« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

For Religious Minorities in the Middle East – With Friends Like Obama, Who Needs Enemies?!

From the diaries.

President Obama has an amazing ability to make Jimmy Carter’s foreign policies look good.

Opposition to imperfect allies and support of radical Islamists has resulted in the almost-extinction of religious freedom for religious minorities – from the Copts in Egypt to the defenseless women and children who were slaughtered in Homs, Syria – in the Middle East.

Another example is the devolving situation in Iraq.  President Obama was so committed to fulfilling an arbitrary campaign promise to get our troops out of Iraq that he ignored the advice of his senior military officials about the consequences of establishing a firm withdrawal date and about how long it might take before Iraq was ready to manage the situation on their own.  As a result, Al-Qa’ida is resurgent, Iran’s influence is greater than ever, religious tensions between Sunni and Shi’a are increasing, the existential threat facing Iraq’s indigenous minority communities has never been greater, and our ability to affect the situation there is weaker now.  Recent coordinated car bomb attacks are just the latest in a string of such events since the start of the new year, and they portend many more violent assaults to come.

The departure of our military forces has once again left a security vacuum that is bound to be filled by someone, and all those with the means to vie for that space will do so, whether Sunni insurgents, terrorists like Al Qa’ida, security forces controlled by the ruling Shi’a political establishment, and in parts of the country even Kurdish Peshmerga.  These machinations undermine institutionalizing the rule of law, protecting minority rights, or developing the economy and infrastructure, let alone advancing American interests in that country and the region.

The most vulnerable people in this situation also happen to be the ones most aligned with our values and interests.  These are Iraq’s besieged Christians – the Chaldeans, Assyrians, Syriacs and Armenian Orthodox communities.  The role their faith has played in developing their worldview is far more in keeping with America’s values than any other constituency in the country or the region.  Moreover, because these communities have an ethic that places a premium on education, entrepreneurship, and peaceful co-existence and respect for others, they have constituted a disproportionately large part of the upper-middle class, they have historically contributed far more to the country’s economy than their numbers would suggest, and they have been the most trusted elements of Iraqi society.  They also have a much greater respect for the value of the rule of law, they were the ones who came along side our military, diplomats, and contractors to provide translation services and cultural advice.

With the departure of our forces and the recent announcement of the Obama Administration that we will also be reducing our embassy staff by 50 percent because it is now too dangerous for our diplomats there we are effectively abandoning both Iraq and our investment there as well as the communities who risked the most to help us in that effort.  What is more, walking away like this also sends messages to other players in the region.  It signals to potential allies in the future that we are not dependable.  It signals to terrorists that if they just lay low, they can wait us out.  It signals to the world that we no longer have the resolve to see a situation through to the end – that we can’t finish what we started.

We need all the help we can get in that part of the world, and Iraq’s Christians are the ones most inclined to provide that help, but not if doing so is only going to increase the prospect of their genocidal annihilation.

Accordingly, we need a comprehensive policy aimed at preserving these communities in Iraq.  We need to focus on helping Iraqis create the conditions that incentivize staying in Iraq and making there a better future for themselves. The last thing we want is for them to abandon the land their ancestors have occupied for nearly 7,000 years,forsake the culture they have preserved in that volatile region for all these millennia, and deprive the country, the region, and the world of the positive contributions they could still make if only some space was created for them in Iraqi society.  These people – who are all but canaries in a coal mine – represent hope for a better future for a pluralistic Iraqi society.

First, they need security.  By “security,” though, I mean more than just safety from terrorist and insurgent attacks.  I mean they need the means to protect themselves and their own communities so they do not have to depend on political actors whose interests are not necessarily aligned with the needs of their own communities.  They should not be subjected to political shakedowns and corrupt political machinations. 

Second, they need political empowerment.  They have the right to some degree of self-determination and to have a say in how their local communities should be governed.  It is wrong for them to be treated as a political football, constantly crushed between manipulative forces that surround them.  

Third, they need economic development in the region where they now find themselves.  Having been forced off their ancestral lands in the last century, they reestablished themselves in the cities such as Baghdad and Basra.  In the aftermath of the second Gulf War, though, they have had to seek refuge back in the North again.  Yet this region was not developed very well under Saddam’s regime, and today’s Iraqi Christians are disproportionately of the urban professional class rather than farmers.

It is time that we stand with those who stood with us over the last 8 years.  We must not abandon them.  I will stand with those who stand for freedom of religion and conscience and against violent jihadism and persecution of religious minorities in Iraq, Egypt, and elsewhere.

COMMENTS

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    …keeping in mind, of course, that it’s still 10+ months to inauguration.

    How do you plan for the U.S. to provide security, political empowerment, and economic security when our current administration by its actions has irrevocably signaled that we no longer will maintain a significant physical presence in the Middle East/North Africa.

    Once the Administration discarded a bipartisan policy of at least half a century, how can repair that damage with respect to countries that measure time in decades and centuries, not 4-year election cycles.

    It’s a terrible position you or any new President will have to face. And of course the Iranians may well have conducted a nuclear test by then, in which caw we would have an arms race in progress.

    Finally, what kind of realignment in relations with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan do you see that will advance these goals?

    • wantthegopback

      I support Santorum. But this feels a lot like smoke being blown up me bum. Save it for the general, we don’t need it here.

  • izoneguy

    The democrats never supported Bush on Iraq. They don’t care about Iraq or Israel or peace in the middle east. Their goals are to get oil prices so high so that they can keep the green slush fund going. The US government takes a larger share from every gallon of gas then the oil companies could ever dream of.

    Let’s get rid of Obama. Support Israel and let the rest of the middle east blow themselves to Kingdom Come.

  • jamesm

    support other christians. This president’s policies are a conduit for the rise of Islamic governments across the mideast. We are seeing the effects in Libya, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Tunisia and now Syria. Muslims massacre christians across Africa and the Middle east. What has he done? Bows to a muslim king, pressures Israel, embraces Tayyip Erdogan the leader of Turkey (“The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers…”) and promotes policies against the Catholic Church. Thank you Senator Santorum for your post.

    • aesthete

      Do you know how many countries are actively oppressing or subjugating their Christian minorities? A lot more than we could occupy. If you want to protect Christians abroad, send money to missionaries so that they can buy small arms to defend themselves, or pressure the government to accept more religious refugees — both are more feasible than waging scores of wars in which we try to tamp down religious fanaticism that has had hundreds of years to boil.

      • jamesm

        we should stop the christian genocide caused by these Islamists will not stop. Christians as a whole have done nothing to support their brethren who are getting their heads chopped off. Christians are being killed just because they will not convert to Islam. I would support giving them the means to defend themselves. Under Obama he is not even speaking out.

        • aesthete

          against a military with tanks, planes, etc controlled by Islamists is either an army of equal or greater power, or angels. We can’t just mosy down to Walmart and buy a handful of AR-15s, and expect Christians in Egypt — less than a 1/10th of the populace without military training or control of the military — to do anything but make militant Islamists laugh.

          • jamesm

            but are under attack. What just hang out until they are all murdered or displaced? No. You cut off all military and economic aid as a first step. You put increasing pressure to stop the genocide. Whatever it takes to stop the genocide. Same in Sudan. Same in Nigeria. America stood by and did nothing. The islamist goal is to turn the whole world Islamic.

          • aesthete

            and pressure our allies to do the same — I, for one, would be very comfortable with entrepreneurial Christians escaping from oppression and coming en masse to live in a country where they will be safe and free. That sounds a lot cheaper than the long-term occupations and bloodbaths implied by your strategy — interlopers don’t have a lot of success when it comes to stopping ethnic and sectarian hatreds that the aggressors have been nursing for centuries.

            I have no intention of allowing “conservatives” to convert the armed forces into the Peace Corps with guns.

        • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

          How do you square the teachings of Jesus with getting a gun and defending yourself from those who persecute you for the sake of the gospel?

          Jesus taught to turn the other cheek, to pray for your enemies, and to be a martyr if necessary. It is a very hard teaching to follow, but nevertheless, it is all a part of being a christian.

          • demsaresatanic

            the other cheek means let yourself be killed without fighting back.

          • aesthete

            unless you’d like to offer another explanation for the way that the early church responded to martyrdom.

            Of course, Christian principles aren’t neatly transferable beyond the individual and voluntary level, so this principle may not apply so readily to governments and such.

          • demsaresatanic

            stake for having different viewpoints, do you advocate following that precedent as well. The early church was wrong.

            Refusing to fight evil is to enable evil.

          • aesthete

            nor were they the same people, and I would point to Christ’s life and that of the early Apostles as proof that there are non-violent ways of fighting evil. IMO, the early church’s non-violence was a much better example of New Testament Christianity than the various crusades or other ostensible attempts to protect Christians through the use of violence.

          • demsaresatanic

            and beside the point, which is that church doctrine does not equal correct doctrine. Taking pieces of the NT in isolation without application of common sense leads to absurd conclusions, such as the idea that somehow Christians should lay down and allow themselves to be killed.

          • aesthete

            the example set forth in the Acts of the Apostles and by our Savior and doctrine regarding giving up of rights is pretty authoritative for the individual Christian. Certainly, there is more scriptural evidence in the New Testament supporting a pacifist position than there is for a militant Christianity.

          • demsaresatanic

            I don’t see much point in speculating as to what you mean by “militant Christianity” or in repeating myself.

          • jamesm

            Your strawman argument is completely without biblical justification. Christians are not called upon to be pacifists in the face of evil. Quite the contrary. So Jesus was acting like a real pacifist when he overturned the money changers tables in the synagogue? No..he was pissed off. Jesus was a real pacifist when he confronted the Jewish authorities over their teachings throughout his ministry? I won’t begin to get into other parts of the bible. The book is one. Creating a strawman (Militant Christianity) does not advance your contentions.

          • aesthete

            Going to war and compelling such because of sectarian affiliation and a presumed connection with a group of fellow sectarians in a tight spot is militant Christianity. I’m not a pacifist, nor do I think that it’s compelled in the Bible: however, there is much more evidence for a purely pacifistic Christianity than there is for a militant one as I’ve described. For every New Testament verse that even implies violence in any way, there are five in the Gospels and Epistles that demonstrate submission to one’s neighbors and the authorities.

            Suffice it to say, Christianity in no way has scriptural backing for a jihad-like defensive war as implied in your original post.

          • jamesm

            First you persist with your strawman “militant christianity”. Defending oneself from jihadist intent on murdering christians is defense, not “militant christianity” Either you have a complete misunderstanding of Islam or there is some intellectual dishonesty. If you are Jewish or Christian you need to defend yourself in many of these countries. Who backs a “jihad’? Another strawman erected and knock down. The issue is to stop the genocide of Christians.

          • aesthete

            It is a conflict intended to protect a group of Muslims who are being oppressed or forbidden from practicing their religion (at least, in theory). This definition is very similar to what you suggest the US engage in. There is no support for such a doctrine in Christianity, and no compulsion for a “Christian nation” to support such a policy.

          • jamesm

            You equate Muslim jihad (offense) with Christians having the ability to defend themselves from this jihad. Defining these as similar is illogical. This is nothing more then propaganda. Yes..Christians will defend themselves.

          • greeneyeshade

            Of yourself isn’t martyrdom, it’s suicide, also covered under “thou shalt not kill”. The early martyrs were thrown to lions. There was no possibility of self-defense there.

          • jamesm

            Don’t think that Jesus was only a “Teddy Bear”. He is a Grizzly Bear also.

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

        http://archive.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2006/sep/30/the_star_spangled_purple_fingered_bond_the_left_cant_sever

    • Dave_A

      Even though we have a majority-Christian(-in-name-only) population.

      And we should not allow religion to intermix with our motivations when engaging in warfare..

      Islam will influence the government of majority-Islamic nations…. There’s nothing wrong with this, and so long as these nations do not support terror, it’s not an issue for us to be concerned about.

      We are not at war with Islam, and the purpose of the last 10 years of fighting was NOT to weaken or remove Islamic influence. It was to destroy terror groups who, although they happen to use Islamic rhetoric to promote their cause, are chiefly focused on gaining land & power for their leadership.

      In both Iraq and Afghanistan, some local Muslims are our strongest allies AND others are our enemy, at the same time…. ‘Holy War’ rhetoric does us no good, at any time.

      • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

        You’re technically correct in that our stated war aims are against “terrorists” who are actually active militant arms of islamic sects.

        However islam is at war with us and everything not islam and sometimes with stuff we’d call islamic but faction whatever of islam calls heretics etc.

        We seem to have the liberals cry over any genocide/oppression that comes along unless it’s against christians and then wrangle their hands over any solution that involves the use of force against force.

        Which is it going to be? Let christians be slaughtered so no force has to be used and only intervene when muslims are being slaughtered? I for one and sick of the way our foreign policy is being consistently mishandled to the long term detriment of everyone.

        • haners

          No, we’re not at war with Islam, because we would never win this war with no objective. Do you intend to convert every muslim?

          • jamesm

            with Western Civilization. Read their book

      • jamesm

        that Jesus is the Son of God. Yes we are a predominately Christian country. Yes there are muslim apolgists. Yes the koran is the antithesis of the bible. Your rhetoric on this issue is wanting for a clear understanding of reality.

      • demsaresatanic

        as Christianity, the distinction you draw makes no difference in the result.

  • http://www.thehayride.com MacAoidh

    …because I think the ship has sailed for the Iraqi Christians.

    We had the opportunity to protect them when we were there. We no longer have that opportunity. Our troops are gone, and with them went our influence in that country.

    We won the war in Iraq, and Obama gave away that victory. All that is left for the Christians in that country is subjugation and genocide.

    The only opportunity we have to positively affect their situation is to bring them here. Which we should do with open arms. That goes for Christians in Egypt as well.

    • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

      …to see if Mr. Santorum had a way to address the kinds of concerns you express here.

      As they say in refereeing, presence lends conviction. We have exited the pitch. I don’t what influence we can have on protecting the players we left behind.

      • jamesm

        “we need a comprehensive policy aimed at preserving these communities in Iraq” It’s clear that he would develop such a policy.

        • aesthete

          I guess good policy just develops magically. It’s not like voters need details about said policy to make informed decisions about that kind of stuff before a major election.

          • aesthete

            I will end poverty in America. How? I will create a comprehensive policy aimed at poverty in America. Details to come!

          • jamesm

            Pesky little bugger. Lol

          • greeneyeshade

            1.) Mr. Santorum has taken the time to address this audience-I know Newt and others have as well, but I’m still waiting to see anything from Mitt or Paul (hah hah).

            2.) Mr. Santorum is addressing an issue that nobody else is here or anywhere, that I have seen and I’d be happy to see any of the others do so as well.

            3.) Any proposed response would likely involve way to much text and legalese to make a coherent post. The scope of the post was to identify the issue and discuss the candidate’s awareness with hopefully receptive audience.

          • jamesm

            But it is self evident that his policies would be aimed at preserving these communities in Iraq. Either you support these christian communities effort to avoid annihilation or you do not. Conditions on the ground in Iraq will change by January 2013. You don’t start crawling into the weeds on this issue in February of 2012.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            He needs to make a path or get swallowed up. Just saying – or in this case implying – he has a plan without spelling it out isn’t going to suffice.

            Nixon may have survived claiming he had an unspecified plan in 1968, but that that dog won’t hunt in 2012.

          • aesthete

            No more than Democrats’ famous “concern” for the poor has made the desirability of their policies “self-evident”. One needs a bit more than a kind thought to create good policy that actually does what one intends.

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

            So many at RS treat every column as if it must be of War and Peace length, while the criticisms are afforded cryptic status.

          • aesthete

            1) The plight of Chaldean Christians during and post-OIF has been extremely well-documented. The extremely volatile situation of Iraqi Christians under policies supported by Santorum is reason to wonder what he would do differently.

            2) Santorum supports policies in Syria which would lead to regime change. Objectively, this regime change would likely place the Sunni majority in power in that country. Given that a similar set of circumstances led to the persecution of Christians in Iraq under our invasion, and that Santorum seems to see this subject as a relevant topic, it is incumbent upon him to explain what remedial steps he would take in Syria to prevent such a disaster as he would like to avoid.

            3) What kind of “economic development” does Santorum support for Iraqi Christians — and how would a big government make-work program be any better for them than it has been for our country? How does preferential treatment of Christians on the part of the US government aid the security of a group that is already perceived to be disloyal and foreign to a Muslim-majority country?

            4) Why should our policy try to preserve Christian communities in Iraq? Is helping relocate these at-risk minorities to safer countries not a potential, humanitarian solution? I, for one, do not see the humanitarian logic behind trapping people aboard a sinking ship — and that’s what Iraq is, without troops.

            5) How does Santorum get the political support from both the American and Iraqi people to redeploy combat troops to Iraq again? Remember, we gave back those bases to the Iraqis, and they were adamant about pushing us out — and there’s no way that a forced occupation will be seen as a “liberation” by those folks.

            These are not cryptic critiques — they are only confusing to those who have chosen to blind themselves. Details must come now, not later — followers whinge about things. Leaders come up with workable solutions.

          • rogershru2

            nt

          • greeneyeshade

            Why should our policy try to preserve Christian communities in Iraq?

            Fort the same reason we sought to intervene in the Balkans.

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

          “We can have limited government, lower tax

          • jamesm

            nt

          • aesthete

            When all of the things that Santorum references in the article happened under his watch, and his advice is, “more of the same!”, it’s not straining to ask what he would do differently — or how

            Moral principles are like math: the only way they’re going to work for you is if you know how to apply them in the real world. If as a politician, you’re unwilling or unable to tell me how you get from point A to point B in a manner consistent with real-world data — then you’ve just wasted my time and yours, and you should come back when you have a way to make your dream into a reality.

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

            I guess we just disagree my brother.

        • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

          Destroy Iran.

          Take away Iranian influence and money from the terror wars being waged.

          Embargoes don’t work with fanatics/dictators.

          Put the Iranians back to the dark ages and confiscate their oil fields to pay for it all and to reimburse the Nations in the region and the world they have harmed with their constant support of terror to destabilize the world around them.

          Don’t like the idea? Tough, eventually we will have a shooting war with Iran and the sooner when we are stronger than they are the better for us.

      • texasref

        And a C.S. Lewis fan to boot!

        sorry for the threadjack, Senator

        • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

          But I did referee youth and high school soccer for about 10 years some time back. Learned a lot of life lessons from the endeavor.

          And the more I read Lewis over the years, the more I am impressed with his insights and wisdom. I wish I had listened to him more in my formative years as a Christian, rather than the words and teaching of abusive pastors and teachers.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            First baseball tournament next weekend!

    • aesthete

      Do we have an easy, effective, and safe way for religious minorities in the Middle East to seek asylum? If not, why not? This, IMO, should be a no-brainer from a humanitarian standpoint.

      • Dave_A

        If there was, the folks in Iraq who should be first-in-line – the ones who served as our local-national interpreters (‘terps’ in Army-speak) – would be flying through…

        Instead, many of them are stuck in Iraq, hiding from resurgent hostile organizations.

        • aesthete

          I don’t know why immigration reform (particularly for refugee groups in imminent peril precisely because they did so much to help us) would not be a no-brainer.

  • aesthete

    was before they were intimidated and bullied by the liberated Shi’a majority into conversion or exile — all of which happened from 2004 onwards. Pres Obama has done nothing to fix this catastrophe, and Frmr Pres Bush was unable to: what do you propose to do differently, such that it will have different results? In my opinion, if we have to babysit a “liberated” country indefinitely to prevent humanitarian catastrophe, it calls into question the strategy of nation-building. In light of this, I am disappointed that you call for a set of actions in Syria which would not only lead to the same type of oppression against its Christian minority which you declaim in this article, but which would also be costly and quite possibly against US interests. In my opinion, this sort of muddy thinking reflects the sort of shortsightedness and ignorance emblematic of our bipartisan Middle Eastern policy.

    • lizzie

      by William Dalrymple, to understand the real plight of these congregations who have managed to survive for 1500 years.

      aesthete is spot on by noting that Iraqi Christians have been under assault since 2004. Of Iraq’s estimated 1.2 million Christians, more than 700,000 have become refugees, mostly in Jordan and Syria which also have significant Christian congregants who are, so far, are free to worship openly in safety.
      In Syria, they align with Assad’s Alawites against the mostly Sunni ‘opposition’.

      There is no way that a residual American force in Iraq could do anything more to protect Iraq’s Christian minorities – having failed in that since 2003.

      It is somewhat hypocrisy to suddenly decide, in 2011-12, that the Christians of Iraq, and now Egypt need America’s support and protection, while the anti-Assad fervor actually threatens the Christians of Syria the most. Turkey expelled their Syriac and Greek Christians in the 1920′s.

      What makes anyone think ousting Assad by supporting the mostly Sunni opposition will do anything but risk the lives of Syria’s Christians, Druse, and Circassians?

      90% of the people I meet in the New York metro area from Arab countries are Christians. The Lebanese Christian diaspora in Brazil (10 milllion) and Argentina are Christian.

      I have no solution, especially since the parent churches, both Greek Orthodox, and Catholic, are mostly silent.

      I do have one solution for Egypt’s Coptic Christians. The eight million who are now trapped should ‘occupy’ Saint Catherine’s Monastery in the western Sinai, and demand self-determination. St. Catherine’s is a protected treasure of the Coptic Church, and the logical heart of a true homeland for the Copts.

      I encourage anyone who cares to visit St. Catherine’s monastery and world religious heritage site online. If the Islamists have their way, it would break my heart (and I am Jewish) to see them destroy the icons and libraries of St. Catherine’s.

      • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

        with the alternative at the time having been no response ever…

        • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

          “probably did not” -> “probably did not mind”

  • tomrt

    Should the latest polls hold and Romney win both MI and AZ, he’d then get an enormous boost from them heading into Super Tuesday. If he does well that night as well, he’ll likely be impossible to stop thereafter. Therefore, it’s in your interests, too, to do more debates, not just speaker Gingrich’s. I’d like to recommend at least one more debate before Super Tuesday, and about one per fortnight after it.

    I strongly urge you to speak with Speaker Gingrich about this and see if one or both of the two canceled debates (dated Mar. 1 and 5) can somehow be resurrected, or if an alternate pre-ST debate can be scheduled.

    Thank you posting this important diary on a subject that badly needs much attention.

  • retrocon87

    This was a pretty well-written explanation about how bad things are, but doesn’t exactly give much substance in terms of what to do about it… Yes, leaving Iraq and cutting the embassy staff had a pretty horrible effect on the Christians, but what exactly is he going to do??…. He’ll send the troops back in and keep them there indefinitely to protect the Chaldeans? Is he going to send the military into Egypt to protect the Copts also?? The reason it was thin on solutions is because anyone who has actually thought about this issue knows that there isn’t really much of an answer to it… He knows that people on this site tend to be religious Christians and he thinks it will connect with us that he’s writing an article where he attempts to come as the “passionate champion of the Christians of the Middle East” but at the end of the day if he has no details to give on whatever this alleged “comprehensive solution” of his is, it just comes off as patronizing and I am beyond tired of these people talking about how they have “comprehensive solutions to the mess Obama created” but then they just cross their fingers that we don’t care enough to ask any of the details… it is the same old establishment mentality that “we the people” are all just complete idiots that they can fool with their “savvy Washington campaign rhetoric.”

  • texasref

    when you decided a public debate on the issues of importance facing this country were not worth your time.

    Speaker Gingrich was ready and willing, but you were not.

    I appreciate your coming to redstate, and I agree with your position on how important this is, but you need to participate in the debates to maintain credibility as a candidate.

  • gracie

    before I could possibly vote for you. You did an excellent job in Florida but this week…well I must see more now that you are getting substantive questions.

    I remember a time when a debate was called and only you and
    Speaker Gingrich agreed to come. It was cancelled. If the two of you can do the one in Georgia or at least one before Super Tuesday we who are contemplating voting for you would be able to get more questions answered re: your policies.

    PLEASE re-consider! I am sure Erick Erickson would assist you if you have lost your venue!

    • trickamsterdam

      Before “gracie can possibly vote for you”. Don’t worry, her mind’s totally open to everything you have to say: she’s not in the tank for Newt at all.

      I think it’ll be great to watch you get tag-teamed again by the libertarian and the liberal, and being asked questions by moderators who will end up voting for Obama, and maybe have (literally) never even read the New Testament.

      I think “gracie” is exactly right, and Lord only knows what she’s gonna do if Newt wins the nomination and Obama won’t debate him either. Oh, I guess not vote for Obama. But then she’s not going to vote for you either, no matter how much you debate.

      I grew up in PA. PA is w/ you again. The last poll I saw, you were nearly at 50% and no one else was close. It’s time to play this strategically…until Paul’s lap-dog like embarrassing licking of Romney at debates can be neutralized: No More.

      Also, if possible, you and Newt need to form an alliance. Paul and Romney together can beat either of you alone…I suspect Romney is just using the old fool…but there’s no fool like an old fool. Especially one who thinks he taking care of his son.

      • gracie

        You say I am exactly right after you imply I am wrong.

        Of course you cannot possibly know what is in another’s heart or mind. After my long love affair with Perry I did flirt with Newt. Then Santorum came on in Florida with a roar, excellently calling Romney on Romneycare for which we were all awed and grateful that somebody had finally done it really well.. Even more, we were amazed at Newt’s reticence. What ever happened to the Professor/Statesman?

        So with Newt falling like a rock and Santorum looking strong I was trying to talk myself into voting for him. On last Wed I expected to solidify my decision. But lo, The Professor/ Statesman was back and the rest looked like a junior high food fight. What is a voter to do?

        I am annoyed that the GA debate has been cancelled which I blame primarily on Romney who opted out first and then the others ran fast as they could away from another possible confrontation with the new, energized Newt.

        So yes, IF I am to vote for Santorum, I need to know more. After all, in many of the debates he was almost ignored as he will be glad to tell you. I should think a tough guy would like a re-match.

        (BTW, Having fun with my name? How ever did you come up with yours? When I was in Amsterdam a few years ago I deliberately avoided the street where the tricks were being played! I cannot see your name without thinking of it so have always wanted to inquire.)

        • trickamsterdam

          BTW, I wasn’t making fun of your name, except that writer’s trick wise, putting anything in quotes can be funny. So “charlie” would have worked just as well as “gracie”. Maybe it’s more like the writer’s version of a Principal’s tone when a student’s in the office…but basically it was just a writer’s trick.

          “trickamsterdam” came from the fact that I am a Gen X guy, who grew up in a weird period between when computers weren’t a part of our lives and when they clearly are. When I first went on the internet as a amusement, I used my full real name. No, problems, but then it seemed TMI. So I went to a nickname an old girlfriend had called me.

          Finally, having time to be on the computer again, in a sporting way, I decided to go totally anonymous (no connection to the computer anarchists/pranksters group of that name).

          I remembered a joke from an old Howard Stern Show that someone’s “porn name” would be their middle name + the nearest named street, blvd, ave.

          So my middle name was “Patrick” and “Amsterdam” was the nearest avenue. Shorten it to “trick” and then lowercase it and put both together so it’s easier to type when signing in…and that’s that.

          ***

          As far as the political stuff, OK, maybe I was wrong, you don’t have your mind made up.

          I may have been projecting, because it’s clear to me what all of these four have to offer, and also their negatives, the last thing I need is more debates to confuse things.

          That is, I don’t want to see the Paul/Romney tandem pound Santorum again, or for it to get stuck on MSM talking points again. They’d do the same thing if Newt was on top again. And Newt and Santorum can’t just debate each other because it marginalizes them both, and they can’t exclude Paul because he’s still technically is a legitimate candidate who just finished a close second in Maine.

          From my own point of view, I don’t care whether it’s Newt or Santorum at this point. I think Santorum is more electable, but Newt is the smarter and more accomplished man.

          I just don’t want Romney, who is less electable than both, and is a liberal, and is repellent as a man. I would have taken Paul as a go-for-broke dice roll at one point, but I don’t want him anymore either as he’s been revealed as Romney’s toy dog and small elf. I still like his son.

          This is one of the reasons I think Santorum is the most electable of the four, which most people don’t seem to think:

          http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/why-mitt-romney-might-be-even-weaker-than-you-think.php?ref=fpb

          PS – Mitt Romney’s “porn name” would probably be something like “Mitt Michigan”. LOL.

          • gracie

            with great interest. And the link as well. Thanks for taking time to explain your position. I am just not sure I buy it that Sen Santorum is the most electable even after reading the stats. I am also thinking these stats might change.

            You and I have the same goal: nominating not-Romney and wanting to win!

            But… I can just hear the nasty ads, the sound-bites about Satan and States having the right to control contraception! And then there is the fact that at some point he suggested a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit abortion. I fear his words being ridiculously twisted.

            ,I am certainly for less government; not more!

            I thought he acted childish and whiny at Wed debate. I am remembering Rick Perry not whining; his “it is what it is” attitude of defending himself. So yes, now that Rick Santorum is in the process of his first real vetting I wanted to see if he can deflect blows in a more mature way as well as wanting to see if Newt had also matured into dropping his childishness.

            Having said all that I can see your point also. I don’t think there will be any more debates so it is probably a moot point. The ganging up has been horribly destructive. That debate bothered me so much I watched it twice in an attempt to feel comfortable to vote for Santorum.

            Also I think a lot is forgotten between debates. Certainly the press does not remind us that Romney said he is not concerned about the poor (their safety net etc,) Ideally there would have been about two debates a month, at least half with convervatives in charge. We have to rely on the public to remember who is fooling who and how much. We shall see!

            As to the name…I was operating under snark and too little sleep. I was silly indeed. Although your name has been distracting to me, I could have chosen a much better place to ask than this particular thread! Apologies.

            It did have a very interesting derivation. Mine is simply the name of a really sweet cat also known as Graciegirl or Amazing Grace. Grace is indeed hard/impossible? to achieve in this world!

    • tomrt

      And generations of those hapless minority populations will be thankful for it.

  • mikelindell2

    Newt said that as long as you’re America’s enemy you’re safe, it’s only our allies that need to worry. Now a few days later you trot out a near identical phrasing of that? Newt said months ago that Obama makes Carter look strong, now you trot out a near identical phrasing of that? You had your chance and now it’s over. You’re too proud, but if you ever find humility, drop out now and endorse Newt. You were only propped up by Fox as a means of blocking Newt’s nomination. You were never more than a social conservative with a liberal fiscal record.

    • Dave_A

      Who are as ‘Not-Newt’ as we are ‘Not-Romney’.

      It has nothing to do with ‘Fox’ or anyone else ‘propping’ anyone up.

      There’s a significant part of the GOP primary electorate that DOES NOT WANT NEWT GINGRICH AS OUR CANDIDATE – mostly because we think his personal baggage is too much of a liability in the general.

      Santorum dropping out would leave us with NO CANDIDATE to support.

      • Creedo

        I can name two dozen people that I sit in worship with every Sunday who feel the same way.

        • mikelindell2

          Pick the guy whose conservatism is limited strictly to social issues or pick the guy who is a liberal or at the very best moderate. Ignore the guy who is the only all-around conservative, the only one who has an accomplished record of achieving huge conservative things, and the one with the best all-around conservative plan for the future.

      • mikelindell2

        This narrative of Newt’s “baggage” is strange. I don’t think a candidate’s personal life from decades ago will be able to be made relevant in a campaign and his stellar record and clarity expressing his beliefs will easily overcome that. However, Santorum’s baggage is applicable. He has said that states should ban contraception, that Christians are wrong for using contraception, that Protestants have been corrupted by Satan, etc. That puts him so far outside the mainstream of conservative thought let alone general electorate thought that he would suffer another historic loss. The whole party would be hurt because he would be the face of it. Not to mention that Santorum’s record on fiscal issues is abysmal, and his current tax plan is another case of government picking winners and losers. Romney’s baggage is that he is the embodiment of the “1%” that Obama has been crafting for years to use against Romney. Romney constantly saying bizarre things does not help that either.

        • Dave_A

          Except that Romney actually has a core of support (I’m not part of it, but you have to admit that he has a fairly ‘flat’ polling average (indicating committed supporters) – his problem is that he can’t get support from anyone else

          It’s now apparent that Newt’s support came from folks looking for a ‘Not Romney’ capable of knocking Mittens out of the race, and when Gingrich failed to seal the deal, they jumped ship to Santorum. Gingrich’s core-support, apparently, is in the same neighborhood as Ron Paul’s.

          Further, the fact is that ESPECIALLY WHEN DEALING WITH OBAMA, personal baggage DOES matter. And it’s Newt’s biggest problem: He defines ‘unlikable’ both personally and politically.

          Most of the people who are rooting for him, universally say ‘I don’t care about how people see the man, I like his ideas’. Well, ‘the man’ wins or looses the election, not his ideas… You may not like it, but that’s the way American politics is – personality trumps principle & competence every time (just look at Obama).

          The fact is, Newt has huge negatives from the 90s, his plans are even more big-spending than Santorum (a recent CBO scorecard predicted he’d produce a 1.5TN deficit to Santorum’s 1.2TN), and people simply won’t trust him after Obama hammers him with negative ads about his personal life.

          He can’t win, so there’s no point in supporting him – hell, he can’t even beat ROMNEY except in the Southeast.

          • tomrt

            ‘Gingrich

          • Dave_A

            First off, the fact is that Independnets see Newt as ‘the man obstructing Clinton’. He gets NO credit for anything done in the 90s other than the government shutdown.

            Second, Clinton could win despite sex scandals because he’s a Democrat. Double standard? Sure. But it’s a fact.

            It seems your entire analysis is driven by a fear of Santorum’s religious zealotry…. But here’s the thing: None of that makes him seem ‘untrustworthy’, and ALL of it is arguable (Since all of it is a distortion of the facts).

            None of Newt’s baggage is arguable, except the ‘roadblock to Clinton’ part – but it might as well be, as trying to argue that the House of Reps should get credit for the 90s economy/budget is like trying to sell a drowning man water…

            Gingrich is already painted into a corner… There’s no saving him, no matter how good his ‘ideas’ may sound to some. Unlike Santorum, his baggage isn’t debatable – there’s no way to call BS, because it’s all true.

            Further, Newt got hit by a light dusting of negative ads in FL, compared to what Obama has in store. And he ABSOLUTELY FOLDED. Frontrunner to 14% isn’t ‘taking a licking’, it’s ‘down on the canvas and the Ref is counting to 10′….

          • tomrt

            ‘First off, the fact is that Independnets see Newt as

          • tomrt

            http://www.scribd.com/doc/55495807/Understanding-Newt-Gingrich

          • SoFiMil

            Speaking very generally, liberals don’t care what someone does in their “personal life.”

            Right or wrong, and for better or worse, speaking generally, conservatives do factor in personal integrity. President Clinton didn’t lose a significant amount of support from the left because of his adultery. However, a conservative candidate whose been involved in adulterous relationships will lose significant support from the conservative base.

          • tomrt

            that too while being outspent 2-1, disproving fully your assertion ‘will lose significant support from the conservative base.’

          • SoFiMil

            Still, I wonder how much support Newt lost, despite his big win. It would be interesting if there’s some analysis on this. Maybe Newt would have won in a landslide? (I doubt it, but don’t have any data to back this up.) Still, he had to have lost some support. Question is, whether he lost 1.2% of 18%.

          • WillWong

            Remains one of the most beloved person in Christendom!

          • SoFiMil

          • greeneyeshade

            WJC won because:

            In 1992, Ross Perot.

            In 1996, Bob Dull.

            Clinton would have run roughshod over us, if people didn’t keep him in check with Congress.

          • tomrt

            Clinton would have run roughshod over us, if people didn

          • mikelindell2

            I’m sorry but an election of 4.2% unemployment vs 9% unemployment, balanced budgets vs trillion dollar deficits, entitlement reform vs runaway entitlements threatening our collapse, getting things done in Washington vs whining about gridlock-I’ll take that match up every time. Next exudes knowledge, competence, and has the record to back it up. In these times, that’s what people want. You want to go after Obama’s record? First you need a candidate with a record to contrast with it-47th in the nation in job creation won’t do it, neither will leadership experience lacking Santorum. Oh, did I mention that Newt is the only one who puts Republicans on offense, not perpetually on defense trying to defend our ideas? He frames the debate so that the Libs are the ones who have to defend themselves.

          • SoFiMil

            IMHO, Santorum is the most conservative candidate (remaining), followed closely by Newt. Lagging far behind in conservative cred is the Mittster.

            I’m open to the electability argument for selecting a candidate. Being the most conservative and most electable is the idea. If this is the case, in most contexts each point should be emphasized in most circumstances/contexts.

          • SoFiMil

            I love to ask Romney supporters who incessantly tout his “electability” whether Romney is the most conservative candidate.

            In case the tone is not clear, I’m definitely not comparing your electability point to the Romney refrain. I’m also open to whether Newt is more conservative than Santorum.

            The Romney meme annoys me. And it’s not solely because I disagree quantitatively. It’s like, okay, John Kerry served in Vietnam. Enough already. Shut up!

            Perception wise, this hurts Romney rather than helps him. It seems that’s all he’s got. Newt and Santorum are out there with ideas, and not playing a 2-3 year game of run out the clock defense.

          • SoFiMil

            .

          • mikelindell2

            He has the highest ACU rating of any of the candidates. He is the only one who has proven his conservatism, especially in the fiscal realm. Santorum very much supported Big Labor as a senator, and went along with, and even created, endless new spending projects. I feel Santorum’s conservatism is limited to social and foreign policy issues. Santorum’s current tax plan keeps a progressive system in place, and sets up government picking winners and losers (different tax rates for different sectors of economy). I’ll leave Mitt out because we know his story already. Newt is a social conservative, foreign policy conservative, and a strong fiscal conservative. He is the only one offering a flat tax and wants to reduce corporate tax lower than anyone else. Zeroing out the capital gains tax for all incomes would also be a tremendous boost to the economy, not to mention his robust energy plan and social security plan. His proposals are the most conservative, and he is the only one with a record that I can place trust in. Between rhetoric and record, I’ll definitely take Newt.

          • SoFiMil

            ..

        • Locked and Loaded

          if you think Newt’s baggage is behind him. I haven’t heard the term yet, but if Newt did somehow win the primary, is there any doubt the MSM would immediately begin telling us about the possibility of a “First Mistress”? Fact is, even for those who believe in the power of redemption, his baggage goes with him everywhere.

          I have been watchful of, and pleased with, the ways in which Newt has informed this primary season, but the above cannot be ignored – will not be ignored – by many who do not need the MSM to tell them about it.

      • tomrt

        in the White house, not George Bush I or II, and Newt fits the bill perfectly.

        Even on the issues of raging Islamic extremism and terrorism around the world, and the march of Islamization here a home, Newt would be better, since he doesn’t wear his own religion on his sleeve.

        • Dave_A

          Can be sumarily ignored, along with the folks who whine about ‘Mexicanization’ and so on…

          The fact is, Muslims are a distinct minority and there is no danger that they will become the dominant culture. It’s anti-immigrant fear-mongering, nothing more.

          • tomrt

            and that Shariah is being pushed in Germany, Sweden and elsewhere in Europe? If you didn’t know that, then you’re not well informed on the subject (and can therefore be “summarily ignored”?).

            The push for Shariah is a central component of the ‘Islamization’ package that Islamists bring with them.

            ‘The fact is, Muslims are a distinct minority and there is no danger that they will become the dominant culture.’

            They’re minorities in Europe too (mostly 1-3%, with the exception of France, which has about a 10% Muslim population.)

            ‘It

          • Dave_A

            Do you understand what ‘Binding Arbitration’ is?

            The so-called ‘shariah courts’ are merely nonjudicial arbitration, and are only enforceable because all parties involve mutually agree to have their dispute resolved outside the regular justice system.

            This isn’t a threat, or even a problem – it’s a part of living in a free society, namely freedom of contract.

            There is absolutely no justification for opposing the right of 2 parties to specify in a contract that any disputes will be resolved by (insert-law-here)…. And it’s not just Muslims who do it – some elements of Orthodox Judaism do the exact same thing – it’s just they’re not the bug-a-boo of the day, so it’s ignored…

            I could do it here in the US too – not just with Shariah, but with Hamurabbi’s Code, the Old Testament, Catholic Cannon Law, Ancient Roman Law, the Code Napoleon, or anything else I wanted to – just find an office, hang out a shingle, and hope some people agree to be judged by me.

            There are limits to this process – it can’t issue rulings that would violate official criminal law (so no head chopping, trials by combat, honor-killing or flogging for example), cannot preside over criminal cases, and it cannot be used unless all parties consent. But that’s what makes it completely harmless AND a legitimate exercise among a free people. It’s to be defended, not opposed.

            Idiots who whine about ‘creeping shariah’ distort reality, using the so-called ‘courts’ in the UK as if they are actual legal governmental courts, rather than a private dispute-resolution business operating under contract law.

            It’s useless fear-mongering, nothing more.

          • tomrt

            over Muslims first (instead of allowing them to operate as free individuals in a free society, subject to the common laws of the land) in a non-Muslim country, and then they use the power thus gathered to turn the knobs on the rest of the country. Europe is reeling from such Islamization, and we are headed in the same direction, thanks to the assists that the mushrooming Islamist organizations are getting from Holder and Obama.

            On the point you make about contracts. Of course, anyone can enter into any contract that doesn’t violate the laws, but Shariah when it is fully phased-in (eg, Israel has Shariah-based civil code that applies to all Muslims in Israel) is an imposition of an over-arching new legal structure on all Muslims (whether they are practicing Muslims or not, or whether they want to abide by Shariah or not. Any child born into a Muslim family gets automatically bound by Shariah), as well as an imposition of Islamist will on non-Muslims.

            Of course, in a Muslim-majority country, Shariah takes on more gory and grotesque forms (executions of apostates, gays, imposition of draconian “blasphemy” laws, etc).

            Some recent events:
            1. Why we need anti-Sharia laws: Muslim judge enforces Sharia in case of Muslim attacker on mocker of Muhammad, by Robert Spencer. ‘..a (US) Muslim judge acquitted a Muslim attacker for attacking an atheist dressed as Muhammad in a Halloween parade..’

            2. ICNA, an Islamist organization, has started a billboard campaign to whitewash Sharia:

            Uploaded with ImageShack.us

            You’re apparently very ignorant on this subject. I bet that your candidate, Sen. Santorum, can school you nicely on it. I currently don’t have the time to delve into it at depth, but you can begin by looking up ‘Europe and Islam’ or ‘Europe and Shariah’ in a search engine and by checking Spencer’s coverage at Jihad Watch.

          • tomrt

            very well informed on Shariah and related subjects.

          • littlehouse18

            nt

          • Dave_A

            What you list here, is mostly a list of non-issues, and one case of liberal judicial misconduct.

            ‘Islamization’ is just another anti-immigrant bull

            Yes, children tend to have to follow the rules of the culture they’re born into… That doesn’t enhance your case any… It’s like liberals saying that we need laws to prevent Christians from making their kids behave as Christians.

            Neither does ‘OMG, these people maintain their own traditions within their community’ – OF COURSE THEY DO – just like pretty much any other immigrant group. Again, not a political problem for the host nation – and absolutely not something that justifies the level of fear-mongering associated with the topic (usually by people with no personal experience on the subject)..

            There’s nothing wrong with the billboard, either…

            And as for that judge, it wouldn’t be the first time that a judge ‘let someone off’ over the BS line of ‘well, he offended his attacker’ – it’s not ‘shariah’, it’s liberalism. No different than a judge of some other minority letting someone off on assault charges with the excuse of ‘he was offended’ (Say, black dude beats up a guy for wearing a KKK costume, black judge lets him off, because ‘he was offended’). Wrong, ABSOLUTELY… Deserving of special legislation?

            The issue isn’t that I’m ‘ignorant’ – it’s just that I don’t see any problem with what’s happening, and I view it in the context of history – both with how Europe treats it’s immigrants, and how immigrant communities in the early US behaved over time…. I also don’t view Islam itself as any sort of a threat – somewhat comes from having been in combat with Muslims both fighting alongside me (ANSF) and shooting at me (Taliban/Haqqani)… Hence, I don’t tend to lump all of Islam into the ‘enemy’ category – some are, some aren’t…

            We don’t need to pass laws forcing immigrants to abandon their culture. That will happen over time, once they become comfortable in their new environment. We’ve seen it happen with various European and East-Asian ethnicity here in the US – they start out forming insular communities/’ghettos’, then gradually assimilate over multiple generations – usually a minimum of 5. Muslims won’t be any different, given the time to go through the generational adjustment cycle.

          • Agelaius

            may be an alternate dispute resolution mechanism, but it is very difficult to contain it to just an alternative between two parties who agree on the rules. Sharia is based upon a theology that attributes inerrancy to the quran and the hadiths. Something that is clearly set forth in Sharia, such as female inheritance, is binding under law. It is not really possible for a devout Muslim to have a dispute resolved under Sharia, then act contrary to that decision in order to appease civil law under our system. If you were talking about informal dispute resolution, you would have a point. But Sharia is not an informal system. It is highly codified and carries the weight of Quranic inerrancy behind it.

            There may be a slight whiff of fear-mongering when these laws get introduced in places like Oklahoma, where the number of Muslims is so small. But… from a practical standpoint, I’m not sure its useless. Voters want and need to hear a strong defense of basic values, and Islam lies several standard deviations outside of mainstream American values. Sharia is dangerous. We are at war, if not with all Islam, then at least with those who interpret the Quran literally. Preventing the use of Sharia should be part of that effort. If it allows voters to focus more widely on creeping infiltration of Islam in our society, then it is not such a bad thing. We already have a President who is at least somewhat sympathetic (although I don’t believe the arguments that he is actually a Muslim.) We are a Christian nation – we allow freedom for all religions, but this nation needs to retain a decent regard for the lowest-common-denominator of Judeo-Christian ethics, and those ethics are not necessarily consistent with Islam. People have the right to pray, but just as we don’t have zoning that allows the Call to Prayer broadcast on loudspeakers, we have the right to a little religious zoning as well – forbidding religious courts that are in competition with our own legal system, or which may supercede it or function with greater legitimacy among a minority.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous rinstead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud

          • westcoastpatriette

            you are not suggesting that there is no difference between disputes that may arise between Christians and disputes that may arise under Islam or Sharia, are you? If so, how do we address when, under Sharia law, apostates from the faith are given death sentences or honor killings are legal if a family feels that it has been dishonored by the conduct of a family member? And women have no rights?

            These are examples of how Sharia law conflicts with all of our civil laws and that is where the danger lies. To defend Sharia on the grounds that it is the equivalent of defending religious freedom just doesn’t work. See what I mean?

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            that people should have the ability to settle disputes amongst themselves. If muslims want to do that according to their beliefs, so be it. Obviously it should be a voluntary system. If women want to give up their rights because of their beliefs, can a government force those rights upon them?

            As for killing apostates, honor killings, etc., of course that cannot be allowed, as it clearly defies our laws.

            It’s one thing to give up rights and to have them taken away. The first is allowed, the second is not. Settling disputes according to a religious code should be allowed where it does not defy our government laws.

            That said, if the government passed a law that would require me to sin (by omission or commission) per the requirements of the Christian scriptures, I would have to defy that law. I’m sure you would too. I would suffer the consequences of that defiance, but there’s a long history of others that have done the same.

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

            Frankly, if they have a civil issue between two people they can settle it however they want, I don’t much care. The problem hits when somebody’s daughter dishonors the family, etc.

            It’s codified in US law, they will raise all hell if we take the issue to court.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Here we agree. If they want to do it amongst themselves, I don’t really care, so long as they aren’t forcibly taking away the rights of another.

            There is a time coming where we as Christians will have to defy the government (by refusing to obey a law) and we will be seen exactly the same way (though we both now it will not be the same thing). Actually, for some, it’s already happening with the requirement to provide contraceptives through health insurance. There are many individuals and organizations that will simply refuse to obey.

          • lineholder

            honor the laws of our nation pertaining to civil and/or criminal acts, wouldn’t it? I’m not sure that they will. I’m not sure they will honor those laws rather than taking matters into their own hands. And I’m not just referring to issues that are Muslim versus Muslim. I’m referring to issues that might be Muslim versus “outsider” as well.

            What disturbs me most about Islam is its teaching about “the infidel”. I don’t know of any other religion that supports premeditated murder. Islam does, if it pertains to “the infidel”.

            What I visualize happening is that we end up with a legal system within a legal system where there are points of conflict between the two that constantly cause conflict. Under the scope of the broader legal system, we do have the right to protect and defend ourselves from harm, and it would become very important to protect and preserve that right.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            It should only be allowed when voluntarily applied to believers, and only then when it does not conflict with local, state, and federal laws. Those will always take precedence. This is true regardless of one’s religious beliefs.

            Here’s an example of doing it wrong. First, physical assault is wrong regardless of the reason (save for self-defense). Secondly, First Amendment rights do give us the right to piss off other people and other cultures. That’s how it works in a free society, and it’s the only way a free exchange of ideas will happen.

          • Scope

            from Obamacare. Islam considers insurance to be gambling, risk taking and usury, and therefore purchasing any type of insurance is banned. I don’t know if they are exempted from state insurance laws requiring auto insurance. Anyway, they have been exempted from Obamacare and the penalty for not being insured. As a non-muslim, if I do not purchase health insurance, I have no exemption from the penalty.

            Isn’t there a current case in Pa where a judge found the victim of a beating, to be the guilty party, because he insulted Muhammed? I know I saw the headline that a PA judge ruled according to Sharia law. I highly doubt that if someone gets beat up for insulting Jesus, that the beater would be found to be the innocent party, and the insulter to be the victim.

          • Scope

            the insulter to be the guilty party.

          • westcoastpatriette

            in PA above. Bizarre case. In that one, the judge himself converted to Islam and needs to be disbarred, IMO.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            The one about the beating. The judge was wrong and should be overturned and removed from the bench if he doesn’t stop ruling this way.

            FactCheck.org states that muslims are not exempt from Obamacare. They aren’t always reliable, so I’d have to follow up more. I don’t really have the desire to do that right now.

          • westcoastpatriette

            to do that right now? Dontcha know you have a duty to do all of our research for us? (Just a snarky joke…) :)

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            So there :P

            I love snark…

          • Scope

            directly from the Obamacare law. Certain religious sects will be allowed to file for exemptions from Obamacare, the Muslim religion is one of the few. This brings up the current position that Catholic hospitals and universities cannot exempt themselves from the free contraceptive mandate, even when any of those institutions self-insures. This is an outrage that Muslims and the Amish, for example, can be exempted from the entire law, but the Catholics are just crap out of luck, even with just one small part of the legislation.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Did you forget it? I’d like to read it. Thanks.

          • Scope
          • lineholder

            So, if for no other reason than being able to claim exemption to O-care, we could see hoards of people converting to Islam and/or Christian Scientology.

            Sounds like the ridiculous kind of decision that this admin would make! “Let’s honor freedom of religion via conscientious objections for a few, and pick the few, and deny the same freedom to the rest of the population”.

          • lapert

            When we associate with lunacy just because it fits our narrative it just makes us loony.

            The exemption is exactly the same as the one for social security that was created with Medicare to exempt the Amish. Muslims do not qualify for it and neither do Christian Scientists.

          • lineholder

            before making that kind of statement. And by all means, please follow it through to the section in O-care where the language of the law provides this precedent. That’s linked in the article, BTW.

            If you disagree at that point, then come back and provide a substantial reason as to why you disagree.

          • lapert

            I read it, it is wrong. For Muslim’s and Christian Scientists to be exempt they would have to be, per section 1402(g)(1) of the IRS code, a “member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof and is an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division by reason of which he is conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old-age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act).” Islam does not object to the social security framework.

            Is that substantial enough for you? It takes all of five minutes to learn that the exemption is exactly the same as for SS and Medicare and maybe another five more to learn who that applies to today.

          • lineholder

            that you get a grip, please. The smugness of your answers is a bit irritating, okay?

            BTW, I am extremely familiar with PPACA. I did know that the possibility of exclusion for religious sects existed. However, after reviewing your answer, the statue within the law, and quick reference to the beliefs of Islam, I’d have to agree that they have no basis on which they can claim this exemption.

          • lapert

            I apologize for the smugness. It just frustrates me when any gibberish on the internet suddenly becomes evidence – it too easily give ammunition to those that want to dismiss legitimate objections to obamacare or his foreign policy decisions.

          • lineholder

            And I say thank you, because I learned something new today. The possibility and potential for various groups to obtain exceptions under O-care I was aware of. The stipulation associated with SS I had overlooked, completely and totally. I’m actually glad to learn that this exists, because it may become valuable down the road if we have groups that want to claim access to one provision, such as SS, but claim a waiver to other, such as O-care.

            So thank you for bringing it up. And I mean that.

          • jamesm

            http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/2011/10/13/muslims-exempt-from-obamacare/

          • lineholder

            between the two. I haven’t checked out your article yet, but I will. As far as I can tell, the religion of Islam does support the idea of social safety nets for the poor and elderly. So they would have no objections to social programs such as SS.

            But O-care pertains to health care and medical insurance, and that is where the distinction could be made to support exemption from it, because they do see this as being entirely different.

            I’ll go check out the article now.

          • lineholder

            It’s the “subset of law within a law” context that I mentioned earlier, and another example of how really messed up this piece of legislation is.

          • lapert

            If you want to learn what the healthcare sharing ministry exception is actually for (instead of some stupid notion that it applies to Muslims) you should look into the Samaritan Ministries International,

          • lineholder

            the argument you’re presenting is that they can’t claim exclusion to O-care and inclusion to SS based on the statutory requirements of the IRS law connecting O-care to SS. Is that correct?

            On the surface, I would agree. However, it is a proponent of the Islamic faith to provide social safety nets for the elderly and the poor. Yet it is against the proponent of “takaful” included in the Islamic faith to be a part of risk-taking activities such as insurance because they claim this to be equal to gambling.

            Carrying this a step further, they do however stipulate that it is within their faith to form cost-sharing entities that defer risk, which operate the same way insurance would operate. They are just forming a risk-pool with other members of the Islamic faith. That’s all.

            I think this ends up putting the situation in the context of a subset of a law within a broader law, which more or less means that it would leave the ruling of intent up to judiciary discretion.

            We don’t have any precedents set on this so far…or not much to speak of, at least. Until we do, all we have is speculation on both sides.

          • lapert

            In theory they could establish a cost sharing ministry that qualifies per the law.

            The problem is the law requires that the cost sharing ministry must have existed continuously since 1999 (section 5000A(d)(2)(B)(IV)). I know of no such existing arrangement currently so creating one now won’t give them an exemption.

          • lineholder

            Are their health care sharing ministries that have been established in other countries prior to 1999 that could be expanded to the market of Muslims in the US and could this be a means of gaining access to this provision?

            Is that a possibility?

          • lapert

            I don’t know if there are any internationally that would meet the qualifications and could establish itself in the U.S. I think that is at least theoretically possible.

          • Scope

            of the linked Horowitz article from above-

            “Where do American Muslims stand regarding the individual mandate

          • lineholder

            there isn’t a lot of legal precedent to draw from on this issue with Muslim exemption. We’re getting into some uncharted territory.

            If they accept Medicaid and Medicare…both of these programs pertain to health insurance. We can do an apples to apples comparison on that, but we can’t with O-care and SS. I don’t know how they can claim an exemption for O-care but also claim inclusion into Medicaid and Medicare. That’s seems totally contradictory to me.

            I’m not sure why the left has chosen to deal with the Catholic church in the manner that it has. I think Catholics do have a basis to challenge the mandate. Whether they will do that or not is the question.

            The left does have a value system…it’s just so twisted and distorted that it makes no sense to me for the most part. In their value system, if you are loyal to the cause, regardless of what it might cost you in other ways, this is rewarded. If you fail to be loyal, this is punished. So there’s always this fear of retribution, even amongst themselves, that seems to be going on.

          • Scope

            but I don’t remember the Catholic Bishops coming out against Obamacare when it was being debated. I remember a Catholic Sister (Nuns take a vow of poverty), being present at the Obama bill signing ceremony, and she was awarded one of the signing pens as a gift for her support. That same Sister was the head of 3 PA Catholic hospitals, and was making a hefty salary in that position. Not long after Obamacare passed, those hospitals were sold off.

            There were a bunch of faux Catholic organizations that were birthed even before Obamacare was on the table. The philosophy was that you can vote for those that are pro-choice, and you can support the liberals, because they have a much greater cause in looking out for the greater common good. Pelosi, Kerry and Biden, all Catholics, were a part of the faux Catholic community that bought into the morally relative argument of the libs.

            I still have a major problem with Obamacare mandating that the Catholics will just have to live with their decisions, but, some of them asked for what they are now getting. Again, I go back to the conservative sentiment- First they went for those that had no affect on me, and I said nothing. Now they are coming after me. Wow is me, boo hoo.

          • lineholder

            Just to make things clear to other people, your comments on this topic aren’t meant to be derogatory to devout Catholics and neither are mine.

            But given the left’s value system, sacrificing religious beliefs for the sake of The Cause…that’s simply part of the expectations that exist to meet those loyalty standards.

            They’ve done the same thing with the CBC and even with Unions in a couple of cases. That way of thinking is alien to me, so it took me a while to wrap my mind around it, so to speak. But that is exactly what they do.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            re: don’t use doctors.

          • jamesm

            Can muslims be exempted from Obamacare if they are a member of a healthcare sharing ministry? Yes. Can Christians be exempted if they are a member of a healthcare sharing ministry? No..because their is no religious objecting to insurance.

          • lineholder

            Given the description of a healthcare sharing ministry and how it operates, it’s the same thing as insurance except the risk-pool includes only other Muslims.

            I think it depends on how a judge interprets it. If the judge rules that the healthcare sharing ministry is a form of insurance just like any other form of insurance, then there could be a basis on which their claim for exemption might be denied.

          • lapert

            See again you have no idea what you are talking about. The Samaritan Ministries International were one of the groups who lobbied for the health sharing ministry exemption. Nowhere in that exemption is it required that you have a religious objection to insurance.

            Why don’t you actually read the law before you say something else that is completely wrong.

          • jamesm

            Just because one group lobbies for something does not mean that another group is not entitled to the exemption. You judging that a devout muslim is not entitled to a religious exemption from Obamacare seems like it will end up in court.

          • lapert

            Sorry, but there is no basis in the law for them to take it to court for an exemption. The qualifications are pretty specific – you find me the Islamic health sharing ministry that has been in existence since 1999 and we can talk otherwise you are just spouting nonsense.

          • jamesm

            The religious exemption applies to any person who is a member of a

          • lapert

            You left a bit out there didn’t you. The entire language of the exemption requires that you object to the entire Social Security framework. Devout Muslims have never done this before, it is highly unlikely they are going to do it now and if they did it even more unlikely that the court would look favorably on it as they have been pretty stringent on these exemptions in the past.

            For the record. The requirement for an exemption is that the religion be:

            “conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old-age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act)”

          • jamesm

            we will see what the Supreme Court says. Any exemption wll not matter if they rule it is unconstitutional.

          • jamesm

            that this president bows over backwards.

          • lapert

            of course there is no doubt i you make stuff up to fit your narrative. The reality of course is that this exemption does not apply to muslims at all, is the same general exemption created under social security to exempt the Amish and the only religious sects that have ever qualified have been Christian.

          • jamesm

            The poster has supplied a link. It seems that a muslim could claim an objection. If you have proof they cannot then please supply it.

          • lapert

            Supplying a link on the internet does not evidence make. The exemption is based on current rules for exemption from Social Security that was put in place when Medicare was created to protect the Amish. Islam does not qualify for that exemption, never has. They don’t object to social security payments.

          • jamesm

            muslims object to not retirement. Theyn consider insurance as a form of gambling. The IRS code is different then the Obamacare law. The Social Security Act does not bar muslims from claiming an exemption from from Obamacare.

          • lapert

            To gain a religious exemption from obamacare you have to meet the definition of an eligible religious sect that currently exists in the IRS code (section 1402(g)(1)) – which requires that you object to all social security payments as well.

            The text is in section 5000A(d)(2) of the law.

          • jamesm

            If an individual is a member of a

          • lapert

            So now you think Muslims share medical expenses among themselves?

            You clearly have no clue here.

          • jamesm

            In addition if a muslim buys Sharia compliant insurance then they would be exempt from ObamaCare. (taxes, mandates and penalties)

            .

          • lapert

            On what basis do you think that? It’s not based on what the actual law says but you have clearly shown that you don’t know or don’t care about grounding your statements in reality.

          • jamesm

            If they were denied the exemption a court fight would ensue.

          • jamesm

            to buy insurance. It would be unconstitutional

          • lapert

            How many devout muslims do you think have exemptions to auto insurance requirement to drive? What do you think there chances would be of having those requirements rules unconstitutional?

            You have taken you argument a long way from your initial post claiming that obamacare somehow demonstrated how he bent over backwards to muslim to here where you are creating some odd constitutional argument that they couldn’t be compelled to follow the law but I guess that is what happens when you have no idea what you are talking about/

          • jamesm

            I believe the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Driving a car is a privelege. That’s mixing apples and oranges.

          • lapert

            The constitutional argument you would be making applies just as much to auto insurance – if the requirement is unconstitutional because it violates first amendment establishment clause or equal protection by treating some religious beliefs differently than others it would not matter whether it is a mandate or a law that only applies when you exercise the privilege of owning a car.

            I take it you don’t recall you constitutional law class all that well, do you?

          • demsaresatanic

            microeconomics and constitutional law.

          • trickamsterdam

            I knew it.

            lapert = Romney (double major @ Harvard, MBA/Law)

            I haven’t followed this argument on the thread enough to see who’s right or wrong, but since it’s clearly Romney hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet, I have provided you w/ another reason to dislike him. :)

          • demsaresatanic

            that explains it.

          • Scope

            The leper is a woman, in the mold of Helen Ready. I am woman watch me roar. I suspect she wears pinstripes in the day then goes home and changes into her black studded leather pants, all while worshiping at the alter of the Jane Fonda feminazis. She is very very quick to claim that anyone she doesn’t agree with just doesn’t have a clue. Go back up and follow the thread. She claims that the Samaritan Ministries International could get an exemption from Obamacare. Here is a link to some info on the Christian organization she brings into the argument. The claims that the exemptions for SS and Obamacare have no basis in religious arguments are beyond the pale. They are arguments for those that she hopes don’t look into the valid information. In all, Pelosi said that we would have to just pass Obamacare to see what was in it. I suspect if the law stands, and we are all obligated to the mandates, we will see many of those invisable fill in the blank sections of the law filled in by the liberals that will have us all living under the philosophies of Ezikeal Emmanuel, and his participation on the death panels.

          • lapert

            So you still know nothing about who I am – not surprising. At least it is good to see that you are over the whole Perry infatuation and on to the next one.

            Anyway, you once again show off your ignorance as you type but I’ll do you the favor of correcting you. The Samaritan Ministries International is one of the groups that lobbied for the Healthcare Sharing Ministries exception which does not require that you have a religious objection to insurance – look into it, they are not only well within the pale they are 100% accurate. There is a separate exemption for those who have conscientious objections – that is the same exemption as the one that has existed for social security and medicare since 1965, originally created for the Amish.

            But I know none of that means anything to you, you are all emotion no logic so I’m sure you believe that the healthcare law was written to give muslims some sort of unique exception that will help them take over your little mind.

          • aesthete

            None of the legal challenges to ObamaCare being looked at by the Supremes and advanced by state AGs are based on 1st Am grounds (not that this red herring introduced by jamesm had anything to do with the original point, which was whether or not ObamaCare was biased towards Muslims, or somesuch nonsense). It is fine for a person to be against ObamaCare on religious grounds, of course, but from a legal standpoint that is not the argument being advanced in the courts.

          • lapert

            My post-graduate work is solely in economics. My knowledge of the law is just a hobby.

          • jamesm

            You make an argument in favor of the invidual mandate. Supreme Court will decide. I would disagree with your reasoning. Liability insurance is required if you damage another vehicle. It is not required for your own car. Obamacare is a requirement not because you would damage someone eses body.

          • lapert

            The individual mandate may very well be ruled unconstitutional, I have my doubts but we will know soon enough.

            But that is immaterial to the argument you are making here. First, you need to read better, insurance is a requirement if you own a car – not for your own car (at least in every state I have ever lived, maybe there is an exception). But that doesn’t matter for a first or 14th amendment argument about how it treats religion – which is presumably what would be required to make the argument you seem to be pushing (probably unknowingly) on behalf of devout Muslims (as far as I know I haven’t seen any of them complain about it).

          • jamesm

            That’s not you’re best argument. That would get you thrown out of court. Lol.

          • lapert

            You are the one who suggested that muslims could challenge the healthcare law based on their religious beliefs. If that were so, the same exact argument would apply to auto insurance as those arguments don’t apply merely to laws that are requirements for everyone.

          • jamesm

            and I believe that if Obama is re-elected then HHS will right rules to make it clear that devout muslims are excluded. They left a path and then after the election they will drive a truck through it. (I do not think muslims will need to challenge.) If a muslim did challenge there would be a court fight.
            Auto insurance and insurance under Obamacare are two separate things. To clarify: Liability insurance is purchased by the owner of car in case of damage/injury to another driver/auto. Liability is the only requirement. There is no requirement for the owner of their car to pay for insurance to cover the damage to their own car. Obamacare requires a person to pay for insurance for their own body..not someone elses.

          • lapert

            So now your story is that after reelection they would rewrite the regulations to include muslims – something they aren’t asking for. So it isn’t that they bent over backwards to accommodate muslims as you implied in your original post many stories ago but it is that you think they will change it on their behalf in the future – based on, well nothing other than your own paranoia.

          • jamesm

            after our soldiers are killed is ridiculous. That is not “bending over backwards”? for muslims. How about pressuring Israel for unreasonable concessions to muslims who want Israel’s extinction? How about bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia? Anyone with half of half the intelligence of mental midget knows that Obama “bends over backwards” You have also misstated my original post. Let me post it for you again. I wrote this:

            Can there be any question that this president bows over backwards.

            Let me answer: No

          • lapert

            Sorry, but you asked that question in the context of a false suggestion that muslims were given an exemption to obamacare. They were not. That you spent as long as you have trying to manufacture a story out if that would conform to your view that he bends over backwards and fit it to the health care realm just speaks to how you allow your biases to blind your logical thought process.

            Sorry, muslims have been given no special treatment in obamacare – and that is all that is thread is about.

          • jamesm

            Again the answer is: No

            The rest of your post is self serving. Good try

            I have already gave my views in this thread. Again, Obamacare is probably toast.

          • lapert

            Your entire post is just self serving, good try.

          • jamesm

            Don’t have an original idea. Ok fine. I give

          • Scope

            particularly here at RS without immediately name calling with those that you disagree with? Are you so in love with your own ideas and opinions, that no other ideas or opinions have any credibility to you? Do you not have the slightest clue that you appear as an arrogant self promoter most every time you post? Or is it your goal to be nothing more than a flame thrower here at RS. There are those that can’t get much attention unless they ask for it in unfortunate ways, like a child throwing a hissy fit because mom won’t buy him that toy. Your arrogance is breathtaking.

          • lapert

            To answer your question. I reserve my arrogance for those who deserve it.

          • aesthete

            proof for your claims is unimportant since, hey, it’s gonna happen anyways?

            Have you ever heard of “begging the question”?

          • Scope

            There is no federal mandate that everyone buy auto insurance. The auto insurance mandates are state laws not federal ones. Many do decide to not own automobiles, such as in NY, because auto insurance rates are very high in that city. They use public transportation. Even those that don’t participate in auto insurance will still be required into purchase health insurance. They don’t have the opt as do those that choose not to own a vehicle.

          • lapert

            You are still a fool Scope. You do know that the establishment clause applies to state laws as well right? You do realize that merely not having to buy a car would itself not be a defense if the mandatory auto insurance laws violated the establishment clause, don’t you?

            Ok, I know that are rhetorical questions – of course you don’t know.But if you want to humor yourself why don’t you try and find a copy of the Fall 2010 Loyola University New Orleans College of Law Journal of Public Interest Law – it has an interesting, if hypothetical, review of the question.

          • lineholder

            I think some Muslims would object to, much more so than people of Judeo-Christian faiths.

            Do you ever wonder if the reason that judges are inclined to rule in favor of Muslims is because they know that if they don’t, the Muslim could easily choose, within the context of their religious beliefs, to take the law into their own hands and exact their own brand of “justice”? I’m not saying that all Muslims would do this, because I don’t believe that is the case. But it could be a matter of uncertainty for the judge, couldn’t it…not knowing who would and who would not do this?

            I do wonder about that sometimes…if judges are trying to prevent a certain amount of that from taking place.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            We don’t allow modern-day Assyrians or Incas to sacrifice their children to Molech. Oh wait, yes we do. It’s called abortion.

            If you were being forced to have an abortion as they do in China, I’m pretty sure you’d object as strongly or stronger than Muslims do with their beliefs. I think Christians would object just as strongly depending on the issue.

            I think many judges these days are wimps and care more about political correctness than adjudicating according to the law as written. Unfortunately, this is the area where people are least involved in politics. In Colorado, we can vote judges out, but people never do. Most don’t even know their names. Yet judges can have a much greater affect on how we’re governed that those in the other branches of government.

          • aesthete

            all have > 5% Islamic populations.

          • WillWong

            Obviously you have not heard of the saying in Europe….Jihaddhists there do not need to wage jihad. Just outbreed the Europeans. And with the Europeans negative population growth rate, those guys are darn right!

          • Dave_A

            I have little care or tolerance for folks who complain about legal immigration, or who feel threatened by the choice of an immigrant population to handle their disputes internally according to their traditions, rather than using government methods.

            So long as they don’t violate the law of the nation they live in, they have every right to have their disputes resolved by their religeous leaders instead of filing suit in a court of law.

          • demsaresatanic

            they are no problem at all, just ask the Europeans.

          • littlehouse18

            where non-Muslims are not allowed?

          • Dave_A

            Bigotry exists…

            Immigrants tend to concentrate in groups of similar populations…

            Still not cause for the absurdities some folks post, or the belief that Muslims are trying to ‘take over’…

          • Scope

            those ethnic groups you refer to that band together in various communities mostly don’t practice a religious doctrine, which also encompasses a political doctrine. The poles, the germans, the hispanics haven’t ruled that if you steal you will have your fingers, or hands cut off. They don’t participate in the practice of stoning adulterers to death. They don’t cut the heads off of what the Islamists refer to as infidels. They don’t participate in honor killings.

            Your arguments seem to consider that all Muslims follow the exact same rules/beliefs. Unfortunately there are in fact those that are “radical Islamists,” the 9/11 hijackers are the best example.

          • jamesm

            There needs to be a level of discernment to have a genuine discussion on an issue. To make a case of racism or bigotry against a group implies that the group making the claim does not engage in racism or bigotry. The question is: Are muslims killing christians in the middle east just because they are Christian? Answer: Yes
            Are Christians killing Muslims just because the are Muslim? Answer: No . So your argument is this thread is clearly bigoted against the truth.

  • Dave_A

    What would you have done differently, to convince the Iraqi government to allow us continued combatant immunity?

    The sticking point that caused the absolute-withdrawal, after all, was that the Iraqis demanded any remaining US troops be subject to Iraqi law – without immunity for legitimate actions on the battlefield.

    In that situation, we essentially wouldn’t be able to leave our bases, much less engage in combat, without risking arrest in the event that an Iraqi citizen who we couldn’t prove to Iraqi courts be an insurgent was injured. We would have been combat ineffective.

    My questions to you, are these:

    1) Do you think that the failure to secure combatant immunity was the result of the Obama administration’s lack of interest in trying to stay, or the Iraqis desire to ‘run their own show’?

    2) How would your negotiators have done things differently?

    P.S. Good luck in the primaries – I hope you win.

    • aesthete
  • renl57

    The new Iraqi Constitution (which Bush accepted without complaint) includes this:

    “Islam is the state religion and a basic foundation for the country’s laws, and no law may contradict the established provisions of Islam.”

    That means that the Iraqi Christians are going to be living as second class citizens under an Islamist regime.

    So my advice is quite different from Senator Santorum’s. While it would be too diplomatically embarrassing for any American President to say it, what Congressmen should be advising the Iraqi Christians to do is get the heck out of there.

  • mattyp

    I’m sick and tired of the “Obama was just filling and arbitrary campaign promise” meme coming from cynical conservative politicos. Obama made a campaign promise based on an agreement that was signed with the Iraqi government in December of 2007 under President Bush.

    Of course, the people he’s talking to will never fact check him, so Mr. Santorum can say whatever he wants.

  • johnt

    He approves the hit on OBL,[how could he have denied it?] and then stands by while whole nations go radical and murderous.
    Go back to the 2009 Egypt speech, the baclward step taken then was the warning of what Obama intended. It’s the one step back, two steps forward method.
    By November there won’t be much left, either in Iraq or Egypt, probably not much changed in Syria or Iran except for the worst.
    The Senators intentions are appropriate, but if the ballgame isn’t over we are at least in the 9th inning.
    In any case Senator, good luck and God bless.

  • WillWong

    When the MSM and Romney used Newt’s March 21st 1986 Special Order Speech and took a few clips out of context to smear Newt as anti-Reagan, why did you jumped on board and questioned Newt’s loyalty and support of Reagan?

    This smacks of opportunism on your part. On the contrary, Newt did not pile it on when you were attacked by tbe Romney-Paul tack team and in fact baled you out on a few occassions when you seem hell bent on sticking both shoes into your mouth on the question about contraceptives.

    Sorry, i cannot support you because I do not think you have the vision or the skills to turn this country around. But I do need you to help stop Romney!

  • Ann2012

    Speaker Gingrich and Senator Santorum it

  • http://www.AmericanThinker.com Hammer2008

    Without evensomuch as reading this good post good Sir, you have re-confirmed my absentee-Michigan vote for you.

    You Mr. Santorum, have been burned by the 2006 elections, yet have come back to pour out your love of country, of man, of life.

    Life. Our lives. That is the crux of the matter, is it not?

    Here, like a doctor, you have your hands on the pulse of out republic, nay! This world as it is…

    Where Speaker Gingrich might speak with Reaganesque boldness, it is but for the headlines they would bring ~~ you, good Sir, come armed in the long shadow of Ronald Wilson Reagans’s quest for finality, for Truth, against what ails U.S.

    May we all seek prayer for the persecuted. For the downtrodden, those underfoot of this centurty’s evil empires. May we ‘fight for all’. May we pray and act in those prayers for Mr. Youcef Nadarkhani, his sons, his betrothed:

    http://www.prisoneralert.com/pprofiles/vp_prisoner_214_profile.html

    Courage under Fire indeed.

    *For #Neda

  • Vegas_Rick

    to the front page. As usual, Santorum tells what is needed with not one word included as to HOW HE would do it. Everyone here is fairly well informed and politically literate. We don’t need to be told what needs to be accomplished, we need to be told specifically how you intend to do it.

    Are ya feelin’ me Rick? Mittens?

    • Bill S

      Until they drop out, we’ll promote anything from the 3.1 candidates that are still in the race (and probably from those who dropped out as well).

      • Vegas_Rick

        But, you’d think they would take advatage of your courtesy by not wasting the bandwidth.

    • lineholder

      Do I ever empathize with it! It’s like hearing that line from Nicholson in the movie “A Few Good Men” where he says “You can’t handle the truth!” over and over again.

      I don’t think they mean it in that context, but that’s how it seems at times, doesn’t it?

      • Vegas_Rick

        Don’t provide any specifics in an attempt to present the voter with a blank slate upon which they can project their impressions of his magnificence.

        Instead, they come across as political and intellectual cowards.

  • Ann2012

    I

    • aesthete

      for Republicans to go as a party.

      OTOH… can’t be any worse than what we’re trying now.

      • acat

        Hard to tell on this one…

        Mew

        • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

          …is a telling commentary on the state of the Republican Party today. :(

      • Ann2012

        aesthete, I think you misunderstood me. I purposely used the term

        • jamesm

          The person was mocking your post. Don’t pay attention.

          Good post.

          • Ann2012

            Jamesm, yes I got that drift.

            Anyone reading my post though has to admit, Islam being created 666 years after the Julian calendar began is an odd coincidence.

            The Anti-Christ might be hiding in plain sight.

          • jamesm

            are many spiritually deficient people that would try to refute everything of spiritual value without applying an inquiring mind. I find your post curious and have not heard that before. I will look into the subject of the Julian calendar and the starting of Islam. I see your post as trying to be informative.

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

            This crap has been around for a couple of thousand years and it’s nothing but the equivalent of astrology but without the pretty stars.

            Annie is a theological fruit loop.

          • jamesm

            I did not read her post as pushing numerology. It seemed like a simple count of 666 years. Even if it was correct that still doesn’t hold much weight. I think she was trying to be informative. Rough crowd. lol

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

            troupes in and throws rank stupidity against the walls.

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

            You can go back to your cave now. The world has been littered with pathetic little people such you for, ohhh, a couple of thousand years.

          • Ann2012

            Here

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

            And, “about.com” is an even worse source than Wikipedia.

            If you knew even a little about either history or Christianity, you’d know that a number of people on that list were actually “Deists” not “Christians”.

            Now then, go back to your cave and count something. Numerousists have been around for a long time and they’re about as reliable when it comes to an understanding of the Gospel as Jim Jones.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            …when He will enable us to understand prophecy. It is enough that Islam rejects Jesus as the Son of God.

          • aesthete

            She didn’t look Muslim, but I guess she might have been.

            CONNECTIONS EVERYWHERE OPEN YOUR EYES

            In all seriousness, I got turned off to numerology after the Nth “this is exactly how the end times will happen go grab your shotguns and learn to live off the land” book sold on CBD flopped. Playing at Nancy Drew with Biblical eschatology/numerology with the Soviets (done for), the Iraqis (done for), the European Union (probably done for), and the other hodge-podge of historical baddies (Spain and the Napoleonic Empire come to mind) hasn’t had a single productive result for the church, and I don’t see how it is particularly relevant to the topic of Mr Santorum’s post or the critiques of same.

            The Apostle Paul wrote a whole letter about getting oneself too wrapped up in Ragnorak, if I recall.

          • SoFiMil

            Thanks for the laugh and good night.

    • Ann2012

      I have no idea why some people keep talking about numerology. 666 is from the Bible

      • aesthete

        but I’m pretty sure this is off-topic.

        What do you think of Mr Santorum’s apparent proposal to re-invade Iraq to protect the Christian minorities which went largely unprotected during OIF (not by the EEEEVIL BOOOSH’s volition, of course).

        • Ann2012

          : )

      • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

        …and not being cowed by vituperation. But do take a closer look as to whether you’re building on rock or on sand.

        Some advice to smooth your time at RedState.

        First, if you’re going to be quoting from other people’s works, it is important to provide links to the source documents/websites, so that those interested can pursue their inquiry further. (See the HTML Help link under “Help” at the top of each page for further info if you need it.)

        Also, keep in mind that RedState is primarily a political site, not a religion site,

        RedState is also a community.

        As a general reference for the future, check out the Posting Rules (linked under Help” at the top of each page). There are also site moderators (those with red screen names – and I’m not one of them) to keep discussion within proper bounds. No guarantee they will apply the rules “fairly” though – that’s just the way it is.

        Addressing your comments specifically, I think the way you have linked Islam’s founding date with 666 is a seriously flawed interpretative approach to the Scripture. Our focus should be informed living by the Word, not looking to decode hidden messages; the latter, which you seem to be taking in your earlier comment, is far more a Gnostic approach than Christian.

        Have a good evening.

        • Ann2012

          First of all, thank you civil truth for your very nice post. : )

          jamesm is a very nice member too.

          And thank you as well to Martin Knight. : )

          Civil truth, regarding what you wrote about a

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            1) Readers of internet blogs expect it

            2) Attribution is important to give due credit to those whose labors you’re utilizing for your purposes (like footnoting research papers)

            3) It provides some layer of protection to these folks against being misquoted/misinterpreted, through 4).

            4) It enables readers to go back to the source documents so that they can independently assess your work.

            And this time, I am turning in for the night.

          • Ann2012

            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/affirmative

            : )

        • Ann2012

          civil truth,

          I was away for a little while but I

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            First, I was not accusing you of being a practicing Gnostic of the 2nd century variety or subscribing to that philosophy – nothing you have written indicates that you are other than a Christian follower of Jesus.

            What I was referring to was the aspect of gnostic in the broader sense, which is the search for hidden wisdom accessible to a select few (which often acts in concert with the spiritual temptation of The Inner Ring, belonging to a spiritual elite, as C.S. Lewis so aptly described in his essay of that title).

            Whereas, the uniqueness of the Christian gospel is that its message is accessible to all people of all walks of life – it’s totally public – although living out the gospel is a lifetime endeavor involving discipline, study, fellowship, etc.

            As for the purpose of the Book of Revelation – John’s primary purpose was to provide encouragement for a church that was undergoing/about to under persecution under Roman rule. There is much that is mysterious, both in its deep mooring in Daniel and its rather transparent code for Rome in certain chapter. But the goal was encouragement.

            And this book throughout the centuries since continues to serve as encouragement to churches in good times and times of persecution.

            But I think it is a distraction at best – and at worse a temptation – to seek to come up with a thorough decoding. And given the failures of great men and wise students of Scripture through the ages who tried to tie Revelation to their times, I think we should tread very, very cautiously in trying to link these images to our present times.

            And especially those decodings employing methods unmoored to generally accepted hermeneutic methods – and detached from the very Jewish milieu of the author’s mindset.

            What is now through a glass dimly will be clear in retrospect. Until then, we have many clear tasks for the Lord to work on over which there is no need for decoding.

      • Martin Knight

        Peace be unto you – I really mean that. :-)

        • Ann2012

          and peace be with you as well

          • Martin Knight

            So I’m actually being non-ironic about it …

  • nomaster

    We don’t need Santorum the theocrat. We don’t need a Theocracy in America with the Ayatollah Santorum. We don’t need a theocratic tyranny like irans to lead our nation nor make us like Iran.
    Vote Libertarian trim the deficit and end the political wars. Send Santorum to Iran. Elect Ron Paul the only pragmatic voice of reason. Why fear, fear itself, let’s be brave and enter a brave new world. Why fear Iran we have the military and nukes to crush and vaporize it. Time to reduce the deficit end Afghanistan, bring our military home.

    • Ann2012

      I don