Robert Spencer:
Pamela Geller:
Showing posts with label CPAC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CPAC. Show all posts
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Recommended Reading
See The Lexicon wars: the meaning of jihad by Tammy Swofford in the Daily Times Pakistan. Excerpt:Everyone hates the truth. The more visible jihad of recent decades falls in the category of mass murder, chaos, and anarchyRead the rest HERE.
Cast of characters:
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Pamela Geller and the American Freedom Defence Initiative
Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2013
Robert Spencer: Jihad Watch
If you own the language you control the dialogue. If you control the dialogue you have the ability to censor thought. If you censor thought you can infiltrate culture. Freedom of expression remains the breastplate of our American freedom. There are many who do not understand this dynamic. They speak against the very guarantee of our liberty. For me the issue is quite simple. Freedom of expression is a process and not an outcome....
Wednesday, March 06, 2013
Jihad Watch Wins CPAC Award, Barred From Receiving It
Robert Spencer writes:
I was surprised and honored that Jihad Watch was among the nominees for the People's Choice Blog Award, sponsored by Right Wing News and TheTeaParty.net, to be awarded at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2013.Read the rest HERE.
... Jihad Watch won decisively, getting over 50% of the vote in a field of fifteen....
But as time went by and no announcement was made of this victory, and the voting continued despite my having been told that it officially ended last Friday night and that I had won, and the promised links and other placement promised to the winning blog didn't materialize, I started to wonder. So I contacted the organizer who had written me telling me I won and asked him what was going on.
He told me that there was a slight problem: the Tea Party group, which co-sponsored this People's Choice Blog Award, didn't want to allow me to receive it at CPAC next week unless I promised not to criticize Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan as I accepted the award.
I told the organizer that I couldn't agree to that. He asked me if I had planned to talk about Grover and Suhail. I said no, I hadn't, but I had to now.
So that's that. The People's Choice Blog Award is now the Grover's Choice Blog Award. I will not be going to CPAC and will not be receiving this award.
And since I will not be allowed to receive this award at CPAC, I will talk about Norquist and Khan here....
Pamela Geller has also been shut out of CPAC 2013.
We're back to the 9/10 mindset — and not only inside the Obama administration.
We are witnessing the further marginalization of the anti-jihad movement.
Prepare for the reaping of the whirlwind.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Ron Paul wins CPAC straw poll.. if that's the final result .. I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR HIM
Ron Paul accepted money KNOWINGLY as it turned out from Don Black of Stormfront, who appeared (s) weekly with David Duke on his radio show espousing what Duke espouses HAPPILY.
Ron Paul refused to return it.
Ron Paul's refusal and his dalliances with the racist at birth John Birch society will UNQUESTIONABLY draw a sure defeat from likely victories in 2010 and 2012.
His backing, movement, backers, CULT LEADERS and money men should be publicly held to task for this.
He will NEVER get my vote for his actions which put him as outside the mainstream of America as is Barack Obama.
His election if such a calamity ocurred would be the rebirth of progressivism just as Obama's absurd excesses have given life to everything to their right
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_a.png?x-id=6ffc0004-bf04-49cc-ada9-7915298b02c1)
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Ron Paul, Pamela Geller and Culturism at CPAC
At CPAC three positions on Islam were apparent. One was represented by Pamela Geller’s “Freedom Defense Initiative” conference. The second came from the Ron Paul followers. And the third appeared in the conference’s otherwise deafening silence on Islam. Culturism has a lot to say about all three positions.
Ron Paul’s followers believe that Islamic terrorist attacks result from our overbearing presence in the Middle East. Therefore, they recommend pulling our troops out of that region. As a culturist, I agree that we should not be nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a culturist I believe the project of turning these nations into progressive democracies with respect for individual rights will fail because their cultures will not support such changes. And I agree with Ron Paul’s argument for disengagement based on our inability to afford these nation-building enterprises. Western culturists know that if the West is not solvent our values will die globally.
But none of Paul’s followers could explain why the Jihad in Thailand and India exist. Neither nation has military bases outside of their own borders. As multiculturalists do, the followers of Paul fail to appreciate that diversity is real and important. Diversity is not just about food, festivals, and fashion. Some cultures drop out of school early and think teen pregnancy is not so bad. Other cultures think our way of life is a blasphemous affront to God. Diversity is real and important. Overlooking the cultural aspects of Jihad will not safeguard us.
Geller’s event explained domestic Jihad initiatives. Whereas Paul could not believe that an aggressive Islam for Islam’s sake exists, Geller’s speakers clearly showed that it can and does exist. As a culturist, I agreed with their domestic solution. We need culturist profiling at airports. We need to limit Islamic immigration. That is not, by the way, racist - it is culturist. And, we need to recognize that western cultural practices and laws are the norm and standard in western nations. We should not recognize Sharia courts or allow, for example, veils in photo Identification. Unlike multiculturalists, culturists recognize that the West has a culture to protect and promote. Domestically Geller’s group was very culturist.
Culturism and Geller diverge on foreign policy. Culturism believes in national cultural sovereignty. Allen West said we should seek to defeat Islam, not Muslims. I am unclear how the two are to be separated. Quoting Ronald Reagan, he said victory means “we win, they lose.” That statement holds too little nuance for me. We all agree on bombing Iran’s nuclear sites and being aggressive in regions of Afghanistan that harbor terrorist. But culturists do not believe we will convert Islamic nations by the sword. If we want the sovereignty to pursue culturist policies domestically, we must also grant that right to other nations. We are not the world. We are the West. The idea that we will convert Islam nations by the sword is, as Ron Paul says, a dangerous proposition we cannot afford.
At CPAC the third position on Islam, and the largest, was overwhelming silence. Outside of Ron Paul’s “Why real conservatives don’t support the war on terror” meeting and Geller’s event, few deemed Islam worth discussing. Ron Paul at least wants to debate our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Geller schooled the conference on domestic threats. We conservatives, as Americans and as Westerners, need to accept culturist position that our culture is not that of the world. Diversity exists internationally. Furthermore, we must shake off the multicultural position that the West has no core culture to protect. Geller and Paul have done us a great service in making conservatives think about the West’s relationship to Islam.
www.culturism.us
Ron Paul’s followers believe that Islamic terrorist attacks result from our overbearing presence in the Middle East. Therefore, they recommend pulling our troops out of that region. As a culturist, I agree that we should not be nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a culturist I believe the project of turning these nations into progressive democracies with respect for individual rights will fail because their cultures will not support such changes. And I agree with Ron Paul’s argument for disengagement based on our inability to afford these nation-building enterprises. Western culturists know that if the West is not solvent our values will die globally.
But none of Paul’s followers could explain why the Jihad in Thailand and India exist. Neither nation has military bases outside of their own borders. As multiculturalists do, the followers of Paul fail to appreciate that diversity is real and important. Diversity is not just about food, festivals, and fashion. Some cultures drop out of school early and think teen pregnancy is not so bad. Other cultures think our way of life is a blasphemous affront to God. Diversity is real and important. Overlooking the cultural aspects of Jihad will not safeguard us.
Geller’s event explained domestic Jihad initiatives. Whereas Paul could not believe that an aggressive Islam for Islam’s sake exists, Geller’s speakers clearly showed that it can and does exist. As a culturist, I agreed with their domestic solution. We need culturist profiling at airports. We need to limit Islamic immigration. That is not, by the way, racist - it is culturist. And, we need to recognize that western cultural practices and laws are the norm and standard in western nations. We should not recognize Sharia courts or allow, for example, veils in photo Identification. Unlike multiculturalists, culturists recognize that the West has a culture to protect and promote. Domestically Geller’s group was very culturist.
Culturism and Geller diverge on foreign policy. Culturism believes in national cultural sovereignty. Allen West said we should seek to defeat Islam, not Muslims. I am unclear how the two are to be separated. Quoting Ronald Reagan, he said victory means “we win, they lose.” That statement holds too little nuance for me. We all agree on bombing Iran’s nuclear sites and being aggressive in regions of Afghanistan that harbor terrorist. But culturists do not believe we will convert Islamic nations by the sword. If we want the sovereignty to pursue culturist policies domestically, we must also grant that right to other nations. We are not the world. We are the West. The idea that we will convert Islam nations by the sword is, as Ron Paul says, a dangerous proposition we cannot afford.
At CPAC the third position on Islam, and the largest, was overwhelming silence. Outside of Ron Paul’s “Why real conservatives don’t support the war on terror” meeting and Geller’s event, few deemed Islam worth discussing. Ron Paul at least wants to debate our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Geller schooled the conference on domestic threats. We conservatives, as Americans and as Westerners, need to accept culturist position that our culture is not that of the world. Diversity exists internationally. Furthermore, we must shake off the multicultural position that the West has no core culture to protect. Geller and Paul have done us a great service in making conservatives think about the West’s relationship to Islam.
www.culturism.us
Monday, March 02, 2009
Check Out This Comment At Jihad Watch
This thread, by a commenter named " yemenman" (emphases mine):
A lot of what the commenter said is so much crap that we're used to hearing.
But does he have a point? That the West doesn't stand up for itself?
I don't think this will pass. First of all, in Islam, Rasulullah (peace and blessings be upon Him) is very highly regarded. Not like Jesus or Moses are regarded in their respective religions, Muhammad is the red line you non-Muslims cannot cross.The title of the posting to which that comment was made -- Wilders: "I propose the withdrawal of all hate speech legislation in Europe. I propose a European First Amendment."
How can you regulate the situation, say the Danish cartoon situation, if a billion people are boiling mad? Do you go on TV and say, hey, remember the First Amendment? or would you go around the Arab street telling people, "of course hate speech needs to be protected, otherwise why protect speech at all?" This logic works in a liberal, academic setting, but if people's basest emotion (of raw love to the Prophet) are hurt, then get ready for backlash. Causing anger might be "protected" in your fancy Western notion of freedom, but Islam goes straight to human nature and understands it. That is why hate speech is NOT protected in Islam -- it goes against the nature of human. Those who do nothing while their beliefs are trampled (or having their icons dipped in urine, for example) have a thin instinct of survival. They won't last another century.
That's why Islam will prevail. It cuts through all bullshit about freedom and goes straight to human nature. That's why Islam conquered the world barely 200 years after Muhammad's departure. People know that Islam is the real thing, not some theoretic framework made up by philosophers.
I hope this convinces you all that any efforts like those mentioned by Goat Wilders above are doomed to fail. You cannot suppress human nature. Islam is the solution. Aslam Taslim!
A lot of what the commenter said is so much crap that we're used to hearing.
But does he have a point? That the West doesn't stand up for itself?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)