Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Grover Norquist--Islamist Enabler?

[All emphases by Always On Watch]

Can it be? Grover Norquist, an Islamist enabler? Norquist is perhaps best known as the founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform, and his bio and resume are impressive, especially for those on the right side of the political spectrum. But according to Frank Gaffney and Michelle Malkin, among others, Grover Norquist has another side, a side which might indicate Islamist sympathies.

From a January 15, 2006 article:
"Grover Norquist--Islamist Enabler?"

“A prominent conservative leader who allegedly has used undeclared foreign money and top political connections to promote terrorist sympathizers is an 'enabler' who threatens 'to do grave harm to the Bush presidency.'

“Norquist has been criticized for promoting what is called the Wahhabi lobby, a Saudi-funded network designed to dominate and radicalize Islam in America…”
Do the above excerpts sound like ridiculous conspiracy theory? Before deciding, consider the following, as delineated by Frank Gaffney in the above-cited article:
"The Islamic Institute, which Norquist co-founded and houses in his Americans for Tax Reform office, received seed money from an avowed supporter of Hezbollah, the terrorist group that killed 241 US Marines in a 1983 suicide bomb attack.

"The Islamic Institute reportedly is 'predominantly funded by foreign governments, shady Saudi sources, and US-based groups raided by the Treasury Department-led Operation Green Quest Task Force for allegedly funding suicide bombers, al Qaeda and other terrorists' activities.'

"Norquist led conservative opposition to parts of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism legislation, without disclosing that his Islamic group was dependent on such funds.

"Norquist has affiliated himself with the radical National Committee to Protect Political Freedom (NCPPF), from which he received an award shortly before the September 11, 2001 attacks, despite the group's thirty-year public track record of promoting domestic and international terrorism."
How much influence does Grover Norquist wield? Turn the clock back to this November 2001 article in Free Republic:
“On the afternoon of September 26, George W. Bush gathered 15 prominent Muslim- and Arab-Americans at the White House. With cameras rolling, the president proclaimed that ‘the teachings of Islam are teachings of peace and good.’ It was a critically important moment, a statement to the world that America's Muslim leaders unambiguously reject the terror committed in Islam's name.

“Unfortunately, many of the leaders present hadn't unambiguously rejected it. To the president's left sat Dr. Yahya Basha, president of the American Muslim Council, an organization whose leaders have repeatedly called Hamas ‘freedom fighters.’ Also in attendance was Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who on the afternoon of September 11 told a Los Angeles public radio audience that ‘we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list.’ And sitting right next to President Bush was Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Islamic Society of North America, who last fall told a Washington crowd chanting pro-Hezbollah slogans, ‘America has to learn if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come.’ Days later, after a conservative activist confronted Karl Rove with dossiers about some of Bush's new friends, Rove replied, according to the activist, ‘I wish I had known before the event took place.’

"If the administration was caught unaware, it may be because they placed their trust in one of the right's most influential activists: Grover Norquist. As president of Americans for Tax Reform, Norquist is best known for his tireless crusades against big government. But one of Norquist's lesser-known projects over the last few years has been bringing American Muslims into the Republican Party. And, as he usually does, Norquist has succeeded….

“Norquist denies being involved in ‘micromanaging the specifics’ of White House meetings, but admits ‘I have been a long time advocate of outreach to the Muslim community.’ In fact, the record suggests that he has spent quite a lot of time promoting people openly sympathetic to Islamist terrorists….While nobody suggests that Norquist himself is soft on terrorism, his lobbying has helped provide radical Islamic groups--and their causes--a degree of legitimacy and access they assuredly do not deserve."
Here’s a bit of additional information:
“Although it is not noted on either group's website, Norquist's Islamic Institute actually shares office space and staff with Americans for Tax Reform….

The AMC and CAIR have been able to get access to senior officials in the Bush Administration nine times since 9/11 despite the fact that CAIR has sued Attorney General Ashcroft and in June 2002 CAIR's executive director Nihad Awad declared that he supported the Hamas movement. Both groups have incessantly attacked President Bush's policies on Iraq, the monitoring of aliens from nations that sponsor terrorism, and the prosecution of suspected terror operatives…

Since 9/11, Norquist has led opposition to domestic anti-terrorism laws and has been quoted in frontpage NY times articles allelging a wholesale loss of faith by conservatives in Attorney General Josh Ashcroft. Norquist has also attacked Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, and others who have attempted to alert Americans to the dangers of Islam.”
A July 19, 2004 article, "The Faisal Gill Affair," provides an example of one individual whom Norquist recommended for a top-level position in our government:
It now appears that Mr. Norquist’s help has extended beyond facilitating high-level access and influence for various Muslim-American and Arab-American entities with troubling ties to, or at least sympathy for, radical Islamofascists – and even terrorists. Reportedly, his association also helped someone affiliated with such a group to gain a political appointment to an exceedingly sensitive post: ‘policy director’ of the Department of Homeland Security’s Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection division.

“As the title of this position suggests, its occupant would have access to highly sensitive information about the vulnerability of, among other things, U.S. ports, transportation infrastructure, chemical plants, oil refineries and nuclear power plants to terrorist attack. The incumbent is a 32-year-old lawyer named Faisal Gill.

“It is unclear what qualified Mr. Gill for such a post. In response to press inquiries, a DHS spokeswoman declined to describe his qualifications or background so it is not known whether he has any prior experience with intelligence or, for that matter, with security policy.

“What is known is that Gill’s political patrons include Grover Norquist, who was listed by Gill as a reference on employment documents. After all, Gill had been a spokesman for the Taxpayers Alliance of Prince William County, Virginia, which is affiliated with Norquist’s group, Americans for Tax Reform. Gill had also worked in 2001 as director of government affairs for the Islamic Free Market Institute (also known as the Islamic Institute), whose founding president was Grover Norquist.

Interestingly, news articles published after September 11 described Gill in another capacity – as a spokesman for the controversial American Muslim Council (AMC). The AMC was founded and controlled by a prominent Islamist activist, Abdurahman Alamoudi. Alamoudi was indicted last October on terrorism-related money laundering charges. [Alamoudi hs since been convicted.] While in jail awaiting trial, he has reportedly engaged in plea-bargaining by confessing to participating in a Libyan plot to murder the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.

“For some reason, Gill is reported to have failed to list his work with the AMC on his ‘Standard Form 86’ national security questionnaire.”
On July 30, 2004, Michelle Malkin had this to say about Grover Norquist, in reference to Abdurahman Alamoudi, the moderate Muslim who turned out to be not so moderate:
“Norquist owes a public apology to fellow Republicans whom he has smeared as bigots for raising fundamental questions about Alamoudi and the Islamist-supporting apparatus in America. More importantly, Norquist owes answers about why he partnered with a known terrorist sympathizer, whether or not he now defends Alamoudi, when he plans to stop hiding behind the race card, and what exactly he plans to do to disavow Islamist influences.”
And how much influence have Norquist and his (former) cohorts had on policies in the Bush administration? According to Paul Sperry (whose web site is here), author of the 2005 book Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington:

"Many conservatives are annoyed by Bush's nonstop defense of Islam. They say they understood the need for such rhetoric right after the attacks to quell bias against Muslims and prevent vigilantism. But they say it is sounding more and more like boosterism, which could lead Americans into a false sense of security about the threat....

"In part, Bush is currying favor with Muslim groups at the request of Rove, who has worked with Norquist over the years to cultivate Muslims as a new voter base for the GOP, a highly controversial issue."
(page 17)
In his book, Mr. Sperry devotes Section VII, "Political Infiltration," to the influence of Islamism within our government. Chapter 27, "Undue Influence at the White House," deals primarily with Norquist's influence on American policy toward Muslims and how that policy might be interfering with effective strategies in dealing with the enemy.

Since the publication of the above-quoted words from page 17 of Mr. Sperry's book, President Bush has been more forceful in his condemnation of Islamism, often referred to as Islamofascism. Nevertheless, the Bush family's connections with the House of Saud are of concern to many as Saudi is the bastion of Wahhabism, viewed by most as the most radical form of Islam.

At the least, Norquist has a history of promoting associates of questionable connections. And has Norquist been the advocate of others yet to be exposed?

For a detailed article on Norquist, read "A Troubling Influence," a lengthy and well-footnoted piece.

The Abramhoff scandal may bring down Grover Norquist. In the process, will any additional of Norquist's disturbing connections come to light? Will the Right or the Left have the forthrightness to look beyond the Abrahamoff scandal, to consider what may present a graver threat than ties to Abramhoff's dirty money?

Additional reading: "The Conservative Response to the Islamic Threat" and "Can the Left Face the Threat of Islam?"

Thanks to The City Troll for providing many of the links used in this article.

149 Comments:

At 1/24/2006 11:10 AM, Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Great report! It brings this issue up to date!

It’s telling that Norquest attacks Pipes, who goes out of his way trying to reach out to those who want to create a moderate Islam. I understand that some have a hard time believing that Islam is rotten to the core but when they attack Pipes they clearly favor a complete white-wash of Islam.

Gaffney has been superb in exposing Norquest. And it was very painful for him to do this to someone who has been a comrade on so many other issues. But the truth and the nation comes first. I wish the mainstream media would pick-up on the Norquest 5th-column angle.

 
At 1/24/2006 11:18 AM, Blogger Bassizzzt said...

I am not in the slightest bit surprised because Bush is in bed with David Forte, his "advisor" on Islam. Let's never forget that Bush (the moderate) declared that "Islam is a religion of peace." If a ham sandwich were running for president back in '04, I'd have voted for it over Kerry or Bush.

While this philosophy is being closely followed, there is a current meeting of minds in the Pentagon that are slowly beginning to realize that Islam is not at all what it seems.

And, to make matters worse, CAIR still is in existence. Perhaps if we had a more hard-liner of a president, these thugs would be out of business and behind bars.

 
At 1/24/2006 11:22 AM, Blogger Bassizzzt said...

Backing my statement on the Pentagon (thanks, Paul Sperry, for writing on this - MUST READ):

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=20539

 
At 1/24/2006 11:40 AM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/24/2006 12:13 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/24/2006 12:31 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

Time to invoke the Alien and Sedition Acts...

Hmmm, no, Bush would never have the balls to do that.

Sigh... where are the heroes?

 
At 1/24/2006 12:38 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/24/2006 12:49 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Come on Samwich. Pipes is nothing more than a Looney Tune who believes that Israel must have "complete military victory" over Islam (I think Pipes is such an a**munch that he doesn't limit himself to Palestinians).

This is all about thumper endtimers and jewish fanatics who thing God is a real estate agent (oh, and refilling the Saudi treasury while some of it finds it way to the Republicans).

I remember when the rethugs were going on about Gore's "Buddhist temple" visit which turned out to be a big nothing while they ignore the economic influence of Saudis on the Bush family.

Much ado about nothing. Protestants afraid that Islam won't take a knee to their perverted religion.

 
At 1/24/2006 1:19 PM, Blogger John Sobieski said...

Norquist is a Muslim. He married a Palestinian activist. An infidel can NEVER marry a Muslim woman. He just doesn't want anyone to know and refuses to say, when asked, if he is a Muslim.

 
At 1/24/2006 1:20 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/24/2006 1:31 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

I'm more inclined to follow what a President does than what he says.

As long as our troops and intelligence agents are attacking Muslim terrorists, Bush can say "Islam tastes good with a beer" all he wants.

 
At 1/24/2006 2:54 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

Actions speak louder than words, Mr Beamish, I agree.

However, in this information-driven society, Bush is sending exactly the watered-down media message that keeps America from naming the enemy for who it is - the political murder cult of Islam.

How much better if the president came out and said: "Islam declared war on the US. The Quran supports the killing of infidels. Islam is not a legitimate religion. Islam will be outlawed."

Imagine the firestorm. But the debate needs to be had. America needs to shake off this incessant blinder that has us look the other way when dealing with political movements couched in religion.

Islam cannot ever co-exist with western secularism. The best example of this is the Dutch trial of the Van Gogh murderer. The muslim stated over and over how a muslim could not be part of the west - how the secular system was hated and reviled. How the fight would go on and on no matter how quiescent the west became and how solicitous of Islam.

We need the president to step on his political dick and bring the debate to the public. Sure the dems would fry him. But where does our country head when we continue to ignore what we are at war with?

 
At 1/24/2006 3:00 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/24/2006 3:11 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/24/2006 3:20 PM, Blogger Mark said...

Excellent piece of 'investigative journalism', Always On Watch!

It all just goes to show how the web of Islam has been spun within the web of the West. It's going to be hard, if not well-nigh impossible, to free ourselves of this influence without a bloody fight. Indeed, one has to ask oneself the question at this point: Is it already an inextricable web, or knot, a knot from which we cannot disentangle ourselves?

This is a tactic of Muslims, you know? - Doing favours, and expecting bigger favours in return. They love others to be indebted to them. I don't think that our leaders have cottoned on to this fact. They spin their webs that way.

 
At 1/24/2006 4:10 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Samwich, sorry but that's a weak reading of Kelo.

It is not permissable to take a single parcel and transfer it to someone who would make the parcel more profitable. That has always been barred and Kelo (very misunderstood ruling) didn't change it.

Good article in the Progressive about Milton Friedman defending his monetary policy. They really bust his chops with at least four massively interventionist activities brought about by Reagan's stock market crash...from the savings and loan bail to the Mexico bailout.
Monetarists have a very narrow view.


I do believe Romney may be our next prex(God save us). That should excellerate the meltdown of the dollar that Volcker is predicting.

 
At 1/24/2006 4:37 PM, Blogger beakerkin said...

I am leery about placing dual loyalty questions on anyone other then commies or CAIR.We should be careful as some have even aburdly called Stephen Schwartz a traitor.
Schwartz is a Muslim patriot and has some views I strongly disagree with but is not a traitor.

Now Ducky on the other hand is a supporter of a movement that seeks the violent overthrow of the US government.

All in favor of sending Ducky to Gitmo vote Yes or No.

Is placing the Duck in a cell with terrorist cruel and unusal punishment to terrorists ?

One vote in favor of sending the Duck to Gitmo.

 
At 1/24/2006 5:16 PM, Blogger Doctor Rick said...

Ducks cant go to Gitmo, its not thier indiginous environment.

 
At 1/24/2006 5:32 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/24/2006 6:26 PM, Anonymous Mustang said...

Yeah, you have to love it when you have a conservative insider (Norquist) selling out his country to Muslims from the right, a liberal insider (John Conyers) selling out his country to Muslims from the left, and an administration that wants everyone to know that Islam is a peaceful religion. Now there is nothing wrong with any of this that a flame-thrower won't resolve.

 
At 1/24/2006 6:30 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

I didn't see Giuliani in that list.

 
At 1/24/2006 6:36 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Bassizzzt,
I'm familiar with David Forte, and I'm glad that you brought up his name.

From this blog article:

...Forte is at the forefront, defending Islam, legitimizing Islam and misleading our President and the masses with his lies.

David Forte's favorite adjective for Islam is 'great'. His favorite deceit is that "Islam was hijacked." Mr. Forte argues that "What drives bin Laden is not religious faith of any traditional kind; it is, rather, the all-too-familiar phenomenon of murderous revolutionary ideology politicizing religion for its own purposes." Forte goes even further in stating that "nothing this evil could be religious."...

 
At 1/24/2006 6:55 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

I did not use Daniel Pipes as a primary source for this article, but here is some information from Daniel Pipes regarding Islamic law, from this article:

...Paul Sperry, author of the new book, Infiltration, in an interview calls Grover Norquist "an agent of influence for Islamists in Washington." When asked by FrontPageMag.com why a Republican anti-tax lobbyist should so passionately promote Islamist causes, Sperry implied that Norquist has converted to Islam: "He's marrying a Muslim, and when I asked Norquist if he himself has converted to Islam, he brushed the question off as too ‘personal.'" As Lawrence Auster comments on this exchange, "Clearly, if Norquist hadn't converted to Islam, or weren't in the process of doing so, he would simply have answered no."

Indeed, Norquist married Samah Alrayyes, a Palestinian Muslim, on April 2, 2005, and Islamic law limits a Muslim woman to marrying a man who is Muslim. This is not an abstract dictum but a very serious imperative, with many "honor" killings having resulted from a woman ignoring her family's wishes....


The above has internal links to examine.

 
At 1/24/2006 7:01 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Some here have questioned the reliability of Daniel Pipes because he may have a hidden agenda.

But Norquist also criticized Steve Emerson.

Jason rightly pointed out that Gaffney found it very painful for him to do this to someone who has been a comrade on so many other issues.

 
At 1/24/2006 7:10 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Beak,
I understand your wariness about double loyalties.

But as I did my research, I found multiple and unrelated sources which brings up serious questions as to who is shaping our government's policies. Advisors are in a very powerful position, so I feel that it is appropriate to look closely at those who advise GWB.

How close are Norquist's ties to CAIR? He has bragged that he brought the Muslim vote to GWB in 2000.

 
At 1/24/2006 7:15 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/24/2006 7:42 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

The must-read article which Bassizzzt mentioned, from this source [emphases mine]:

Washington's policy-makers have been careful in the war on terror to distinguish between Islam and the terrorists. The distinction has rankled conservatives who see scarce difference.

A little-noticed speech by President Bush in October gave them some hope. In a major rhetorical shift, he described the enemy as "Islamic radicals" and not just "terrorists," although he still denies that radicalism has anything to do with their religion.

Now for the first time, a key Pentagon intelligence agency involved in homeland security is delving into Islam's holy texts to answer whether Islam is being radicalized by the terrorists or is already radical. Military brass want a better understanding of what's motivating the insurgents in Iraq and the terrorists around the globe, including those inside America who may be preparing to strike domestic military bases. The enemy appears indefatigable, even more active now than before 9/11.

Are the terrorists really driven by self-serving politics and personal demons? Or are they driven by religion? And if it's religion, are they following a manual of war contained in their scripture?

Answers are hard to come by.
Four years into the war on terror, U.S. intelligence officials tell me there are no baseline studies of the Muslim prophet Muhammad or his ideological or military doctrine found at either the CIA or Defense Intelligence Agency, or even the war colleges.

But that is slowly starting to change as the Pentagon develops a new strategy to deal with the threat from Islamic terrorists through its little-known intelligence agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity or CIFA, which staffs hundreds of investigators and analysts to help coordinate Pentagon security efforts at home and abroad. CIFA also supports Northern Command in Colorado, which was established after 9/11 to help military forces react to terrorist threats in the continental United
States.

Dealing with the threat on a tactical and operational level through counterstrikes and capture has proven only marginally successful. Now military leaders want to combat it from a strategic standpoint, using informational warfare, among other things. A critical part of that strategy involves studying Islam, including the Quran and the hadiths, or traditions of Muhammad.

"Today we are confronted with a stateless threat that does not have at the strategic level targetable entities: no capitals, no economic base, no military formations or installations," states a new Pentagon briefing paper I've obtained. "Yet political Islam wages an ideological battle against the non-Islamic world at the tactical, operational and strategic level. The West's response is focused at the tactical and operation level, leaving the strategic level -- Islam -- unaddressed."

So far the conclusions of intelligence analysts assigned to the project, who include both private contractors and career military officials, contradict the commonly held notion that Islam is a peaceful religion hijacked or distorted by terrorists. They've found that the terrorists for the most part are following a war-fighting doctrine articulated through Muhammad in the Quran, elaborated on in the hadiths, codified in Islamic or sharia law, and reinforced by recent interpretations or fatwahs.

"Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad)," concludes the sensitive Pentagon briefing paper. And "no one is looking for its off switch."

Why? One major reason, the briefing states, is government-wide "indecision [over] whether Islam is radical or being radicalized."

So, which is it? "Strategic themes suggest Islam is radical by nature," according to the briefing, which goes on to cite the 26 chapters of the Quran dealing with violent jihad and the examples of the Muslim prophet, who it says sponsored "terror and slaughter" against unbelievers.

"Muhammad's behaviors today would be defined as radical," the defense document says, and Muslims today are commanded by their "militant" holy book to follow his example. It adds: Western leaders can no longer afford to overlook the "cult characteristics of Islam."

It also ties Muslim charity to war. Zakat, the alms-giving pillar of Islam, is described in the briefing as "an asymmetrical war-fighting funding mechanism." Which in English translates to: combat support under the guise of tithing. Of the eight obligatory categories of disbursement of Muslim charitable donations, it notes that two are for funding jihad, or holy war. Indeed, authorities have traced millions of dollars received by major jihadi terror groups like Hamas and al-Qaida back to Saudi and other foreign Isamic charities and also U.S. Muslim charities, such as the Holy Land Foundation.

According to the Quran, jihad is not something a Muslim can opt out of. It demands able-bodied believers join the fight. Those unable -- women and the elderly -- are not exempt; they must give "asylum and aid" (Surah 8:74) to those who do fight the unbelievers in the cause of Allah.

In analyzing the threat on the domestic front, the Pentagon briefing draws perhaps its most disturbing conclusions. It argues the U.S. has not suffered from scattered insurgent attacks -- as opposed to the concentrated and catastrophic attack by al-Qaida on 9-11 -- in large part because it has a relatively small Muslim population. But that could change as the Muslim minority grows and gains more influence.

The internal document explains that Islam divides offensive jihad into a "three-phase attack strategy" for gaining control of lands for Allah. The first phase is the "Meccan," or weakened, period, whereby a small Muslim minority asserts itself through largely peaceful and political measures involving Islamic NGOs -- such as the Islamic Society of North America, which investigators say has its roots in the militant Muslim Brotherhood, and Muslim pressure groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whose leaders are on record expressing their desire to Islamize America.

In the second "preparation" phase, a "reasonably influential" Muslim minority starts to turn more militant. The briefing uses Britain and the Netherlands as examples.

And in the final jihad period, or "Medina Stage," a large minority uses its strength of numbers and power to rise up against the majority, as Muslim youth recently demonstrated in terrorizing France, the Pentagon paper notes.

It also notes that unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam advocates expansion by force. The final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, is to conquer the world in the name of Islam. The defense briefing adds that Islam is also unique in classifying unbelievers as "standing enemies against whom it is legitimate to wage war."

Right now political leaders don't understand the true nature of the threat, it says, because the intelligence community has yet to educate them. They still think Muslim terrorists, even suicide bombers, are mindless "criminals" motivated by "hatred of our freedoms," rather than religious zealots motivated by their faith. And as a result, we have no real strategic plan for winning a war against jihadists.

Even many intelligence analysts and investigators working in the field with the Joint Terrorism Task Forces have a shallow understanding of Islam.

"I don't like to criticize our intelligence services, because we did win the Cold War," says a Northern Command intelligence official. "However, all of these organizations have made only limited progress adjusting to the current threat or the sharing of information."

Why? "All suffer heavily from political correctness," he explains.

PC still infects the Pentagon, four years after jihadists hit the nation's military headquarters.

"A lot of folks here have a very pedestrian understanding of Islam and the Islamic threat," a Pentagon intelligence analyst working on the project told me. "We're getting Islam 101, and we need Islam 404."

The hardest part of formulating a strategic response to the threat is defining Islam as a political and military enemy. Once that psychological barrier has been crossed, defense sources tell me, the development of countermeasures -- such as educating the public about the militant nature of Islam and exploiting "critical vulnerabilities" or rifts within the Muslim faith and community -- can begin.

"Most Americans don't realize we are in a war of survival -- a war that is going to continue for decades," the Northcom official warns.

It remains to be seen, however, whether our PC-addled political leaders would ever adopt such controversial measures.


There it is again--the idea of the caliphate: The final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, is to conquer the world in the name of Islam.

 
At 1/24/2006 8:09 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Beamish,
I'm more inclined to follow what a President does than what he says.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. But is GWB under the wrong impression about the enemy?

And what about the borders? The article which I just reproduced in its entirety mentions the issue of a growing Muslim population, although I didn't bold that portion.

 
At 1/24/2006 8:12 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Axis,
The official story is that Norquist is a Methodist, but I don't have a link to prove that statement.

 
At 1/24/2006 8:19 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mussolini,
Outlawing Islam will never happen as long as it's regarded as a religion.

Now, does anybody have the guts to outlaw Islamism? To cut off the Saudi funding of institutions within the United States?

That article which I, in a previous comment, reproduced in its entirety is asking the hard questions. Will CAIR or another similar organization tank it?

 
At 1/24/2006 8:21 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Samwich,
Money is power. Holding real estate implies money, so that holding is power. Kelo jeopardizes the private ownership of real estate.

 
At 1/24/2006 8:27 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Duck,
The Kelo decision has been on more that one occasion to seize property for the higher tax-revenue potential. I think we discussed this with regard to the D.C. baseball stadium.

Many a piece of property, including my own, would bring in much more in tax revenue were the acreage to be developed into more than one single-family dwelling. In my case, that development would bring in 5 times the tax revenue, and that's a low estimate. Plus, the eyesore of my 1940 structure would be upgraded to two McMansions.

 
At 1/24/2006 8:27 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

I voted for GWB because Kerry would have been a national disaster with his pretentious "nuance" diplomacy.

I remember him saying that we needed to "sit and talk" with OBL to "see what they wanted." TRANSLATION: "How much money can we pay you to go away?"

But GWB has a suicidal idea of our southern border. What kind of insane monkey of any stripe - and that includes the WSJ - believes that totally open borders are a great and wonderful thing?

Samwich makes the most sense there with the CFR connections. I've read about the CFR on and off since the early 80s. Their goal is in fact to fit America into a worldwide structure with the consequential erosion of American supremacy. Of that, I have no doubt. Read too many newspaper and magazine articles on them.

GWB's adherence to them is disturbing to me - as is anyone else's connections. Even discounting his connections, I am still enraged that his position is so cavalier with America's security.

A wall needs to be built along the entire border, period. If we can afford infinite amounts of money from taxpayer pockets to build boondogglefuckingbridges to isalnds inhabited by three mosquitoes, then we can afford to build the damn wall.

 
At 1/24/2006 8:32 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mustang,
Toward the end of this blog article, I posted links to two of Jason's articles. If you have time to read them, you'll find them informative: "The Conservative Response to the Islamic Threat" and "Can the Left Face the Threat of Islam?" Maybe you've already read those pieces, but I wanted to mention them just in case you haven't.

Good to see you here, BTW, my friend.

 
At 1/24/2006 8:46 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/24/2006 9:14 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mussolini,
I remember [John Kerry] saying that we needed to "sit and talk" with OBL to "see what they wanted." TRANSLATION: "How much money can we pay you to go away?"

Idiotic, wasn't it? OBL has said time and again what he wants.

We certainly agree on the border issue. Is there a wall going up at San Diego?

I heard of the CFR during the 1960's, but I can't remember the ocntext. Who was the last President not a member?

One-world government is a utopian delusion and would undermine the United States.

 
At 1/24/2006 9:16 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Samwich,
I look for gold to take off. It always does in times of economic uncertainty because buying gold is the ultimate run to safety.

Interesting about the delivery of those forecasts you mentioned.

 
At 1/24/2006 9:43 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

Maybe the CFR believes in aliens and that we need to unite America with the rest of the world for the common good before the alien invasion...

Just about anything makes sense when thinking of the CFR.

 
At 1/24/2006 9:55 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/24/2006 10:09 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/24/2006 10:16 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Samwich,
The IAEA moves like a snail. Of course, Iran wants IAEA to take a look. The snail's pace will allow for time to test a nuke.

Did you see El-Baradei's interview in the January 23 edition of Newsweek. It's online. Let me know if you don't spot the link and/or the article.

 
At 1/24/2006 10:34 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/25/2006 12:12 AM, Blogger MissingLink said...

I am not sure about your (US) particular politicinas/powerbrokers (like this Norquist fellow) but of course no political organization or government is immune to 5th column infiltration.


Lacking the numbers it will always be either taking over public offices, infiltrating political parties or setting up NGOs like in Marice Strong's case (he also buys out politicians).
E.G. Communists successfully infiltrated socialist/labour parties in Poland (between 1920-1939) as they could not get even 1% of support on their own.

Currently most of the radical, pro-marxist 5th columnists in Oz penetrated all environmental, feminist and civil liberties movements.

Of course they also support Islamist ambitions under the cover of anti-Zionism, pro-Palestinian and humanitarian movements (just taking over from the Soviets).

All people whose loyalties by definition are against democratically established systems should be automatically banned from all public offices, lobbying agencies public service etc.
It wouldn't stop them of course from infiltrating these oganizations but it would make life more difficult for them as well as it would force the existing governments to set appropriate rules and watchdog agencies to police them (be more vigilant).

 
At 1/25/2006 12:32 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

I was perfectly willing to give Grover Norquist the benefit of doubt when Frank Gaffney (a man I believe belongs heading up the CIA) first brought the matter of Norquist's Islamist ties to the attention of people who pay attention (i.e. conservatives), until Norquist threw down the race card.

For all the good work Grover Norquist has done for conservative causes, f*ck 'em.

The correct answer to "why are you catering to terrorism advocates" is not "you're a racist."

 
At 1/25/2006 6:56 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Beamish,
I know what you mean by Norquist's response to Gaffney's inquiries, and I have yet to see an appropriate and satifying response from Norquist. When I started going through the list of Norquist's connections, I decided to write this piece.

Isn't it interesting that the Left hasn't jumped all over the Norquist story?

When the Abramhoff story broke, I though to myself, "This may bring down Norquist, and that might not be a bad thing for this nation." I also thought, "Now we'll hear something about Norquist." But I haven't.

Have you read Paul Sperry's Infiltration? I read a library copy when the book first came out, then bought my own so that I could use it for reference.

 
At 1/25/2006 7:38 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Felis,
Currently most of the radical, pro-marxist 5th columnists in Oz penetrated all environmental, feminist and civil liberties movements.

Of course they also support Islamist ambitions under the cover of anti-Zionism, pro-Palestinian and humanitarian movements (just taking over from the Soviets).


What Leftists do not seem to get is that Islamism doesn't care a whit for some of the causes which the Leftists support. We all know about how women are treated in many Muslim countries. According to a friend of mine who has visited Saudi, if a Mercedes breaks down, it is abandoned in the desert to litter the landscape. Also, in Saudi when vehicles' gas tanks are being filled, no care whatsoever is taken not to spill the gasoline all over the ground. So much for taking care of the environmnent, a cause which left-leaners frequently cite as one of their major concerns.

Some years ago, I asked a Muslim neighbor, "Why does your country look to Russia as an ally?" His response: "Because the United States can never be our ally. The United States is Israel's ally." He went on to say, "You have a woman as secretary of state. Not only a woman! A Jewess! And your President is having an affair with a Jewess." I was stunned! I had no idea that someone who had grown up here, as an ambassador's son, and who had married an American woman would still harbor such feelings. Sigh...

That neighbor moved back to the Middle East in 1998.

 
At 1/25/2006 9:12 AM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/25/2006 9:23 AM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/25/2006 9:37 AM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/25/2006 9:46 AM, Blogger samwich said...

Beamish you idiot evertime you eat bread or chicken or beef or pork or drive your car or use elctricity or pay taxes and pay me a profit Ducky sticks his hand in my pocket and taxes me for his grandiose socialist schemes.

I tell ducky to thank you instead of me cause I'm just the middleman skimming for myself.

I'm gonna keep one T-bill just to collect YOUR taxes as tax free income for ME!

RAOFLMAOAY BWAHAHAHAHAHA

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 
At 1/25/2006 10:48 AM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/25/2006 10:55 AM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/25/2006 11:09 AM, Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Sperry’s FPM article, reprinted above, was worth reading again. The guy is doing great work.

As far as I’m concerned Norquest crossed the line. His service to his country in the past doesn’t exempt him from criticism and ostracism. Benedict Arnold also served our country well before he turned. I didn’t excuse Kerry because he served!

 
At 1/25/2006 11:53 AM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/25/2006 2:38 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/25/2006 2:54 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Oh well, Samwich. It's worthless paper fiat anyway, right?

 
At 1/25/2006 2:59 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/25/2006 4:22 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Hey Samwich, that was excellent.

Yeah, my left and your right and he's still nothing but a loud mouthed bigot.

 
At 1/25/2006 4:23 PM, Blogger Gindy said...

Hugh Hewitt once reffereed an on air debate between Frank Gaffney and Grover on this very subject which I thought was pretty damning of Norquist. Gaffney cleaned his clock. It is worth hearing if you could ever get a copy of it.

And it is a shame. Norquist used to be effective at what he did. Which used to be taxes. Great post. I have been following this topic when info becomes available.

 
At 1/25/2006 4:50 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/25/2006 7:03 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

I think it was some Christmas discussion on this site where I thought Samwich was an atheist...

Don't ask; I dunno.

I have almost half a mill in 10 year treasuries. Going to move it to energy in the morning. With interest rates likely on a nice rise shortly, my principal might end up looking like Ducky discovered several socialist give-aways he could rape me for.

 
At 1/25/2006 7:50 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Jason,
Yes, that Sperry article needs to be read far and wide.

Has CAIR objected to the Pentagon study yet?

 
At 1/25/2006 7:54 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Hey Mussolini, the yield curve has inverted, forget about 10 year.

Nobody is tying anything up long term.

 
At 1/25/2006 8:47 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/25/2006 9:26 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

Yep, Ducky, it irritated me when it inverted - but it's been dipping and climbing in competition recently with the short termers.

Being my income, I left it.

Iran's antics should play some nice havoc with everything. While suffocating the general market, the drive for energy should intensify regardless.

I don't think the IAEA and Russia's blitherings are going to stall off an Israeli or American/Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iran. Bolton made that pretty clear. His statements were a diplomatic nuclear bomb where beating around the bush is considered harsh.

 
At 1/25/2006 10:29 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/25/2006 11:12 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/25/2006 11:30 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/26/2006 1:04 AM, Blogger Mussolini said...

Russia had a huge vested interest in Iraq. Russia did not nuke us when we attacked.

If China nukes the US, the US will retaliate. China has more people to lose, packed into a tighter area (relatively). For China to launch against the US is to commit suicide - their entire nation would be destroyed to the stone ages. That would not fit in with China's desire to be a superpower.

Rationally, nukes will probably only ever be used against countries that don't have them because they are on the verge of acquiring and using them.

Further, God won't let China destroy the world. He'll reserve that pleasure for Himself.

China is approaching the top of their demographic curve for economic productivity. Their population is aging faster than anyone else's and is already contracting.

 
At 1/26/2006 2:35 AM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/26/2006 3:25 AM, Blogger MissingLink said...

AOW,
What Leftists do not seem to get is that Islamism doesn't care a whit for some of the causes which the Leftists support.

I think they do get it but they still think it smart to support any mean whatsoever to dismantle what we call Western democracy.

This tactic is not new, communist countries, knowing that they could not match Western (mostly American) military force, used various movements, including Islam to "weaken" the West.

The radical left wants to use the force of Islam to score against the US and its allies.
Of course they do not really support Islamic values it is purely a marriage of convenience.
They are blinded by their pathological hate to democracy and cannot see that they won’t be able to control this force.
The Germans thought they could control Lenin when they provided him with money and other resources and send him to dismantle the beginning of democratic Russia.

 
At 1/26/2006 7:41 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Felis,
I think they do get it but they still think it smart to support any mean whatsoever to dismantle what we call Western democracy.

I don't understand WHY, though.

In 1988 on his Christmas break, my neighbor's son came home from college and over dinner flat out stated, "Western civilization is the cause of all the world's problems." He couldn't go beyond that broad statement to explain his position, so I concluded that he was repeating what he'd been taught in his history class, which was probably the required course Western civilization, or what he'd heard while smoking pot.

Whatever the case, this young man became progressively more anti-establishment, and when he graduated, he established a commune, the main activities of which seemed to be drug parties and rock concerts in the fields surrounding the farmhouse where they all lived together. Accepting bucks from his parents, who were supporting him until he got a job (something he refused to do because he "didn't want to be part of the system," despite the fact that he had a very marketable degree in communication--he said, "I can't cut my hair or wear a suit because that's against my principles") he rented the house in his own name; but when the time came to pay the heating bill, all his buddies scrammed and stuck him with the bill. At that point, his parents couldn't bail him out of his financial situation, so he got a job, but a low-level job which did not in any way connect to the degree he had earned.

This young man is now almost 36 and is satisfied with his position in life. I would say that he appreciates Western civilization to the point where it is necessary for his lifestyle, but no further.

The reason I'm telling this anecdote is that I'm guessing that there are quite a few people like my neighbor's son. They don't care about anything other than their little corner of the world. Such thinking allows for other ideologies to further their own agendas. Don't misunderstand me--I don't see my neighbor's son as deliberately malicious. And this particular young man understands the Islamist threat; he's no pacifist, either. But he doesn't seem interested enough in preserving the system which allows him to preserve his lifestyle. In fact, he's very much the pessimist and the cynic, while at the same time entertaining his utopian dreams and attending high-priced rock concerts by the score--sometimes on his parents' dime. I know several others like my neighbor's son, others who seem to have no vested interest in society yet remain the beneficiaries thereof. In short, they seem to be disinsterested spectators.

My neighbor's son would shrug about everything we discuss here--Islamism, finances, etc.

IMO, there are those who actively support the demise of Western democracy and those who just "get along." But this haunts me: those who just "get along" remind me of the silent and uninvolved masses which helped to allow for the rise of Hitler.

A lot of people today are more worried about the next edition of Play Station or X-Box, or other similar entertainments, than they are about the very system which allows them to have such entertainments. Apathy is dangerous.

 
At 1/26/2006 8:02 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Samwich,
Any military intervention against Iran will provoke a military and economic response from China, Russia and the Arab world.

We will be the first economy destroyed in the conflagration.
We will be attacked with nuclear weapons.


I don't know that Russia would attack militarily. China, either. But Islamists certainly would not hesitate to use nukes, and terrorists have been actively seeking materials for suitcase nukes. Internal attacks could be very effective in achieving the same goal.

How about this scenario? One suitcase nuke or one nuke missile, followed by blackmail?

China is willing to enhance economic cooperation with Saudi Arabia in areas of energy, mining, petrochemicals, investment, infrastructure construction, science and technology and human resources.

Sounds as if you're saying that all the Eastern world is lining up in opposition to the Western world.

 
At 1/26/2006 8:02 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mussolini,
For China to launch against the US is to commit suicide - their entire nation would be destroyed to the stone ages.

I'm not so sure about that. Probably the problem would be taken to the U.N. I've already stated how I feel about the effectiveness of that body.

 
At 1/26/2006 9:17 AM, Blogger Mussolini said...

AoW: I doubt even John "Nuance" Kerry would bother sending anything to the UN if China launched attacks against us.

We'd nuke them to the stone ages.

We had plenty of disagreements with both China and Russia over the years (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and a host of smaller little battles) where we came face-to-face in battle against them. Nukes were not used.

Every sane man knows that when you launch the nukes, the world is over. At that point, might as well destroy everything. Our country is melted to glass? Well Chang, look what's coming your way.

When you're dying, your killer's life holds no value. If we get melted, they go down too.

Intrinsically, nuclear nations understand that. How come France never threatened the US with nukes? Yet Chirac waves the nuclear phallus at Iran without breaking a sweat.

Because Iran doesn't have nukes yet. Nukes get used on countries that can't retaliate.

 
At 1/26/2006 9:19 AM, Blogger Mussolini said...

In fact, just to illustrate further...

We've had 60 years of nukes. Madmen all over foaming at the mouths and rhetorical spit flying everywhere.

Please point out the last nuclear exchange between nuclear countries?

The harshest difference and deepest entrenchments of passion run along the Paki-Indian border. Both are nuke-ready. Please point out to me the last series of nuclear exchanges these two dire enemies (who keep killing each other) have had.

 
At 1/26/2006 9:38 AM, Blogger Shah Alexander said...

AOW,

I replied to your questions in the last post.

Cheers!

 
At 1/26/2006 9:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

always,

The story of your neighbor's son is, I believe, a symptom of a moral and economic malaise made possible by a highly productive and successful vertically integrated industrial economy created by our parents in the 40's/50's/60s.

We tell our children to follow in the well-worn paths that proved successful in producing and supporting that industrial model. To go to college and learn a trade that will help us in our future "careers" working for and in cooperation with other people in the corporate environment. To become "executives" and "managers", instead of the actual "workers" themselves.

We also seem to have largely abandoned the smaller scale entrepeneureal model of endeavoring to become self-sufficient in order to set up our own businesses (The Spirit of Ben Franklin and 1776).

We are like the sons and daughters of a successful monarch, born after our parents had conquered the adversity that gave rise to their success and power. And we seek to avoid adversity ourselves and for our children, when we should actually be courting it when we/they are still young in order to strengthen our own experience in dealing with and conquering it.

In the 30's and 40's, an ardent disciple of Nietzsche once forecast the fate of Western Civilization based upon the themes developed in a rather lengthy and grandious tome entitled, "The Decline of the Western Civilization". Oswald Spengler's forecast for the future of the west was delineated in a separate, smaller volume entitled Man and Technics (an excerpt at the link).

Many believe that the fate of the west is "inevitable" and that the end results cannot be avoided. I do not subscribe to that school of thought. For Spengler's was a forecast largely based upon a straight line projection for an "industrial" economy.

But one thing is for sure. Mankind needs to break away from the cog in the machine mentality of socialism and corporatism if our civilization is to survive.

Individuals need to be given a stake in their own lives and the ability to create and mold their own fate. We desperately need to transition our economy from a second wave vertically integrated industrial economy to a highly distributed and parallel "Third Wave" Tofflerian one.

Unfortunately, our political leaders are all still trying to revive and resuscitate the "second wave" Walmart model. And if they succeed, Spengler's forecast for the fate of the west is bound to come true.

-FJ

 
At 1/26/2006 11:09 AM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Well Farmer, not just Spengler but the much maligned and completely misunderstood by the right, Marx has shown the inevitable collapse of laissez-faire.

What surprises me is that you hitch on with a snake oil salesman like Toffler who is just trying to give you the full Ayn Rand...the hackneyed ideas that got us into this problem.

Calling it the "fate of the West" when Asia and South America among others are ready to go down the tubes with us as we indulge in over xconsumption is foolish.

 
At 1/26/2006 11:45 AM, Blogger Mussolini said...

Still waiting for Marx to be proven right. I'm holding my breath....

No really, I am. Any minute now...

Looking at this rationally, Marxism has been a failure in comparison to capitalism wherever its been tried.

Oh, wait... you know, that Cuban economy just royally rips ours... even compared to a more Marxist-friendly socialist country like France...

Just ignore those high unemployment rates and horrible productivity figures.

 
At 1/26/2006 1:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, Toffler isn't the full Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand is far too "second wave" /industrial. I think you're suffering from a form of Future Shock. Get over it. It's not my fault that your mind can't keep up.

The third wave is the return of old Ben Franklin. A nation of small manufacturers and shopkeepers. A nation of niche and limited markets. A nation of small farms and distributed home businesses. Prosumers vs consumers. Cognitarians, not proletarians.

Of course, many second wave industries will still be needed. Energy suppliers. Transportation. Raw material processing.

And yes, certain unfair legal advantages for corporate entitities will have to be scaled back. No more "corporate" welfare. No sweetheart political set-asides. A level playing field. No $200M tax break for building a Walmart in our town and bringing "jobs" to our region.

The last thing this country needs is more "jobs". Jobs are for losers who can't cut it on their own.

-FJ

 
At 1/26/2006 1:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Laissez-faire capitalism will never collapse, mr. ducky. It's the only thing that works.

-FJ

 
At 1/26/2006 1:39 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/26/2006 2:34 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

I have to disagree a bit Samwich. Most socialists are as concerned with the distribution of power as they are wealth (although the two may well be the same).

I still haven't been convinced that production and distribution have to be tightly coupled to produce a functioning just society.

Of course if you see the average result of socialism as a couch potato who does little more than talk about football such as our Beamish...well that would push me more towards the right.

 
At 1/26/2006 3:12 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Samwich,

I've never said you're a leftist. I said you are stupid enough to fall for leftist rhetoric. Although there is no such thing as an intelligent leftist, your stupidity doesn't necessarily default you to a leftist position.

Then again, maybe I'm too smart to see the mind behind two homos fantasizing about groping my testicles.

 
At 1/26/2006 3:19 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/26/2006 3:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

...that's how I see him duck. Why should Mr & Ms Socialist be anything more than mere couch potatos waiting for the check to clear and funds to become available? What incentive is there for them to do more or excel, to take on "another" parasite? All ambition will earn them is the ire of their co-workers and another mouth to feed.

...and so, define a "just" society mr. ducky. Is it justice that innumerable parasites should be able to freely multiply and breed on the backs of their hosts? Is it justice that anyone can just sit down one day and become a parasite? How many parasites are YOU willing to carry? How many parasites can a host support? And how many "handicaps" are you willing to pay to the "less fortunate".

And isn't there "justice" in a host rubbing his back against a tree branch every once and awhile and scraping the parasites to the ground, leaving them to whither and die from their own weakness?

-FJ

 
At 1/26/2006 3:30 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/26/2006 3:37 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Well, now I certainly feel rebuked and refuted by someone who tells me my sperm tastes funny.

Samwich, one day you'll be out of your parent's house and have a lawn of your own to cut, and Ducky won't be around for you to swap gay fantasies with.

 
At 1/26/2006 3:42 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Beamish, please stop your petty homosexual gossip.

I would expect that you'd find it instructive that both sides of the spectrum find you lacking. It's a time for self correction.

 
At 1/26/2006 3:43 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/26/2006 3:43 PM, Blogger City Troll said...

Great Article AOW excellent presentation.... and thanks for the hat tip.

 
At 1/26/2006 3:47 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/26/2006 3:51 PM, Blogger City Troll said...

"I have well water. I have deer, antelope, elk, grouse, pheasant, rabbit and can feed beef, sheep, pigs, chickens, turkeys etc.
I have farmed. I do not like that occupation but if necessary I will farm.

S "

Hey Sam can I come hunt your property

 
At 1/26/2006 3:59 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Ducky,

It is certainly your right to be an active disease vector. I just wish you and Samwich would keep your fantasies of sperm drops and shit stains to yourself, rather than air them publicly. Get a room already.

 
At 1/26/2006 4:01 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Samwich,

You don't owe me any blow jobs. Really. I don't swing that way. Stop hitting on me, faggot.

 
At 1/26/2006 4:14 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/26/2006 4:21 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

It's just Beamish trying to be butch, mussolini.

Don't worry, he tires easily. It will soon be over.

 
At 1/26/2006 4:23 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

Brokeback Blogging, anyone?

 
At 1/26/2006 4:34 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Brokeback Blogging, anyone?

LOL! To each their own, I guess. I just wish Ducky and Samwich and Rapeublican and all their gay sock puppets would keep it to themselves.

 
At 1/26/2006 4:40 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/26/2006 4:48 PM, Blogger MissingLink said...

AOW,

I don't understand WHY, though.

This is like another Pandora Box.
I could spent hours discussing this and then I wouldn't get off the topic, which you hoped your visitors would discuss.
I think you have ebough of that as it is. LOL

At the end I would have to admit that I still don't understand fully why people insist on forcing others to believe in THEIR fantasies.

Perhaps some of the comments by varioius visitors to your site can give some insights; ego trip, little knowledge combined with one's faith in his/her own intellectual superiority, very limited life experience, dreaming about reaching absolute values after removing religion and established ethics etc.
The bottom line is - these trends have always been with us and as always they are often based on good intentions.
And of course you know what hell is paved with. ;-)

 
At 1/26/2006 5:09 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

And if we can dispense with Samwich and Ducky's circle jerk party, I've some questions to answer:

Ducky said to me: I would expect that you'd find it instructive that both sides of the spectrum find you lacking. It's a time for self correction.

Both sides of the spectrum? No conservatives have attempted to insult me. As has been conclusively shown time and time again, leftists such as yourself actually don't have the physical capability of being rational. No offense intended to launch comparative slanders towards fenceposts, but leftists are dumber than them. Literally.

Now comes along Samwich, who claims conservatism in the midst of people who know better, spewing what only can be honestly described as high-octane inanity. I almost thought I had to adjust my worldview to account for people dumber than leftists, but then I remembered history. Stalin would call Samwich a "useful idiot." I would call him a useless idiot.

But I wouldn't tarnish the tradition of conservatism to include Samwich in the fold. Samwich lacks the historical, political, and philosophical framework prerequisite to holding a conservative view. Hence, he'll cite socialist / communist front group websites to back up conspiracy theories, and demonstrate a lack of ability in differentiating the US Government from a totalitarian regime. And this when he's not bragging about all the money he's made when he's not on his computer telling us how worthless money is. Samwich is the epitome of inconsistency.

I do not find it "instructive" that a leftist and a blithering idiot don't like what I have to say. Well, I take that back. Most of the reason why I call Samwich a blithering idiot is because he parrots leftists, a dead giveaway of idiocy if there ever was a single one.

So no, I don't need a self-correction. I just need to make it more clear when I use the term "moron" whether I've refering to leftists like you, or leftists like Samwich.

And now everyone's favorite jism junkie, Samwich asked:where did the $800 million go that your knuckle dragging congressman voted for the main supply road through Afghanistan. I already got my share back when your mommy went to the grocery store.

The $800 million for training an Afghan army and building roads between Herat and Kabul is still being spent. If you weren't so dead set against being mistaken for a conservative, you'd visit one of those libraries I told you about and find out a Herat-Kabul route runs west-to-east, and goes no where need the Caspian Basin or the Indian Ocean, making your pipeline-is-really-a-road conspiracy theory all that ridiculous.

And my mother is still pissed that you wanted a tip. Next time, bag the bread and milk seperately, jackass.

 
At 1/26/2006 5:10 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

The Hamas election results only add more color to the parrot-act I've been pulling for the last few months. Spreading democracy will not work by itself. Hell, forget Hamas... think the Iraqi elections!

Fundamentalist islamics, given the opportunity, have voted in fascistic (undemocratic) governments.

Radical muslims behead little girls. "Moderate" muslims look the other way.

Islam and democracy are polar opposites. Islam dictates from the top down, demanding submission to an unchanging edict. Democracy dictates from the bottom up. The two cannot co-exist or be systemically enjoined.

When all the apparent joy of the purple finger is passed, you realize that all they did was use the vote to say that their version of murder is better than that other sect's version of murder.

Attempting to imitate somber-sounding NBC news anchors while trying to believe in the sheer fantasy of "moderate" Islam impresses only other imitators. It isn't impressing muslim murderers.

 
At 1/26/2006 5:24 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Mussolini,

The trick of democratic elections is not in how the first one turns out, but those that come after. Can people remove anyone from office with a vote? That's the real test.

The ongoing effort in the Middle East isn't going to be quick and painless like the "restored democracy" of Bill Clinton's favorite voodoo houngan dictator in Haiti.

Commitment to success requires effort, and a steadfast avoidance of involving Democrats in the scheme.

 
At 1/26/2006 5:49 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

a really good report AOW. I hope it isn't true that Bush or the GOP is trying to cultivate the Muslim vote by supporting any extremist organizations. This would be completely contradictory to what the Bush presidency is supposed to be about. Unfortunately you never know any more who is in bed with who...and that's a shame.

 
At 1/26/2006 5:52 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

"It’s telling that Norquest attacks Pipes, who goes out of his way trying to reach out to those who want to create a moderate Islam."

I like Daniel Pipes but I'm not sure if he really is looking for moderate Islam. I believe he just says that so he can back up what he really believes about Islam which is that if you're a good Muslim...you're in extremist. Is he right? Maybe.

 
At 1/26/2006 7:11 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/26/2006 7:18 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Mussolini,

Seen this?

We've seen how well a recent Iranian call for the destruction of Israel has been recieved, bringing more international criticism for Iran and concern over its nuclear programs.

How well do you think Hamas will do as leaders of a "Palestinian" (whatever that is) state?

 
At 1/26/2006 7:19 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Samwich,

I'm a Christian. We're against gambling.

 
At 1/26/2006 7:22 PM, Blogger samwich said...

Then act like a Christian you hate filled bigot

 
At 1/26/2006 8:27 PM, Blogger Iran Watch said...

On Fox News..poll shows 51% America favoring an air strike on Iran, 46% favoring both an air strike with ground troops. Hopefully Iran will accept Russia's proposal. Oil prices would easily pass $100 per barrel and gold would pass the $800 per ounce level during Carter's presidency.
Hamas's victory in Palestine will be short-lived as they are unprepared to govern. It's a lot easier to criticize them it is to do. Sort of like Democrats.

 
At 1/26/2006 8:28 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Gentlemen,
I just now got in from a very long day and started scanning through the comments. In all likelihood, I won't get to reading through all the comments until tomorrow. I'm exhausted!

I don't have the context here, but can you refrain from hurling sexual insults?

I'd appreciate it as ad hominem attacks don't help to make reasoned arguments.

Thanks!

 
At 1/26/2006 8:35 PM, Blogger Iran Watch said...

I was curious why supposedly men were looking for another man's balls by searching his pockets.
Be careful Mr.Beam...apparently you're the object of some desire.
You would think that regulars would respect AOW's blog by not resorting to childish taunts.

 
At 1/26/2006 8:36 PM, Blogger samwich said...

Duck get an email addres to me

6 months from now these idiots will be to poor to afford an internet connection.

S

 
At 1/26/2006 8:50 PM, Blogger Iran Watch said...

lmao@these two cybering...get a WebCam.

 
At 1/26/2006 8:57 PM, Blogger Iran Watch said...

Sambitch..thanks for visiting my web-site but I'm not interested in joining you in any homosexual ventures but thanks for asking.

 
At 1/26/2006 9:14 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

The Hamas without Veils link... yes, I see it... as a rational person.

Lemme ask you Mr Beamish: Is the UN rational? Are the French and Germans rational? Is the American looney left rational? Is the politically correct US media rational? Are our media-whore politicians rational?

I have some small doubts in those areas... (cough).

On FOX News, earlier, a blonde bimbo reported that there is hope that "death to Israel" Hamas will now lay down its weapons to live in peace and harmony with Israel.

These "moderate" muslims who believe in killing children have grown up being prepped for jihad. They only know jihad. They only expect death - whether in success or defeat. They lose paradise if they fail to wage jihad.

This is all these animals know. I guarandamntee you that the rocket strikes will continue. I guarandamntee you that the violence will increase.

Islam has never been defeated - only ever "pushed back." Islam has only ever been "pushed back" when the west has been killing their asses. Murder is all these people know. Killing them in return is all they understand.

You can't dress up a turd in a tux and claim it's cultured and cosmo. It's still a turd.

 
At 1/26/2006 9:31 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

"On FOX News, earlier, a blonde bimbo reported that there is hope that "death to Israel" Hamas will now lay down its weapons to live in peace and harmony with Israel."
I saw the same story..how ridiculous. I've noticed people saying Hamas is a political party with an arm wing, in reality it is just an armed party. The only thing they will respond to is armed confrontation.

 
At 1/26/2006 9:45 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/26/2006 9:46 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Lemme ask you Mr Beamish: Is the UN rational?

No.

Are the French and Germans rational?

They will be when they need to be saved.

Is the American looney left rational?

No leftist that has ever walked the earth from the beginning of time until the present moment is rational, no matter his nationality. Rationality requires knowledge of the rules of logic and functioning brain cells to put that knowledge in, two prerequisites that all leftists lack.

Is the politically correct US media rational?

By "politically correct" I assume you mean leftist, so no. Leftists are physically incapable of rationality.

Are our media-whore politicians rational?

No, but those tend to be leftists as well.

 
At 1/26/2006 9:56 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Then act like a Christian you hate filled bigot

Bigot? You follow a cult that has as much to do with Christianity as snow tires belong on coffee cup, and you question my Christianity?

LOL!

 
At 1/26/2006 10:20 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Mussolini,

Islam has never been defeated - only ever "pushed back." Islam has only ever been "pushed back" when the west has been killing their asses. Murder is all these people know. Killing them in return is all they understand.

I disagree. Killing them in return is not all they understand. Killing them in return is all that will get their attention. We can knock over bad regimes with air power and leave their people in dust without post-war financial and infrastructural assistance a hell of a lot easier than trying to reason with them by building a civilized society for them. I think our efforts aren't naive, or in vain. Do you honestly think tommorow's bad Iraqi regime will be harder to topple than Saddam's?

 
At 1/26/2006 10:24 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

If much of those who would control "international outrage" are not rational, then I hold little hope that any "mask is off."

A leftist is capable of rational thought, but only if it serves their purpose. Unfortunately for them, their positions are rarely ever rational. Philosophically, the Plato-derived exclusion of truth from the individual and the malleability of truth for the "good of society" means that truth is whatever the leftist wants it to be and can change from day to day, if necessary.

This is why you can't argue facts to a leftist. Facts are truth and truth doesn't matter. If the truth doesn't match the position, change the truth. This is why the left is engaged in the massive effort of rewriting history.

When you call a leftist on lies (what they claim to be truth), they have no recourse but to call you names. The smarter ones might avoid that by changing the subject onto a different lie in hopes of overwhelming you with bullshit.

Been there and done it so many times that arguing with leftists is rather pointless. They won't stick to their lies long enough to be called on them.

 
At 1/26/2006 10:57 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

"Do you honestly think tommorow's bad Iraqi regime will be harder to topple than Saddam's?"

No. We've wrecked their military. However, by your own implication, tomorrow's Iraqi regime will be bad. You might offer that as supposition, but I have all the faith in the world that tomorrow's regime will in fact be bad.

In the end, we are still the Lands of War where jihad must take place. In the end, we are kaffir. In the end, we are secularist-system governments that are despised almost as bad as the Jews. In the end, the Quran still demands that us infidels submit in one of three ways:

1: Convert immediately to Islam. Note that this was also Osama's very first demand. He was following the Quran.

2: Pay the jizyah tax as a degraded slave.

3: Die by beheading.

Islam has no room for any other kind of "compromise." There are temporary truces and taqiyyah to lull us with complacency.

Toppling Iraq in the future might be a little easier, but the raw work of having to kill murderers still remains. It is very possible... no, it is certain to me that Iraq, Iran and Syria are events in history that had to take place to set the stage for anti-christ.

God bless the west and God damn Islam.

 
At 1/26/2006 11:20 PM, Blogger maccusgermanis said...

Beamish,
I know the question wasn't directed at me, and I do, agree with many of Mussolini's last comments. However, I do fear that an Iraq equipped with the dangerous bit of knowledge we are now able to impart may well be more dangerous than the toppled dictator. I see the possibilty that, Iraq in the long term future will have the most professional army in its history fueled and fed by a vibrant economy, but unfortunatly serving the many tyrants jihadist dreams. I think this will happen when jihadist begin to understand what a gift (for them) we are installing in Bagdad. A hudna is allowed in jihad and OBL is already talking of playing nice. That Iran continues to press the issue when I do not estimate them ready for the fight may be a disguised bit of fortune.

 
At 1/27/2006 12:33 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Mussolini,

Perhaps one day the goofy leftist paradigm of "fighting wars in the Middle East will only create terrorists among the people we can't profile here in America" will finally be shattered. Unfortunately that shattering will make the body count on September 11th "look like a picnic," to paraphrase Uday Hussein.

 
At 1/27/2006 5:07 AM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/27/2006 7:32 AM, Blogger samwich said...

Duck, open interest for government debt is climbing.

The sell off has begun.

Iran has successfully "nuked" the US economy with money.

 
At 1/27/2006 8:01 AM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/27/2006 8:27 AM, Blogger samwich said...

Duck, Durable Goods orders are $228,100,000,000 for Dec 2005 at $565 gold.
Durable Goods orders for Dec 2004 were $201,000,000,000 at $420 gold

The Durable Goods Order Numbers are, in reality, down 15.65%.

The Fed inflated the money supply 16% in 2005.

Join me in Cabo at beamish's expense

$

 
At 1/27/2006 10:09 AM, Blogger American Crusader said...

samwich said...

beamishitforbrains and his beamishbuttlickers:

Every time you eat, every time you drive, every time you turn on your heat or lights:

MR DUCKY AND I MAKE MONEY
I've tried pretty hard to ignore you samich..you obviously have an inflated sense of self-worth and you obviously don't give a damn about hijacking someone's blog to make personal attacks but I'd prefer you keep me out of your rants and tirades. I could care less how much you have in T-Bills, if you're rich than great for you. I'm sure that no one else cares either. Enjoy your money because I seriously doubt you have many friends.
AOW..what I was going to ask you was how do you think Bush is going to handle a democratically elected Hamas? And what happens if Iraq elects a pro-Iranian government or a theocracy after the majority of our troops have left?

 
At 1/27/2006 10:36 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Samwich,

When I get to heaven behind a camel through a needle's eye, and look down and see you burning eternally in that part of HELL reserved for rich, polytheistic homosexuals, I'll try not to laugh so much so that I can point out your misfortune to others.

 
At 1/27/2006 10:39 AM, Blogger Mussolini said...

My predictions:

Bush will suddenly forget that Hamas is all "death to Israel" when they engage in some taqiyyah and vow they'll never lift arms against israel again. Then the bomb-dollars will flow...

OOPS

I meant aid dollars.

Iraq will cozy up to Iran. Part of the end time thing. But in terms we can all understand at this point in time, Iraq will "join the club" of Islamic fundamentalist nations.

The danger in attacking Iran is that Iraq could literally blow up underneath us.

In Iraq, the populace understood that we were bringing freedom (Saddam being secular). In Iran, we'd be attacking Islam (the mullahs rule Iran).

Iraq has already elected ... what? 80+% radical muslim officials?

 
At 1/27/2006 11:21 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

My predictions are different, Mussolini.

No US dollars will go to help Hamastan under Bush and a Republican Congress. The EU has already pulled their support. The Fatah terrorists smart enough to take the Palestinian Authority's treasury and bail off to the French riviera will do so before Hamas "takes office" and the rest will fight for scraps in the Malthusian rat hole that is Gaza and the West Bank. Israel, under a landslide Netanyahu victory, will recognize "Palestine" as a seperate nation, and wipe it off the map entirely as soon as Hamas launches any attack. The United States will call Israel up on the phone and say "Don't do that... without these weapon systems"

Your prediction about Iraq is all wrong. The last election outcome forces the Shia, Kurds, and Sunnis to share power. No one bloc has the strength to dominate Iraqi politics without concessions from another. The absolute "worse" thing that could happen is the Kurds will seperate from the Arabs and their traditional sport of killing each other for fun, and continue their autonomous, democratic state they set up in the northern "no fly zone" in 1991, defended by the Kurdish troops that make up the bulk of the new Iraqi army that our Special Forces have been training since 1991. But I don't think that will happen. The Sunni / Al Qaeda insurgency is fading. The Shia of Iraq already possess the two holiest sites in Shia Islam, Karbala and Najaf, and are not interested at all in the pretender Shia leaders in Qom and Tehran, Iran who can do nothing but tell them how holy the sites in Iraq that they already have are.

I'd worry more about Iraqi Shia influence on Iran. I mean, if I was an Iranian mullah. They don't have a Utah to run off to when the mob come to arrest them for counterfeiting money and fomenting terrorism, much less pretending a prophet lives among them.

Speaking of false prophets, Ahmadinejad is NOT popular in Iran, and will be toppled by Iranians supported by air power striking government and nuclear facilities from quite a few nations. Probably within the next 6 months.

Iraq will gladly sell oil to any customer Iran loses during this. China will be too busy jumping on the chance to get Iraqi crude oil at a non-OPEC cartel price to threaten America with their non-existent navy and millions of malnourished foot soldiers.

 
At 1/27/2006 11:39 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Crusader,
AOW..what I was going to ask you was how do you think Bush is going to handle a democratically elected Hamas?

GWB has very strongly taken the position that, given the choice, people will choose freedom. I don't see that happening right now. Obviously, Gaza has chosen Hamas--in a landslide. Also, Iran apparently chose Ahmadinejad, who has ties to Hamas and Hezbollah. It's the Islamic tribal mentality. If GWB is to stand by his word, he will have to recognize Hamas as a legitimate government. Will he do so? I can't say definitively, of course.

But even if GWB does not recognize the legitimacy of Hamas, I suspect that a future American administration will. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see Hamas disappearing as a force in the Middle East, particularly in the Palestine region.

Right now, I'm watching a live report on FNC. This report shows the celebration and Fatah's protests, after a Friday in prayers. I am disheartened, to say the least. Commentators are trying to downplay what I'm seeing on the screen, trying to say that this is just the natural result of a change of government. I don't buy that spin. Again, I hope I'm wrong.

Somewhere in the last several days I read that millions of our tax dollars flowed into those recent elections in Gaza, in an effort to support the election of a government acceptable to the United States. Did't happen!

And what happens if Iraq elects a pro-Iranian government or a theocracy after the majority of our troops have left?

GWB's experiment will have been a failure. I would not be surprised to see Iraq elect a pro-Iranian government.

 
At 1/27/2006 11:41 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Crusader,
While I was typing in my thoughts, Beamish gave his viewpoint, which is more optimistic than mine.

 
At 1/27/2006 11:56 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Crusader,
In case you haven't seen the article, here are Daniel Pipes's thoughts, from this source:

Now that Hamas has apparently won the Palestinian elections, the West is hoist with its own petard.

On the one hand, Hamas is a terrorist group that unabashedly targets Israeli civilians and calls for the elimination of the Jewish state. On the other hand, it just won what observers deem to have been a reasonably fair election, and so enjoys the legitimacy that comes from the ballot box. Every foreign ministry now confronts a dilemma: Nudge it to moderation or give up on it as irredeemably extremist? Meet with Hamas members or avoid them? Continue to donate to the Palestinian Authority or starve it of funds?

This double bind is of our own making because, with Washington in the lead, virtually every Western government adopted a two-prong approach to solving the problems of the Middle East.

The negative prong consists of fighting terrorism. A "war on terror" is underway, involving military forces in the field, toughened financial laws, and an array of espionage tools.

The positive prong involves promoting democracy. The historical record shows that democratic countries almost never make war on each other, and tend to be prosperous. Therefore, elections appear to be what the doctor ordered for the maladies of the Middle East.

But that combination has failed this troubled region. The first functional election in the Palestinian Authority has thrown up Hamas. In December, 2005, the Egyptian electorate came out strongly for the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamic party, and not for liberal elements. In Iraq, the post-Saddam electorate voted in a pro-Iranian Islamist as prime minister. In Lebanon, the voters celebrated the withdrawal of Syrian troops by voting Hezbollah into the government. Likewise, radical Islamic elements have prospered in elections in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

In brief, elections are bringing to power the most deadly enemies of the West. What went wrong? Why has a democratic prescription that's proven successful in Germany, Japan and other formerly bellicose nations not worked in the Middle East?

It's not Islam or some cultural factor that accounts for this difference; rather, it is the fact that ideological enemies in the Middle East have not yet been defeated. Democratization took place in Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union after their populations had endured the totalitarian crucible. By 1945 and 1991, they recognized what disasters fascism and communism had brought them, and were primed to try a different path.

That's not the case in the Middle East, where a totalitarian temptation remains powerfully in place. Muslims across the region – with the singular and important exception of Iran – are drawn to the Islamist program with its slogan that "Islam is the solution." That was the case from Iran in 1979 to Algeria in 1992 to Turkey in 2002 to the Palestinian Authority this week.

This pattern has several implications for Western governments:

Slow down: Take heed that an impatience to move the Middle East to democracy is consistently backfiring by bringing our most deadly enemies to power.
Settle in for the long run: However worthy the democratic goal, it will take decades to accomplish.
Defeat radical Islam: Only when Muslims see that this is a route doomed to failure will they be open to alternatives.
Appreciate stability: Stability must not be an end in itself, but its absence likely leads to anarchy and radicalization.
Returning to the dilemma posed by the Hamas victory, Western capitals need to show Palestinians that – like Germans electing Hitler in 1933 – they have made a decision gravely unacceptable to civilized opinion. The Hamas-led Palestinian Authority must be isolated and rejected at every turn, thereby encouraging Palestinians to see the error of their ways.


Do you (or any other commenter here) think he's right?

 
At 1/27/2006 1:02 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Samwich, Cabo sounds good. Gowth figure for the last quarter stunk out the joint. Definite slowdown and quite possibly a recession. Fed is definately still going to (over)tighten at the next meeting.

Samwich would you explain an aspect of Morman doctrine for me. I often refer to "thumpers" but as I use the term it refers to those religious who are actively looking for the end of the world. It seems unfruitful and frankly a bit insane to me. Does Mormon have a position on the endtimes?

 
At 1/27/2006 1:14 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Duck,
Samwich may be fed up with the feud which has been going on here. You might be able to contact him somewhere else.

BTW, I am not one actively looking for the end of the world. As you know, I am a Christian, but I see multiple possibilities in interpreting the book of Revelation, and I just don't try to second-guess God.

 
At 1/27/2006 4:59 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

I'm leery of any Christian or pseudo-Christian sects that believe that their adherents are currently building or even attempting to "build a kingdom" for Christ on Earth. All of these non-Biblical frauds will be weeping and gnashing their teeth with the Mammon Tablenacle Choir in Hell when Christ comes back and builds his kingdom by Himself.

 
At 1/27/2006 5:10 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

My Beamish, you are also referring to Roman Catholics. I have a definite obligation to "build the kingdom".

You put yourself in a great position though, Beamish. Vicariously watch "heathens" killed while you sit on your ass. And you wonder why people would consider your faith vulgar?

 
At 1/27/2006 5:51 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Ducky,

I'd be interested in seeing how and where you obligation to "build the kingdom" is defined.

And where you'll get the gold that is so pedestrian and common that the streets of the kingdom are paved with it.

And what you'll do when God mocks you for assuming you could replace His Son with your own efforts.

If people consider my faith vulgar, then I'm likely on the right track.

 
At 1/27/2006 7:26 PM, Blogger maccusgermanis said...

AOW,

I do think Pipes accessment is largely correct but fear the over-appreciation of stability. Was it not an over-appreciation of stability that allowed many attacks to remain unanswered? What I fear most is disengagement of and from the enemy, for I am convinced that true Islam will persist in waring, albeit more queitly, with the world.

 
At 1/27/2006 7:38 PM, Blogger maccusgermanis said...

Beamish,

Vulgar does mean common. As in "the way that is broad" and not "the way that is narrow." I know such criticism must be hard for you to take from such a swaggering coarse and impolite commenter as Ducky, but you must realize that the image you conjure of pointing and laughing is an impossible one. You can not take such a love of sin and hate for sinners to the place you think you are going.

 
At 1/27/2006 9:13 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Maccus Germanis,
I agree with you about the overemphasis on stability has resulted in destabilization. And I believe that the enemy knows how to play the West's overemphasis on stability against us.

true Islam will persist in waring, albeit more queitly, with the world

Subverting Western civilization and Islamification continues every day in our educational institutions.

 
At 1/27/2006 11:44 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

macusgermanis,

I'll be in heaven despite my sins, as will be everyone else that makes it there. I'm not gloating that avarice mongering polytheistic homosexuals will be in Hell. I'm stating a fact.

 
At 1/28/2006 12:04 AM, Blogger Mussolini said...

Hmm, I'm not a thumper in Ducky's view.

I don't think the "end" is such a big thing that I need to worry about it. I don't think any Christian needs to worry about it. We do what we do and He comes as a thief in the night.

We're to be salt... a preservative until God sets up His own kingdom. I dunno, I don't see a lot of grist there to chew on.

~~~

Why does the West require the blood of 10s of thousands of innocents before we decide it's time to stop the murder?

Islam is killing us; isn't that peachy? Let's "respect" them.

 
At 1/28/2006 9:50 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

"Respecting" other cultures now means subjugating to those cultures or standing by as the blood flows.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home