Over at Hot Air there is a link to a video which shows Supreme Madame Pelosi
“Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if the Democrats win and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan,” said Pelosi.
Hope and insane!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
My Time With Robert Spencer; Part One
Where to begin?
I suppose we can begin in September. Alex, the president of the EFA and I decided to have Robert Spencer speak at Stony Brook. We thought that even though many in our group, and most on campus did not agree with Spencer's view on Islam, Jihad, and traditional Islamic doctrine, his presence would be riveting, thought-provoking, and controversial to say the least.
October came and went (still is), and I found myself driving to school this morning, anxiously awaiting what appeared to be a coming good night. My feet and fingers tapped the day away (a nervous habit when I am anxious).
Finally, I found myself on the phone with a friend named Floyd. Floyd takes care of security detail for both Ann Coulter and Robert Spencer (some other speakers too, but I cannot recall). As usual, Floyd was cordial and helpful, and got me in touch with a Mr. Murphy, who was Spencer's bodyguard for the day.
I finally, at 4 o'clock, got to the hotel near Stony Brook that Robert Spencer was staying at to escort him back to campus. Upon arriving at our destination on campus, our trio was met with many of the wonderfully helpful policemen that helped the Ann Coulter event go off without a hitch last year. The chief of police and his assistant were great and accommodating. For some reason, a student from the Muslim Students Association called in a threat before the event, warning that if Robert Spencer was allowed to come on campus there would be quote "repercussions." Wonderful.
At five o'clock, people began entering the ballroom where Spencer was planned to speak. Alexander gave a great introduction, explaining to Spencer's opponents that if they wanted to truly silence him, they would thoughtfully and factually disprove what he had to say.
Enter Robert Spencer. Mr. Spencer is quite a normal looking fellow. Not quite the angry "hate monger" and "angry Islamophobe" as he is consistently made out to be. He was wonderfully cordial and sociable. He took to the podium to discuss the topic of Stealth Jihad: How Islamic Terrorists are Subverting America Without Guns or Bombs (something to that effect; too tired to look it up).
So we began. Mr. Spencer started with a quote from a 1991 internal document from the Muslim Brotherhood, a group founded in Egypt in the late 1920's. This internal memo stated the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood as the subversion of western civilization and culture, with the desired outcome of an Islamic Khalifate in the U.S, with the guide of a Khalif (successor of Muhammad) at the reigns. With the idea of "stealth jihad" established, Spencer went on to discuss its various parts and pieces.
From forth the Muslim Brotherhood sprang various U.S.-based Muslim institutions such as the Muslim Students Association, a group that exists on college campuses all around the country, and the Council on American Islamic Relations. Spencer explained to us how these so called "moderate groups" have their very existence vested in the roots of Islamic jihadist doctrine. He also noted quickly to us that until recently, the website for the Saudi embassy in Washington D.C. had a section of it's website devoted to declaring the need for good Muslims to "raise the banner of Jihad" so that Allah's religion prevails. The website also noted the need to subjugate non-Muslims, Christians, and Jews into the status of Dhimmitude, in which the kuffar (non-believer) pays the Jizya (the Muslim tax on kuffar), and wears special attire designating he or she as a kuffar.
As I noted before, there was an internal Muslim Brotherhood memo written in 1991 about the need for Islamic subversion of western civilization. Inside this memo, a few allied groups were named. Among them was the Muslim Students Association. In past days, leaders of various campus MSAs have been inciting violence against Israel, and against the West. The MSA has been closely tied to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, an Islamic "charity" which was found to have been raising money for Hamas.
At the 7th annual MSA West conference at the University of California, former MSA UCLA member Ahmed Shama stated that: "We want to restore Islam to the leadership of society. … The goal … is the reestablishment of the Islamic form of government" (January 2005).
Robert Spencer's talk was thought-provoking, dynamic, and a bit frightening. A little fear goes a long way, though. Makes you get off your ass and do something, ya heard?
Anyway, that was the jist of the talk, and we eventually moved on to the Q and A section of the event. Luckily, I had my camera rolling, and caught a very testy, and at one point yelling match between Sister Nadim Sanaa of the MSA and Robert Spencer.
More to come in Part II with video.
-Posted by Conor
I suppose we can begin in September. Alex, the president of the EFA and I decided to have Robert Spencer speak at Stony Brook. We thought that even though many in our group, and most on campus did not agree with Spencer's view on Islam, Jihad, and traditional Islamic doctrine, his presence would be riveting, thought-provoking, and controversial to say the least.
October came and went (still is), and I found myself driving to school this morning, anxiously awaiting what appeared to be a coming good night. My feet and fingers tapped the day away (a nervous habit when I am anxious).
Finally, I found myself on the phone with a friend named Floyd. Floyd takes care of security detail for both Ann Coulter and Robert Spencer (some other speakers too, but I cannot recall). As usual, Floyd was cordial and helpful, and got me in touch with a Mr. Murphy, who was Spencer's bodyguard for the day.
I finally, at 4 o'clock, got to the hotel near Stony Brook that Robert Spencer was staying at to escort him back to campus. Upon arriving at our destination on campus, our trio was met with many of the wonderfully helpful policemen that helped the Ann Coulter event go off without a hitch last year. The chief of police and his assistant were great and accommodating. For some reason, a student from the Muslim Students Association called in a threat before the event, warning that if Robert Spencer was allowed to come on campus there would be quote "repercussions." Wonderful.
At five o'clock, people began entering the ballroom where Spencer was planned to speak. Alexander gave a great introduction, explaining to Spencer's opponents that if they wanted to truly silence him, they would thoughtfully and factually disprove what he had to say.
Enter Robert Spencer. Mr. Spencer is quite a normal looking fellow. Not quite the angry "hate monger" and "angry Islamophobe" as he is consistently made out to be. He was wonderfully cordial and sociable. He took to the podium to discuss the topic of Stealth Jihad: How Islamic Terrorists are Subverting America Without Guns or Bombs (something to that effect; too tired to look it up).
So we began. Mr. Spencer started with a quote from a 1991 internal document from the Muslim Brotherhood, a group founded in Egypt in the late 1920's. This internal memo stated the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood as the subversion of western civilization and culture, with the desired outcome of an Islamic Khalifate in the U.S, with the guide of a Khalif (successor of Muhammad) at the reigns. With the idea of "stealth jihad" established, Spencer went on to discuss its various parts and pieces.
From forth the Muslim Brotherhood sprang various U.S.-based Muslim institutions such as the Muslim Students Association, a group that exists on college campuses all around the country, and the Council on American Islamic Relations. Spencer explained to us how these so called "moderate groups" have their very existence vested in the roots of Islamic jihadist doctrine. He also noted quickly to us that until recently, the website for the Saudi embassy in Washington D.C. had a section of it's website devoted to declaring the need for good Muslims to "raise the banner of Jihad" so that Allah's religion prevails. The website also noted the need to subjugate non-Muslims, Christians, and Jews into the status of Dhimmitude, in which the kuffar (non-believer) pays the Jizya (the Muslim tax on kuffar), and wears special attire designating he or she as a kuffar.
As I noted before, there was an internal Muslim Brotherhood memo written in 1991 about the need for Islamic subversion of western civilization. Inside this memo, a few allied groups were named. Among them was the Muslim Students Association. In past days, leaders of various campus MSAs have been inciting violence against Israel, and against the West. The MSA has been closely tied to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, an Islamic "charity" which was found to have been raising money for Hamas.
At the 7th annual MSA West conference at the University of California, former MSA UCLA member Ahmed Shama stated that: "We want to restore Islam to the leadership of society. … The goal … is the reestablishment of the Islamic form of government" (January 2005).
Robert Spencer's talk was thought-provoking, dynamic, and a bit frightening. A little fear goes a long way, though. Makes you get off your ass and do something, ya heard?
Anyway, that was the jist of the talk, and we eventually moved on to the Q and A section of the event. Luckily, I had my camera rolling, and caught a very testy, and at one point yelling match between Sister Nadim Sanaa of the MSA and Robert Spencer.
More to come in Part II with video.
-Posted by Conor
Saturday, October 25, 2008
A Lesson on Economics for Robert Spencer
For anyone who wasn't aware, the Patriot sponsored Robert Spencer as a guest speaker at Stony Brook University earlier this week. Overall, I enjoyed the speech and the controversy and debate it sparked, especially in the Q&A session. I'm not going to get into that here, though, because I'm sure the event will be covered in great detail in the November Patriot issue, as well as other student media publications such as the Statesman and Press.
What I want to respond to here is a specific point that Spencer brought up in his talk which I found objectionable after the fact, though unfortunately I didn't think of it at the time and so didn't have the opportunity to challenge him on directly.
Spencer, who is of course famous for his book "Stealth Jihad" makes the point that the leaders of extremist Islam are trying to covertly bring Sharia law into the country. He brought up examples in which the leaders try to implement rules of Sharia under the guise of religious tolerance.
He specifically cited an incident that occurred in St. Paul, Minnesota that sparked controversy. The Muslim (mainly Somali) taxi drivers, at the instigation of their religious leaders, decided that they no longer wanted to carry passengers with alcohol on their person; this violates a passage from Islamic law. As a result, many taxicab drivers began refusing to take on passengers.
A possible solution, which was considered and discarded, was marking the cars that followed Sharia law so people carrying alcohol knew not to take those cabs. This solution was rejected primarily by the taxi companies and the reasons were, of course, economic.
Spencer objected to letting the Muslim taxi drivers get their way on the basis of civil rights. In a way, I understand his point. We tried the whole "separate but equal" thing and the result was a human rights disaster.
However, in the specific case of taxi drivers trying to follow a detail of their religion that they had previously, and most still, ignore, never, I think, in a million years would this escalate into a larger scale adoption of Sharia law in this country. The economics of the thing simply wouldn't allow it.
This is because the group that would have been the happiest about the marking of Sharia cars would have been the non-Muslim cab drivers. It would have meant less competition from their Muslim counterparts, more customers per cabby and so more fairs. The St. Paul airport's concern about increased lines, waiting times and customer frustration was unfounded, at least in the long term. Any entrepreneur exiting the airport would have seen those lines and realized that there's money to be made in the St. Paul taxicab business.
What Spencer perhaps doesn't get, is that market competition would more than make up for the lost cabbies. Taxis aren't some monopolistic government venture; imagine if some entrepreneur would have created a bus line where an individual's race was ignored during the 1960s. Such a business would have prospered from the patronage of the South's black community, especially if they could innovate technologically as well. Racial or religious intolerance doesn't last long when its not institutionalized because there will always be someone who can benefit from an 'integrated' market. In modern day St. Paul, where theoretically anybody can start a taxicab company, no cab driver would adopt a policy that costs them customers, despite religious beliefs.
The Muslim cab drivers would have quickly realized that, by listening to their religious leaders, its costing them in their pockets. Perhaps in Europe, this would cause a riot or two, governments would be forced to compensate cab drivers for the lost fair and sparked a "re-education" initiative to convince Europeans to realize the error of not understanding religious tolerance.
However, this would not happen in America. Capitalism and the spirit of self empowerment for advancement is not quite dead yet. Any person living in this country can make sacrifices for the sake of their religion, but nobody can make others pay for those sacrifices. I that that even the left realizes, to some extent, that if you expect to succeed in this country, you have to do it for yourself. No government is going to make you rich.
Muslim immigrants should understand this as well as any natural born citizen. They know as well as anyone what it takes to get ahead. This is why they're working as cab drivers in the first place. It's probably to save up enough money to send their kids to American universities so that their children can have a better life than they do. No cabbie would give up that American dream for some archaic rule that many religious Muslims don't have a problem with (this issue hasn't come up in any other Western city that I'm aware of).
The point is, that Robert Spencer can be worried about Muslim leaders trying to implement Sharia law in the west. But, as long as the capitalist spirit of competition lives on, the people who one would expect to most readily adopt Sharia law will reject it in favor of the higher standard living they came here for.
This, of course, makes it extra important for America to protect the open nature of its markets. As long as entrepreneurs are free to enter the market, we have nothing to fear from religious extremism taking root at home.
What I want to respond to here is a specific point that Spencer brought up in his talk which I found objectionable after the fact, though unfortunately I didn't think of it at the time and so didn't have the opportunity to challenge him on directly.
Spencer, who is of course famous for his book "Stealth Jihad" makes the point that the leaders of extremist Islam are trying to covertly bring Sharia law into the country. He brought up examples in which the leaders try to implement rules of Sharia under the guise of religious tolerance.
He specifically cited an incident that occurred in St. Paul, Minnesota that sparked controversy. The Muslim (mainly Somali) taxi drivers, at the instigation of their religious leaders, decided that they no longer wanted to carry passengers with alcohol on their person; this violates a passage from Islamic law. As a result, many taxicab drivers began refusing to take on passengers.
A possible solution, which was considered and discarded, was marking the cars that followed Sharia law so people carrying alcohol knew not to take those cabs. This solution was rejected primarily by the taxi companies and the reasons were, of course, economic.
Spencer objected to letting the Muslim taxi drivers get their way on the basis of civil rights. In a way, I understand his point. We tried the whole "separate but equal" thing and the result was a human rights disaster.
However, in the specific case of taxi drivers trying to follow a detail of their religion that they had previously, and most still, ignore, never, I think, in a million years would this escalate into a larger scale adoption of Sharia law in this country. The economics of the thing simply wouldn't allow it.
This is because the group that would have been the happiest about the marking of Sharia cars would have been the non-Muslim cab drivers. It would have meant less competition from their Muslim counterparts, more customers per cabby and so more fairs. The St. Paul airport's concern about increased lines, waiting times and customer frustration was unfounded, at least in the long term. Any entrepreneur exiting the airport would have seen those lines and realized that there's money to be made in the St. Paul taxicab business.
What Spencer perhaps doesn't get, is that market competition would more than make up for the lost cabbies. Taxis aren't some monopolistic government venture; imagine if some entrepreneur would have created a bus line where an individual's race was ignored during the 1960s. Such a business would have prospered from the patronage of the South's black community, especially if they could innovate technologically as well. Racial or religious intolerance doesn't last long when its not institutionalized because there will always be someone who can benefit from an 'integrated' market. In modern day St. Paul, where theoretically anybody can start a taxicab company, no cab driver would adopt a policy that costs them customers, despite religious beliefs.
The Muslim cab drivers would have quickly realized that, by listening to their religious leaders, its costing them in their pockets. Perhaps in Europe, this would cause a riot or two, governments would be forced to compensate cab drivers for the lost fair and sparked a "re-education" initiative to convince Europeans to realize the error of not understanding religious tolerance.
However, this would not happen in America. Capitalism and the spirit of self empowerment for advancement is not quite dead yet. Any person living in this country can make sacrifices for the sake of their religion, but nobody can make others pay for those sacrifices. I that that even the left realizes, to some extent, that if you expect to succeed in this country, you have to do it for yourself. No government is going to make you rich.
Muslim immigrants should understand this as well as any natural born citizen. They know as well as anyone what it takes to get ahead. This is why they're working as cab drivers in the first place. It's probably to save up enough money to send their kids to American universities so that their children can have a better life than they do. No cabbie would give up that American dream for some archaic rule that many religious Muslims don't have a problem with (this issue hasn't come up in any other Western city that I'm aware of).
The point is, that Robert Spencer can be worried about Muslim leaders trying to implement Sharia law in the west. But, as long as the capitalist spirit of competition lives on, the people who one would expect to most readily adopt Sharia law will reject it in favor of the higher standard living they came here for.
This, of course, makes it extra important for America to protect the open nature of its markets. As long as entrepreneurs are free to enter the market, we have nothing to fear from religious extremism taking root at home.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
It Isn't Over
According to Zogby, this race is not even close to being over:
"Zogby said the race mirrors the 1980 election, when voters didn’t embrace Ronald Reagan over then-President Jimmy Carter until just days before the election.This is right. Ford-Dole caught up twenty points to Carter-Mondale in their election in the '76 election. John McCain has a lot of time to narrow the gap. In this wacky election that you just can't make up, thirty days is the equivalent of a political eternity. There is plenty of time for Barack Obama to slip up, or for Barack Obama to be exposed.
“The Sunday before the election the dam burst,” Zogby said of the 1980 tilt. “That’s when voters determined they were comfortable with Reagan.”
Now voters are wrestling with two senators with opposite resumes - Obama, at 47, the unknown, and the established 72-year-old McCain.
Zogby said he’s still hearing from moderates and non-partisan voters - what he calls “the big middle” - who are still shopping for a candidate.
“It still can break one way or the other,” Zogby says."
Monday, October 6, 2008
The Gloves Come Off:
Here it is folks, the red meat you've been waiting for:
"Our current economic crisis is a good case in point. What was his actual record in the years before the great economic crisis of our lifetimes?
This crisis started in our housing market in the form of subprime loans that were pushed on people who could not afford them. Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread. This corruption was encouraged by Democrats in Congress, and abetted by Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has accused me of opposing regulation to avert this crisis. I guess he believes if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough it will be believed. But the truth is I was the one who called at the time for tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that could have helped prevent this crisis from happening in the first place.
Senator Obama was silent on the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and his Democratic allies in Congress opposed every effort to rein them in. As recently as September of last year he said that subprime loans had been, quote, “a good idea.” Well, Senator Obama, that “good idea” has now plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
To hear him talk now, you’d think he’d always opposed the dangerous practices at these institutions. But there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest he did. He was surely familiar with the people who were creating this problem. The executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have advised him, and he has taken their money for his campaign. He has received more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other senator in history, with the exception of the chairman of the committee overseeing them.
Did he ever talk to the executives at Fannie and Freddie about these reckless loans? Did he ever discuss with them the stronger oversight I proposed? If Senator Obama is such a champion of financial regulation, why didn’t he support these regulations that could have prevented this crisis in the first place? He won’t tell you, but you deserve an answer."
This is red meat at its most raw.
John McCain now has a fighting chance, and it is strong. He must walk into the debate with a no holds-barred assault on Obama's economic beliefs and policies, and his ties to the mortgage crisis. Stand up and fight!
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Sarah Palin Makes Less Than Joe Blow Biden, but Gives MORE to Charity???
How could this be?!
Well, conservatives usually give more. Duh. You see, my friends, there is a narrative that if you are conservative, you don't care about others. You don't care about the unfortunate, or the unlucky, or those who made poor decisions. You look down upon them in all their squalor, chuckling to yourself, "patting yourself on the back as you scoff" (Say Anything, anyone?).
Wrong.
Here is a little factoid the left doesn't want you to hear:
Conservatives are more charitable than liberals.
The Biden family makes more than the Palin family, yet gives so substantially less its laughable.
"Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made considerably less money than rival Sen. Joe Biden, but the Palin family gave more to charity in the last two years than Biden has in the last eight combined, according to Palin’s tax records released Friday afternoon."
Liberals only want to be charitable with other people's money.
You see, conservatives are not against giving. They are against compulsion to give, as everyone should have the free will to give or not.
And we know the liberals are exercising their free will not to.
;-)
Friday, October 3, 2008
More Obama-ganda
Via NewsBusters:
It seems more and more Stanlist as days go by. Man, you Obamanites are some freaky-deaky, obsessed people.
I suppose that is what happens when you can't comprehend the utter ridiculousness of his beliefs; you must focus on the persona, and worhip that.
Forget Hitler Youth, here is Obama Youth!
Funny how the one kid at the end says, "Because of Obama, I am the next entrepreneur," or something.
Well, with all the taxes Obambi plans on bringing forth upon a possible presidency, I don't see that entrepreneurship going too well.
Tee hee.
I suppose that is what happens when you can't comprehend the utter ridiculousness of his beliefs; you must focus on the persona, and worhip that.
Forget Hitler Youth, here is Obama Youth!
Funny how the one kid at the end says, "Because of Obama, I am the next entrepreneur," or something.
Well, with all the taxes Obambi plans on bringing forth upon a possible presidency, I don't see that entrepreneurship going too well.
Tee hee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
