AT ISSUE: Malkin, not Obama, the thoughtless one
By Charles Gueck
Monday, July 21, 2008
Michelle Malkin's July 17 column "Misunderstood jihadis" called recommendations made in an article written by Sen. Barack Obama following 9/11 on how to stop future terrorist attacks by Muslims as a "self-parody of blind, deaf and dumb Kumbaya liberalism."
It clearly was not so, although I must say that her column could be considered to be a self-parody of blind, deaf and dumb ditto-head conservatism. Obama eloquently defined the 9/11 tragedy as being conceived and implemented by demagogues whose particular brand of violence involved the intent to murder, terrorize and humiliate the American people to promote their terrorist agenda.
Despite Malkin's distorted attempt to discredit Obama's comprehension of one of the most serious threats to the American people, Obama showed an exceptional grasp of the problem presented by Islamic extremists, along with an ability to appropriately conceptualize the situation and to offer us potential solutions. His assessment was accurate then and it remains so today.
As a professional social worker I took particular offense at Malkin's statement that "bleeding heart Obama thinks a master's degree in social work would have convinced poverty-stricken, helpless, ignorant, despairing (terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh) Mohammed to change his mind."
Obama in fact contends that extremists such as Mohammed, and others like him, capitalize on the poverty, ignorance, and despair of their people to advance their own thirst for power and influence.
Obama's understanding of KSM's motives and his methods, like the assessment skills and understanding of professional social workers, offers us all the opportunity to craft solutions, to remove the power that others have over us, and to overcome the barriers that we are faced with in this country today.
Charles Gueck is a resident of Denver.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
July 21, 2008
12:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
becca00 writes:
What does Michelle Malkin bring to any political discussion except empty rhetoric, angry xenophobia, petulant whining, and some of the worst reasoning skills I've ever seen in print?
Nothing.
July 21, 2008
12:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
clyde writes:
Ah, words of wisdom from a Social Worker. Does anyone remember the McMartin Day Care Center debacle? If not perhaps the term "Repressed Memories" might just ring a bell. If not, how about just flat ruining lives because some Social Workers just had to get some notoriety?
By the way, what ever happened to the fad of repressed memories? Do they no longer exist? Are they all cured? Or was it a Social Worker fraud to begin with? Those that can't do, teach. Those that can't teach, become social workers. Likely the most useless profession on this planet, next to dung collectors.
July 21, 2008
2:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shadow writes:
A social worker who moonlights in spare time as an international terrorist expert. It is bad enough that the "bleding heart" concepts of social workers and their ilk can turn a bad situation worse. To actually listen to the drivel and spin of this one on terrorism is unbelievable.
Terrorist are low life scum who pray on innocents. There is absloutely no redeemable value to a terrorist.
As for Charles Gueck contempt and hatred for Michelle Malkin. It looks more like petty envy. Envy of someone who has a more practical sense on a larger variety of issues.
As for solving the issue of what to do with terorists Col. David Hunt has it right. "Kill them where they Sleep".
This can also be applied to child molestors. The ones that social workers think can be rehabilitated. That is untill it is their child who is molested then they screem bloody murder and demand justice.
July 21, 2008
3:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
becca00 writes:
Clyde: WTF are you talking about!? Seriously.
What in the world does an incident that is what, 2 decades old, have to do with the letter writer or the points made?
Shadow: If you don't understand your enemy, how do you propose to defeat them? "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" is only a workable solution for those too lazy or too stupid to contemplate anything other than their own simplistic view of the world--kind of like many of those posting comments here.
July 21, 2008
3:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
BO writes:
Why anyone listens to the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Maulkin OR Franken is beyond me.
July 21, 2008
5:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Wechasa writes:
clyde,
That's your LEO mind-set showing again. The old, "We don't make mistakes, cause we just beat 'em up, jail 'em, or shoot 'em and get rid of 'em. But those @%$#&^ Social Workers, and such like cause all the troubles, bein' do-gooders, and tryin' to help people who ain't worth $#^%. Blame them for everything."
becca00,
It's the "conservative" form of Messiah complex. One of them gets a notion - hallucinatory delusion - as to how he/she knows everything about how the world "should be", or "should run", and everyone else just has to be forced into the delusion. The REALITY of alternatives ceases to exist. And anyone disagreeing, or opposing, becomes a kind of embodiment of "evil"; since that particular "Messiah" - and such of his/her followers as he/she can gather - are the ONLY "righteous" around. (And, the followers are "righteous" ONLY when they keep their own notions and delusions - if they ever have any, that is - to themselves, and follow the "Messiah, blindly and mindlessly.)
As time goes by, and the "Messiah" loses his "shine" - as with Bush and this Administration - the disgruntled followers scramble for a place in the sun, and/or to take over the "operation", and run things according to the way they hallucinate the world "ought to be", or "were in the blessed and perfect past". That's the whole of "conservatism" at root anyway.
In past days, one found these on soap boxes on the street corners; and when they had amassed enough followers they went into a store front, and later into a fancy barn and silo - or radio and TV, where some of them are today. For those too whacko to attract others, or hold them together long enough to make a cult, today's form of open forum is their "street corner".
Ain't technological progress just grand?
July 21, 2008
6:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
castafiore writes:
Wachesa:
You'll understand this. It is the concept of "apophasis". The right-wingers excel at it. Obama is mentioned in association with extremely negative things and then "no association" is claimed. The association has now been made in peoples' minds.
For example, I really question whether the New Yorker cover was just "satire", since the magazine has some pretty brilliant people working for it and is supposed to be liberal. Anyway, apophasis is always present in right-wing arguments on Obama's character and beliefs.
July 21, 2008
6:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
Froward69 - "reasoned vigilance"? Oh, you mean "can't we all just get along?" Talking sure stopped the Germans and the Japanses in WWII and the Communists from attacking Korea. You left-wing "intellectuals" have all the answers but no solutions. Your idea of laying down in front of a tank only gets tissue stuck in the treads; a 106mm just below the turret is far more effective in getting their attention.
July 21, 2008
6:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Why is anyone still publishing the infantile scrawling of someone who wrote an entire book "In Defense of Internment" of Japanese Americans in WWII?
Oh, it's because the RMN editors *are idiots*. How else could their fetish for publishing the simple-minded talking-point screeds of the likes of Brian "Steno" Stuckey on a nearly weekly basis be explained--or the pseudo-intellectual scribblings of perpetually wrong PNAC pundidiots like Charles Krauthammer for that matter?
July 21, 2008
6:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Wechasa writes:
castafiore,
Yes, indeed! Back a ways, among fledgling and wannabe lawyers, it was presented as the consequences of that bit about, "The Jury will disregard . . .", AFTER the roof falls in.
Not being myself much of a fan of the "New Yorker", I still wonder why they had to "explain" the cover. On rare occasions, I have found some "satire" in their cartoons, and even in articles and squibs of various kinds; but . . . ? I've always thought satire to be a sort of "rapier", not a "bludgeon"; but, then again, I'm of a bygone "generation" too.
What's really amusing to me is how deathly SERIOUSLY the "conservatives" take themselves, and their own "righteousness". The "debate" going on over on one of the older "stories" - as the Rocky quaintly has it - about how "conservatism and libertarianism" are the ONLY "intellectual" positions is hilarious. That good old Messiah complex surely does wonders for those who exhibit it; expecially those who are so deficient in the simple realities of background, facts, education, and experience as to have already found themselves to be "experts" in everything.
And the most amusing part about it all is THEM instructing others in "humor", and/or "morals", "integrity", etc., etc.
Might prove to be a somewhat interesting Summer after all.
July 21, 2008
7:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
Clyde - Obama and McCain are both clueless on Islam and Jihad. bin Laden, the 9/11 hijackers, the London bombers, the Madrid bombers, the Bali bombers, the Beslan killers, Hezbollah, Iran, al Queda, etc are all driven by the dictates of Islam and Mohammed. Poverty and voting rights, etc. have nothing to do with it. Consider that Muslims (by definition) take Mohammed as "an exc`elent example of conduct" and that Mohammed's main biographer (Sahih Muslim #4294) quotes Mohammed saying this:
"Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them….If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [the tax on non-Muslims specified in Qur’an 9:29]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them."
So that's it - convert, submit, or be attacked. The Gospel according to Mohammed. That's the problem, not lack of economic activity. Americans and their leaders need to wake up.
July 21, 2008
7:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Wechasa writes:
SheikYB,
If the blog nanny will let the letter combination at the first of your screen name through, Good Morning.
The problem there is, simply, that the violent elements of the religion don't surface until, and unless, the problems with the sufficiency of surrounding realities of food, shelter, etc., have become overwhelming.
Of course, there are always those who will preach the matter - just as there are always those in Western religion(s) who will preach the necessity to throw away our own Secular Civil Government in favor of some current "righteous leader" - but, the movements to mass (self)-destruction are fueled by the basic lack of essentials in the here and now.
This is shown throughout history, beginning even before the Crusades. Mohammed roused his people because they lacked many of the basics, and were in need - which produces envy and a desire to "get even", or even "get ahead". The Crusades from the West were a relief of the population pressures in feudalism, as much as anything "religious" in motivation.
And, during World War I, it was almost impossible to get the Arabic peoples TO DO much of anything, even though they had been under the thumb of the Turks for Centuries. Today's jihad is very much a matter of ECONOMICS, as much from internal unrest, with the rich and powerful taking the biggest share of goods, as from anything else.
Also, one must remember that the whole of "convert, submit, or be attacked" depends very much upon the ability to carry on a real war. We are across the ocean. And, of course, terrorist actions can, and do, happen. But, conquering the old Byzantine Empire, right next door, within marching distance, is quite different from mounting a war against the Western Hemisphere.
July 21, 2008
7:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jim_in_Erie writes:
Professional Social Worker.....yup, they've made all things better all over the place.
Kind of the way "Community Organizers" have made all things better all over the place.
July 21, 2008
7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
Wechasa - not sure I understood your comment on the web nanny.
As for the subject: you talk of "the violent elements of the religion" as if these were a small minority or an aberration. Islam **IS** its violent elements. All of Islamic text and history is about using violence to promote Islam. To talk about violent "elements" as if they were the exeption is akin to talking about the virtues of the Mafia, except for its few violent "elements."
Obviously not all Muslims engage in daily, blood-curdling violence. Some may even genuinely abhor that. But the problem is that Muslims are like Nazis: the many passive enablers empower the ultra-violent few. There are no "good" Nazis, only some who were not as pro-actively evil as others. Ditto Muslims, because Islam is the new Nazism. Like Nazis, there might be many who are affable, social, etc, but in the end most will say they are Muslims first, meaning that they subscribe to the Islamic supremacism that would have women in burkas and non-Muslims living as DHIMMIS (look it up).
As for your comment: "Also, one must remember that the whole of "convert, submit, or be attacked" depends very much upon the ability to carry on a real war." This is why Muslims in the US generally keep a low profile. As their numbers increase, they become increasingly violent and seperatist, then as numbers increase further, domineering and violent. See http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ see what is happening in Europe, Thailand, Malmo, Sweden, etc. When Muslims are not strong enough to engage in war, they follow their own "jihad" by other means: intimidation, exploitation of the good will of Western societies and individuals, constantly claiming victim status and playing the "woe is me poor discriminated-against Muslim," using deception etc. (Note: Mohammed's most famous quote is: "War is deception." Why is a so-called "religious" leader talking about how to wage war, rather than condemning its evils????}
Mohammed was a blood thirsty, megalomanic, mysogenic, racist, sadistic, ruthless, pitiless killer. His followers revere him. Do the math on that dynamic.
July 21, 2008
8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
After Malkin's tirade against Rachel Ray and Dunkin Doughnuts, how can we take anything else she says seriously?
July 21, 2008
8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
popo writes:
Right-wing wackos like Malkin is why we are in the fix we find ourselves now.
I suggest Ms. Malkin stay home and bake cookies.
July 21, 2008
8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tbone writes:
Who really cares what Our Lady Of Perpetual Outrage really thinks, anyways? Acemon hit it.
July 21, 2008
8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
SlowWalker writes:
"Messiah" complexes aren't limited to conservatives. Plenty of libs have them. Senator Obama is first on that list, methinks ...
July 21, 2008
9 a.m.
Suggest removal
Wechasa writes:
SheikYB,
Haven't you ever been stopped by that, "Watch your mouth . . ." bit? It appears that almost any combination of letters that starts with the two at the head of your user name - or connects the two with even an ending form of another word - is regarded as being the "forbidden word".
Ridiculous, of course; but fairly typical of the workings of the "site staff".
Of course, you know that the title you use in your user name is from the Arabic; and is considered to be one of an honorific nature as well. That aside, however, citing incidents of behavior contrary to the customary uses of the time and place, really is not proof of a general "evil"; such as much of the expression of your somewhat excessively intolerant attitude towards another religion would have it. Have you such incidents to cite from, perhaps, the folks at the Mosque in Denver? Or is your anti-religious feeling in the area based upon personal experience?
How about the actions, preachings, laws, rules, and regulations - and proposed actions and laws - from the other book, that some keep on presenting here, as if they were, somehow, mandatory for America/American(s)/Americanism?
Fanatics from both camps can, and do, ignore other realities, such as the basics of economics in action, when demanding the implementing of ideas. But, that makes for a very one-sided view of life, at best.
July 21, 2008
9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
ComradeMarko writes:
Michelle Malkin is another example of hate speech that President Obama will do away with. Freedom of speech is a great thing but some do not deserve or need it. Get ready for the great leap forward.
Vote Obama '08
July 21, 2008
9:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
"another example of hate speech that President Obama will do away with. Freedom of speech is a great thing but some do not deserve or need it. "
Obama plans to abolish free speech? At least his mindless minions admit it.
July 21, 2008
9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
7:54..Booty...very good post!!!
July 21, 2008
9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
As an ex-social worker,I'm delighted to see someone from that "profession" trying out their spiel on the general public.The following anecdote is an exact depiction of the priorities and attitude of social work and the people who do it:
Two social workers,upon leaving the office at the end of a workday saw a man lying on the sidewalk in a pool of blood,beaten nearly to death.One social worker said to the other "Look at that poor man.Whoever did this to him must really need our help".
July 21, 2008
9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
IronmanCarmichael writes:
Michelle Malkin is Ann Coulter in drag!
July 21, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
T1anda - thanks.
Wechasa - do you believe that that wolf in sheep's clothing is a sheep or a wolf? Islam is an oppressive, inhumane, power-driven, soulless cult of domination **MASQUERADING** as a religion. Islam is Nazism + "we are a religion". That makes it worse than Nazism, which at least never claimed to be a religion. I am not anti religious, I am anti-fascist, pro-human rights and human dignity, and anti-oppression. Hence I am anti-Islam, even though (if you don't count 9/11 etc as "personal") I have never had a personal bad experience with a Muslim (although I doubt future generations will be able to say that). It amazes me that Islam is so successful at propagating the myth that it is a religion in the Abrahamic tradtion in spite of its systemic hatred, violence and oppresion.
Have you visited www.thereligionofpeace.com ?????
July 21, 2008
9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
IronManCarmicheal - MM is cute. AC is Icabod Crane with anorexia. She is real tough on the eyes. Real tough.
July 21, 2008
10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tbone writes:
rickg-
Are you too dense to notice satire when you see it?
You took ComradeMarko's post Hook, line, and sinker, buddy.
July 21, 2008
10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Conservativeslayer writes:
Obama is going to ban freedom of speech? Give us a break you freaking moronic righties. When has he ever said anything even close to that? Answer is never. Also if you think Obama is a socialist or a liberal, get a clue. The man is a die-hard centrist. Hillary had a more liberal voting record then Obama did. If you want people to take you seriously and not just be laughed at, try living in the real world. Not the imaginary ditto-head world you currently live in. Where everyone is engaged in a conspiracy against the poor oppressed conservatives. Try living in the real world, maybe you'll like it.
July 21, 2008
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
This was one of the funniest things I've seen in awhile.
"Obama in fact contends that extremists such as Mohammed, and others like him, capitalize on the poverty, ignorance, and despair of their people to advance their own thirst for power and influence.
Obama's understanding of KSM's motives and his methods..."
Of course BHO understands the motives and methods of KSM and the like, democrats do exactly the same thing. In fact BHO's entire campaign is geared to "capitalize on the poverty, ignorance, and despair of the people to advance his own thirst for power and influence."
July 21, 2008
10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Conservativeslayer writes:
You are right hazardous_T, except you got the campaign wrong. It's the McCain campaign that will capitalize on the poverty, ignorance and despair of people for his own gain. It constantly amazes me when I read comments from average working people, that think the likes of Billo, Rush, and Hannity are looking out for them. These guys make millions of dollars a year, and people think they are advocates for the working class. Rush Limbaugh admitted recently in an interview that he is an advocate for giant corporations. That's who he advocates for. So if you think what's good for giant corporations, is the same as what's good for working class people, you are a moron. Well people that vote against their economic interests get what they deserve.
July 21, 2008
10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
jgd writes:
Conservativeslayer
*** Also if you think Obama is a socialist or a liberal, get a clue. The man is a die-hard centrist***
***Try living in the real world, maybe you'll like it.***
A centrist would have a voting record ranking them some where between 40th to 60th on liberal issues. As a US Senator Obama has been rank from the 1st to the 16th with the most liberal voting record. How can you possibly call him a centrist? He is a die hard liberal bordering on being a true socialist.
July 21, 2008
11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
Mike in Hartsel; We never did negotiate on a serious level with the Germans or Japanese. Where do you get this stuff. Sure some memo's were sent here and there and a couple token envoys were sent, but serious negotiations between leaders. Never happened.
July 21, 2008
11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jeff writes:
Many of the above comments true, i.e., given that one of Malkin's most public crusades was exposing Rachel Ray as a sleeper-cell terrorist, HOW ON EARTH could anyone take her seriously!?
Ironman, I have a slightly different take:
Malkin is just a female version of Ann Coulter.
July 21, 2008
11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Conservativeslayer writes:
JGD, which is it 1st or 16th? How about citing a source? Also your reasoning is retarded. To assume that the Senate is an equally distributed continuim, with one senator being the most liberal and one being the most conservative. So for Obama to be a centrist, he has to have a voting record somewhere in the middle out of the entire Senate. Talk about stupid, no offense.
July 21, 2008
11:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
jgd writes:
Conservativeslayer
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/...
July 21, 2008
12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Conservativeslayer writes:
Well JGD, did you even read that link you posted. It was a reference to the National Journal citing Obama as the most liberal senator. Did you know how the National Journal got it's results? It did it by using just one day of voting in the Senate, out of it's entire term. So on that one day, Obama did have the most liberal voting record. However the National Journal determined what constituted a "liberal" vote verses a "conservative" vote. The National Journal said the same thing about John Kerry in 2004, said he was the most liberal voting senator. Kind of funny how who ever the democratic nominee is, the National Journal determines they are the most liberal. I wonder why that is?
July 21, 2008
12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
HumanBeans writes:
Michelle Malkin is HOT!
July 21, 2008
12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Conservativeslayer writes:
Human Bean, you got to be kidding. Malkin is as ugly on the outside, as she is on the inside. Also her real name is Magladon, not Malkin.
July 21, 2008
12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
MM taught me to make drive by insults, always use some one elses words.
Some libs say MM is a clone gone wrong of Ann Coulter, and she should stand her ground when she makes absurd comments.
See, I never insulted her for real.
Please give me a link on the Rachel Ray comments. Please!
July 21, 2008
12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
jgd writes:
Conservativeslayer
"Hillary Clinton was found to be tied as the 16th most liberal senator, after having placed 32nd the previous year. National Journal uses 99 "key Senate votes" to determine its ratings. One of the key "conservative" votes Clinton cast was to designate the Iranian revolutionary guard a terrorist organization."
They used 99 "key Senate votes", are you saying the Senate voted on 99 issues on one day? There is a list of the issues that were voted on had you followed the link. I will be happy to copy that list for you but you already know your comment is just BS.
You liberal/socialist are always trying to defend your liberal/socialist programs yet seem to get upset and embarrassed when someone one points out your liberal/socialist positions. Why is that?
July 21, 2008
1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
froward69 (6:34 post)-
Substituting the liberals' approach to environmentalism for your take on conservatives' approach to terrorism, you are slamming yourself and your own cause just as much as you are the conservatives.
July 21, 2008
1:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Okay I saw the ad. Now let us all start wearing that awful scarf to show support for RR and the stylist who picked this rag for the shoot.
Or wear the scarf to poke MM in the eye.
July 21, 2008
1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Typical leftist morons... They can't reasonably attack the message so they attack the messenger.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...
July 21, 2008
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Islam is stuck in a time bubble, similar to where the Israelites were in the most violent time of the Old Testament. Line them up, quotations for quotations about killing, smiting, dashing the little babies heads on rocks with the Quran and you will see the Muslim religion needs a reformation.
That reforming will have to come from within, the way it did with the coming of Christianity and a kinder, gentler religion.
Turn the other cheek is long overdue in Islam, but I see no way for it to happen, since the Muslims are not waiting for a Messiah.
This religion must grow up, because there is no chance of a reforming, kind, person showing up to change the minds of the, usually young, angry men, into something better.
We need to take advantage of the fractured nature of Islam right now. It is splintered between sects.
July 21, 2008
2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Conservativeslayer writes:
We need to take advantage of the fractured nature of Islam right now. It is splintered between sects. Me2
Like christianity is fractured into thousands of different dominations? Please spare us Christianity is good, Islam is bad nonsense. Christianity has massacred millions throughout the ages. How many wars between protestant and catholics have their been since the Reformation? How many died in North Ireland, France, England and other places between warring christian dominations? You righties really need to stop being so simple-minded. The world isn't black and white, it's way more complex then that. The true danger when it comes to religion, isn't the particular religion it's FUNDAMENTALISM. Fundamentalist are dangerous because they believe they alone know what their "god" wants, and their "god" wants them to impose it on everyone. Since they are doing "god's" will, that means anything is allowable. I don't fear the muslim fundamentalist, as much as I fear the Christian fundies in this country. The Christian fundies are the true menaces to our freedoms in this country.
July 21, 2008
2:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
Me2; Have you ever read the Old Testament? Pretty violent and oppressive stuff. Old Testament believers just commit their violence in a little bit more clandestine way, but there is no difference really between war mongering Muslims and war mongering Christians and Jews. Christians and Jews just have bigger better and more expensive impliments of war and can therefore remove themselves from the violent acts they perpetrate, (in other words kill from a distance.) Radical Muslim violence may seem more barbaric, but if they had the same tools western armies did, it would be different. Just think if they had Apache helicopters. Do you really think you would see as many suicide bombers? I think not. So, they resort to something a little more primative. In the end it all has the same effect. There are dead people everywhere.
July 21, 2008
2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
raysmom writes:
Wow. The Kool-Aid has been flowing freely today, I take it. Do any of you Obama supporters own a small business? Or have you paid for 10 years of education on your own only to have 55% of what you earn go to 'the govmint", so that you can't expand business and help local wealth grow or save much for your own future? Do you volunteer in your community? Create jobs? Give to charities? Read anything other than Huffingtonpost.com? If so, good for you, but I don't understand how you can come to the conclusions you do. I'll bet you all know evil conservatives and LIKE them- you just don't know they're "neo-cons"! What is a "neo-con", anyway? Either you are, or you aren't, a conservative. And not all conservatives have exactly the same take on all the issues, you know. That's really prejudiced thinking. Many of my friends are liberal Dems- I am a conservative Dem and really very conservative even for that, but we don't vilify each other- that's for the weak-minded. Have some more sour grapes- it really brings out your best side, those of you who spew such hatred for conservatives. I think "enlightenment" by liberal definition and example on this thread is not something to admire.
July 21, 2008
2:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
SheikYurBooty writes: Islam is an oppressive, inhumane, power-driven, soulless cult of domination **MASQUERADING** as a religion. Islam is Nazism + "we are a religion". That makes it worse than Nazism, which at least never claimed to be a religion"
I agree with you on Islam, however the National Socialists did attempt to self deify...
"The National Reich Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be national churches of the German Reich.
"The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably...the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800...
"The National Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests, but National Reich orators are to speak in them.
"The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany...'"
"On the altars there must be nothing but 'Mein Kampf' (to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book) and to the left of the altar a sword.
"On the day of its foundation, the Christian Cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals and chapels...and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika."
Martin Bormann.
(The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L. Shirer, p. 240
Conservativeslayer writes: I don't fear the muslim fundamentalist, as much as I fear the Christian fundies in this country. The Christian fundies are the true menaces to our freedoms in this country."
Hitler and bin Laden would be so proud...
July 21, 2008
3:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Oh and BTW 'Mein Kampf' is one of the bestselling "Western" books allowed in the Middle East...
July 21, 2008
3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
ComradeMarko writes:
William L. Shirer's Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich?
Have you read anything that is LESS than 50 years old?
July 21, 2008
3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Has Martin Bormann said anything in the last 50 years?
July 21, 2008
3:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Hazardous, nice way to attack Conservativeslayer. You can't or won't refute his/her arguments so you compare him/her to Hitler. There was a conservative who once stated "Anyone who mentions Hitler loses." You lost, game over. Please step onto the trapdoor.
Fundamentalisms -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. -- are a threat to free thinking. Are a threat to reasoned discourse. Christian fundamentalism in that regard is no different. It's just that the worst offenders are (so far) blocked from doing anything serious because a) the truly die-hard ones are still a relative minority, and b) our democratic and secular institutions are still functioning. There are Christian Reconstructionists who want to remake the US into a Christian Republic, with the Bible (especially all those nasty laws in Leviticus) as the Supreme Law of the Land and only "true Christians" as judges and political leaders. They, of course, will decide who a true Christian is.
me2, I'm glad you saw the info about Michelle Malkin and the Dunkin Donuts spokeswoman. I think the idea of Dunkin Donuts being a terrorist threat is hilarious. Has MM already physcally donated her brain to science in advance of her death? It sure seems like it, 'cuz she's clueless.
July 21, 2008
4:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
H_T - Nazism never claimed to be based onthe words or inspiration of a deity. Just as the Bolscheviks saw a threat in the traditional churches, so to did the Nazis. Being anti-church or seeing the church as a competitor did not make Nazism a religion. Mohammed specifically asserted that he was a prophet, and worse, the LAST prophet - i.e. no one could come later and undo his hatred and mind control. The whole world sees Islam as the religion it asserts itself to be, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with bettering humanity or life on Earth, but only in propagating itself like the cancer that it is.
July 21, 2008
4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Conservativeslayer writes:
@SheikYurBooty- YAWN!!!! Your islamo-phobia is so boring. Please spare us from having to read your demented paranoid ramblings. I think you're rants would be better posted on Powerline or freerepublic. You'd probably get a better reception too. Lots of retards on those blogs, just like you.
July 21, 2008
4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
SYB-I think a cult can be a religion even if it does not say that it is.Certainly the evangelical fervor shown by the Nazis,the Communists,and their Marxist-Guevarist offshoots in the USA and Latin America have risen to the level that radical(and not-so-radical)Islam has shown many times over the last millenium and a half.For a local variety of the murderous intent shown by cultists,I need only refer the reader to Conservativeslayer's RMN blog name.That the user of such a name and composer of such sedition is not prosecuted is a sad and alarming commentary on how apt SYB's cancer analogy is-as well as its degree of metastasis.
July 21, 2008
5 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
SYB, that is why I used the term Self Deify. The point is that the National Socialists, Islam and apparently the American left share the same views on Christianity.
peterpi writes: Hazardous, nice way to attack Conservativeslayer. You can't or won't refute his/her arguments so you compare him/her to Hitler. There was a conservative who once stated "Anyone who mentions Hitler loses." You lost, game over. Please step onto the trapdoor."
Wow, some mystery conservative deemed my argument invalid before I made it? The truth is you leftists have made an industry of sweeping Hitler under the rug so that people can't learn that he was every day and in every way a socialist. It's fine however if you compare Bush to Hitler with no context.
I guess they share the same views on freedom of speech and what to do with dissenting voices... Trapdoor, gas chamber, chopping block...
July 21, 2008
5:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Of course,societal illnesses are not exactly analogous to those of an individual human being,and I'm sure that one could make an equally compelling argument that the Leftist infection in American society is comparable to advanced HIV disease progressing into full-blown AIDS.Speaking of AIDS,one might take notice of the Left's ongoing characterization of that fatal disease as a "health crisis",rather than a deadly plague whose carriers celebrate its transmission.
July 21, 2008
5:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Spot on Jimminy.
July 21, 2008
5:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
If all of you high-horsemen ever get off your steeds of righteousness and give up your *own idiot religions* (like "Christianity") then you will truly be taking a step to fight the spread of radical Islam.
All religion is co-dependent.
Fight Islam!
Give up your Christianity!
July 21, 2008
5:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Chuckles, I am not willing to trade my Christianity for your Fascism...
July 21, 2008
6:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
GetReal writes:
Charles-
Even if every Christian gave up their faith, Radical Islam would still not be satisfied.
Why cant you understand that?
July 21, 2008
7:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
GetReal:
"Radical Islam" is a very small part of "Islam" and anything that increases their marginalization will have a positive result toward ending the scourge.
I think you're wrong.
July 21, 2008
7:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Hazardous_T:
Could you provide some evidence for your contention that I am "fascist"?
You slit the throats of puppies and drink their blood.
See how easy to play make-believe?
July 21, 2008
7:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Now is a good time to mention that a belief in Something greater than itself is the common characteristic of every society that has ever existed.Archaeologists have found carved totemic figures dating back tens of thousands of years.It seems only logical to conclude that the anti-Christian rants so often found here have as much rational justification as Islam's only slightly more hysterical anti-Christian rants,or the Aztecs' human sacrifices,or the roughly contemporaneous Spanish Inquisition's blood-and-fire erasure of unconverted(and sometimes converted)Jews.It is also noteworthy that the Marxist/Atheist religious doctrinal material says nothing whatever about how human beings ought to treat each other.Certainly the hundred million people murdered by Marxist governments in the last ninety years would indicate that their Deity has created Its children in Its own image.Some of them live here.
July 21, 2008
8:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
OK so I should have used the broader term, Socialism...
July 21, 2008
8:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Actually Marx was pretty vocal about how people should be treated...
"As for slavery, there is no need for me to speak of its bad aspects. The only thing requiring explanation is the good side of slavery. I do not mean indirect slavery, the slavery of proletariat; I mean direct slavery, the slavery of the Blacks in Surinam, in Brazil, in the southern regions of North America. Direct slavery is as much the pivot upon which our present-day industrialism turns as are machinery, credit, etc. … Slavery is therefore an economic category of paramount importance."
- Karl Marx
(Letter to Pavel Vasilyevich Annenkov, December 28, 1846)
"… the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror."
- Karl Marx
("The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, November 7, 1848)
Change we can believe in...
July 21, 2008
9:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
thefastestgun writes:
What does Michelle Malkin bring to any political discussion except empty rhetoric, angry xenophobia, petulant whining, and some of the worst reasoning skills I've ever seen in print?
how about the truth? you just are too blind to see it.
July 21, 2008
9:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
thefastestgun writes:
BO[body odor writes:
Why anyone listens to the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Maulkin OR Franken is beyond me.
i have no doubt whatsoever is is beyond you, as well as many other things like logic and reason are beyond you.
July 21, 2008
9:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
thefastestgun writes:
Conservativeslayer writes:
@SheikYurBooty- YAWN!!!! Your islamo-phobia is so boring. Please spare us from having to read your demented paranoid ramblings. I think you're rants would be better posted on Powerline or freerepublic. You'd probably get a better reception too. Lots of retards on those blogs, just like you.
don't miss the last flight to Iran, I know you want to be there for the stoning deaths of the 9 adulterers. nice religion, can't see how stoning to death people compares to a short prayer before school. but i've no doubt you'll come up with some preposterous explanation.
July 21, 2008
9:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
thefastestgun writes:
Charles_B writes:
Hazardous_T:
Could you provide some evidence for your contention that I am "fascist"?
You slit the throats of puppies and drink their blood.
See how easy to play make-believe?
he was incorrect, fascist should have read "nazi"
July 21, 2008
9:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Conservativeslayer and the guy after him.(her). I did not say Christianity good, Islam Bad, or the other way around.
I said they are both violent religions, the Old Testament one, BC, and the Koran.
Did I say splintered into thousands of groups? Islam is splintered between a few groups, and the more modern ones in Indonesia. This we could use.
I would bet there are peaceful Muslims and violent Christians, like the ones that threatened to kill a boy back East who took a wafer out of the Catholic mass.
He held the wafer hostage, and got real, honest death threats. Now what does this mean?
It means that religion makes people crazy, some crazier than others.
July 22, 2008
8:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
groups like the taliban aren't so good...whether they be american or middle eastern.
get religion out of politics.
btw...malkin is bad for your world view.
don't be a malkin.
July 22, 2008
9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Wechasa writes:
me2,
If you be with us on this particular segment, Good Morning, Sharon.
Fanaticism can only see equal and opposite fanaticism. Anything outside the area of this narrow view is considered to be "evil", since the fanatic is, after all, the sole, only, (self)-righteous, and true believer in his/her fanaticism.
My own memory has two incidents that illustrate this very well. The first was a St. Patrick's Day Parade, in which some of the marchers were seen carrying signs reading, "Kill a Commie for Christ!" Even Channel 2 had to go over to time-lapse blackout on that one.
Next comes a group, up on Colfax Avenue, at another parade. They, having taken a leaf from the Roman Religion's book, were carrying signs reading, "Kill a Queer for Christ!"
Both groups, of course, were ignored, and left totally undisturbed by the Denver P.D. But, that was just to be expected.
Perhaps, SheikYB was in one - or even both - these groups, since his fanaticism would have been, and would be, right at home among either, or both.
Religious wars are everlasting and unceasing, though from time to time the names and titles of the sides are changed. They are, also, never won and totally un-winable. But no fanatic will ever bother with, or be troubled by, that reality.
July 22, 2008
12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
In 1983, Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn, winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize for Literature, gave an address in London in which he attempted to explain why so much evil had befallen his people:
Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."
Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."
July 22, 2008
12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Becca00, your first post is right on. Everytime I read a Malkin column I feel like I should be getting in a fight with someone--not for any particular reason, but because that's presumably how I'm supposed to respond to one of her columns. What do we call people who purposely incite anger? On the internet, we call them trolls. Back on the block, they would be bad neighbors. When members of the press do this, I don't know what to say.
July 22, 2008
12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Darwinism is the deadliest religion in history...
July 22, 2008
12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
It's not a religion. It's a scientific theory.
July 22, 2008
12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
O_TRAIN writes:
Haz-T, so because the Russian God felt neglected and forgotten, it allowed 60 million people to die? That Russian God sounds pretty vengeful and heavy-handed.
July 22, 2008
1:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Hazardous_T weighs in with the dumbest post I've seen in weeks:
"Darwinism is the deadliest religion in history.."
No proof required...it just is.
You truly are a credulous rube.
Have you ever considered providing proof for your assertions?
July 22, 2008
3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Anderson-I think Darwin's theory has long since been shown to be as close to fact as makes no difference,and consequently is eligible to be called dogma.THAT make it useful to to the scientifically based cults like the variety of Marxism/Guevarism whose adherents (at least the ones hereabouts)spend as much energy denying their faith as they spend on attacking those who do not share it.
July 22, 2008
3:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Wechasa, hi there. I have learned something here. It used to be easy to spot religions, they had all those funny looking tax free buildings. Now, however, posters need to point out all the new "religions" such as Liberalism, Feminism, Humanism, Darwinism, and the newest Global Warming.
It seems that all a new religion needs is people to believe in something and promote the idea with fervor. Bumper stickers and t-shirts help because that brings in icons. True New Believers have slogans and we are even told who their Gods are i.e. Gore, Abortion On Demand, Primordial Ooze, Money and such.
This ability to root out new faiths is so prevalent and so fervent in its own way that I am tempted to call it a religion.
July 22, 2008
4:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Some have the mistaken notion that faith and religion are linked inseparably with the confession of a supreme being, but many exercise faith in self and other human beings--to the exclusion of the divine. This, too, is religion. Whatever serves as one's basic system of beliefs about his or her place and role in the universe is certainly a faith, a religion.
July 22, 2008
4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Hazardous_T:
Perhaps, you're right. So let's undermine those religions that are "faith based" (and therefore irrational) in favor of those that are "reality based" (for which there is observable evidence).
There's a reason we teach natural selection and not "intelligent design" in *classrooms*--because there is evidence of the former but not the latter.
July 22, 2008
4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Charles_B writes: Perhaps, you're right. So let's undermine those religions that are "faith based" (and therefore irrational) in favor of those that are "reality based" (for which there is observable evidence).
The "reality based" (for which there is observable evidence) of the Darwinian religion manifests itself in the form of Marx/Engles, Lenin, Stalin/Trotsky, Hitler/Rohm, Mao/Ho Chi Mihn
Castro/Che, Pol Pot, and on and on...
"During my time of trial, these last few weeks, I have read all sorts of things. Among others, Darwin's book of Natural Selection. Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view." Karl Marx...
Yep there is plenty of observable evidence of what faith in Darwin can bring to society...
July 22, 2008
5:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
I have it on good authority that Karl Marx drank milk. So.....with this fact added to his love of Darwin, we should all ban milk from our diets.
I hear, but it is just a rumor, the K. Marx liked Shaespere too.
July 22, 2008
5:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Sharon,we should.After all,there's no evidence that Jesus and Mohammed were lactose-intolerant.And then there are all those folks throughout history to whom orthodoxy was(drum roll here)....mothers' milk.
July 22, 2008
6:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
me2 writes:
I have it on good authority that Karl Marx drank milk. So.....with this fact added to his love of Darwin, we should all ban milk from our diets.
Par for the course... When a lefty loses a logical argument they whip out absurd analogies...
July 22, 2008
7:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
IronmanCarmichael writes:
Sheik:
You may have a point. Okay: Michelle Malkin is Sean Hannity in drag. (Ann Coulter is Michael Savage in drag.)
Jimminy:
(ref. 5:11 post)
I can't imagine "carriers" of any "deadly plague" celebrating its transmission with a fraction of the glee with which you clearly celebrate the sickness you display by a statement like that.
July 22, 2008
10:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Ironman-I can certainly accept that a cranial oversaturation of ferrous elements might lead to impaired political acuity,as well as a fascination with cross-dressing,and I should think the relatives of those whose names appear on quilts might well concede that AIDS is indeed a deadly plague.
I think it was Uno who posted links on this board to video of a gay celebration in SFO.There was footage of public gay male oral sex that appeared to be unprotected.I didn't watch very closely or for very long,but it sure looked like a celebration to me.
July 23, 2008
8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Jimminy, you mock science by insinuating that Darwinism (a theory) is, like religion, faith-based. It's not. You should know this.
July 23, 2008
9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
IronmanCarmichael writes:
Well, Jimminy, who can argue with a source as objective and open-minded as Uno? Assuming the video actually exists, I can only say it would be hard to find footage of people not enjoying consensual oral sex. It's also highly doubtful that anyone would deny that AIDS is a deadly virus (least of all the relatives of those whose names appear on the AIDS quilt), although I imagine the only people actually celebrating its transmission are homophobes who wish all gay people would die.
If I looked around a little, I bet I could find quite a lot of video footage of people enjoying smoking. Are they "celebrating" the transmission of cancer? How about overweight people chowing down on those carbs celebrating heart disease? Why, I wouldn't be surprised if there were even one or two reels extant of--just imagine--heterosexuals engaging in oral sex.
As for the ferrous element remark, it seems that self-association with a Disney cricket leads not only to an impaired sense of reality but a tendency to think in simplistic and rather childish stereotypes. But that's no news to anyone who's read your posts.
July 23, 2008
12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Anderson-putting an "ism" on Darwin places it in company with other "isms".What I meant to say(and thought I did) was to point out that at least on time scales comprehensible to the human intellect,Darwin is equivalent to fact,which also makes it useful as dogma to religions like Marxism,and its American offshoots.THOSE groups mock science,as well as humanity.
July 23, 2008
1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Ironman,now you're just mad at me personally,as I intended.Also intentional is the Jimminy blog name,although the mis-spelling comes from someone on the old board replying to a post of mine,and I thought that two M's looked better than one.In the Disney film,and even more so in the original story,the Cricket represented the conscience of the wilful child,who refused to heed wise counsel,causing much trouble for himself and others,the greatest of which was his inability to become a real person until he came to believe in the personhood of others besides himself.
And speaking of believing what one is told in good faith,I hope Uno is reading this and will kindly repost the links I spoke of.Like Pinocchio,Ironman is incredulous about what I told him.
July 23, 2008
1:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Jimminy, you called Darwinism dogma--a concept often tied to religion--and in the same paragraph referred to faith. Sounds like a critique of science to me. Some adherents to the theory of Darwin may be dogmatic, but that does not invalidate the theory--which is only so good as the emperical evidence that supports it.
You also denigrate Marx for some unknown reason. Like it or not, agree with him or not (and most people in this country don't), he is one of the great intellectuals of western history. He too developed a theory--as to why capitalism wasn't all a bed of roses. As with Darwin, his theory is only so good as it stands the test of time. I'm not aware of Guevara having developed any widely acknowledged theories but naming a bunch of "bad" guys or the use of loaded terms or perjorative labels is often used as a substitute for argument.
July 23, 2008
3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
One more time,Anderson.Darwin was useful to Marx the same way that Newton was useful to Werner von Braun's first employer.I agree with you that Marx was extremely innovative in positing that social change takes place over time scales much longer than a single human lifetime,but I don't think Marx expected or intended that his name and image would end up being associated with a theory of government historically proven to obstruct human progress and to enable the kind of assembly-line brutality for which his soi-disant disciples set the standard.
Why do I denigrate Marxists? Because their intent is to subvert every kind of human right that their disciples say they champion,and to use democratic freedoms to destroy democracy,putting in its place a tyranny that,as Orwell(I think) put it,is best represented by a hob-nailed boot stomping on a human face-forever.
July 23, 2008
5:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
IronmanCarmichael writes:
Jimminy,
Talk about the conscience of the willful child, specifically the child's insecurity that comes from not only the unknown and the misunderstood but the realization that not everybody loves him, and the sad, mistaken notion that anyone who disagrees does so simply out of meanness or hatred. Your logic is touchingly childish, too: you insult me with the "ferrous element" remark and then accuse me of being mad at you when I respond to it.
But I admit I am incredulous--nothing personal--about your stereotyping of AIDS as a "gay plague" that its victims "celebrate the transmission of" any more than any other type of human necessarily "celebrates" the transmission or invitation of an illness caused by a particular activity or behavior. None of which has much to do with Michelle Malkin (except perhaps that she probably thinks AIDS is a "gay disease," too).
Gotta go. If you want the last word, knock yourself out.