« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Muslim Brotherhood and the ACU

Muslim BrotherhoodThere’s been a lot of debate going on these days about CPAC.  Some people are opting not to attend as they are not sure they feel comfortable with the direction it is going, while others are of the opinion that the big tent of Republicanism and the accompanying debate are best suited to be had at the conservative gathering.

This article is not about those debates.  This is about the influence of radical Islam over the organization that puts CPAC together, the American Conservative Union’s (ACU) board of directors.  Unfortunately, it has become apparent that there are Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers, apologists, and fundamentalists sponsoring and speaking at the conference this weekend.

At 1:00 pm on Friday in the Jackson Room, there will be a panel discussion called The Importance of Faith & Religious Liberty in the U.S. & Abroad.  It is sponsored by a group called Muslims for America which was founded by the Hasan Family Foundation and runs a blog at muslimsforamerica.us.

It’s at this blog that Muslims for America co-founder Muhammad Ali Hasan, a self-proclaimed “proud democrat” and supporter of the DREAM Act, described the controversy around Park51 Muslim Community Center otherwise known as the Ground Zero Mosque:

Anyone who opposed the Mosque/Islamic Center was clearly being a bigot. These people have not cared for the last 9 years what was happening at Ground Zero.

Under the auspices of “caring,” the writer has labeled any reasonable opposition to the construction of the GZM as intolerant towards Islam.  This is not the only time that the group has taken this position as Ali Hasan made similar accusations on the O’Reilly Factor.

As has been discussed often by the opposition to the mosque, if Park51′s stated purpose is to improve Muslim-American dialogue, not ignoring the concerns of a populace that was attacked by the evangelists of your religion would be a great start.  But this presupposes that the writer in any way holds followers of Islam responsible for the attack.

He does not.

Elsewhere in the editorial, the writer says this:

The religion of Islam had nothing to do with 9/11. As far as I am concerned, people say the hijackers were Muslim but I don’t believe that.

This is a profoundly naive or perhaps even disingenuous statement especially for an organization that claims that understanding Islam as vital to improving our foreign policy.

From the website “about us” section:

Bipartisan in nature, Muslims For America deeply believes that our best foreign policy plans can mature from both the Republican Party and Democratic Party, which is why it remains the group’s greatest goal to forever unite American Muslims with both parties. Should both parties claim the strongest understanding and insight into the world of Islam, then they will continually produce the best foreign policy decisions possible.

To claim that 9-11 was perpetrated by non-Muslims raises the question, is this even a philosophically defensible position?  I solicited a quote from Thomas Howe, Ph.D*, a Professor of Philosophy at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, NC, to find out if this is a position that a devoutly religious person can intellectually defend:

A person can certainly believe what he chooses, but one can believe a lie as easily as the truth. Not to believe that the hijackers were Muslim does not make this a fact. They were Muslim by association and by confession. A person may choose at any time to act outside of the dictates and requirements of his confession, but such does not dissociate that person from his association. Only a willful choice to leave or separate from an association issues in this result. The hijackers, by their actions, may certainly have been contrary to the dictates and requirements of Islam, but this did not disassociate them from their own confession. They claimed to be Muslim, and this is the fact. Choosing not to believe they were Muslim demonstrates only that people can choose to believe what they want, and sometimes people choose to believe what is patently not true.

So-called moderate Muslims are a necessary component to rooting out enemies.  Not owning up to their own brothers and sisters that commit these heinous crimes is detrimental to understanding the enemy we face abroad and counterproductive to “maturing” our foreign policy.

Furthermore it is counter to the additional claims of the organization which purports to promote understanding between us and them.  If they aren’t going to admit the truth when it faces them, then how can we trust that they are really interested in good relations?  They seem to be acting like the Great Satan, deceitfully attempting to cover up the truth.

If the statements by Muslims for America were the only quote of an incendiary nature then it could perhaps be written off as merely the wishful thinking of religious person, desirous of peace but saddled with the baggage of the extremists in his religion.

Reading the comments in response to this blog paint a different picture.

When reader “tommy” accused Islam of attempting to install Sharia law in the United States and blasted the writer for excusing Islam for responsibility in 9-11, Muslims for America sarcastically responded using the moniker “mfa” as they do throughout the website:

mfa Says:
December 10th, 2010 at 4:42 amTommy thank you for your comment. I have taken it seriously and will email all the Muslims who were planning on waking up America to refrain from doing so,cause consequences will be far greater than they realize. Believe me this will scare them and thankfully you and I will never hear from them again.

While you are still at the computer, please Google,”CIA FORMED MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD”,read articles on how CIA founded and funded Muslim Brotherhood to make Muslims go after communism. Also Google,”COLONEL IMAM”,another guy trained by CIA at an army base in USA.He took the training and trained one hundred and fifty thousand AL-QUIDA and TALIBAN in camps paid by US TAX PAYER DOLLARS.He closed the camps on 9/12 2001. Thanks for your warning.

With this quote, MFA doubles down on the idea that it was not Islam that committed these terrorist attacks.  Now they are instructing readers to read the “truth” which will reveal America’s bloody hands and responsibility for the existence of terrorism.

“Irresponsible” would seem too kind a description for an attitude such as this from an organization attempting to mend soured relations between our cultures.  But not completely surprising given that Hasan has also taken to defending Hamas front group CAIR:

But it gets worse.

Co-founder Seeme Hasan, who has been part of the effort to legitimize the Muslim Brotherhood, is quoted as saying:

“The Muslim Brotherhood is doing some good jobs for Muslims in Egypt,” she said. “They’re trying to fight for democracy and free elections. What’s wrong with that?”

She also acknowledged that “some members have done bad things,” for example, “gotten involved with al-Qaida.”

For those of you unfamiliar with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Daily Caller recently provided a glance into the mind on of their senior leaders:

The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. (emphasis mine)

The motto of the group is no less of a concern:

- Allah is our objective.

- The Prophet is our leader.

- Qur’an is our law.

- Jihad is our way.

- Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

So, this is an organization whose founders excuse Islam from having a role in the 9-11 attacks, refers to any opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque as bigotry, believes that the United States is culpable if not responsible for world wide terrorism through the funding and founding of various militant groups, as well as apologizing on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.  In what world is it appropriate for them to be sponsoring an event on religious freedom at CPAC?

Well, aside from the fact that they would likely have paid cash in order to be granted the title sponsor, one need look no further than the the board of ACU.  In their world, there’s nothing to see here.

For instance, ACU board member Grover Norquist:

In an open letter to Republicans last fall, Norquist warned that by opposing the 9/11 Mosque of Triumph, the GOP was “alienating millions of Arab American and Muslim American voters who believe, as we do, in the principles of our party – individual liberty, traditional values and the rule of law.” And the 70% of voters who oppose the mosque – most who actually vote Republican (unlike the 89% of of Muslim Americans who voted for Obama in 2008)? Racists whose views should be dismissed out of hand, in the GOP strategist’s estimation. Republicans would do better taking advice from James Carville.

One of those Muslim Americans who cherishes the aforesaid Republican principles is Abduirahman Alamoudi – presently serving a 23-year sentence for fundraising for foreign terrorist groups, including the Libyans.

In 1998, Alamoudi helped to launch Norquist’s Islamic Free Market Institute, once a regular presence at CPAC, with gifts and loans totaling $20,000.

But that wasn’t the anti-tax activist’s only experience with jihadist money men.

In The American Thinker, Pam Geller writes: “Norquist was an honoree at an event held by Sami Al-Arian’s National Council to Protect Political Freedom in July 2001, two months before 9/11. The award was for being a ‘champion of the abolishment movement against secret evidence.’ In 2006, Al-Arian pleaded guilty (to) ‘conspiracy to make or receive contributions of funds to or for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.’” – which makes Hamas look like Nathan Lane in a burka.

Norquist isn’t the only board member with questionable associations.  Here’s a video of ACU board member Suhail Khan speaking to Muslim Brotherhood front group the Islamic Society of North America:


For the video challenged, let me quote Khan:

The early Muslims loved death, dying for the sake of almighty Allah, more than the oppressors loved life…This must be the case when we are fighting…What are our oppressors going to do with a people like us? We are prepared to give our lives for the cause of Islam.

Additionally, Kahn’s mother worked for Hamas front CAIR.  His father was a founding member of the Mulsim Brothers in the United States which provided fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood & Hamas as well as offering support to Al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri.  According to Big Peace, Khan also has a close relationship to terrorist Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi, as well as convicted terrorist Sami al Arian, and Muslim Brotherhood leader Jamal Barzinji.

This has unfortunately, opened a door to the opportunity for a group like Muslims for America to find its way into an event intended for Conservatives.  Kahn will be moderating the panel, which includes a speaker, Homeland Security Advisor Muhammad Elibiary, who himself raises a red flag.  He was shown to have spoken at a conference honoring the Ayatollah Khomeini, which included speakers from CAIR as well as a few intensely anti-Semitic speakers.  For those under the age of 20, the Ayatollah Khomeini was a fundamentalist Muslim who led the revolution in Iran and installed the oppressive theocracy that currently exists.  That’s not exactly a model for conservative thought, much less the religious freedom that the panel will be discussing.

The American Conservative Union has taken a lot of heat in recent weeks.  From the inclusion of libertarians and gay rights proponents like GoProud, to recent remarks by Board Chairman David Keene indicating he was fine with pro-choice groups becoming part of CPAC.  Some of those things may not bother you, and some of them, I admit, don’t bother me.  But one area where we should be united is this: As conservatives, we were the first to accept that the responsibility for 9-11 lay at the feet of Muslim extremists bent on destroying our country.  Let us not sully the memory of that horrible day by pretending it’s ok to share a table with groups that apologize, sympathize, justify, or ignore the truth of radical Islamic groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.

Does this mean that Muslims should be excluded from events like CPAC?  Of course not.  Making such a claim is precisely the kind of distraction that those mentioned in this article have used before.  It is not their religion that should give one pause.  Whether it was Christians, Jews, atheists, or satanists, the concern stems from the undeniable affiliation with groups determined to annihilate our nation.  And only through honest and unapologetic acceptance of this can we identify who our enemies are.  Ignoring these affiliations in favor of some misguided attempt at political correctness and sensitivity, would make us just as guilty and complicit as the people referred to in this article.  We must call attention to the danger inherent in welcoming groups such as these and demand a change.

To quote Ronald Reagan,”Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Make no mistake: There is a huge portion of Islam, some fear all of Islam, that wishes to subjugate the west and supplant our way of life with theirs.  Some do it from the barrel of a gun.  Some do it from the Mosque.  Some do it from within.

*In case it wasn’t apparent, Dr. Thomas Howe is not only the Professor of Philosophy at the seminary, he’s also my father.

Editorial note: It should be recognized that while there is clearly a problem with the influence of radical Islam on the ACU, a lot of great people still work for the organization and have arranged for great panels, such as The Ground Zero Mosque: The Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks with panelists Pam Gellar & Robert Spencer.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    So does opposing the Park 51 Mosque make me, personally a bigot? If so, please explain why?

    • williamjameson

      Mayor Bloomberg has yet to fund the Ground Zero Greek Archdiocese that was destroyed on 9/11. The Port Authority said they rebuild but they’ve never been given permission to do so and if allowed they can’t build a basement which is a form of intolerance. NYC offered $40 if the greeks would move to a new location but they’ve been red taped to death. Kind of makes Bloomberg a bigot and douche bag for jerking Greek Americans around for nearly a decade.

      Bloomberg was wrong to get personal with Americans because only a minority were saying racial things. No need to lump everyone into one basket but he’s not a true republican, more of a northeastern RINO poser who would never get elected president considering his tone over Park51.

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/17/ground-zero-church-archdiocese-says-officials-forgot/

  • itrytobenice

    Great research, Ben.

    It never ceases to amaze me what you guys find when you start peeking behind the curtain. Good diary.

  • edintexas

    Thanks for the research and post.

  • AceInTX

    that would fix this wouldn’t it?

    • acat

      ’cause, if that’s the only tool you’ve got, ya gotta look for people who would, you know, care about such things.

      Disappointing, to say the least, but I’ve gotten quite used to that from Grover’s group. Bunch of smart people with their blinders on a bit too tight.

      Mew

    • Bill S
    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
      • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

        According to the landmark report Shariah: The Threat to America, CAIR is actually an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood — as is almost every major Muslim organization in America.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • Raven

            We’ve actually gone after Inside the USA. Just 1 that we have seriously worked at breaking inside the USA.

          • Scope

            and in fact the terrorists groups in the US have actually been supported and emboldened by the Obama admin.

          • Raven

            Progressives worked harder to prevent and eliminate unions than anyone ever has to prevent and eliminate terrorism within the USA.

            Sad, really.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            and bring a few actions against some groups based on financial support, as I recall. And it seems like Obama may have done some of the above. All of which seems to qualify for going after terror groups, BUT

            BUT, even Bush was naive re MB and Obama is friendly towards same as well as Iran’s Mullahs. They treat CAIR with care! sad

          • pilgrim

            Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently wrote about the advantage the MB has over the secular groups that protest against Mubarak.

            http://www.aei.org/article/103114

            blockquote>Why are the secular democratic forces in Egypt so much weaker than the Muslim Brotherhood?

            One reason is that they are an amalgam of very diverse elements: There are tribal leaders, free-market liberals, socialists, hard-core Marxists and human rights activists. In other words, they lack common ideological glue comparable to the one that the Brotherhood has. And there is a deep-seated fear that opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood, whose aim is to install Shariah once they come to power, will be seen by the masses as a rejection of Islam..

            Organizing with a common glue holding you all together is so much more important than getting to the streets, tweeting, and blogging. It is not always exciting to do the organizing work, but it is a critical work MB has done that a lot of the other groups need to catch up on.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Washington State that Bush also broke up. Not sure about Obama, but it seems he brought a case last year? against some funding group/fake charity?

          • Raven

            When terrorist organizations effectively own entire cities like Detroit and Phoenix. When the KKK is not just still around but growing.
            When PETA even operates openly using the organization name that appears on the domestic terrorist organizations lists. PETA, for crying out loud! Can’t even deal with PETA. And they want us to believe they can or are taking on groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            the enemy occupies the White House and we had Ft Hood and 2-3 other close calls.

          • Raven

            What happened in the Jewish Center in Seattle, or on a college campus in NC or on the streets in DC…
            I consider those terrorism.

            The perpetrators all shared the same characteristics, they all claimed the same reasons.

            Nothing big, really, but still there.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            the actors, as in Lackawanna, etc.

          • mspector

            It’s true that both the Bush and Obama administrations, as well as some local law enforcement agencies, have broken up and interdicted terrorist cells.

            The problem is that the official line is to regard these terrorists as mentally deranged, not as representing a religious/political POV. So the govt is able to walk a line of going after terrorists in such a way that the Islamists themselves can pretend to go along with, while never striking at the root.

  • johnt

    A winning combo for others, just not us.
    You can bet a few bucks are crossing the table. You can as well bet that not being leftists the ACU buys into the weak mind, boneless spine, stuff about how the Right must be forever reaching out. Which used to be called “Caving”.
    I hope the anti-bigot muslim is doing his best to also help the rebuilding of the Greek Orthodox church that was destroyed on 9/11, the one that sat in rubble for the past nine years with nobody giving a damn.

    • blooch

      that church in her propaganda piece in last month’s Readers Digest.

      And I’m about sick of the advertisements in Forbes for Dubai, and the ones touting some Prince’s Islamic Interfaith Outreach palaces around the world.

      • Scope

        Rauf, or whatever his name is are listed as invited speakers for one of the events at CPAC. I promise, check the schedule.

        • blooch

          The hippies used to stick them in rifle barrels…now CPAC is putting one in their new floral arrangement. How special!

          And for you CPAC event planners, it’s OK to put bouquets in the bathhrooms too…just be tasteful.

          http://islamqa.com/en/ref/85345

    • della

      Conservatism isn’t just a fiscal position. It is a moral one. We have got to keep our moral compass or we’re no safer than liberals, communists or anyone else who believes you can turn your back on God and His commandments and succeed as a nation. Abortion, homosexuality, fornication, adultery, pornography – all of it is serious sin and is causing us to be blind to wisdom and truth. Their shouldn’t be room in anybody’s tent for such things. Grover Norquist doesn’t seem to know his right hand from his left. His pandering to terrorist deniers makes that evident. God gave us a moral compass to stay on track. Let’s use it!

  • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

    Thank you for your research.

    Thank you for accurately framing the problem that so many of us have with CPAC: the board members of the ACU itself.

    Thank you for accurately labeling CAIR a “Hamas front group.” That is precisely what they are, no matter how much our leftist White House and leftist media like to cite them as if they’re some legitimate organization.

    And thank you for explaining so well just how it happened that such a formerly valuable conservative event has indeed been hijacked by radical Islam.

  • Finrod

    This stuff makes all the GOProud kerfuffle look like nothing. Nobody’s killing anyone over gay marriage after all.

  • izoneguy

    MR. KRISTOL, STAND FOR TRUTH

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/02/mr-kristol-stand-for-truth.html

    Bill Kristol has opened the french doors of his ivory tower, stepped out and deigned to address the great unwashed conservative quarter. High above the people and reality, he admonishes those on the right for not embracing the catastrophic events unfolding in the Middle East.

    In his opinion piece, Stand for Freedom, he dismisses or summarily denies the concrete facts on the ground. Of course, we all want freedom. Of course, we support voices yearning to be free. We fought for and believed The Bush Doctrine, and still do. But there is far more at work here, as evidenced by the fierce behind-the-scenes jockeying and arm-twisting by the on-the-ascent Muslim Brotherhood, an organization created after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

    The left wing lemmings are eating up this discourse among us like maggots on dead flesh, but that is their only joy, so let them have it.

    But Kristol is so wrong, inexcusably so. Glenn Beck nailed it. The advance of Islamic supremacism is exactly what is at play here. And we are right to be cautious. Nobody expects Mubarak to survive — we only care about what comes after. There is Kristol-lite and there is reality.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • bobmontgomery

    …where they say their goal is to get Muslims into both political parties to the effect of getting good US foreign policy, and that, should both parties develop a *strong understanding and insight into the world of Islam* then everything will be just hunky dory. Hint: Things will be a lot easier on you folks if you soften up on shariah!

    • Finrod

      Many of us do have a strong understanding and insight into the world of Islam, particularly Islamic radicalism, and that’s what scares and motivates us.

  • AnnaD

    This panel might be worth having if the panel moderator is Dr. Zudhi Jasser, the fellow on the left of the screen on the O’Reilly show interview. Jasser does seem to be an American-Muslim who opposes sharia and Islamism. I would not think the listed moderator would let him get a word in edge-wise, otherwise. I have listened to Jasser many times and have never felt any concerns about what he is saying (that is, he was telling the truth and not practicing taqquiyah, which is Koran-authorized lying to the infidel).

    • Martin Knight

      First of all; it’s not in the Qur’an.

      Second …

      Nah, it would just take too long.

      • AnnaD

        Then where is taqquiyah authorized? Because it is.

      • chamberD

        . . . or not is immaterial.

        The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible either. But Christians believe in the oneness of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, just as Muslims understand the use of Taqquiyah as a tool to promote worldwide imposition of Islam.

        I suggest you spend some time at gatesofvienna.com and also with Brigitte Gabriel of Act for America, for starters. Let me also recommend amnation.com/VFR for your longterm edification of the threat to Western civiliazation posed by Islam — notice I DO NOT use the term “radical Islam” — (and also leftist and liberal dogmas).

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          You’re going to need to bring more than a link to a website to argue with him.

        • AnnaD

          You are right. Gates of Vienna is a great site and another one is thereligionofpeace.com, which chronicles TROP quite thoroughly. If the CPAC panel does not have a Muslim on it who understands the threat of global Islam and sharia (and condemns it), it is not worth having that panel.

          • chamberD

            Are you acquainted with amnation.comVFR?

            And to Neil: As you may conclude, no amount of “argu[ing]” from me with Martin is likely to dissuade him from his religious sentiments — so I wonder why you would even suggest it. I did not know he was a “Muslim” when I made the statement suggesting that he can gain info on Islam at various websites. But it makes no difference. Not everyone reading the comments section of this thread is a Martin — and for them, my comments might prove enlightening. And that includes you.

          • AnnaD

            …thanks to you.

          • Martin Knight

            The standard practice now is to quote one verse of the Holy Qur’an without the verse preceding it or following it that gives it its context. Another is simple slander.

            Sorta like the libel that Jews use Christian children’s blood to make bread for passover.

            For what it’s worth, I’m a standard issue Muslim. And it might shock you, but I’ve been to the Wailing Wall and the Church of the Sepulchre, and I went to visit those sites the same day I went to pray at Al Aqsa. I have Jewish neighbors that I am obligated by my religion’s injunction of kindness to my neighbor irrespective of religion to extend a helping hand and even share my food with.

            I could go on … but I’m not inclined to waste my time.

          • AnnaD

            To be enlightened by you anbout taqquiyah. Nobody cares if you are a Muslim, but if you claim I am ignorant, then I care about that. Please enlighten me, by all means. You seem to be avoiding the issue with deflections and non-answers. Sort of like taqquiyah?

            Also, enlighten me about abrogation, where the peaceful parts of the Koran (the Meccan verses) are abrogated (dismissed, made null) by the Medinan verses (not so peaceful, more like kill the infidel and all that). I’d love to hear your explanation of that dichotomy.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            before Martin bothers with you again.

      • tex41lb

        Martin Knight Your Statement ,”First of all it is not in the Qur’an”, is a wonderful example of Taqquiyah.

        • Michael Dugas

          I believe your ignorance of his faith has you confusing the Qur’an with the Hadith. The two main denominations of Islam, Shi?ism and Sunnism, have different sets of Hadith collections. These writing concern themselves with the teachings and deeds of their prophet Muhammad. Like several of the books of the Old Testament they also refer to Islamic Law and jurisprudence.

          • Michael Dugas

            **kowalski alert**

  • JadedByPolitics

    always about ACU and Ben your research shows why Conservatives should NOT attend. To be called a bigot because you disagree with a flag planted in victory at ground zero is unacceptable is well unacceptable. Do NOT reward CPAC for having these groups speak at a Conservative convention. OBTW if you are going, please stop in and be heard at that “discussion”

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    The inclusion of GOProud and the Muslim Brotherhood at CPAC makes it quite clear that the ACU, David Keene, and Grover Norquist are intent on fracturing the Reagan conservative coalition and redefining conservatism to suit their own ideas.

    • Finrod

      No matter what you think of GOProud, comparing them to the Muslim Brotherhood is like comparing a zit to full-on metastasized cancer. Nobody is killing anyone over gay marriage.

      The fact that you would even try to draw an equivalence between them should be enough to exclude you from rational conversation.

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        Let’s not call people demented for disagreeing from the right over ACU, shall we?

        • Finrod

          .

      • Bill S

        And he (?) is not “comparing them”. He is saying that they are part of a similar problem, which is the deconstruction of the social conservative side of CPAC. Both are a sign that the ACU is de-emphasizing topics that don’t revolve around fiscal and/or national defense topics by bringing in participating groups that are an affront to the values that conservatives generally conserve.

        Using the two in that context is not a comparison. They are both symptoms of an illness, just as a runny nose and a headache can be symptoms of the flu.

        • Finrod

          Is the Muslim Brotherhood pushing gay marriage, abortion, or any other social issue?

          I would say that the ACU is completely abandoning any pretense at being conservative in a national defense sense with this Muslim Brotherhood matter. Social issues don’t enter into it.

          • Bill S

            And I don’t really have a lot of time to get into it, since I’m working right now and just happened to peek here. It’s the actions and behaviors of radical Islamists that are related to social issues. I think our traditional definition of “social issues” that restricts the topic to abortion and gay marriage, DADT, etc. is unduly narrow.

            I may circle back later.

            But the key point is: it really doesn’t HAVE to be “social” per se. The original assertion is that those groups/individuals were intent on redefining conservatism by inclusion of fringe groups (the thread that connects the Muslim Brotherhood and GOProud) And I think that’s a very valid observation. Accusing the poster of “equating” the two is an exercise in spectacularly missing the point.

          • Finrod

            I’m wondering why you’re now saying ‘it really doesn’t HAVE to be “social” per se’, in the very next comment after you talk about ‘deconstruction of the social conservative side of CPAC’.

            I always thought there were usually pretty clear distinctions between social, fiscal, and nat’l defense conservatism, myself.

            And while it may seem like a semantic quibble, there is a difference between ‘drawing an equivalence’ as I stated and your rephrasing my words as ‘equating’. I would also argue that lumping an 80 percent ally like GOProud together with an enemy of the United States like the Muslim Brotherhood as ‘fringe groups’ doesn’t help matters any. Zit vs cancer and all that.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          You’re just being silly Bill. If he didn’t want to make an obvious comparison there are at least a hundred ways he could have made the point.

          • Bill S

            It is not a comparison. MY comparison stands: it’s no more a comparison than six different symptoms of the flu: they’re not the same, but they’re related.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            On this we agree to disagree.

          • Scope

            Saying that the MB and GOProud is a part of the same problem in no way shape or form is saying they themselves are comparable, or the same. They both bring problems to the ACU, GOProud is clearly bringing the issue of gay marriage to the convention, while the MB is bringing the problem of radical Islam. Good Lord, the MB would kill the gays if they get their desire for Sharia in the US. I doubt they would be “openly” gay and asking for legislation in their favor. They would be running so fast to get back in the closet, you’d choke on their dust.

            I am of the thinking that GOProud was given a seat at the table to take the focus off the radical Islam infiltration. No matter where you read, it’s always about GOProud being the issue. Other than Leon’s reference to the Islamic problem in his diary, and now today with Ben’s, I’m not seeing much of anything anywhere about the Islam problem.

          • Finrod

            Lower Hades can now commence its ice storm.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister
      • Scope

        emotional and angry when some disagree with gay marriage, wouldn’t you go a long way in lowering your blood pressure and join in with the discussions at HillBuzz? Just a healthier suggestion.

        • Finrod

          I’ve been posting here at RedState for over six years, and I cut my teeth posting on alt.flame back before you ever even heard of the Internet. The likes of you aren’t enough to dislodge me. What does concern me is that by the time we whittle down who’s allowed in conservatism to the extent that you want, we won’t have enough manpower to run a beachside taco stand, much less evict the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania.

      • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

        Rather than a personal attack. Why do you not try to counter the basic point that the ACU, David Keene, and Grover Norquist are dismantling the Reagan conservative coalition and trying to create a new entity under their own guidance?

        As to killing over gay marriage, I am pretty sure the Muslim Brotherhood is in favor of that.

        • lineholder

          GOProud and the Muslim Brotherhood would be allies, given the beliefs against homosexual behavior that is supported by the religion.

          Social conservatives may not agree with the behaviors or the lifestyle, but we have no wish to actually kill homosexuals over that choice.

          It does open the door to speculation as to why these two parties would even remotely consider joining forces.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            I am not arguing that they are allies or even that they coordinate their efforts.

            What is clear is that the ACU and David Keene are intent on redefining conservatism away from the Reagan coalition.

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      a worldwide group that supports terrorist organizations is a good equivalent? You might want to take that up with Sarah Palin.

      • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

        Show me the comparison you mention. Where did I compare the two entities?

        I stand by the point that the inclusion of both are part of the redefinition of conservatism by the ACU, Keene and Norquist.

        • aesthete

          Sorta like if I said that “rape, bestiality, and obesity are grave threats to America’s well-being that we should be concerned with”. One of these is not like the others…

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Yes, I stand by the originial point that I made. The inclusion of GOProud and the Muslim Brotherhood indicate an attempt by the ACU to redefine conservatism away from the Reagan coalition. If that implies a comparison then imply all you want. The inclusion of the two is part of the same problem.

          • Scope

            when you referred to some groups that cannot be mentioned in any negative way. I understood clearly your implication that they are both groups that are their to undermine Reagan conservatism as you stated. No, obviously the MB and GOProud can never be considered allies. The MB kills gays, whether they are married or not. It may be that GOProud was given a seat at the head of the table at CPAC, as a means of keeping the discussion centered around them, and not looking to deeply into the MB connections, which are deeper than GOProuds. In other words, the GOProud people are being used as dupes for a bigger agenda.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            But the comparison is still absolutely idiotic.

            I’m moving today and don’t have time to deal with this stupidity. As I noted earlier, take up with Palin, the “reigning queen of conservatism”, who has no problem with GOProud showing up at CPAC.

            The Muslim Brotherhood is an entirely different matter.

            You really should throw in some Hitler and RINO references for good measure with a comparison like you made. They’d fit right in.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Sarah Palin is a fine lady but the whole point of conservatism is that we don’t need a “reigning queen” as we can think for ourselves.

            If you would care to refute my central point rather than to sling mud and moan, then I would be happy to respond.

          • Finrod

            Oh man, that’s the most hilarious thing I’ve read on this site this calendar year.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            If your point is that CPAC has no business doing anything with the MB but setting up an FBI sting operation, I agree.

            If your point stretches to the break that GOProud has no business at CPAC as a sponsor, you broke it. 99% of their agenda is absolutely solid and if we can have gays join us in our objective of reducing the reach and cost of government I say welcome.

            You’ve taken two widely disparate groups and compared them for effect. One group supports worldwide terrorism and the destruction of America. The other supports about 99% of the stuff the most conservative of us support and we can fight about the rest, but they are good American conservatives by any reasonable measure. And your measure is anything but reasonable.

            And based on your postings here, I have serious doubts about your ability to “think”.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            The original post stated simply: “The inclusion of GOProud and the Muslim Brotherhood at CPAC makes it quite clear that the ACU, David Keene, and Grover Norquist are intent on fracturing the Reagan conservative coalition and redefining conservatism to suit their own ideas.”

            If you cannot refute the original point, then why do you keep troubling people by answering points never raised.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            or are you just [insert adjective]?

            Your including GOProud in that statement is over-the-top and an assault on a conservative group that we have a whole lot more in common with than we have disagreements with. Take out GOProud and I have no qualms.

            I just figured it out. You’re [adjective].

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Still no substance to your response. Still no answer to the central point that the ACU is attempting to redefine conservatism away from the Reagan coalition.

            Feel free to call names rather than engage in intellectual discourse. Some men are braver when the dialogue is in a anonymous forum.

          • gekster

            this guy is……
            I’ll wait till he says……well, puts his foot in his mouth, again.

          • Scope

            insertion necessary, or just to add fuel to the fire. I think your great but, I’ve noticed you doing that with certain people seemingly for no reason.

          • gekster

            ok, I’ll go back and sit down in the back of the class and be quiet now.
            I do get out of line sometimes.

            would it have been better if I had said these?

            Does mbecker908 hide behind Palin?

            mbecker908 refutes a voice in his head

            mbecker908 with a response worthy of himself

            I did say I would wait.
            Opps, never mind.
            I’ll go sit down. ;)

          • Scope

            does that mean that you are mbecker’s body guard? I promise he doesn’t need one. He isn’t exactly innocent with his accusations, name calling, and outright attacks on those he doesn’t agree with. Sad to see that you feel you have to protect someone who sure doesn’t need it, and, against someone who hasn’t done anything to you, or anyone else here. I happen to agree with his positions, and he has never been disrespectful. You certainly can disagree with his positions, but to simply join in a pile on, for no reason is sad to see coming from you. My point, why just simply inject flames and gasoline on a fire that is already out of control? The one you are supporting is sure guilty of just that.

          • gekster

            and if you had read my other posts to kipling,
            you would see that I have asked some pertinent questions of him,
            allbeit after the fact.
            He has not responded.
            And I don’t see where my initial comment was any worse
            than the postings I listed.

            And I DID hold my tongue, as requested.
            It is out of respect for you, dear. ;)

          • Newton E. Mchuckney

            or just wait till scope finishes her shift

          • gekster

            If I had known that Scope, ( whoI do love her dearly) became a hall monitor, I would have ducked in the boys room when I saw her. LOL

          • Newton E. Mchuckney

            but I am definitely Pro pile-on

          • Bill S

            Simply using two nouns in the same sentence doesn’t mean they’re being “compared”

            Let’s say my house burned down, and it was because it was soaked in gasoline and someone threw a match on it. Two different things caused the fire, and they’re not the same. But they’re related.

            Seriously. This is not hard to understand.

            And Sarah Palin’s blessing of GOProud is hardly the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
          • bobmontgomery

            I have no special knowledge or understanding of CPAC politics, the ACU, Norquist or any of them, but standing back and observing your train of thought, your argument that if these guys have an intent, however well defined. to turn the movement away from Reaganism, or traditional conservatism, the tactic of bringing in non-traditional and, dare we say, “edgy” interest groups, would be a darned good way to do it. Your thoughts on the matter are perefectly clear, rational, thoughtful and non-oblique. I am quite comfortable that you do not equate a social engineering club with a group supportive of terrorism, but whether your comparison was implied or not, it has not one whit to do with your thesis. The people pouncing on you know that as well. It is another silencing technique.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            After repeating myself for the fourth time, it finally dawned on me that they are not interested in discussion but rather silencing those with whom they disagree.

          • Scope

            Both kipling, and yourself have bravely slogged on with trying to get some rational answers from some that are not on the same side of the issues. When I saw the accusations coming out against what kipling said, which was very clear, I asked him if he was ready to duck, because the incoming was on it’s way. When some can’t win their arguments by reasonable debate, and giving grounded reasons for their positions, or any links to their arguments, it becomes a name calling session, with the person’s mental stability, or intellect called into question. Yes, it’s an attempt to silence. How much do you want to bet that a recipe will follow our comments, or at least mine.

          • bobmontgomery

            ..and got to looking around and saw some delicious-looking wordsmanship going on!

          • Finrod

            I don’t want to silence kipling, he’s providing enormous entertainment value currently. Just look up above, where he tried to accuse mbecker908 of (hee hee hee) hiding behind Sarah Palin (ahahahahaha). Robin Williams couldn’t write material that funny.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            to be wrong now and then. ;-)

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            mbecker908 has twice attempted to end debate by citing Palin. How else should one perceive his attempt?

            As to silencing anyone, Finrod has neither the ability or the authority.

            Can you next reply have a little bit more substance? Do you dispute the original point? Evidence?

          • runner12

            While I think that sometimes Finrod and mbecker are unfairly attacked, they do their fair share of attacking. This line of posting was completely uncalled for. Name calling because you disagree with someone is immature and evidence of the weakness of one’s argument. Kudos to you for holding your own :) .

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            kipling anything.

            His argument, such as it is, is offensive and stupid and totally off-point. Assuming he has a point.

            It’s absolutely fair game to go after CPAC for their association, such as it is, with MB. It’s outrageous that people want to ban GOProud from CPAC sponsorship and attendance because they don’t toe the “appropriate” social line even though their significantly more conservative on many other issues than the bright shining stars of social conservatism.

          • runner12

            argument stupid and offensive. If you don’t agree with it, fine. This is a free country. But don’t call someone’s POV stupid because you don’t happen to agree.

            In fact, I would agree with kipling that GoProud has no business being at CPAC and that they are trying to “redefine” conservative. This is not because they are gay. It is because of their willingness to throw out their conservative principles when it comes to their gay agenda. Supporting repeal of DADT and fighting the will of the people on Prop 8 are NOT limited government positions. If I am going to call out my fellow SoCons out when they want to grow government and spend like crazy, why would I not call out GoProud when they abandond limited government principles?

            I would have no problem with GoProud attending CPAC if they did not have such a militant agenda.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            His.

            Argument.

            Is.

            Stupid.

            and.

            Offensive.

            He goes out of his way to make a link between conservatives with whom he disagrees on social issues and Islamic terrorist enablers. Not acceptable.

            And just to be really clear, this crap about GOProud at CPAC has nothing to do with the substance of Ben’s argument about MB, which I agree with wholeheartedly.

            If you disagree with GOProud I really could care less, but there is no reason not to have them at CPAC where the issues can be discussed. I don’t for the life of me agree with their gay rights agenda but I’m sure happy to march with them if they want to reduce the size and scope of government. I’ll happily fight the social battle another time.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            You state: “He goes out of his way to make a link between conservatives with whom he disagrees on social issues and Islamic terrorist enablers. Not acceptable.”

            Please quote me on how I went out of my way. Please refute the basic point of my original post. It is a simple requiest.

          • Michael Dugas

            He has answered your question several times already. To me your comparison of the MB with GOProud is only correct in so much as some conservatives question whether it is appropriate to have any relationship or interaction with these groups via ACU and CPAC. Otherwise GOProud and the MB’s ideology and goals couldn’t be farther apart.
            The MB believes in a theocratic rule via shariah law. This is such an anathema to our Representative Democracy and constitution that I personally believe they should not be allowed to associate with ACU/CPAC at all.
            GOProud is a group of American citizens, conservative citizens, who agree with us 95% + of the time. That’s better than a lot of other GOP cliques accepted today.
            We need to work together on the issues we agree with because to tell you the truth, if our country’s economy collapses, none of this other minutia will matter a bit.

          • gekster

            even with thier eyes taped wide open.
            mr. kipling could have used another analogy to make his point,
            and I agree the one he used is and was over the top.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            If you have a problem with the original post, please challenge it.

            If all you want to do is complain about “over the top” when it is an accurate statement, you may want to apply for Mr. Gibbs job.

          • gekster

            saying that they want to “fracture” the Reagan consrvatism.
            are they in cohoots, or are they attacking at different angles.
            Is there a secret pact of aliance they have signed, that only you know about.
            And what has the muslim brotherhood have to do with all the freedoms ascociated with conservative principles, let alone Regan conservatism,
            Tell me exactly what is conservative about the brotherhood.
            and again I ask you about the adhominum attacks you claim I have made.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            “The inclusion of GOProud and the Muslim Brotherhood at CPAC makes it quite clear that the ACU, David Keene, and Grover Norquist are intent on fracturing the Reagan conservative coalition and redefining conservatism to suit their own ideas.”

            As to questions about why the ACU chooses to facture the Reagan coaltion, you will have to ask Keen and Norquist.

          • gekster

            “The inclusion of GOProud and the Muslim Brotherhood” ,
            are you saying they are together, or just happen to be going to the same place.
            You non the less say they are going after the same thing as to being used to fracture, et cet.

            and since you wont answer the ad hom thing, I’ll drop it.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Let me guide you into a clear understanding through the wonderful world of grammar.

            Here is the original post: ?The inclusion of GOProud and the Muslim Brotherhood at CPAC makes it quite clear that the ACU, David Keene, and Grover Norquist are intent on fracturing the Reagan conservative coalition and redefining conservatism to suit their own ideas.?

            Now, who is the subject performing the action in the orginal post.

            In other words, the who that included both GOProud and the Muslim Brotherhood – i.e. the ACU, Keene, and Norquist – would be the ones attempting to fragment the Reagan coalition.

            I mean what I say and I say what I mean. Are we now clear on who is doing the action or perhaps you have another flight of fancy?

            If your questions are no more pertenant than these, do not expect a response.

          • gekster

            It leaves you not having to explain.
            Since your overwhelming intellect has humbled me, I will leave this thread.
            I will label it as “whaaaa, my kitty hurts”.
            And Scope thinks you are better than mbecker.
            And you never explained the ad hominum attack thing, though you have appeared to have done one.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            I think I have explained myself extensively today. The original post said what it said. Throughout the course of the day I have been attacked by mbecker, Finrod, and lastly by you. The original post is not unclear, nor does it say any of the things that you three claimed. If you have a legitimate question or point, I would be happy to address it. But let us not have another day of nonsense.

          • gekster

            exactly what did I say that was offensive.

            was it this:
            this guy is??
            I?ll wait till he says??well, puts his foot in his mouth, again.
            that was an attack?

            or this:
            As to gekster, what is one more who deals in ad hominum attacks and lacks substance.
            ohh, wait. That was you.

            when I said:
            what ad hominum attacks. what lack of substance.
            Just want to know.
            Please enlighten me.

            was that an attack.

            Oh wait, I know, when I pointed out that you belittled me for asking for an explanation of YOUR words, THAT was an attack.
            All I can say is Sir Richerd Crani___. Take that as an attack.
            See you latter.
            And I will. ;)

          • gekster

            Or doesn’t my Grammer match your standards.
            Or are you afraid to say I never attacked you, as you think.
            Or did this simple mind get the best of you?
            Inquiring mind want to know.

          • runner12

            me, because I can tell you right now that it will not work. I am neither stupid nor uneducated. Do not treat me as such.

            For the record, I re-read his statement and I think you are the one who completely jumped to conclusions. I did not take his comments the same way that you apparently did. It seems to me that you have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to this issue. Also, if you thought his comment had nothing to do with the Ben’s argument with the MB, then say so. But don’t attack him before you do it. Your point gets lost in all of your amped-up rehtoric.

            Last but not least, if you have such a problem with Socons who abandoned their principles, why don’t you have a problem with GoProud when they do?
            I mean, if the Huckster was the key-note speaker on fiscal matters at CPAC, I would be the first to lead the boycott.

          • runner12
          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            I have a huge problem with Single Issue Values Voters but I doubt they’re represented in this thread.

            The problem I have is linking a conservative group with a terrorist group. And that’s exactly what he did though he chooses not to own up to it. It’s a fools argument he’s making.

            I wouldn’t boycott CPAC if Huck was the keynote – or if Palin was. It’s an organization where these kinds of discussion should take place. I have a huge problem with them doing anything with the MB other than to facilitate their time with the 72 Virginians, the whole MB thing is so far out of line it’s certainly worth questioning where their heads are at.

            I jumped in because there was a long thread going before I got here. If there had been no discussion, I’d have stayed away because I really detest throwing pearls before swine.

            And again, as far as GOProud is concerned, I don’t support their social agenda but I’m perfectly willing to call them an ally in the fight to downsize government.

          • bobmontgomery

            He is attacking the organizers of CPAC for bringing in outside agenda-driven groups for which most conservatives have no use.. He did *not* say anything aboutMB and GoP. being in cahoots and he did *not* say anything about MB having conservative principles.

          • bobmontgomery

            Do. You. Want. LaRaza. There. So You. Can. Discuss. The. Issues?
            How. About. NAMBLA? Are. You. Happy. To. March. With. Them. To Reduce. Government?
            How. About. Americans. For. The. Separation. Of. Church. And. State?
            New. Black. Panther. Party?
            People. for. the Ethical. Treatment. of. Animals?

            Slow enough for you?

            Now, this “crap” about having GOProud at CPAC has as much to do with the organizers of CPAC as having the MB there, for this reason: the Muslim Borthers are not appearing at CPAC in their capacity as MuslimBrothers with the intent of helping to insure conservative victory at the ballot box. And the GoProuders, in their capacity of being “Proud” are not there to help insure conservative victory at the ballot box either. The organizers could have invited PETA. They could have invited NBPP. They could have invited whatever your favorite atheist society is. But they didn’t. They invited M. Brotherhood and GoProud. Now who are the bad guys? Who is everybody going to hate? So when the debate gets hot and heavy, who is going to go after the Brotherhood the hardest and the loudest? Bingo. The Go Prouders.
            Who wins? The GoProuders. Heroic figures all. Yes, Becker, you *will* be marching with them. You won’t be fighting any social battles. You are fighting your social battles on these pages.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            GOProud is a group of Republicans who have a set of conservative principles and a corresponding set that are not so conservative. But at the end of the day they espouse smaller government and fiscal responsibility. I don’t agree with their social stuff but I’m happy to talk about the fiscal side.

            This, bob, is probably the dumbest piece of tripe ever posted anywhere:

            Do. You. Want. LaRaza. There. So You. Can. Discuss. The. Issues?
            How. About. NAMBLA? Are. You. Happy. To. March. With. Them. To Reduce. Government?

            Dumb bob, really really really dumb. As in single digit IQ dumb.

            None of those groups have ever espoused a conservative ideal of any kind so, no bob I wouldn’t be happy to march with them. Offer them up for a RICO investigation? Absolutely.

            OK. bob. Now. go. have. your. caretaker. feed. you. and. put. you. to. bed.

          • Finrod

            If there are two people on this site that have gone round and round on the subject of Sarah Palin more than mbecker and myself, I’m hard-pressed to name them. The fact that mbecker is citing Palin to refute you should be viewed as an anomaly along the lines of Ronald Reagan citing Karl Marx.

            That, among other reasons, is why I’m laughing at you, not with you. Otherwise, I am 100 percent with mbecker in this thread. Answer him, if you can; as far as I’m concerned your postings have passed tragedy and are well on into farce.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            The problem we have here, as my late daddy once pointed out, is that there is no better time waster than making a rational argument to somebody who can’t think.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            I will admit complete ignorance as to the history between Finrod and mbecker. Nor do I really care to learn the history of such small matters.

            What concerns me is your lack of substance and engagement in ad hominum attack? You two seem very brave in a anonymous forum. You have raised no valid points in this discussion. You have not countered or even addressed the original point I made. You have done nothing but whine, snivel, and sneer. Such I am sure is your own reward.

          • Scope

            that it isn’t you, it is them. You don’t need to explain yourself, period. They are playing with you. You may have not been here long enough to know that there are some that look for street fights, as a part of their entertainment. They have actually ganged up on many in the past (that is supposed to be not not allowed now), and have cried when some have gotten banned because they drove them to saying bannable things. They can name call (also not supposed to be a part of the new tone here), but don’t do it back. Please recognize what is really going on here. Don’t try to defend yourself, you don’t have any reason to, move on and they will get bored and then go and look for someone else to pick on.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            I do realize it is not about me. So far they have done nothing but demonstrate their own intellectual impetence. Sometimes it is fun to watch ‘em swagger for their own amusement. The two think they are so clever but in the end up making the best case against themselves. mbecker has been particularly fun since he claims to be superior to all the Palin supporters. Yet, today it is he who has attempted to use her to stifle debate. As to Finrod, he makes my case for me each time. There are only so many times you can becalled back to task before it starts to look rather sad. As to gekster, what is one more who deals in ad hominum attacks and lacks substance.

            I appreciate your encouragement. Keep fighting the good fight.

          • Scope

            You cannot know how welcome you are, by so many here, whether they say it or not. Most back away from some because they do have a way of being very mean and vile. Yes, they do change the subject often, and try to trick you up. You’ve proven smarter than many to not fall for it. Welcome brother in arms for conservatism, all of it.

          • gekster

            what ad hominum attacks. what lack of substance.
            Just want to know.
            Please enlighten me.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            The cat box needs cleaning.

          • bobmontgomery

            ….an encyclopedic knowledge of the history of this website. That is great! And Anybody who doesn’t have an encyclopedic knowledge of the history of this website, well, tsk! tsk! tsk! How appalling! Oh, and how quaint that you and Becker have gone round and round and round and round and round and round and round on Sarah Palin. Why, everybody at this site has been hanging on your every word, right? Apparently not. Kipling wasn’t in on your ‘inside joke’, so he didn’t know to immediately defer to you and Becker and your encyclopedic knowledge of the history of this website. So go ahead and ‘laugh’ at him, Finrod. Whatever makes you …….feel good.

          • Scope

            but mbecker has no right or reason to call himself a conservative, hence his post saying that GOProud is a very conservative group he loves seeing in the conservative movement. becker has been a very very moderate Republican as long as I’ve seen him posting here at RS. In addition, he likes to stir the dust, and gets a ghoulish pleasure in knocking those he doesn’t agree with. He’s a long time member, and has escaped banning many times in the past for that reason. He name calls, questions people’s sanity, asks if they have taken their meds etc etc. He’s actually been quite controlled since the new tone, but at times just can’t help his crotchety self. You, myself and many others have kiplings back, and I for one am very happy for the reinforcements against those that fight just for fighting’s sake. They really don’t have the good of the conservatives in mind. Heck, mbecker said, during the primaries that McCain was a thorn in Obama’s back. I just love that one with McCain just recently saying that Obama has gone to the middle, and is so much easier to work with. Heck I just heard Greta say that McCain needs to take some blame for the Egyptian crisis, and, I promise he isn’t blaming the O, as he called for Mubarak to step down days ago.

          • aesthete

            at how badly you’ve mischaracterized him. Wouldn’t be the first time you mischaracterize someone on this forum, and probably won’t be the last.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            I’d puke first.

            I’ve gotten to the point that Scope is just someone to completely ignore. In the world of people (?) who I really don’t care about she’s pretty near the top.

          • bobmontgomery

            ….about how badly you mischaracterized Becker. Gee, ‘thete, all I know is the last I heard from Becker he said I had a single digit IQ! I was going to ask him what I needed to do to get a double-digit IQ like him :-) but I think he’s out emptying his cat box or something. Either that or dialing up any number of social justice groups asking if he can march with them in return for their promise to stamp out Big Government.
            Scope, I have been here a little over a year. Not long enough to be intimately familiar with all the players, but long enough to detect trends. And I have been in this world long enough and been lobbied by salesmen of every stripe for this that and the other enough to know that when you are continually badgered to set aside your principles in favor of “protecting your assets”, unless you ‘just say no’, pretty soon you will have neither.

          • Finrod

            And as such, some of us know each other well, either from reinforcing each other or beating our heads against each other, as the case may be.

            Perhaps you don’t see the value of that, in getting to know the lay of the land and getting along with your fellow commentators. In that case, perhaps you’d be more comfortable posting at some other site, where people genuinely don’t give a fudge about each other.

            As for me, I just wish RedState had the old Usenet ability of killfiles, because as far as I’m concerned, you provide negative value to this site with every comment you make. As it is, I know when I see ‘bobmontgomery’ on a comment, I know that the content is going to be drivel or worse.

            You are a net drag on the sum total of human knowledge. Go find something better to do with your time and ours, such as playing in traffic, voting third party, or smoking crack. We’ll all benefit.

          • Scope

            is that you have not succeeded in chasing some other members away with your insults, simply because you don’t agree with their positions. You didn’t like what kipling said, so you twisted it into something he never said, called out your old goon squad, always ready to hurl insults at anyone, and had them sign on to a blind allegiance to your gay cause. In the time I’ve been here, I’ve never seen mbecker say the first word for or against gays, however, all of a sudden he is a gays rights activist. He says he is against single issue voters, but, low and behold he’s right here support your single issue.

            Redstate isn’t “the old boys club” that you wish it to be, with no new members allowed to join and voice their ideas. That’s why the length of time of membership was removed from the profile pages. Longer term members are just as responsible for following site rules as the newest members, and are equally as qualified for banning. It is not your choice of who is a member here, or what they have to say.

            Here’s an idea, why don’t you go on over to mbecker’s website, and take some of your other buddies with you. You can all have a big group hug over there, and pat each other on the back. Heck he’d have all of 5 members then.

            You don’t like or agree with what I, bobmontgomery and kipling have had to say, so you resort to school yard bullying tactics, with your buddies egging on juvenile and childish fights. Age doesn’t always mean maturity or responsibility no matter what age you reach. You have made that obvious.

            Rather than telling bobmontgomery to go play in traffic, you should be telling him from first hand experience what damage it can have on your brain and/or thought processes.

            Carry on bobmontgomery, you are a welcome asset, as well as kipling and several others.

          • Finrod

            You’ve got awfully thin skin if you think that was mean-spirited.

            It’s hilarious to see you try to lump myself and mbecker into the same group, when he and I have fought some truly bruising battles here in the past. The one thing he and I have in common, though, is that we little tolerance for the small-minded, a description that you qualify for beautifully. Meanwhile, you and bobmontgomery and kipling and all your little hateful buddies are ganging up against anyone whose mindset doesn’t fit into your small little world, thinking that you can take over RedState by sheer force of noise. Sorry, but the world doesn’t work that way. The term ‘school yard bullying tactics’ describes you and yours to a T; I see you’ve already gotten the standard liberal technique of accusing others what you’re already doing down pat. You also have the ‘drum out anyone not in our clique’ technique down pat as well, another liberal classic. You seem bloody well determined to turn RedState into a mirror of dKos, and you’ll threadjack and attack anyone that gets in your way.

            I’m not going to leave because of you. In fact, I’m going to see to it that every stupid statement, every inanity, every doofus remark of yours, gets pointed out for all to see. You contribute no ideas, you add no value here, you just provide urine and vinegar to every discussion that’s not a mutual pat-yourselves-on-the-back club.

            Eventually you’ll get tired and leave, or at least calm down. I’ve outlasted smarter and more determined people than you. If you don’t break first, then your buddies will, and you’ll discover that it’s not so much fun when you don’t have your fellow sycophants to tell you how wonderful you are. Me, I don’t mind taking unpopular positions, I don’t have anything I need to prove to anyone, and all I care about is crushing the Left, driving the liberals and progressives before us, and hearing the lamentations of their women and boytoys.

            That in the end is what truly matters.

            You’re just a speedbump on that road.

          • Aaron Gardner
          • Scope

            I’m glad you said it. The truth of the matter is you haven’t been able to hold an honest rational argument to back your positions, so you then resort to childish petty name calling and attacks on those you can’t debate with to save your life. Actually, you don’t even try to debate anyone that has differing views, particularly with respect to gays, you immediately try to discredit their intelligence, their credibility, the length of time they have been here at RS, and any other garbage you can find in your little Alinsky manual, you have sitting right beside you in case you forget one of the rules for radicals.

            I don’t know your history here at Redstate, or what diaries, positions, or views you may have had in the past, but, judging from your method of commenting recently, you haven’t been any asset to Redstate. On the contrary, you have proven to be nothing more than a bully, that can’t control his emotions, flies off the handle and just strikes out with closed fists. No doubt if you had the chance, you would make contact, but, the computer is others shield.

            Both bobmontgomery, kipling, and a few others have added more intelligence, and knowledge to the various debates here at Redstate, and have been more than willing to remain respectful, as bullying isn’t their style. Sorry you feel so threatened by those who bring more to the table than lies and false accusations.

            You can follow me all over this website and try to haunt and discredit me. A few others have already tried that without much success. They are the ones that look the fools, not me. Have at it with your threats, Alinsky troll.

          • Finrod

            You’re the one that is trying to run off people you don’t agree with, just like you want to run GOProud out of CPAC. I’m patient enough to let you run yourself out and get tired and go away.

            That’s the way you work, it seems: threats and intimidation, just like leftists do.

            And now you (and Aaron) have fallen back to the old ‘troll’ accusation, probably because you’ve tried everything else and it hasn’t worked.

            If it wasn’t for the fact that you’re actively trying to run people away that want to help us, I wouldn’t have even have bothered with you. As it turns out, this isn’t my first flame war, so you can project all the hatred and emotional angst that you have onto me and I’m just going to shrug, point, and laugh.

            In any case, I’ve already sent email to the contact link about this whole sad debacle, so maybe something will happen. It’s not my website, so it’s not for me to say.

          • Aaron Gardner

            You are correct though, you aren’t acting like a troll. The more appropriate word is stalker.

          • Read Chesterton
    • Marcus_Traianus

      ..wait, that’s not a valid or fair comparison. At least for the next generation of conservative apostates.

      I am kinda old-fashioned. Time was that principals generally defined what conservatism was. If you adhered to those principals, you were in the club. If you didn’t, well, you were not a member of the club. By the way, the “club” isn’t the ACU. They don’t speak for me. Frankly, it appears to me these groups create more divisiveness and therefore weaken the conservative movement, rather than bring people together.

      It seems to me like the game of demographics and issue politics plays right into the Democrats counter strategy of divide-and-conquer (or was it eat your young?). But again, I am a simple man with simple needs.

      By the way, I don’t know about GOProud or their, ahem, positions… on issues smartass. But don’t assume just because a person is “gay” they don’t support traditional marriage. I know numerous “gay” folks for whom marriage is not their cup of tea, but they don’t believe in so-called “gay-marriage”.

      • Scope

        GOProud actively tries to push their agendas in Washington. They lobbied for the repeal of DADT, and someone around these parts said they were pro-national security. I would guess that that would be the case if DADT lived. They have written letters to ask the Republican leadership to not go down the rabbit hole of social issues. You may not be in favor of social issues, however, the Republicans can’t get elected without the social conservatives, and the national security conservatives, and I highly question their alligence to national conservative issues.

        • Marcus_Traianus

          The ruse here is to provoke a reaction. That reaction is mostly emotional and therefore pulls you away from the intellectual issues, which are paramount. It’s a tactic. Don’t fall for it.

          I’ll go back to what I said before. Conservatism is driven by a set of principles, not by a group, a conference or one particular issue. Keep in mind that forums often become a place for individual agendas. That is what is happening at ACU. They have lost sight of what I previously said is most important; a defined set of conservative principles. They are playing to demographics and heeding individual calls to be “inclusive” of other groups (remember it is a voting process that led to this).

          I am sure you know the meme from these folks. It is the whole sophistic argument that if we build a coalition of people from different walks of life, our entire approach is more appealing to a greater cross-section of the nation. We (the promulgators say) are therefore more likely to win elections. It is the whole “big-tent” concept which has been hijacked by people who may mean well (i will give them the benefit of the doubt), but are greatly flawed in their approach.

          You win elections by convincing folks that your principles are consistent and provide a superior vision for our country and her future. That means ALL principles. It is not a Chinese menu.

          I have no issue with GOProud if they support our conservative principles. I think it is great if they mostly agree with us and we alternately disagree on some issues. That is simply healthy. I don’t want drones in the party. That is a liberal manifestation. But I also don’t want someone who actively works against our agenda either. That is part of the package and strength of a principal based approach.

          What is unhealthy and destructive is to say, I’ll take one “gay” person, one Muslim, one Alien, one whatever and then point to them and say; “Hey America, look we are a big tent!”. That is not only insulting and patronizing to the participants, but also disingenuous and an electoral loser every time. Ditto issue politics (e.g. support for illegal immigration) as a gateway to playing that same game. Those are electoral losers every single time, without exception.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

    And I use this in the full, historical meaning of the term, not as gratuitous name-calling.

    The movement was founded in the 1928 and became entangled in Nazism – both doctrinally and aiding and abetting the Nazi military during WWII, including pogroms and other efforts to exterminate the Jews in Palestine and elsewhere.

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=764

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3pq1KIUZb4

    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11146

    And we see herein the roots of this introduction of a murderous anti-Semitism into Islam in the Middle East long before the founding of Israel as a nation – and it’s fruits over the past 60+ years.

    Not to mention the Brotherhood’s violent history post-war in Egypt.

    The means may differ, but the Brotherhood’s rejection of Western culture and advocacy for the reestablishment of Islamic theocracy would seem to have persisted throughout its history.

    Not exactly a player we want to nuture in in the U.S.

    I don’t want to specifically comment on this particular session without more facts, although Ben here has made a strong case about the sponsors of this session that should raise alarm bells.

    But we need to know the Brotherhood’s long history so that we can call out efforts to whitewash this history and be alert to those who willfully put on blinders out of wishful thinking that the Brotherhood somehow has become a force for a “moderate” Islam.

    • Scope

      promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood, I read an interesting article this morning where the author asks the question, is the problem the government in Egypt with Mubarak, or is it the people themselves? The Egyptian people, and in particular the protesters that were supposedly the young and students, they have never ever known the slightest bit of the freedom we take for granted in the US (at least until Obama). The Nazi’s promoted Islam’s most violent teachings for year’s via the Muslim Brotherhood.

      It seems that the mantra of the protesters has been free and fair elections. Mubarak must go, Mubarak must go now. In a recent poll of Egyptians, 59% said they want democracy, 95% want Islam to play a major part in politics, and 84% believe that apostates should face the death penalty. That means a majority of the Egyptians support murdering people in the name of Islam. The Mubarak government does not execute apostates or adulterers.

      That screams- be careful what you wish for because you may just get it, or, I guess in some very narrow instances, government does know better, at least in Egypt. It appears that Mubarak has been the only thing standing between the population and the Muslim Brotherhood.

      • lineholder

        Even today, there are multiple reports that the Egyptian army is on the move, arresting both those who stand with Mubarak and those who stand against.

        It may turn out that the Muslim Brotherhood made its intentions known a bit too publicly and early to accomplish its goal, and the direction the situation is now moving in is one of military rule.

        • AnnaD

          Is a secular military-led government better than an Islamist one? I would vote yes, in this case. I’m sorry to say I hope the Egyptian army finds all the Brotherhood adherents and disposes of them, permanently. Otherwise, the beautiful and glorious antiquities of the Egyptian golden ages will go the way of the Buddha statues in Afghanistan. Egypt was great once and could be again, but not if it stays a Muslim nation.

          • lineholder

            the military is currently operating as an internal “peace keeping” force. It is hard to determine at this point whether this could lead to military rule or whether other organizations are involved that could move in take over the government after some sense of peace is reestablished.

            But for the sake of that area and for other countries involved, I do see these actions on the part of the military to be positive right now. If comments posted in various articles are true, the Egyptian military has earned a huge amount of respect in the entire region.

          • Scope

            several members of the Muslim Brotherhood. What I found interesting in an article was that Clinton, or someone in the Obama admin. pushed Mubarak into releasing some of his prisoners from jail, they were Hood members. That’s why I’m getting very confused on the whole thing.

          • lineholder

            stated that very few prisoners were held for greater than 24 hours, for or against Mubarak.

            It’s a show of force for the purpose of maintaining some semblance of balance and preventing violence from going to extremes.

          • Scope

            that’s to bad that they were released, if they were MB. Had you read accounts that during the riots, the police stations were attacked, the prisoners released, including Sadat’s killer, and the weapons disappeared somewhere in the country? I did hear that they did re-capture Sadat’s murderer, but have no idea where all of the weapons are?

          • lineholder

            were attacked and backed out of confrontations with protesters, but that there was evidence to indicate that they are providing information to the military that has helped the Egyptian army find leaders of the protests.

            I saw an article link about WMD, but didn’t read it at the time and now I can’t find it. Sorry.

    • merryj1

      In addition to your excellent links, those interested in more info should Google “nazi – al Banna” and check the site, “www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com.”

      The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (1928, long before the CIA or OSS existed), al Husseini (my spelling may be off), was an uncle to Arafat (whose real name was Husseini), was affectionately called “Hitler’s Mufti,” and met with Adolph Eichmann in Jerusalem in the early days of WWII. He received funding from Himmler through the Dresden Bank, and his mission was to push, prod and lead the Muslim arm to help carry the Third Reich forward and into the 21st Century.

      After the war and Hitler’s defeat, the OSS/fledgling CIA was presented with a great opportunity (from the Brit’s MI6) to recruit the remnants of the Muslim Brotherhood and “turn” them to our side in the then-looming Cold War. The Brit official who brought in this great prize for MI6 and the US was — Ta! Da! — the UK’s notorious quisling, Kim Philby.

      Philby subsequently defected to the Soviet Union, just ahead of the boom about to be lowered as his general treachery was being discovered, but the OSS/CIA and MI6 apparently never fully recognized the likelihood that we’d been handed a Judas goat in this M.B. “gift.”

  • Scope

    for getting this very important information out. I’ve done quite a bit of research on Grover Norquist, and I promise he does not have any good intentions, not just for the conservatives, but for the country. Unfortunately he slinks around some of those in the highest levels of government. It’s pathetic that he isn’t sitting in jail for his enabling of terrorism.

    From another recent diary here at Redstate, it was said that some folks don’t get on the CPAC agenda, and believing their message is important enough, they rent a hotel room and hold their event there. That was in reference to Pamela Gellers topic of Islamism in America, which were apparently very popular discussions, and she had overflowing crowds. That begs the question as to why Geller had to go elsewhere, while the Islamists got the preferential spots at the main event location. It appears that she will be off location again this year.

    Frank Gaffney has also done some great work on researching and exposing the radical ties of Grover Norquist. Guess who’s not invited to dinner? Right, I’m sure Norquist would have him arrested if he came within 50 feet of CPAC. Speaking of who is invited to dinner is Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty, and the big guy himself. They are all over the place with speeches, book signings, receptions and everywhere else they can squeeze themselves in. I especially love the events where they are sponsoring the programs together with Grover Norquist. In particular- “Should defense spending be open to Budget cuts.” Lovely, just the people we need deciding on our defense spending.

    Speaking of Ron Paul, and the Ground Zero Mosque debates from a few months ago, Paul wrote an article at the time where, which he called The Sunshine Patriots, and he started out saying his usual libertarian views-

    “The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property and also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.”

    OK, I would expect him to say that, but, it gets worse when he goes on to say-

    “This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reason for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to destroy Islam would be difficult if not impossible.”

    Gee Ron, I wonder where you got that notion, maybe from Grover Norquist?

    • Finrod

      Ron Paul has been pushing his demented (is it ok to call RP demented?) form of defense libertarianism for a while now. I’d find it more likely that Grover Norquist got it from him.

    • chamberD

      I have been wise to Norquist for several years; it is not a mistake to conclude that he works at cross-purposes to the goals of social conservatives. He is a man to be watched very carefully and not to be trusted.

      And if Ron Paul cannot see the basic incompatibilities of Islam with our Constitution and Founding Heritage, then he makes of himself an Islam apologist and even more ironically, a hypocrite for all his talk of “the Constitution, the Constitution, the Constitution.”

      Kipling really does make a rather interesting connection, I think, (despite Finrod’s ire) about CPAC and its coziness with both GOPproud and the Muslim Brotherhood — although it is merely implied in his comments. And that is this:

      The agendas of both groups are antithetical to our First Amendment protections. Of the former, our free exercise of religion is NOT compatible with gay marriage nor with the homosexualization of the military. In both cases, the rights of Christians will of necessity become circumscribed; of marriage, because pastors and employers will be legally compelled to go against their consciences as when they become the object of lawsuits by homosexuals who will claim discrimination when a pastor declines to perform a homosexual marriage or an employer refuses to hire an openly homosexual worker for his Christian bookstore or theological seminary. Of the military, because it will now be the policy to SILENCE conscientious objections to homosexual behavior (more about this can be found here: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018288.html).

      Of Islam, because it is as much a political system of laws as it is a system of economics and religion; our First Amendment rights to free speech and religious freedom are the very avenues by which Islam will gradually overtake and subsume what remains of our Constitutional protections; Islam knows of no law except Sharia, which it intends to impose across the globe. Where there is relgious freedom, — as in the West, the Sharia project takes on an incrementalist strategy.

      That GOPproud and the Muslim Brotherhood have co-opted CPAC for their agendas means that CPAC has joined the anti-Constitutional agenda of the left.

      • aesthete

        “The agendas of both groups are antithetical to our First Amendment protections. Of the former, our free exercise of religion is NOT compatible with gay marriage nor with the homosexualization of the military.”

        Unless pastors are forced to marry gays, such would be no infringement on free exercise of religion, unless your religion demands that non-practitioners submit to its dictates — which is where it is recognized that your freedom of religion infringes on others’ rights. However you feel about homosexuals personally or politically, there’s just no comparison between them and their goals, and the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood, which are violent in both implementation and intent.

        • chamberD

          Dismissing my comments as absured reflects your lack of deep-thinking about the points I made — apparently you cannot see that though the agendas of the two gouprs are different, they each can only achieve them at the same cost: the destruction of our freedoms as guaranteed in our Constitution.

          • jamesonx

            Your claim that gay marriage infringes on free exercise of religion is absurd, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of law and Constitutional protections.

            Let’ me “deep-think” it for you:
            1. “pastors … will be legally compelled to … perform a homosexual marriage” No, they won’t. Recognition by the state of gay marriage does not compel pastors to perform them, just as recognition by the state of interfaith marriages does not compel pastors to perform those, and many do not.

            2. “employers will be legally compelled to … hire an openly homosexual worker for his Christian bookstore or theological seminary” – First, this has nothing to do with gay marriage. The Constitutional issue here is that of anti-discrimination statutes, specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which already enforces a situation analogous to the one that concerns you, i.e. must a Christian bookstore hire a Jewish employee? The relevant question of adding sexual orientation to the list of proscribed discriminates is not a Constitutional issue at this point, just a statutory one.

            3. “Of the military, because it will now be the policy to SILENCE conscientious objections to homosexual behavior” – Members of the military on active duty have entered into an additional contract above and beyond simple citizenship, and with that contract comes additional restrictions on their behavior. As such, they do not now, and will not in the future, be as free to express themselves as citizens if they wish to remain in good standing with the military. Once again, not a Constitutional issue, merely a matter of military policy (much as the no woman in combat policy is Constitutional).

            There is no First amendment right to not be offended. The free exercise of religion is only that, the freedom for the individual to perform his religious duties as he sees fit. It is not the “freedom” to require unwilling others to follow the restrictions of the religion you chose for yourself.

          • chamberD

            . . . I cited at amnation.com/VFR — look it up above — then your comments are without knowledge of the issues at stake, and therefore, only so much dross.

          • jamesonx

            There is almost no discussion of the Constitutionality of gay marriage in that “debate”, just a lot of worry about the offense to the conscience that “homosexualization” poses to conservative Christians. All I can do is reiterate: there is no Constitutional “right” to not be offended, and it is not the case that State recognition of gay marriage infringes on free exercise of religion.

          • Aaron Gardner
          • jamesonx

            Not quite sure what you mean here. Are you suggesting that it is problematic that an appointed officer of the government (JP) does not have the freedom to adjudicate according to their own beliefs rather than according to the law?

          • Aaron Gardner

            If one is elected a JP in VT they must either perform homosexual marriages or perform no marriages at all. Inherently this puts a Christian at a disadvantage in campaigning for the position as he must admit up front that he will abdicate that role in order to hold true to his religious beliefs or compromise his religious principles in order to effectively adjudicate according to the law.

            Essentially, VT has created an anti-religious litmus test in order to become a JP. Yes, they offer the option of not doing the job in full, but is that really an option for an elected official? No it’s not.

          • jamesonx

            I don’t know what to say. Its hard for me to imagine a less conservative position than advocating for personal dispensation of justice without regard to the law.

            I can only presume that you are strongly against the anti-semitic practice of Saturday mail service?

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            The burden is on you, jamesonx, to cite where all mail carriers must work on Saturday.

          • jamesonx

            that all mail carriers have to work on Saturday. However all mail carriers which work on Saturday have to work on Saturday.

            A tautology to be sure, but the point is that by Aaron’s argument, Saturday mail delivery puts “a [Jew] at a disadvantage in campaigning for the position as he must admit up front that he will abdicate that role in order to hold true to his religious beliefs or compromise his religious principles in order to effectively [deliver mail] according to the law.”

          • Aaron Gardner
          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            I accept your apology. Now move on and stop digging.

          • Aaron Gardner
          • jamesonx

            Aaron, here are the horns of your trilemma as I see it:

            1) The government ensures all laws are consistent with a specific religion, and thus effectively establishes a state religion.

            2) The government ensures all laws are consistent with all religions, and thus effectively incorporates all the prohibitions of Shariah, Scientology and what have you.

            3) The government allows its appointees to adjudicate according to their own conscience rather than according to the law.

            If you can explain how you achieve your desired perfect congruency between personal religious beliefs and governmental responsobility without falling afoul of one of those three horns, I am all ears.

          • Aaron Gardner

            If you can’t, then it is your side which has abridged the existing rights of man by extending marriage as a right to homosexuals.

          • aesthete
          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
          • jamesonx

            Is explain why State recognition of gay marriage is Constitutional. And in fact, I realize now that nobody is disputing that in this thread anymore.

            If your burden is not Constitutionality but instead that legislation cannot “abridge the existing rights of man”, by which you seem mean that it cannot prohibit or compel any action even of those individuals who voluntarily accept governmental employ, then there are no valid statutes and there is no valid governance.

          • Aaron Gardner
          • aesthete

            Do you think that McCarthy’s proposed bill to bar avowed Communists from working for the State Dept during the Cold War was un-Constitutional, despite the fact that political speech is guaranteed by the First Am?

          • Scope

            on many levels.

          • chamberD

            to not be offended, then the radical homosexual agenda has no legs.

          • chamberD

            “and it is not the case that State recognition of gay marriage infringes on free exercise of religion.”

            I wish it were not so. The truth is your statement reveals an abysmal lack of knowledge regarding the efforts underway by the ACLU and our courts to place the so-called rights of homosexuals above those of practicing Christians.

            This is not the forum in which to educate you. Suffice it to say, if you were at all honest in your statements, you would take the time to google and do a little research as to the multitude of legal actions taken against Christians at the behest of radical homosexual litigants who claim their rights are being denied.

            DO YOUR RESEARCH. Or, it may be that you yourself are happy to have Christians silenced in furtherance of the homosexual agenda.

          • powertothepeople

            while I agree that calling gay marriage an assault on our constitutional rights a stretch, I must disagree with your first two points.

            1) Interfaith is a far cry from homosexual. If homosexual marriage is made legal state to state or federally, pastors and other religious leaders would, most likely, be forced in a sense to marry them. I say this with authority due to looking back on other changes to a persons freedoms. One case in particular is a black person marrying a white person or any other interracial marriage. I use blacks for a reason due to segregation and slavery. After segregation was ended, many or most churches in the south, and even some in the north, refused to marry a black couple much less a black/white couple. Shoot up to today, and if a church was to refuse based on that sole factor, they would be sued and lose. Not that many churches would, but the fact they are forced to marry anyone, even if forcing them to do so is the right thing, demonstrates what will happen should gay marriage be made legal. We are already seeing a push to eliminate gay sin talk in churches just as it is not legal north of the border. For a brief period of time, the FCC was trying to force radio stations to air “community service programs” that would have forced them to allow gays to have a set amount of time daily to speak on their station. For christian stations, this would have been a violation of their faith and right to practice their faith. It was never beat, it has simply been put to rest for now. To believe that somehow churches would be saved from gay marriage and from being forced to perform the marriages or face lawsuits, loss of tax status, fines, government intervention, etc is very short sighted. This is why most reasonable christians support gay unions. They can now “marry” but do not infringe on the traditional marriage. This would protect anyone who feel gay marriage is wrong from being forced to perform one.

            2) Employers are already being forced to hire certain amounts of certain people such as minorities, women, etc. To believe that gays would not be added to that protected list is again very naive and short sighted. And christian schools and other type organizations have already be pushed by gay activist and other people who dislike the religious. Case in Florida where a woman was a teacher in a conservative baptist school. She signed a code of conduct, she knew the standards that she had to maintain both at the school and in her personal life, she shacked up with a guy, school warned her to cease, she got pregnant, she was fired and rightfully so. Parents send their kids to that school to have them taught in accordance with their beliefs, school agrees to do so and to protect them from the “world.” Teacher sued stating she had a right to a sexual life regardless of her signature on a code and the schools faith.She claimed the school had no right to fire her or force their beliefs on her. I am not aware of a judgment yet, but I fear the school will lose.

            Another case in NC I believe. openly homosexual applied to an open youth pastor job advertisement but failed to get the job. Sued for discrimination due to his sexuality, won, so the church simply shut down the youth department. This is not an isolated case and gay marriage will simply cause it to increase. Now you have two men who want to teach at a school, school has a married rule, they have not forced their hand to this point, but once their marriage is recognized, they will sue to force the school to hire them even though the lifestyle is in direct conflict with the beliefs of the faith.

            3) We disagree, maybe, on whether or not gays should serve openly, but I agree with your premise. The only thing I see happening over time will be a push to make open homosexuality an OK thing in the military, we will see suits asking for seperate housing for gays, lesbians, transgendered, etc, I think we will see a push, albeit a small one, for trans people to be able to dress as the opposite sex and live as one as well, and although I hope it does not, more sexual harassment and violence. My biggest beef with the whole thing is A) Sexual activity does not belong in the military in as much as announcing it, declaring it, or displaying it and B) political correctness drove this matter to its end way too fast without any real research or preparation and it was pushed by civilians for the most part rather than the ones who actually serve, fight, and die.

            I think way too many forget there is an agenda in the militant gay community to strip us of everything we hold dead, to end our traditions, and to do as much damage to religion as possible. Most of the gay community do not act ridiculous, do not loudly announce their lifestyle, do not want to infringe on others faith or beliefs, etc. They do not want to make enemies or be anyones enemy. But just as the radicals are the loudest in the muslim faith, so are the militant gays. They go out of their way to go after republicans, christians, and anyone else who does not like what they do. They will try to sue everyone who does not allow them to do as they please, and christians, their churches, and their faith based businesses will be no different.

          • aesthete

            Your points are valid, but they are, by and large, not chamberD’s points (among which was that the homosexual agenda is un-Constitutional). Depending on how you define “homosexual agenda”, that may not be the case (though whether it’s a good thing or not is a separate question from whether it is Constitutional or not).

          • powertothepeople

            the reply was to the poster above Jamesonx. I know, too many dog gone lines to track back, I almost gave up myself when making sure I replied to the right person.

  • Raven
  • matthewbrobbins

    If corrupt, corporate-shakedown artists (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25072.html) and embezzlers (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=239505) are putting it on, and John Birchers, pro-gay marriage activists and Muslim sympathizers are coming, exactly what does the C in CPAC stand for anymore?

  • mine

    I’m joining the 20% of people who say Obama is a muslim. Obama has convinced me himself. He’s convinced me he supports islamic states. No not openly and practicing. I mean secretly and covertly like the rest of his agenda. How else do you you explain his indifference to democratic protesters in Iran, and his support for the islamists in Egypt.

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908
    • Bill S

      This has nothing to do with Obama’s religion. Drop it NOW.

      • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

        than having your threadjacked by a fruitloop?

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

        a “toofer”????? :-)

  • http://www.coloradans4palin.com bjwilson83

    I think he is a bit naive. Growing up as a moderate Muslim in America, his instinct is to defend all Muslims. He cannot make the connection between Islam and terrorism. He has bought into the leftist lie that Islam is a “religion of peace”, and ultimately that trumped his fiscal conservatism. He flipped over to the Democrat side after losing the primary for CO treasurer at the caucus – he felt people voted against him because he was Muslim (I voted for him at that time – wouldn’t do it again). That may have been partly true, but it was also because he ran a viciously negative campaign of questionable veracity against his opponents and didn’t appear to have a firm grasp on some financial terms.

    • http://www.coloradans4palin.com bjwilson83

      the connection between radical Islam and terrorism

  • silentcal2012

    Just some of the breakout sections:

    Traditional Marriage and Society ? Marriott Ballroom
    Rep. Randy Hultgren (IL)
    Tom Minnery, CitizenLink
    Bishop Harry Jackson, Hope Christian Church
    Michel Faulkner, author of Restoring the American Dream
    Carrie Lukas, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex …

    The Sharia Challenge in the West ? Marshall Ballroom
    Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of Infidel and Nomad
    Hon. Jim Woolsey, former CIA Director
    Andrew McCarthy, National Review
    Moderator: Cliff May, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

    Just some of the speakers:

    John Bolton
    Michelle Bachmann
    Alan West
    Herman Cain
    Rick Perry
    Paul Ryan
    Mike Lee

    Its a wonderful agenda with terrific speakers, and it will be a great conference for all conservatives. There are so many speakers, groups and sessions. Its puzzling that some should be so offended that one or two groups doesn’t exactly confrom to their ideal brand of conservatism. Trying to create frcition is short-sighted and backwards.

    But they are just marginalizing themsleves. The 98% of the rest of us will have a blast, and create bonds and march forward.

    For the record, I am opposed to the gay agenda and the Muslim Brotherhood, but I dont treat gays and muslims like they have cooties either. If they will stand with us and our candidates in 2012, we can unite. We can also engage in civil debate over our disagreements. Just banning groups, ostracizing people and finding guilt through association makes the conservative movement look ignorant and retrograde.

    • lineholder

      most of us are wary of the price of complicity that will be demanded after that fact.

      Just saying….

      • silentcal2012

        The choice of:

        John Bolton
        Michelle Bachmann
        Alan West
        Herman Cain
        Rick Perry
        Paul Ryan
        Mike Lee
        Pat Toomey
        Ron Johnson
        Kristi Noem
        Newt Gingrich
        Ted Cruz
        Marsha Blackburn
        Rand Paul
        American United for Life
        Students for Life
        LifeandMarriage.org
        CitizenLink
        Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute
        Tea Party Express
        Conservative Party USA
        Jason Mattera
        John Barasso
        Haley Barbour

        …. and more

        …. and more

        But there might be a couple of muslims withf our degrees of seperation from the Muslim Brotherhood, and one group that supports gay marriage.

        • lineholder

          If you want to go, then go.

          The proof is in the pudding, silentcal2012. There is more than enough evidence at this point to indicate that prudence is the wisest response, and for this reason, those of us who choose not to attend would simply rather wait and see if by their own actions this organization proves that it does indeed support conservativism and that this isn’t just another political ploy.

        • Scope

          You forgot to add-

          The Ground Zero Mosque: The Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks ? Maryland Ballroom
          Sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (1.5 hours)
          Speakers: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, 9/11 Family Members, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and
          Daisy Khan (invited), plus a special screening of a trailer for the new AFDI documentary, The
          Ground Zero Mosque: The Second Wave of the 9/11
          Refreshments Served
          Open to all CPAC attendees

          So why are the Imam Rauf and his wife Daisy Kahn there, to add their pleas of Islamic peace and love to the discussion? To argue against Geller that they really aren’t what they have been proven to be.

          • silentcal2012

            Did you go to college, law school, anything that requires thought?

            They have these forums and conferences where people present different viewpoints somtimes, and you use critical thinking.

            I didnt need to mention the two people you oppose because they have been mentioned over and over again. It is sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative. Do you have a problem with them too. You are boycotting a conference because of factions that comprise of less than 1% of all attendees.

            Your self- righteous indignation and fearmongering is childish. And your insighrt is awful. Ron Paul is a joks, but good job trying to psycho-analyze me.

          • lineholder

            and not a name throwing contest, please.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            You don’t have the credibility around here to throw around insults.

            Cut it out or I’ll toss you out.

          • Scope

            I am a kindergardner and even I can see the fallacy of everything you say. Try again.

          • silentcal2012

            You being a “kindergarderner”.

    • Scope

      is everything you ever dreamed of. I don’t think radical Islamists know what cooties are, but they do know what IED’s are. Ask them, they will be happy to give you the recipe. Speaking of recipes, I’m sure you can get some great ones from the gays. No kidding, they are great cooks, however I doubt the military needs that many of them, and they don’t provide epicurean delights.

      • silentcal2012

        just all the other conservatives like Alan West, Michele Bachamann, Haley Barbour, Mike Lee who are attending, but I guess they dont care about IEDs either. A nice leap in logic. You are hysterical.

        • Scope

          bought into the hysterical pleas, from your dear leader Uncle Ron, that don’t have the first clue of logic is. I love the way the libertarians rely on the word logic, even to the point of logically being able to prove to you that 1 really does equal 2. Brilliant. Maybe tomorrow, if I have the time, I will list all of the events Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty is involved in at CPAC. My post will be very very long. The Paulies see no problem with radical Islam, because Uncle Paul believes that even the radicals should have a seat at the table. Even before those statements of his, he was considered a kooky loon, and actually a dangerous element unfortunately positioned in Washington by a bunch of kooky constituients who only see pork, and lots of it.

    • bobmontgomery

      …..against the gay agenda and against the Muslim Brotherhood.

      • silentcal2012

        And by being against do you mean standing against them in principle and debating opponents, or refusing to be in the same giant conference center while some a couple of there supporters are also there.

        Because I’m pretty sure that everyone I mentioned is against the gay agenda and the Muslim Brotherhood. And they are all attending CPAC.

        • Scope

          are being raised at their attendance. The conservatives that have the best reputations, and records of conservatism are not attending. For example, Jim DeMint and Mike Pence for starters.

          • aesthete

            as a conservative? This is the guy who introduced Clarence Thomas to conservative thought, for crying out loud!

  • AnnaD

    To be enlightened by you anbout taqquiyah. Nobody cares if you are a Muslim, but if you claim I am ignorant, then I care about that. Please enlighten me, by all means. You seem to be avoiding the issue with deflections and non-answers. Sort of like taqquiyah?

    Also, enlighten me about abrogation, where the peaceful parts of the Koran (the Meccan verses) are abrogated (dismissed, made null) by the Medinan verses (not so peaceful, more like kill the infidel and all that). I?d love to hear your explanation of that dichotomy.

    • Ben Howe

      I have a great many reservations about Islam, but I don’t have any about Martin Knight.

      I’m confident that he knows that my concern is the influence of radicals of any stripe, having access and influence over the ACU. Islamic radicals or otherwise.

      Believe me, I understand your concerns about a doctrine like taqquiyah, but I think we should save the theological conversation for another thread.

  • mattice44

    I know that I’m a bit late to the discussion here and this might get buried.

    But the quote that you posted above about not believing the Sept 11 attackers were Muslim made me jump so I read the blog referenced, and that quote in context makes a lot more sense. He is trying to say that anybody evil enough to perform those attacks is not moral enough to be considered a real Muslim, whether or not they perform the attack in the name of the religion.

    Are there plenty of other reasons to complain that this guy is at CPAC? Yes. The video you link too shows him praising Pelosi and supporting the DREAM act.

    Nothing posted above really convinced me that Muslims for America or Hasan himself have some sinister purpose other than their stated mission. But I still don’t understand why he is at CPAC.

    • Ben Howe

      Even acknowledging that he may be trying to figure out a way to accept that people this evil were in his religion. In fact, I even solicited a quote to address the fallacy inherent with denying the reality of who the hijackers were.

      My problem with it is that by doing that he is denying the reality and making it more difficult to do what he’s claiming which is to help “mature” our foreign policy.

      We can’t do that if the very people we need aren’t willing to admit who actually did it.

      Furthermore, I didn’t connect Hasan to the Muslim Brotherhood. I complained of the mentality that he was displaying both through his denial of reality with the hijackers, his belief that anyone opposing the mosque is a bigot and his reply in the comments directing readers to conspiracy theories about American funded Islamic terrorism. This lead me to question why this type of organization would be allowed in, which lead me to the MOUNTAIN of evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood is tied to the ACU which is what the title of the post says.

      If you jumped out of my writing too soon in order to read the other guys post, you may have missed the very context you’re saying I didn’t provide.

      • mattice44

        You’re right – once I read that quote, I did immediately jump to the link and I didn’t read the rest of what you wrote about Hasan carefully enough.

        I think I just interpreted his blog less harshly. When I read his article, I thought he was just trying to emphasize that the terrorists don’t speak for his brand of moderate Islam. As you noted, this is a necessary viewpoint to hear, but I may have just been projecting my own thoughts on it. Certainly, his blanket statement about those against the GZM (I happen to be “for” it, but that’s another conversation) is childish, and doesn’t do him any favors.

        So that’s my long-winded apology. Sorry to throw out a serious claim like that when you clearly did a lot of research and work on this.

        • Ben Howe

          n/t

  • cam1

    of Republicanism is the “tell”. CPAC is a RINO group that wants to make nice with everyone. Only 2 of the 5 member board could be considered true conservatives. The old say that “people who believe in everything believe in nothing” is very true.

  • steve53

    I wonder. What are leaders of the tea party movement saying about Congressman Peter King folding and caving in the face of intimidation from Muslim activists and Muslim apologists? If the only thing the tea party movement is concerned about is government spending (admittedly an important issue) and nothing else, the movement is doomed to failure.

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/02/muslims-to-be-congressional-hearings.html

    • williamjameson

      The TP isn’t getting involved in religion nor abortion nor other issues that would fragment the groups. Obama and various liberals tried to draw they out to define their views on other issues. Fact is if they assert an opinion, some will disagree and over time some will drop out. Focusing on spending is far more important considering we have over $80 trillion in debt and Obama wants to know what their other views are. The TP can join other groups but Obama should actually focus on the economy and debt, he’s had 2 years to cut spending in the bureaucracy.

  • hairbaggs

    Saying that Islam had nothing to do with 911 it was not REAL Muslims is like saying Al Capone had nothing to do with Chicago politics

    • jonthedog

      Isn’t it a bit more like saying that the Westboro baptist church is nothing to do with REAL Christians?

      • hairbaggs

        Who knows what a real christian is. Every group of these people has a different slant on who Jesus was and what he said, meant or wanted and they are ready to do bodily harm for their unfounded beliefs.. The Westboro bunch are just another gaggle nut case Geese going around and pooting on every one else s turf. Al Capone is a better example. He was a ruthless killer knew what he wanted and was proud of it. Just like the Muslims.

  • steve53

    Thomas Howe, Ph.D*, a Professor of Philosophy at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, NC, said, in part: “The hijackers, by their actions, may certainly have been contrary to the dictates and requirements of Islam, but this did not disassociate them from their own confession….”

    How are the 9/11 hijackers’ actions contrary to the dictates and requirements of Islam?

    • Ben Howe

      My father is not a Muslim apologist. You may want to consider why he chose to use the word “may.”

  • http://www.everythinginitsowntime.com/ Elizabeth Ross-Harrison

    Muslim Brotherhood, Taliban, Al Qaeda… What’s the commonality? All were created in response to actions (or inaction) of a Western power. Whether it’s an organization created specifically for retaliation and war against the West, or a group that filled a power vacuum created by Western military action in the region, doesn’t really matter. Western intervention in regions of the world where Islam has even a slight foothold (although typically strong footholds) historically seems to lead to radical Islamic backlash. The only commonality between U.S. conservatism and these organizations is the love affair with religion. The only constructive information these organizations could possibly offer at an event like CPAC would be to show conservatives in stark terms what happens when religion overruns political (secular) life.

  • js1019

    This is our moment in time. When the world will look back and see what the direction history took.
    Make no mistake, Islam is the “Hitler” of our time.
    They will look you directly in the eye, and lie to your face, because you(we) are the infidel who must be defeated, by any means necessary.
    As Glenn Beck says, don’t take my word for it, do your own research.
    By their holy book, they are dedicated to one purpose, a caliphate.

    Unfortunately for us, they are patient, for more patient than we are. While we look at time in seconds, minutes, hours, and days, they look at time in years, decades and beyond.
    The very freedom they are afforded in this country is the very freedom they are using to achieve their stated goal to deny and destroy.

    While we are more worried about getting our beer, cigarettes, lottery tickets, food stamps and free healthcare, worrying about who is winning on American Idol; what debauchery Charlie Sheen, Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton are engaged in; our facebook and twitter accounts, they are quietly going about the indoctrination of their youth and establishing more and more mosques, associations and centers right under our very noses.

    Khrushchev had the right concept, just the wrong group to accomplish the destruction of America from within. And we are blindly going mind-numbed through our lives watching it happen.

    And I know this may p*ss off the people who object to proving our president is a citizen, but how can anyone deny the statements or lack thereof, of any mention of Islam, terrorists, military trials to civilian trials, his treatment of Israel, his disdain toward our allies and his embrace of our enemies, and on and on, or that this president does not have the best interest of America.
    Look at his actions, not his words.

    Remember, muslims will do anything, ANYTHING, to destroy us.

    I am a born again Christian, and this president’s claims to be the same could not be farther apart if he claimed to be an atheist.
    As a believer, it is my opinion we are seeing biblical prophecy playing out before our eyes and while there may be things beyond our control, how we handle the rise, establishment and infiltration of Islam in American will be the legacy we leave future generations.

    One final thought, I do not understand, knowing what we know of Islam, how can any woman, of any political bent, not be the most strident opponents of it.

    • Finrod

      There are Muslims that post regularly here. You’re putting them in the same bucket as the terrorists, and that’s not cool.

      • williamjameson

        We have a liberal who can’t discern between intelligent rational discussion of radical middle easterners and peaceful muslims. If people want to call them radical islamists or radical muslims or muslim extremists or muslim terrorists or whatever because Americans are well within their constitutional rights to do so. Drop the PC nonsense because you people will never control free speech.

        Liberals never had a problem with religious intolerance toward Evangelicals. Liberals never had a problem with intolerance towards Catholics after a very small number of priests molested children. Liberals never cared to admit they were wrong about the Tea Parties.

        Time to open your eyes and think like an American instead of thinking like a liberal. There is a difference. In fact, conservative muslims know that such a thread is not an attack on all muslims, only terrorists, extremists and radical buffoons who support them.

        • jonthedog

          @williamjameson : js1019 was fairly unequivocal in condemning ALL muslims; did you actually bother reading the comment before going off on your nonsensical rant about liberals?

  • mutantone

    Just how is it that Obamaommunist has placed members of the brotherhood in to our government especially Homeland Security with out being called out on it?
    ?The truth is more important than the facts.” – Frank Lloyd Wright

    • Tbone

      and enjoy their blank stares.

  • capeconservative

    that I strongly doubt many GOProud members will be attending the Daisy Khan seminar and vice versa. They do NOT appear to have much in common.

    It is too bad that political correctness has once again stepped in and taken over another organization, this time a conservative one! If we don’t put an end to POLITICAL CORRECTNESS and stick to the solid principles of our founding fathers, America as a nation will be no longer!

  • jonthedog

    If you believe someone has fundamentally violated the tenets of your religion to such an extent that you cannot reasonably see how they could have believed in the same religion as you, then I can’t see why you shouldn’t say this? Islam doesn’t have a pope to ‘excommunicate’ people, so it’s a very good thing for moderate muslims to denounce people who commit atrocities as not understanding Islam, and therefore not being muslim after all (and not being entitled to the virgins, etc) – it would be fantastic if more people would do this. Note Muhammad Ali Hasan did not say he thought that the 9/11 hijackers themselves didn’t think they were Muslims, just that he didn’t think they were.
    As a Christian, I would be the first to denounce a mass murderer who called themselves a Christian as not really understanding what Christ meant by ‘love thy neighbour’, and therefore I would claim they weren’t really a Christian at all, irrespective of what they felt about the matter.
    To take this analogy further, just because I honestly believe myself to be an astronaut, is not of itself sufficient criteria to actually make me an astronaut. As far as religion goes, it is up to each individual to make their own definition of what their religion is and judge who does and who doesn’t fall into it accordingly. I personally would quite happily dismiss all Roman Catholics as not being proper Christians as I believe they have missed some essential tenets of what it means to be a Christian (not worshipping false idols, etc), but I’m sure they would disagree. ;-)