A Troubling Influence - An Islamic Fifth Column penetrates the White House

FrontPageMagazine ^ | 12/09/03 | Frank J Gaffney Jr.

[Rebelbase]

"Traitors among us must be exposed."

I agree. But what responsiblity does the President have for retaining this man as long as he has? This is not the first time his ties to Islam have been questioned.

[Poohbah]

There are a few loudmouth Christians (Gary North and other "theonomists" and "Christian Dominionists" come to mind) who demand that we stone people to death for blasphemy and such. Do you judge all of Christianity by the conduct of people like Gary North? Or do they get some sort of pass?

I know I've seen you post a similar accusation in the past. North is widely published, so a quote of his should be easy to provide- where's your evidence that he says this?

Reason Magazine, November 1998, "Invitation to a Stoning". Read it and weep.

[Taxman]

I have no idea what the hold Grover has over the Republican establishment.

[ml/nj]

Who decides for conservatives which money is "clean" and which money is "dirty"?

Aren't some things patently obvious?

Did you have any trouble deciding whether the money Bill Clinton collected from the Chinese Communists at those "coffees" he held was clean or dirty?

ML/NJ

[hchutch]

1. To be very blunt, the people talking "culture war" scare me as much as the left-wingers do. I also dispute the clash of civilizations - I have posted earlier, outlining where the Koran does NOT condone the terrorism of al-Qaeda and others. There is substantial reason to believe that we are fighting those who would hijack Islam for the purposes of gaining power, something that has happened to other religions in the past.

2. The culture whose loss you decry did NOT protect the religious freedom of my ancestors. I also wonder if blacks would also trade today's culture for the one you miss. I'm sorry, but you have not made the case that those cultural norms are better than today's.

[ml/nj]

You are the one saying that Norquist should have known they were bad guys.

You'll likely ignore this, as you have my other questions to you on this thread, or dismiss my question here as a non-sequiter. But here goes:

Do you think Bill Clinton should have gone to Moscow as a guest of the Soviets when he was a student at Oxford?

ML/NJ

[hchutch]

Excellent explanation.

[hchutch]

Again, I have known of several folks who consider Microsoft's money "dirty money" - who think it should have been broken up. I strongly disagreed with the enetire anti-trust case.

Conservatives have disagreed on other issues over the past dozen years. It seems that some are willing to try to read people out of the movement over disagreements. I did not know Mikhail Suslov's style was back. I also did not know that you were appointed the arbiter of who is and is not a conservative.

[ml/nj]

See post #184.

Benedict Arnold was a good guy too.

Mister Grover Norquist was fighting the good fight, when you blokes were just a bulge in your daddy's polyester slacks.

That now tiresome line won't work on me. I'm older than Norquist.

ML/NJ

[ml/nj]

Well. I was right. You ignored this question too.

I asked:

Do you think Bill Clinton should have gone to Moscow as a guest of the Soviets when he was a student at Oxford?

and you answered:

Again, I have known of several folks who consider Microsoft's money "dirty money" - who think it should have been broken up. I strongly disagreed with the enetire anti-trust case.

I respectfully suggest you stay away until to are prepared to engage in honest debate. This isn't a Clinton press conferenece.

ML/NJ

[hchutch]

You're hardly one to talk about honest debate.

[ml/nj]

You're hardly one to talk about honest debate.

Stop me when I say something that isn't true.

ML/NJ

[Zionist Conspirator]

That would explain why the BigGov neocons are trying to purge anti-tax warrior Norquest.

The charge that "neocons" are "pro-big government" are thoroughly hypocritical, as I have stated time and time again. "Palaeos" are opposed only to "big government" in America but support it in places like Spain, Portugal, etc. I'm sure if a Franco, Salazar, or Papadopoulos arose in America they'd be all for him.

[hchutch]

I just have to go back to Post 48.
"Islam isn't a religion."

[Zionist Conspirator]

PaleoConservatives are not "social liberals". They tend tobe civilizational or Christian conservatives. Most belong to the orthodox branches of their faiths. Most Pre-Vatican II Catholics I know are paleos.

I was theorizing that some of the "social liberals" defending Norquist are "palaeo" poseurs who are merely adopting a stance in order to defend anti-Semites. I did not mean to imply that I believed "palaeos" were actually social liberals.

[Zionist Conspirator]

You've got it wrong. I'm more along the lines of the neo-conservatives in terms of foreign policy. think David Frum was correct with his "Unpatriotic Conservatives" article, I might add. Don't think you can pin me down that easily, or even accuse me of being a paleocon. I have nothing but hostility towards them. At a minimum, they tolerate anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry.

You failed to address my concerns that you seem to be an enlightenment-style religious relativist to whom anyone who takes his religion seriously (ie, believes it is actually true) is a dangerous extremist.

What are your grounds for condemning anti-Semitism, bigotry, or anything else as objectively evil? Only an Omnipotent Creator can define what is good and what is evil.

And no, you're wrong. I don't care how "barbaric" that sounds, it is simply true!

[ml/nj]

I just have to go back to Post 48. "Islam isn't a religion."

I would think you might have the decency to quote the whole thing back. But decency doesn't appear to be your strong suit.

I stand by my entire remark in #48.

ML/NJ

[hchutch]

I really don't care about your concerns. Nothing I post is going to change your mind on that front.

But I DO care when you falsely portray my tolerance of people's decision on how they decide to view God - a decision that is quite personal - as a sign that I am a "religious relativist".

My religion's view on this (yes, I am Mormon) is clear: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

The decision of how to worship is between a person, their conscience, a priest/rabbi/imam/whatever, and God. Unless their actions in the exercise of that religion violate the rights of others.

As far as I know, the Founding Fathers pretty much insisted on the same thing - or will you next accuse me of misreading the First Amendment?

[hchutch]

Again, I do not think decency is yours, either.

You've pretty much been very good at tossing bombs, as opposed to a rational debate. You also seem to be mortified that someone just might come to a different conclusion than you did.

Tell me, do you take after Mikahil Suslov or Hillary Rodham Clinton?

[ml/nj]

Tell me, do you take after Mikahil Suslov or Hillary Rodham Clinton?

You win. You've nailed it.

Well, I like old Hillary.
I think you heard me right.

ML/NJ