After watching part of the second Republican debate last night, things started to become very clear for me on at least one point: the Democrats shouldn’t win the White House.
Why?
The root answer is very simple, but still deserves explanation, so I won’t drag this out longer than necessary, but I will get into some detail: The only candidates that are talking about “Global Jihad” and “Radical Islam” and “Immigration” as being the most important issues reside on the Right, not the Left.
In addition to that, even Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who made his points last night on Iraq being a quagmire, wasn’t completely wrong. He’s wrong in reasoning that the “enemy” would have left us alone years ago, or would leave us in peace today if we suddenly became more empathetic to them and hadn’t ever dropped a bomb in Iraq prior to 9-11 or afterwards, but he’s not wrong in understanding that moving out of Iraq may very well be in our best interest. Colorado Congressman Tancredo, on the other hand, said basically the same thing as Ron Paul when it comes to leaving Iraq, but in less controversial language because Tancredo doesn’t perceive the United States as “starting” this war between the forces of Islam in the Middle East and the West. He simply sees what I and others (like Hugh Fitzgerald over at Jihad Watch) see — that trying to force a victory in Iraq by old rules isn’t going to work, and it if does, the cost will be too great in American, British and other Allied lives. And anyway, the Islamists aren’t ever going to leave us alone. They want the United States. They want Europe. The evidence of this pervades the news every single day.
The Republican candidates to watch right now are Romney and Giulliani. McCain won’t win.
John McCain means well, and I supported him strongly back in 2000, but I’ve since come to believe several things about John today. One thing I see is that he’s too old for the job ahead. He’s lost steam in his current campaign and it’s only going to get harder for him as the other candidates get stronger and more face time and as the really big dogs eventually enter the race (i.e. Fred Thompson, Newt). The biggest factor against McCain now though is that he’s simply not talking the strongest language on the War on Terror. He’s not willing to confront Islam like I feel Romney and Giuliani would. McCain uses terms like “radical Islamic extremists” and for anyone that’s been here long enough should know, I steer clear of such apologetic slogans when I talk about the Islamic enemy. There’s nothing “radical” about “good Muslims”, there’s simply something “lazy” and “disingenuous” about “moderate” ones.
McCain is also lackluster when it comes to Illegal Immigration and I can’t let that slide. I have a long memory.
And there’s something bigger about McCain that bothers me, something I can’t quite put my finger on but that I perceive none-the-less: I think that the former backers of Bush are now behind McCain. I know that this might seem crazy, but he’s the most likely dog for their “status quo” mentality. Yes, the very same “rich guys” that put out virulent campaign ads that smeared McCain back when he first attempted to get the Republican nomination back in 2000 are now most likely to be behind him for President before they’d support any of the other current contenders. I don’t want any strong Bush backers back in power in Washington with their fingers in the pie and their lobbyists at work. Sorry. It’s time to move on and it’s certainly time to cut ties with Saudi Arabian oil.
As for who looks the best right now? Once again, the surprise is Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney is like the “ice-man” of the current campaign. He’s never ruffled, never flustered, never off-message and never breaks a sweat. He looks like an American President. The man is simply a professional campaigner, no bones about it. He’s come from relative obscurity to the front of the polls in a very short time and I’ve been admiring his language. He is the only person in the campaign other than Tom Tancredo that is currently addressing “Global Jihad” and “Illegal Immigration” as being his primary concerns. And he’s extremely consistent on these topics. Now, this is a fairly big deal coming from me, because I’m a big fan of Rudy Giuliani from back when I was going through the 9-11 experience with rest of the country. And honestly, I’m starting to think that the idea of a “Rudy McRomney” ticket really isn’t just a funny slogan, though I’m thinking that leaving out the “Mac” might make a better burger. But Romney has gotten my full attention thus far.
Now the truly ironic part here is that Romney is a Mormon — a branch of Christianity that by all rights is no-less cultist in its origins than Islam is. However, the big difference is, as I’ve pointed out in other discussions about attempts at equivalence between Islam and Christianity, is that whether or not some of us might have misgivings about the realities behind Mormonism, the fact remains that Jesus Christ and his teachings are the foundation of the Mormon Church, and Muhammad is the center of Islam. Perhaps it’s Fate at work that two heretical off-shoots from Judeo-Christian belief systems would now be possibly running straight at each other like steaming trains. Because, as you must see, it’s far better to have someone in Washington who believes in the peaceful and gentle “spirit” of Jesus than it ever would be to have a Muslim in charge. I think Romney gets that message loud and clear. He might not ever be able to wipe away the stigma of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young from Mormon history, but he certainly can prove that he’s a follower of the ideals of Jesus Christ, and that my friends, is never a bad thing.
No person needs to believe or disbelieve in a religion, God, Heaven or Hell to come to understand that the philosophies of Jesus Christ are worth emulating and that those of Muhammad are worth defeating.
The Democrats don’t have anything like we see on the Republican ticket. They don’t have any bulls in the ring or persons of solid values. They don’t have the fight, or the real conviction to fight against the Islamic threat. And this, gentle readers, is why the Democrats shouldn’t win in 2008.
Now, it’s up to us to make sure that the right people get into the White House. At this point it’s far too early to declare who I’m fully backing and hopefully most of you are still on the fence watching, too. But I hope that what I’ve written today helps you decide what you should be looking for. We have got to stop Islam from strangling the United States with its hidden agendas and openly hostile terrorist acts, and we also must seal the borders tightly against further incursions of illegals. These are the two greatest issues on the table, and anyone that says otherwise is a fool.
So, please, put aside some of your preconceived notions about these candidates and some of your own bias and listen to what they are saying. Listen to the issues and find those voices that ring truthful. And in the next few months, when you hear more of what I’m talking about today coming through those voices, you’ll know who to pull that lever for when the time comes. The very future of the country depends on our wise choice. You know it as well as I do.
Podcasts Archive
@Rich: Unfortunately, as much as we might try to wish away the threat of Islamic jihad, it is quite real and all the machinations of every politician in Washington, DC amount to nothing when compared to the stark realities that would face us in the aftermath of nuclear terror.
I simply do not buy into conspiracy theories, because U.S. politicians can be handled, but Islamic terrorists have to be killed. As dirty as the game is played in politics, war is something else altogether and I can’t for a minute believe that George W. would be smart enough to manufacture the entire bin Laden/Al Qaeda trigger in order to alert someone like me to Islam’s existence. How long have we heard how “stupid” George W. is? Can it be both ways?
Of course, he’s not “stupid” but neither do I believe that he is “evil” — just misguided and very poorly advised.
Muhammad declared war on the world with his dying breath (”Let there not be two religions in Arabia.”) and we are seeing the consequences of his great and terrible lies today.
As for “scarce resources”, there is no more bountiful continent in the world than North America. I am hardly concerned that we could not fend for ourselves if pushed and live quite well. If we do find out that U.S. leaders have manufactured all of this, then we hang them. Simple as that.
And it would happen, believe me. Evil isn’t immune to righteous retribution, which is also why I am probably alive today to confront Islam.
Hi Foehammer,
Your example of the Barbary Pirates/Ottoman Empire is interesting and leads to what I consider the crux of the issue. In my opinion, the primary motives for both piracy and empire building are to confiscate wealth and control resources. In the case of the Barbary Pirates/Ottoman Empire, these mis-deeds were rationalized by leaders within the empire under certain parts of Islamic law (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pir...ited_States_and_the_Barbary_Wars)
However, the theme of “confiscating wealth and controlling resources” is not unique to Islamic empire. Parts of Christian philosophy were used by the Spanish empire to rationalize the brutality of the Inquisition, where the primary motive was to regain power and confiscate wealth from the conversos. The Cultural Revolution in China used parts of the Communist philosophy in order to rationalize the elimination of China’s “liberal bourgeoisie” elements and to continue revolutionary class struggle. However, its primary motive was to regain control of the party, since the disastrous Great Leap Forward led to a significant loss of Mao’s power (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_revolution ). Some might argue that the US is currently building an empire under the guise of “spreading democracy”, when the primary reason may be to gain control of scarce natural resources.
Focusing on Islam (or any religious or political philosophy) may be a diversion to what we should really be focusing on, which is how to limit the advancement of corrupt men in places of power who desire excessive wealth and/or control, and who may radicalize popular philosophies in order to accomplish their goals.
Comments?
Rich
Sure, I have data to the contrary. Ever heard of the Barbary Pirates? The Ottoman Empire? We’ve been fighting Muslims since shortly after the United States was founded.
Muslims invited the United States into the Middle East to pull up their oil for them. We did not invite ourselves in.
Nations like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are very quick to rely on us for protection, and then turn around and spit on us as infidels when they can get away with it — but put up commercials on U.S. television when the American people become rightly agitated.
Yes, it would be so very easy to believe that Islam will leave us alone if we put aside our national interests, stop trading with the rest of the world and become Fortress America, but unfortunately, that’s not the mandate of Islam. The toppling of the United States is a goal of Islamists now more than ever because we are the one major obstacle to world domination for the militant geo-political entity that is Islam. It would be stupid to assume otherwise.
Don’t want to believe that? Then please explain why the Islamists are making life hell for the secularists in every nation on Earth where Muslims rate over 10% of the population. Look at recent happenings in Pakistan and Turkey — where vast majority Muslim nations are being rocked by Islamists to push aside any strides that have historically been made in those countries towards secular government.
The mistakes we made when confronting Islam weren’t in being there, or being too aggressive — quite the opposite. Our mistakes happen when we are not aggressive enough!
We should have retaliated with massive force when the Marines died in Lebanon. We should have bombed Iran’s new Islamic regime into rubble after the hostages returned home. We should have destroyed Saddam the first time. We should have killed bin Laden when we had the chance 2 or 3 times prior to 9-11. And on and on and on….
Just like today we are making the same mistake again by not hammering Iran’s nuclear ambitions into dust and telling Syria to knock off their mucking around in our Middle Eastern affairs or face our wrath, too. Just like we continue to let Saudi Arabia pretend to be our ally, and how we do not hang a bastard like al-Sadr from the nearest tree.
No, being gentle is not the answer. Not at all.
Hi Everyone,
Thanks for your comments. I’ve been doing some research regarding “how many terrorist attacks against the US since perhaps 1900 could be attributed (at least in part) to US foreign policy”, and found one website that gives a summary of significant terrorist attacks perpetrated against the US since 1920. A link to the site is below (I’ve also included the information from the website at the end of this message).
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html
The data from the website shows that significant attacks by Islamic extremists against the US did not begin until 1979. If the Islamic extremists hate the US primarily because it is mostly non-muslim — and the US has been mostly non-muslim since its founding in 1776 — why are there no significant attacks by Islamic extremists against the US before 1979? If anyone has data to the contrary, please post. Thanks!
Rich
———————————–
Terrorist Attacks
(within the United States or against Americans abroad)
1920
Sept. 16, New York City: TNT bomb planted in unattended horse-drawn wagon exploded on Wall Street opposite House of Morgan, killing 35 people and injuring hundreds more. Bolshevist or anarchist terrorists believed responsible, but crime never solved.
1975
Jan. 24, New York City: bomb set off in historic Fraunces Tavern killed 4 and injured more than 50 people. Puerto Rican nationalist group (FALN) claimed responsibility, and police tied 13 other bombings to the group.
1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan’s inauguration.
1982–1991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.
1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.
1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.
1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.
Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.
1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.
1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims’ families.
1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly 2 years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters.)
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.
1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.
2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.
2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)
2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
2004
May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
2006
Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy was foiled.
2007
Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy was fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
Which is exactly why, in a secular nation, I am constantly appalled that this is being dragged out into the debates. I wish people would leave it alone and realize that if they believe so strongly in God, let him/her/it judge the souls of those who choose to undergo abortions.
I know it won’t go away, but I’m convinced that it’s made into an issue only because it helps draw attention away from much larger and more important ones. And because it’s easy to polarize the two major parties on.
Abortion is a religious issue. Let God judge. That’s my stand on that.
Right now my concern is only finding leaders that will fight Islam.
I understand what you mean, but right now abortion is more than a religious issue, it is a political issue. What a candidate states about it may, or may not get him/her elected. This may be a disadvantage to getting the kind of leaders we want. All candidates are asked about it at every interview. Obviously someone thinks thier answers are important…
Abortion is a tough subject, but I know it means a lot to a lot of people. I don’t believe it will be an election issue here. (I don’t believe in late abortions, but other than that it is for the woman, her conscience, and her doctor to decide as it is not a black and white issue.Just MHO).
Fohemammer is correct about islam. I only hope many of our candidates are simply not saying out loud what they really think.
I believe down under most muslims would not vote conservative so the other (Labor party) side will, and has done a lot to ensure they are here and getting seats in government.Some people here call them “vote whores”!
It annoys me that the government here also gives muslims grants in a bid to curry favour which I am sure will not help one bit in the long run.
Abortion is a religious issue. Let God judge. That’s my stand on that.
Right now my concern is only finding leaders that will fight Islam.
Foehammers right. Islam has been at war with the rest of the world since its inception. One of the main reasons they cant get over it is this: Qur’an:8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”
This is an absolute, and direct order from Allah/Mohammad. And it has no time limitations. It applys today as much as it did when Allah issued it. Notice the use of the word ‘all’, used twice. In the furthest extension of this verse, the world would be Islamic, and even the survival of dhimmis would be at risk. Of course they need a few dhimmis to do the work…the rest are toast…
As one of the worlds greatest non believers, I aint gunna convert, and I aint agunna be no dhummmy for any Islamicomical masters.
None of the candidates are good enough for me. They wont properly identify the enemy, nor will Rudy, or the rest explain exactly why they hate abortion. We know what liberals think. They dont have the capacity to think beyond expediancy. But Republicans/concervatives have anti-abortion on the platform, so you might expect that they know, and can articulate why that is. The acid test should be this.
” What is it that us developing in the womb”? If the answer is a fetus, or just a piece of tissue, the person is a liberal and should not be running as a Rep/con.