of God. Most Jews had already come to similar conclusions. They knew the Temple was corrupt, and turned to small-group Torah study as an alternative. Jesus adopted and intensified this new worship model. He created a network of small, nimble, and self-replicating clusters of people who could study and pray together and care for the poor. In his words: “Wherever two or more are gathered in my name, I am there in the midst of them.” This threatened the Templar monopoly.

The Temple hierarchy was enraged by this. Their livelihood was at risk. Eventually Jesus went a step farther and staged a protest in which he overturned the foreign-exchange tables at the Temple where Roman coins were swapped for Jewish ones. The Temple was forced to shut down. That was the last straw. Jesus had demonstrated in a graphic, physical way that the Temple really did run on money. Even worse, he had demonstrated that during the time that The Temple, Inc. ceased to function the world still rolled along just fine without it.
 
Such knowledge could destabilize the entire world. Palestine was ungovernable without the Herodian Templar system, and an ungovernable Palestine meant the gold would cease to flow to Rome. It also meant the grain would cease to cross the Holy Land. As our tanks and ships run on oil, their horses and galley slaves ran on grain.

The Temple bureaucrats used their superior war chest to pay activists to call for Jesus’ execution, and even to bribe witnesses. The Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, knew how to keep his job in middle management — keep the money flowing to Rome. That meant killing Jesus.
 
Jesus was a politically sophisticated man. He knew what was coming.

He faced the executioners bravely. He accepted, even embraced his death, and overcame it. By doing this he took the stinger out of Jerusalem and Rome. Behind all the taxes and tolls, price controls, and monopolies, and behind the governors and tetrarchs and consuls and emperors, lurked a tax-hungry greed, and the greed was backed up by the threat of death. The emperor’s colossal ego was fed by the people of Rome; the Romans were fed by the bread and circuses; the bread and circuses were fed by the armies; the armies fed on the captive peoples, and the captive peoples who didn’t like it were fed to the lions, or (even worse) the crucifix.

Such it has always been. When tyrants rule, money flows uphill and pain flows down. At the top is always a Caesar (or his etymological cousins, a Kaiser or a Czar). In the modern age, they usually make a hypocritical nod to democracy by calling themselves “President,” but the suffix “for life” tells us what’s really going on. At the bottom is the enemy of the state and what awaits him is a cross, or a gas chamber, perhaps a syringe filled with poison, or the observation section of a rape room and then a trip to the paper shredder. Every tyrant rules the same way: through threat of torture, humiliation, and death.

But when Jesus said, “Go ahead, do your worst,” and, as his early followers testified, overcame death, he ripped the stinger out, rendering the whole wasp twitching and dying from tip to tail. When his followers chose the cross as their symbol, they seemed to be turning “the world upside down,” but they weren’t; they were turning the upside-down world, finally, right-side-up. To get the flavor, imagine a revolutionary-era Frenchman displaying a tiny replica of the guillotine, or modern Iraqis wearing little rape-room replicas around their necks, or industrial paper shredders. Imagine Russian dissidents making the sign of the syringe, or think of Holocaust survivors who display their tattooed identification numbers with pride instead of shame. This is what the early followers of Jesus did with the Roman cross.

Yes, Rome continued to plunder and murder for a time, but Jesus’ peaceful army grew. The empire tried to wipe them out, but the movement grew faster than Rome could kill. The Caesars gradually lost their grip on the world. Jesus’ new model survived, then prevailed and eventually spread. One by one it has been wiping the little Caesars from the face of the earth in a gale of creative destruction.

The gale blows still, Messrs. Putin, Kim Jong Il, and Ahmadinejad. The gale blows still, Raul, Hugo, Mugabe. House of Saud, the gale blows still.
 
 
 
 
Happy Easter!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bill Clinton Leaves Obama Out of the America-Loving Crowd

Former President Bill Clinton got the Obama campaign in a tizzy Friday after telling an audience in North Carolina that John McCain and Hillary share a love of America. 

By not mentioning Obama, pundits began reading between the lines: Clinton believes Obama's patriotism is lacking.

Speaking at a VFW, Clinton began praising McCain as a war hero who had demonstrated his love of his country. Clinton's comments were similar to remarks he made Wednesday in Pennsylvania. In that speech he called McCain a "very fine man."

"He paid as high a price as you can pay to serve this country without getting killed, and we have to honor that," Clinton said. "[And] he has some redeeming qualities for a Republican: he doesn't believe in torture, he supported campaign finance reform, and he doesn't think global warming is a myth... So it is not gonna be all that easy to beat him."

Clinton reiterated those views in North Carolina and noted that Hillary had persuaded McCain to join her side on the global warming debate.

Then Clinton made a comment that has infuriated Obama's camp:

"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country," said the former president.

"And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

Bill Clinton spokesperson Matt McKenna told MSNBC Friday that the former president "was talking about the need to talk about issues, rather than falsely questioning any candidate's patriotism."
 
 
 
Bill Clinton did not question anyone's patriotism, he simply did not mention B. Hussein Obama.  When discussing love for America why on Earth would he even mention Obama?  I certainly wouldn't.  What would he have said?  Obama loves America but hates white people?  Maybe Mr. Clinton was following the old rule that if you cannot say anything good about someone just don't say anything at all.  Besides, it's asinine for the Obama campaign to attempt to make Bill Clinton or anyone else mention his name.  Last time I checked Obama was an opponent of Hillary's, and certainly not a fellow lover of America like Senator McCain is.  Bill Clinton's remarks were completely appropriate and kind.  Given Bill's record on statements concerning Obama you would think they would be happy he didn't mention the racist Senator.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hezbollah Triples Rocket Arsenal, Now Up to 40,000

Hizballah’s heavy armament will figure large in the talks US Vice President Dick Cheney is holding with Israeli leaders on the Iranian nuclear threat. Cheney arrived in Israel Saturday night, March 22, from talks with Saudi leaders.

DEBKAfile’s military sources disclose that Hizballah has built up its rocket arsenal to three and-a-half times its pre-2006 Lebanon War stocks. Some of the 40,000 rockets of Syrian and Iranian manufacture can hit Israel targets as far south as Beersheba, 350 km. away from the Shiite terror group’s launching pads north of Lebanon’s Litani River.

Not only has Tel Aviv come within range, but Hizballah and the Palestinian Hamas in Gaza can between them cover most of Israel except for its southernmost tip at Eilat. Using these two surrogates, Tehran can therefore make war on Israel and keep its hands clean.

And not only Iran. DEBKAfile’s military sources report the lion’s share of rockets smuggled to Hizballah in recent months are Syrian-made. Damascus has also shipped to Hizballah quantities of anti-air weapons, including shoulder-borne rockets and scores of Russian-made anti-aircraft ZSU-100 automatic 14.4 mm caliber cannon, which are most effective against low-flying aircraft, helicopters and drones.

All these issues will be discussed at length mainly during the US Vice President’s session with Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak.

On his arrival, Cheney pledged that his government would not pressure Israel to take steps that threatened its security.

"America's commitment to Israel's security is enduring and unshakable, as is Israel's right to protect itself always against terrorism, rocket attacks and other attacks from forces dedicated to Israel's destruction," Cheney told a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

 
 
This report is hardly encouraging.  If Israel would decimate Hezbollah instead of allowing them to re-arm and triple their rocket arsenal we would surely have a safer Middle-East, not to mention a more secure Jewish State.  What exactly is it that the Israeli government thinks the Hezbos are going to do with those rockets; celebrate the Fourth of July?  That's just silly.  Then again this whole mess is little more than chaos born of a nightmare come to life before our very eyes.  Imagine the destruction if Hezbollah unleashed just a quarter of their rocket arsenal upon Israel.  Those stockpiles are in dire need of being destroyed.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Post ‘Post-Racial Candidate’" by Mark Steyn

Things get out-of-his-tree flown-the-coop nuts on the campaign trail.

I’m sure,” said Barack Obama in that sonorous baritone that makes his drive-thru order for a Big Mac, fries, and strawberry shake sound profound, “many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.”


Well, yes. But not many of us have heard remarks from our pastors, priests, or rabbis that are stark, staring, out-of-his-tree flown-the-coop nuts. Unlike Bill Clinton, whose legions of “spiritual advisers” at the height of his Monica troubles outnumbered the U.S. diplomatic corps, Senator Obama has had just one spiritual adviser his entire adult life: the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, two-decade pastor to the president presumptive. The Reverend Wright believes that AIDs was created by the government of the United States — and not as a cure for the common cold that went tragically awry and had to be covered up by Karl Rove, but for the explicit purpose of killing millions of its own citizens. The government has never come clean about this, but the Reverend Wright knows the truth. “The government lied,” he told his flock, “about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”
 
Does he really believe this? If so, he’s crazy, and no sane person would sit through his gibberish, certainly not for 20 years.

Or is he just saying it? In which case, he’s profoundly wicked. If you understand that AIDs is spread by sexual promiscuity and drug use, you’ll know that it’s within your power to protect yourself from the disease. If you’re told that it’s just whitey’s latest cunning plot to stick it to you, well, hey, it’s out of your hands, nothing to do with you or your behavior.
 
 
 
 
When B. Hussein Obama tells us he cannot disown the racist hateful Jeremiah Wright anymore than he can his racist granny, what he's really saying is that he is unable to disown the racism and anti-American hatred in himself.  For twenty years Obama has sat in Wright's pews and soaked-up Wright's crazed sermons, just like a sponge soaking up the good with the bad; all of it.  After two decades of association I believe Obama.  He's unable to disown Wright and Wright's ideology.  Obama could no more do that than an Islamist of Palestine could erase all his hatred for Jews after being raised in it for decades.  This could be the one thing Obama said in his race speech that was actually the truth.
 
Read all of Mark Steyn's column by hitting the link above.  One fact which stood-out to me I did not have knowledge of until Mark revealed it was that Obama's grandmother didn't fear black people as Obama lead us to believe in his recent speech.  It was in fact one specific black man on the bus.  I dislike all sorts of people; black, white, and purple if necessary.  Who's to say it was the skin color of the man on the bus?  Maybe he was mean.  Maybe he smelled.  I don't know if you've ever ridden a bus, but I can tell you that white people stink to high-Heaven as just as easily as a person of any other color is able to do.  Leave it to a racist like Obama to infer it was the color of the man's skin.  If she feared black people so much, why did she sacrifice so much for her grandson?  Was it because she feared him as well?
 
Here's another point Mark Steyn made, brilliant but obvious:  If white people invented the AIDS virus to kill-off black people, why is Jeremiah Wright uninfected and being allowed to walk around and talk about it?  Shouldn't he of all people be dead if that is indeed the case?  Something to ponder.  It seems to me that Obama didn't do much pondering before writing that speech.  Oh well, better luck next time Barack.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Israel Executed Hezbo Ops Officer Mughniyeh? So What If They Did?

 
The traditional 40 days of mourning for Mughniyeh ended on Saturday and Israel raised security worldwide - in Israeli missions and Jewish institutions - out of concern that Hizbullah will try to avenge the February 12 car-bombing by striking at a Jewish or Israeli target abroad.
On Friday, the IDF beefed up its presence on the Lebanese border, diverting units from training facilities and other operations.

While Israel has denied involvement in the terror-chieftain's death, Qassem renewed charges on Saturday that Hizbullah had "100 percent solid evidence that Israel killed Mughniyeh."

The Lebanese press published a Hizbullah statement about a rally scheduled for Monday in Beirut to commemorate Mughniyeh.

In conjunction with the high level of security in Israel - police beefed up their presence at Purim festivities over the weekend - the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) has decided to dramatically increase its level of security surrounding Israeli embassies, consulates and other offices worldwide.

The Shin Bet has also reinforced security and altered arrangements for El Al Israel Airlines flights around the world. One of the main concerns is that terrorists will try to down an Israeli passenger jet with a shoulder-to-air missile just as al-Qaida tried to do in Kenya in 2002.

Defense officials announced over the weekend that Israel would begin outfitting its civil airliners with a defense system designed to thwart missile attacks. The officials said the system fired flares that distracted an incoming missile's heat-seeking mechanism. It will be installed first on planes flying to destinations considered dangerous, especially those in Africa and parts of Asia.

Test installations were conducted several years ago, but the widespread fitting of the country's commercial fleet was held up until this month by an argument over who would foot the bill - the government or El Al and Arkia airlines. But Hizbullah threats have now prompted the government to agree to pay most of the cost.

 
 
 
Israel could very well have executed that Hezbollah pig.  So what if they did?  In fact, they shouldn't stop there.  Israel should execute every single member of Hezbollah until Hezbollah no longer exists.  Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah cannot exist if Israel wants safety and security for its people.  It's amusing to me how the Islamists torture and murder Jews, because they can, because Jews exist, and then moan and groan when one of their chief murderers is executed for murdering.  The whole "we can kill you but you cannot kill us" thing is just getting silly.  What cowards.  The only dead members these sick organizations can deal with emotionally are the ones who blow themselves up.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hallelujah! Jew-Loving Non-Practicing Muslim Baptized into Catholicism by the Pope

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- Italy's most prominent Muslim commentator converted to Roman Catholicism on Saturday during the Vatican's Easter vigil service presided over by the pope.

An Egyptian-born, non-practicing Muslim, Magdi Allam has infuriated some fellow Muslims with his criticism of extremism and support for Israel.

The deputy editor of the Corriere della Sera newspaper, Allam often writes on Muslim and Arab affairs.

He told the Il Giornale newspaper in a December interview that his criticism of Palestinian suicide bombings generated threats on his life in 2003, prompting the Italian government to provide him with a sizeable security detail.

Pope Benedict XVI baptized seven adults during the service.
It marks the period between Good Friday, which commemorates Jesus' crucifixion, and Easter Sunday, which marks his resurrection.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said of Allam before the service that anyone who chooses to become a Catholic of his or her own free will has the right to receive the sacrament.

Lombardi said the pope administers the sacrament "without making any 'difference of people,' that is, considering all equally important before the love of God and welcoming all in the community of the Church."
In the Il Giornale interview, Allam explained his complicated relationship with Islam and his affinity for Israel.

"I was never practicing," he was quoted as saying. "I never prayed five times a day, facing Mecca. I never fasted during Ramadan."

Yet he said he did make the pilgrimage to Mecca, as is required of all Muslims, with his deeply religious mother in 1991.

Married to a Catholic, with a young son and two adult children from his first marriage, Allam indicated in the interview that he would have no problem converting to Christianity.

He said he had even received Communion once -- when he was 13 or 14 -- "even though I knew it was an act of blasphemy, not having been baptized."

Allam also explained his decision to entitle a recent book "Viva Israel" or "Long Live Israel," saying he wrote it after he received death threats from Hamas.

"Having been condemned to death, I have reflected a long time on the value of life. And I discovered that behind the origin of the ideology of hatred, violence and death is the discrimination against Israel. Everyone has the right to exist except for the Jewish state and its inhabitants," he said. "Today, Israel is the paradigm of the right to life."
 
 
 
Now, if we can convince about one billion more to do the same as the brave ex-Muslim mentioned above we'll have won the war!  Someone tell the Pope to get busy, he's got a great deal of work to do.  If more Muslims would simply embrace Israel the majority of the world would have peace.  I did, and I didn't even have to convert. 
 
That's right, I'm a Jew-embracing Christian and proud of it.  I'll support Israel's safety and security as long as Christ continues to grant me everlasting life.  The story above gives me hope.  The fate of the world is tied to Israel unlike any other nation.  Its existence is necessary in order to win the war against Islamo-fascism.  Much like the United States, which I firmly believe is a Promised Land as well.  Make your way to the Father through His son Christ.  If an ex-Muslim, albeit a Muslim-hating ex-Muslim, can do it; anyone can! 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My Passport Breach Conspiracy Theory

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The CEO of a company whose employee is accused of improperly looking at the passport files of presidential candidates is a consultant to the Barack Obama campaign, a source said Saturday.

John O. Brennan, president and CEO of the Analysis Corp., advises the Illinois Democrat on foreign policy and intelligence issues, the source said.

Brennan briefed the media on behalf of the campaign this month. The executive is a former senior CIA official and former interim director of the National Counterterrorism Center. He contributed $2,300 to the Obama campaign in January.

When asked about the contribution, a State Department official told CNN's Zain Verjee, "We ethically awarded contracts. Political affiliation is not one of the factors that we check."

On Friday, the department revealed that Obama's passport file was improperly accessed three times this year, and the passport files of the two other major presidential candidates -- Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain -- had also been breached.
Three contractors are accused in the wrongdoing, including the one who works for the Analysis Corp. and who was disciplined. That contractor accessed McCain's file in addition to Obama's. None of the contractors was identified.

The Washington Times, which broke the story Thursday night that Obama's records had been improperly accessed, reported Saturday that the State Department inquiry is focusing on the Analysis Corp. employee. Also, the investigation by the department's inspector general will include polygraph tests for supervisors in the passport section to find out whether there was any political motive.

 
 
Here's my nutjob conspiracy theory for the day:
 
Since Obama could not get out from under his relationship to hateful anti-American Jew-hating pastor Jeremiah Wright, he had a strong supporter in a position of power (Brennan) cook-up a breach of privacy with all the candidate's passports.  Substitute dates, a breach of network/system security, and hang a few lowly fools out to dry.  Bam!  You've got yourself a brilliant conspiracy.  Guess what?  It worked!  The Jeremiah Wright controversy has been deminished and the passport story is now taking up at least as much time in the media.  And I thought the Clinton machine was sneaky!  I guess Obama showed me.  He's a racist pro-Palestinian jerk, but he can sure control the news when he wants to.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More on McCain in Israel


JERUSALEM (AP) —
 Touring a war-battered town, Sen. John McCain said Wednesday he understands Israel's tough response to Palestinian rocket fire, adding that there is no point in negotiating with the Gaza Strip's Islamic Hamas regime.

The Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting also praised the moderate Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, saying he is committed to reaching a peace deal with Israel — though McCain is not meeting Palestinians this time.

McCain's visit to Israel is part of a week-long trip through the Middle East and Europe. After a day of meetings with Israeli leaders, he visited Sderot, the southern Israeli border town that has been the target of thousands of crude Palestinian rockets in recent years.

"That is not a way for people to live," McCain said. "No nation in the world can be attacked incessantly and have its population killed and intimidated without responding. That's one of the first obligations of government, to provide security for its citizens." Israel has been widely criticized for military operations aimed at stopping the rocket attacks, as well as its blockade of Gaza.

While billed as routine congressional business, the visit appeared to be aimed at burnishing McCain's leadership credentials and courting Jewish voters for the November election. Jews make up large voting blocs in key swing states, including Florida and Michigan, and could help influence the outcome of the election.

Though McCain did not visit Palestinian areas, Palestinian peace negotiator Saeb Erekat said the senator has always been accessible to the Palestinians and is "committed to peace." But he suggested McCain's visit was aimed more at attracting Jewish voters than promoting negotiations. "Maybe one day Palestinians will have money for your campaigns in the United States," he said.

McCain told reporters that because he was on a congressional fact-finding tour, it was not the time to discuss his campaign.

Still, in an interview published in the Jerusalem Post, McCain said he would "personally be engaged" in peace talks if elected and "give it my highest priority."

Later Wednesday, McCain arrived in London for a first meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The two were to meet Thursday for talks on Iraq, the world economy and climate change.

Speaking to reporters in Sderot, McCain gave strong indications that he would follow the policies of President Bush, who has promoted peace talks between Israel and the moderate Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, while working to isolate the Hamas government in Gaza.

Hamas seized Gaza from Abbas' forces last June, and Abbas now rules from the West Bank.

McCain did not meet with Abbas during his two-day visit, but said he spoke to the Palestinian leader by telephone. McCain said the Palestinian leader is committed to reaching a peace deal with Israel, though he questioned whether a target of an agreement this year is realistic.

"I hope that he can deliver. I think he is sincere," McCain said. "I think the Palestinian people desire peace. I believe they deserve peace, and I think President Abbas is capable of conducting those negotiations."


Discussing the U.S. role, McCain said there has to be "an environment of reconciliation between parties," but that "there also has to be an outside party that is willing to bring the parties to the table and facilitate that process." He said a peace agreement is a key U.S. interest.

Israel and the Palestinians launched peace talks at a U.S.-hosted conference in Annapolis, Md., last November. The sides have made little visible progress. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has warned that even if a deal is reached this year, it cannot be carried out until Abbas regains control of Gaza.

The Palestinians seek an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip — territories that lie on opposite sides of Israel. Hamas is committed to Israel's destruction and opposes the peace talks.

Israel frequently conducts military operations in Gaza in response to rockets fired by Hamas and other militant groups. A recent Israeli offensive killed more than 120 Palestinians, including dozens of civilians, drawing heavy international criticism. Since ending the operation, there has been a relative lull, and Israeli defense officials have confirmed they are working through Egyptian mediators to reach a truce with Hamas.

McCain said he would respect any Israeli decision but questioned the wisdom of negotiating with the Islamic militants.

"The Palestinian authority in Gaza is committed to the extermination of the state of Israel. It is very difficult to negotiate with an organization that is dedicated to your extermination," he said.


In Gaza, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said McCain's comments shows "there isn't the faintest hope" for a change in American policies. He called on the Arab world to reconsider its ties with the United States.
 
 
 
While McCain's willingness to work with Abbas is as distressing as President Bush's current policy, his unwillingness to recognize Hamas as anything other than a terrorist group is somewhat heartening.  It was also pleasing that he at least did not meet with Abbas during this trip to Israel. 
 
I detest John McCain as a politician.  However, when foreign policy is thrown into the blender McCain comes-out far ahead of Obama and Hillary... especially Obama.  John McCain's words are nice, but the question of whether or not he'll act on those words is a different story.  Looking towards Israel and the wider Middle-East it becomes extremely difficult to cast a protest vote against McCain to punish him for not being a conservative.  He deserves it, that's for sure; but is it the right thing to do?  The more I study Israel and their importance to our war against Islamo-fascism, the less I'm able to validate giving the Democrats four years to smack the GOP around for their impertenance and disloyalty to the very foundations of my party.  Reality can do strange things to those who pay attention to the world around them. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama, Twenty Years in a Church That Hates America

Absent clear evidence to the contrary, one must assume that at least on some level Senator Barack Obama and his wife, having attended Rev. Wright's church for the past 20 years, have embraced his teachings and vision of America. I know that my minister has always had a profound impact on my outlook about life. Thus, I find it difficult to believe Senator Obama when he tells us that he was unaware of his Pastor's stance on issues of terrorism, racism and politics. Like many intellectual blacks, the Obamas and their ilk are highly aware of what they perceive as the continuous crippling effect of racism and slavery in America on their careers. The irony is that many of their children have embraced this country, finding success and prosperity, while their parents continue to allow their wounds to be nurtured in this hopeless mindset preached from the pulpit. Michelle Obama’s expression of how for the first time she was proud of America was indicative of the influence of her Pastor and this attitude among black elites in general.

Senator Obama should admit to the fact that since campaigning he’s seen a different America. He must show that he rejects and repudiates this school of negative thinking about the possibility for change in America. Furthermore he should stand above divisiveness and fractured politics and repudiate a theology which overly emphasizes the worst in our country, while ignoring the phenomenal progress we have made together. This past week was not an exemplary moment for the man who prided himself on integrity and honesty throughout this campaign. The fact is the Senator has no plausible excuse for why he remained a member of Rev. Jeremiah's church while seeking a role on the national stage. He and his family should have left the congregation for the embrace of a church that teaches the bible rather than the alienation and divisiveness.

It makes no sense for someone in search of America’s promise and potential to worship in a place where a doctrine of hatred and anti-Semitism is the central theme and members stand and applaud the pastor like a rock star. I was taught that church was a place of escape and rest, but I didn’t want to worship with someone who is supposed to be a religious leader feeding me poisonous propaganda. My reason for going to church has always been for a spiritual recharge, not more of the same. I deal with politics 24/6, and one day a week I get a chance to take a break from all that. I believe this to be healthy, and think it is sad that I had to try so hard for so long to find a church that was able to provide the rest or Sabbath, mentioned in the Bible. The day must come when churches (Black or otherwise) that preach hate speech return to the sanctity of the Word. No one should ever be forced to search for such a lengthy duration or give up and settle in a church that is unacceptable and potentially pay the price that Senator Obama is paying for imbedded cynicism.
 
 
 
The above is from Armstrong Williams at Human Events.  Mr. Williams makes excellent points that I have no doubt will fall on the deaf ears of B. Hussein Obama and his minions around the country.  After Obama's campaign not tanking due to his association with Jeremiah Wright and his terrorist-supporting church, I fully believe the man could be actually indicted for treason and maybe lose one or two points in the polls.  Hell, he'd probably gain points given today's voters and their anti-American ideology now that I really think about it.
 
As Mr. Williams states in the title of his column; Obama has no excuse.  Twenty years and he behaves as if there was a gun held to his head forcing him to attend those sermons and embrace Jeremiah Wright as his mentor and father-figure.  B. Hussein Obama could have attended virtually any church he wished and over them all he chose the hateful congregation of Jeremiah Wright, he chose an organization who republished a Hamas manifesto and screams "God-damn America!" from the pulpit.  The public has been given an accurate picture of the real B. Hussein Obama and the only ones who've flinched are conservatives, patriots, and Jews.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Jihad, Islamism, and Non-Interventionism" by Jeffrey Imm

3. Non-Interventionism: U.S. Foreign Policy to Blame for Islamist Terrorism

3.1. Occidentalism and Non-Interventionists - Islamist Terrorism as a Reaction to U.S. Foreign Policy


In his book "Marching Toward Hell", Mr. Scheuer mocks those concerned about Islamism as "Cold Warriors" (p. 148), while adopting a Cold War mentality towards Islamism himself. In Mr. Scheuer's efforts to promote Non-Interventionism, his argument is that Islamist terrorism is exclusively a reaction to U.S. foreign policy. Since logical contortion is inconsequential to the larger Non-Interventionist cause of preventing America from recognizing an enemy, Mr. Scheuer does not care that such reactive thinking is indeed a Cold War mentality itself. Contradictions don't matter to the Non-Interventionist ideologue.

The term "occidentalism" is defined as "usually refer[ring] to stereotyped and sometimes dehumanizing views on the so-called Western world, including Europe, the United States, and Australia." In the case of the Non-Interventionist arguments, occidentalism refers to the views that western ideas such as western democracy, pluralism, and secularism are somehow destructive forces in the larger world, as viewed by non-western eyes.

So to understand Mr. Scheuer's Non-Interventionist views on American foreign policy, Mr. Scheuer's occidentalist views on democracy, secularism, and pluralism must also be understood. Non-Interventionist Mr. Scheuer echoes Islamist Osama Bin Laden in regards to his contempt for democracy. As previously stated, in Mr. Scheuer's book "Marching Toward Hell", he mocks offering democracy to Muslims as nothing more than a pointless effort "so Mrs. Muhammad can vote, vamp, and abort" (p. 254), and sees Islamist Bin Laden as "urging Muslims to liberate themselves from tyranny in order to attain life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in terms that are compatible with their Islamic faith" (p. 164). In addition, Mr. Scheuer decries the value of secularism as well, stating "in the Muslim world" (p. 139) that Muslims "regard secularism as inherently inferior to their way of life and an affront to their faith, indeed, as fighting words". (Mr. Scheuer sees no "hubris" himself in his speaking on behalf of "the Muslim world" or for all Muslims on this.) Moreover, Mr. Scheuer states that "[o]nly among the U.S. governing elite is multiculturalism an attainable goal" (p. 140).

With this occidentalist viewpoint, Mr. Scheuer provides a detailed argument that Islamist terrorism is the result of American foreign policy. In "Marching Toward Hell", Mr. Scheuer calls attention to six areas of "indictments" by Islamists regarding America's foreign policy (p. 149-150) that he insists on Americans keep "squarely in view":

"1. The U.S. military and civilian presence in the Arab Peninsula"
"2. Unqualified U.S. support for Israel"
"3. U.S. support for states oppressing Muslims, especially China, India, and Russia"
"4. U.S. exploitation of Muslim oil and suppression of its price"
"5. U.S. military presence in the Islamic world - Arabian Peninsula, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc."
"6. U.S. support, protection, and funding of Arab police states".

The basic thesis of Mr. Scheuer's Non-Interventionist argument is that if America surrenders to Osama Bin Laden's demands on these "indictments", it will be spared from further Islamist terrorism. With such an argument, it is imperative for Mr. Scheuer to first completely deny the existence of any Islamist ideology or objectives, outside of a reaction to U.S. foreign policy, because the obvious question would be asked - what if the U.S. agreed to act on such "indictments", and Islamist terrorism continued and/or increased? Such occidentalist, Cold War thinking by Mr. Scheuer is essential to make such his Non-Interventionist argument sound plausible.

(I address each of these "indictments" in part 3.4.)

Mr. Sageman's book "Leaderless Jihad" makes a similar, although far less sweeping Non-Interventionist argument, that Islamist terrorism is the reaction of U.S. foreign policy, by ignoring the impact of Islamism on actual terrorist actions (p. 40), demanding that Americans lose their "sense of moral outrage" against Islamist actions, and insisting on "[w]ithdrawl from Iraq is a necessary condition for diminishing the sense of moral outrage that Muslims feel" (pp. 154-155).
 
 
 
This excerpt is from Part II of III in Jeffrey Imm's series at Family Security Matters.  Read the whole thing by following the link above.  I just heard an interview with Mr. Scheuer, author of "Marching Towards Hell, on Dennis Prager's podcast which you can listen to right here at Townhall.com.  The author of this column is quite correct; Scheuer is a non-interventional theorist as intellectual as they come.  Scheuer rationalizes the threat of Islam and, almost brilliant in his dangerously wrong conclusions, blames the foreign policy of the United States for the actions of our enemies in Islam who are using their religion to conquer the world. 
 
I'm in near amazement every single time I see or hear of such an intelligent person who will come-up with anything from the most sophisticated to the downright stupidest of reasons to explain away the reality of Islam and its goals.  Whatever it takes to not have to face the truth and act upon it.  There's a group of people who seem to find it easier to say, "It must be us" rather than take action against Islamic terror.  I admit it's a frigtening truth, hard to accept for many, and even harder to deal with appropriately.  While sometimes well-intentioned, these misguided individuals are dangerous to our country and the civilized world in which they live.
 
What can you do about it?  Don't believe the non-interventionalists and the isolationists.  Support those who fight Islam, support our military, and support leaders who understand that only by facing our enemies and taking action will we achieve victory and remain free. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Illegal Aliens Hurt Blue Collar Workers

An article in New Jersey’s Star Ledger addresses a major issue where illegal aliens are concerned: the practice of hiring illegal aliens willing to do the work Americans should be doing but are unable to do because the illegal alien workforce is willing to accept substandard wages, no benefits, and often dangerous conditions that in and of themselves are illegal.

The Carpenter's Union is suing the D. R. Horton Construction Company for hiring illegals and subsequently laying off union workers. The allegations are all too familiar: the illegal aliens are working for substandard wages and for no benefits. My heart goes out to the laid-off employees. I support the tactic of their union in suing the Horton Company of Fort Worth, Texas. This is a strategy that I hope will be used throughout the United States to combat unscrupulous employers.

My dad was a construction worker and a plumber. During the Second World War he was deemed to be "4-F" due to flat feet and a double hernia and was rejected by the military, although he made a number of attempts to enlist. Driven by his profound patriotism for America, he decided that his best opportunity to support our nation's war efforts would come by working in the naval shipyards, repairing the various warships that had suffered damage in the war. He worked at the Brooklyn Navy Yard and traveled to other such shipyards around the country during the Second World War.

Dad passed away from lung cancer while I was a college student, but I recall many evenings seeing him come home, upset because he had been laid off from work. I witnessed the look of concern etched in both his and my mother's eyes. As a construction worker, he was only paid for the hours he worked and being laid off meant that he would receive no paycheck. My memories of those moments make me understand something that those elitist politicians can’t: the way that Blue Collar Americans, the backbone of this nation, are getting clobbered by the hiring practices of unprincipled employers who know that they have virtually nothing to fear where the hiring of illegal aliens is concerned. When President Bush declares that "illegal aliens do the work Americans aren't doing," he conveniently leaves out the other half of that statement – that they cannot afford to take those jobs any longer because the wages have been slashed.

How many workers today are coming home with that same look of despair because they have lost their jobs to illegal aliens?

How many homeowners are paying hefty fees for jobs that are substandard at best? Day laborers do not have the skill or experience of tradesmen. It is not even a contest where quality of work is concerned. The greedy employers get to pocket lots of extra money, their customers get substandard work, and American workers are losing their jobs and their ability to provide for their families.

 
 
 
Hit the link above to read the entire article at Family Security Matters.  The damage to American Citizens who work for a living by illegal aliens and those who hire them is criminal, literally.  We are supposed to be able to rely on our law enforcement and government to do what they're paid to do and enforce the law.  Unfortunately there seems to be no hope of that occurring.  The people of this country who have every right to work and live here, namely citizens, have been screaming at our government to give them back their jobs and lower the level of crime in their neighborhoods directly caused by illegal aliens.  The percentage of our leaders who actually listen and take action is dreadfully low.  We're told they cannot build a fence and secure the border and they tell us deportation is not an option.  Lies.  Cheap labor and more liberal votes is about the only thing that matters to our government officials.  As long as they aren't personally affected; there's no problem.  Let their wages drop to the floor and let their children be murdered by people who should not even be here in the first place and you'll hear a much different tune being sung, that I promise you.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bhutto from Beyond the Grave, Robert Spencer Responds

Imagine my surprise several days ago when a reporter asked me for comment on the late Benazir Bhutto’s attack on me in her book Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West. I hadn’t read the book, and hadn’t heard of any such attack, but I picked one up last night, and sure enough, there it is on page 245:

Robert Spencer is the author of the well-known Web site Jihad Watch. He uses the Internet to spread misinformation and hatred of Islam, while claiming he is merely putting forward the truth. But as in much extremist advocacy, he presents a skewed, one-sided, and inflammatory story that only helps sow the seeds of civilizational conflict. For example, he takes apparently violent verses of the Quran out of context and then does not provide any peaceful verses as a balance.

Unlike many of the more mainstream authors presented, Spencer does not understand the true Muslim faith or differentiate between moderate Muslims and violent Islamists, and so lumps them all in one boat:

"Islam is a totalitarian ideology that aims to control the religious, social and political life of mankind in all its aspects, the life of its followers without qualification, and the life of those who follow the so-called tolerated religions to a degree that prevents their activities from getting in the way of Islam in any way. And I mean Islam: I do not accept some spurious distinction between Islam and 'Islamic Fundamentalism' or 'Islamic terrorism.' The terrorists who planted the bombs in Madrid, and those responsible for the death of more than 2,000 people on September 11, 2001 in New York and the Ayatollahs of Iran were and are all acting canonically; their actions reflect the teachings of Islam, whether found in the Koran, in the acts and sayings of the Prophet, or Islamic law based on them."

That long quote from me sounded funny to me -- it just didn’t sound to me like the way I write. But Bhutto’s endnote said it was from page 11 of The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, an essay collection by many different authors that I edited, and so when I was laboriously typing out the passage from her book for this article, I went into the Word document of the material I wrote for that book, hoping I could just paste the paragraph in here. But...it wasn’t there! It turns out that that quote is from the book’s Foreword, “The Genesis of a Myth” by Ibn Warraq. Page 13, not 11.

So while excoriating me for allegedly quoting the Qur’an out of context, Benazir Bhutto attributed to me words written by someone else. And that someone is, like Bhutto, a Pakistani who was raised a Muslim. Ibn Warraq has spent years doing research on the historical Muhammad and the origins of the Qur’an -- and yet apparently he somehow now misunderstands the Islamic faith.

But leave that aside. When someone as illustrious as Benazir Bhutto sees me as an obstacle to the reconciliation she wanted to bring to the world before the jihadists assassinated her, it is incumbent upon me to explain myself.

He uses the Internet to spread misinformation and hatred of Islam, while claiming he is merely putting forward the truth.

Reporting on jihadist activity is spreading “misinformation and hatred of Islam”? Perhaps Mark A. Siegel of American University, former Deputy Assistant to President Jimmy Carter and a former Bhutto lobbyist who says that he “helped Benazir research and write this book,” would be so kind as to provide an example or two of each, from anything I have written here or elsewhere -- that is, any misinformation or incitement to hatred. In the book, she fails to do so:

But as in much extremist advocacy, he presents a skewed, one-sided, and inflammatory story that only helps sow the seeds of civilizational conflict. For example, he takes apparently violent verses of the Quran out of context and then does not provide any peaceful verses as a balance.

This is wholly false, for in my books, notably Onward Muslim Soldiers, I discuss the peaceful verses at length, and describe how Muslim exegetes of the Qur’an have explained the relationship of the peaceful verses to the violent ones. And The Truth About Muhammad is in effect an extended study of the contexts of various Qur’anic passages. I have also discussed the contexts of the violent verses in relation to the peaceful ones, as explained by Muslim exegetes, at the Jihad Watch site.

And finally, the quote from Ibn Warraq that Bhutto misattributes to me does not establish her claim that I do not “differentiate between moderate Muslims and violent Islamists.” It’s about Islam, not Muslims. What people continually fail to grasp is the distinction between the texts and teachings of a faith, which are matters of record, and the many different ways in which people understand those texts and teachings. To say that all the schools of Islamic law teach violent jihad and the subjugation of unbelievers under the rule of Islamic law is simply a statement of fact. It can be proven or disproven with reference to the actual teachings of the schools. But if they do all teach this, and they do, that doesn’t mean that every Muslim follows those teachings, any more than the fact that the Catholic Church teaches against contraception means that every Catholic opposes contraception. There is a spectrum of belief, knowledge, and fervor among Muslims as there is among believers in every belief system, religious or not.

And if one genuinely wishes to oppose those Muslims who are attempting to implement this deeply traditional supremacist program, one cannot do so by pretending that the teachings that those Muslims rely on don’t exist, or that someone like me is responsible for exaggerating the impact of “apparently violent verses of the Quran.” No, it is Muslims themselves all around the world who are daily invoking those passages of the Qur’an to justify acts of violence, and Benazir Bhutto, of all people, should have been willing to acknowledge that, and deal with its implications.

 
 
More empty nonsense used to marginalize men like Robert Spencer and others for doing nothing more than reciting facts and accurately interpreting their effects.  The quotes Robert makes note of in the article above are typical of Islamists that are, rightly, ashamed of their beliefs and will do and say anything to cover-up what the Qur'an teaches its followers.  The "moderate" Muslims would do good to attack those they accuse of mis-using their own religion instead of slandering honest men like Robert Spencer for shedding light on the phenomenon.  The rhetoric of "moderate" Muslims does nothing but sew chaos.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | Trackbacks