Vast Write Wing - December 2010

[lwoolley]

Well, Jeff, you finally authored a missive that held my attention and I did read it completely. J Terms such as liberal, conservative, and moderate I find to be mostly boring and you did a decent job of pointing out that folks who attribute such terms to themselves often choke on some component. I read you (you know, your personality profile) as having a philosophical filter through which you process received information and either agree or disagree when compared to your belief system. This philosophical filter is composed of tenets (I suspect that this is what you meant when you wrote “tenants” below). In polemical interchange you tend toward inductive rather than deductive. That’s a compliment, by the way, because these personality characteristics are both strengths and weaknesses depending on how they are applied. I suspect that comes close to describing why you find these labels to be (ahem) inconsistent……and sometimes you’re even right. I also suspect that you have a military background.

Indeed, let’s talk about something important. Things like if Lynn Woolley and I invest in a printing press and crank out $20 bills, why is this called counterfeiting, but when the government does the same thing why is this NOT counterfeiting? Has Gresham’s Law been repealed? If so, when? In 1983 the composition of the US penny was changed to 97.5% zinc from 95% copper. Is this Gresham’s Law at work or merely a debasement of decimal currency by government? Would you like to explain why the Coinage Act of 1965 did not violate Gresham’s Law and/or was not a debasement of our currency? Answers to each question should be limited to, say, 50 words…….and it would be helpful if you would deactivate your inductive software. J

And, by the way, Beck’s given name, like mine, is spelled Glenn.
Glenn

[lwoolley]

Lynn,
This is a long letter. Basically from me to you, but you are
welcome to share if you wish. But you may want to read it at a time
when you have time at your leisure. The content is general and about
your show, and not specific to a current issue, per say.

I love the focus on the logic, or ill-logic of current issues.
I find your show far more engaging than Rush's. You touch far more
issue points. Rush can't make a 4 sentence point without using 100
paragraphs, a large portion of which are his own self praise. And while
you usually have at least 3 or 4 callers or more each hour, I don't
think Rush has that many callers in a 4 hour show. And when he takes a
call, it is not a dialog. The caller says about three sentences and
then it is a 45 minute Rush dialog of the subject. Again, most of
which is his own self praise. Oh, what an ego he has.
He must be a very insecure person.
I do give Rush two points of credit. Most of the time his
viewpoint, if you can filter it from his self praise, is on target,
even though he often takes it to a fanatical extreme. Second, he does
stir the pot and gets people talking and thinking about the issues.
That's why he gets criticized so much.
But discourse between opposing viewpoints of an issue is where
progress is made. Maybe not always in the best direction, but at least
not stagnant. And I think someone once told me that Thomas Jefferson,
or one of the Founding Fathers once made the point that if power was
given to the people, they might not always make the right decisions,
but they would always be able to make corrections over time, and get
back on the right course. Seems 2010 will be a long lasting example of
proof of that comment.

I really enjoy the fact that you don't BLAST
your callers of opposing views, but you engage them in a logical
discourse. The result is we listeners have the opportunity to hear the
reasonings behind each of the opposing viewpoints. And while
considering the pros and cons of each side, it encourages us to give
the issue a more open minded consideration and form our own opinions.
And THAT, I feel is much more healthy than just listening to the
preacher, preaching to the choir, and just blindly following his
opinion.

I love your show. I wish I could listen more regularly. It
just barely gets into Alpine from Midland. I am a tractor mechanic and
there is no hope of getting you in the shop unless I buy a high end
receiver and string a large wire antenna about 50 feet high. (I'm a
HAM radio guy. I do know how to do these things, but they cost serious
money, for me.)
I do have the pleasure of being able to get the signal in my
service truck when I'm on the road throughout much of Brewster and
Jeff Davis counties, or have to make a trip to Odessa, San Angelo or
Brady.
Here in the southern counties I may get good reception for a
while until I pass noisy power lines that wipe out almost all of the
audio. Which always happens just as a key point is being made it seems
like. Very frustrating.
Today I was listening to you tell that the new "WACKY-LEAKS"
release spelled doom for Hillery, but I arrived at my destination just
before you gave the details. By the time I got back in the truck you
had moved on to something else. I was frustrated that I missed the
comments.
Tonight I saw Gingrich on Fox News talking about the issue and
praising Hillery for standing up for National Security first, and
putting our diplomatic appearance to other nations in a far second
priority.
So I'm confused. I haven't heard what was said in the leak or
how Hillery was involved. So this evening I go to your web site to see
if I can find comments from today's show, or maybe even a downloadable
recording of the show. I couldn't find either.

Anyway, I want you to know, anytime I am on the road in West
Texas between 8 and 11 Monday through Friday, I'll be doing my best to
tune you in on my radio. It is very problematic for me to be able to
call in. But I will be listening in every chance I get. And when ever
I have something to say that I feel strongly about, I'll send an
e-mail or make a post on the forum on your web site.

For now, I think I, and everyone else, has said enough about
TSA. Currently I am trying to compose my thoughts about education. My
premise will be;
__'Education, A long term solution'.__

Too many drop outs and illiterate adults in society today,
with no grasp or understanding of communications, economics, or
governing. Too many HS graduates that can't spell their own names. We
need to re-focus on the three R's, Reading, Righting, and Rithmatic.
Then we can go to spelling so we can spell Reading, Writing, and
Arithmetic. Once we have that done, we can focus on Economics, Ethics,
and personal responsibility. Then, 30 to 40 years from now when
grade-schoolers of today become influential members of government,
they can bring this country back to where it should be, for our
Grandchildren.
I'm a little uncomfortable quoting the music group Crosby
Stills Nash and Young, but, "Teach your children well, their
fathers hell...", but it seems so appropriate now.


Otherwise, how is that Cattle Co Jerkey? I have a full upper
set of false teeth. I can't chew hard jerkey, but I can manage soft
jerkey. The flavors sound delicious, but I won't be able to enjoy
unless it is soft.

Again! I love your show. I wish I could listen to every minute
of it every day, but that isn't possible. If there is a way you could
provide down-loadable audio files or CD's of your shows, I would
certainly be interested.

If you read this far, you have my most sincere gratitude.
Thank You!

w5ato-Bill
Bill Baker, w5ato
Alpine, TX. 79830

[lwoolley]

Jeff,

Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive and John McCain views him as a hero. At best, McCain is a moderate. At worst, he's a liberal who talks conservative to get elected (we saw that just last month). Notice he's already singing the praises of the VERY liberal Russ Feingold, who just got booted. "Progressivism" is a far left socialist (liberal) ideology that incrementally removes individual freedoms and I personally reject it.

As for conservative vs. liberal, here are some examples of how I personally see the extreme ends of spectrum...

CONSERVATIVE:
* Pro Life
* Capital punishment for murder (that would include people who perform abortions)
* Individuals are ends in themselves and not means to an end (Immanuel Kant)
* Strong faith in Judeo-Christian God
* Small Government / low taxes (reliance on individual compassion and good nature to push / lift others up)
* Anti-Union (Capitalist in nature)
* Strong National Defense / Reverence for the military
* Anti gun control
* Belief that man has little to no impact on climate
* Energy independence over saving polar bears
* Let the free market dictate what gets produced / consumed (Too big to fail should be abolished)
* Everyone accountable equally
* Extremely limited government regulation (example: no encroachment on right to free speech, even for liberals - LET KEITH OLBERMANN SPEAK!)
* Marriage between man and woman only (homosexuality is sinful)
* Understands where money comes from
* Return to the gold standard
* Hayek over Keynes
* Person in congress who best represents - Jim DeMint
* Presidents who best represented conservatism - Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Reagan
* Person not in congress who best represents - Still looking


LIBERAL:
* Pro Abortion
* No Capital punishment (especially not for abortionists)
* Individuals are means to ends, to be exploited for the purpose of a larger agenda (Saul Alinsky)
* Atheist, Agnostic, or Pagan
* Massive entitlement programs (welfare, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, etc.) / re-distribution of wealth
* Pro-Union (communist in nature)
* Weak National Defense / military demonized
* Repeal 2nd amendment
* Belief that man is contributing to destruction of the planet by exhaling CO2 (the fact that polar bears exhale CO2 should be ignored)
* Don't understand that necessity is the mother of invention. Instead, they try to dictate what customers should get (green energy / Chevy Volt)
* Some people are more accountable than others
* As much government regulation as possible to limit the free speech of conservatives (FCC - net neutrality and Fairness Doctrine as examples)
* Nothing wrong with homosexuality and gays should be allowed to marry
* Don't understand where money comes from (it's printed, not earned)
* What's a gold standard?
* Keynes over Hayek
* Persons in congress who best represent (the 70 congressmen who are registered members of the Socialist caucus - Bernie Sanders in the Senate and 69 in the House)
* Presidents who best represented liberalism - Wilson, FDR, Carter, and Obama (Clinton gets honorable mention)
* Person not in congress who represents - George Soros (incidently, Soros sees himself as a progressive)


As for your questions about the Patriot Act.....

The reason the Patriot Act is so confusing to people is because it doesn't address the real threat - ISLAMISM. The Patriot Act was put into place as a direct result of 9/11. Yet, due to political correctness (a liberal trait), the words "Islam," "Muslim," or "Jihad" can't even be found in the law. As a consequence, the Islamic enemies that hit us actually end up potentially being better protected. Case in point - Wheelchair bound nuns are being patted down at airports while DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano (liberal) gives serious consideration to the Council on American Islamic Relations' (CAIR) request to allow Muslim women to pat themselves down.

We have not identified our enemy and as a result, the Patriot Act is potentially very dangerous to law-abiding citizens. In fact, in the spring of 2009, DHS put out a "Right Wing Extremist Report" that identified conservatives as potential terrorists despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary - The vast majority of terrorists are Islamic Jihadists.

After 9/11, Congress SHOULD have declared war on the Muslim Brotherhood and all of the groups that fall under that umbrella. For example, Hamas, al-Qaeda, CAIR, ISNA, MSA, and many others. We did not and are losing the war we have chosen to fight against a "tactic" known as terror instead of against a living, breathing enemy.

As for Glenn Beck, I'm not a big fan of his over-the-top advocacy for gold buying. I also think he gets too conspiratorial at times BUT I think he's on-target about 80%-85% of the time. His exposing of Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Ron Bloom, George Soros, and the other Maoist / communist / socialist / progressive tendencies in the current administration are SPOT ON.

Ben Barrack - "Let's Talk About Something Important!"
www.benbarrack.com
“My concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right”
- Abraham Lincoln

[lwoolley]

Lynn,

The military is not a social laboratory. Unit cohesion in the military is one of the most fundamental principles which guides our combat units in time of war. It disturbs me even after the election, legislators want to further undermine our troops and micro-manage the operations of the military. Why did the Republicans cave on this issue in the 90's and allow Clinton to due this?

John
Midland

[lwoolley]

Lynn,

I spent 3 years in the 82nd Airborne Infantry. I have nothing against gays, and have gay associates, even if I don't agree with the whole gay thing.

That said, I think repealing DADT would be a morale killer, and a detriment to unit cohesion.

Like your other vet callers, I think that poll was either bogus or horribly skewed to get a desired result.

I would not wish to share a foxhole with a gay man. That's just the way it is, and has nothing to do with homophobia, etc. I just don't want to, and that's just the way it is. For the record, I would not wish to share a foxhole with a female.

Either situation is an unnecessary distraction in combat, and in combat, there is never a dearth of distractions.

If DADT is repealed, I've a feeling we will lose many good troops who are sick and tired of being guinea pigs for Liberal utopian wet dreams, instead of the soldiers they signed up to be.

Sincerely,

Jim D.
Midland, Texas

[lwoolley]

Happy Birthday to you,
Happy Birthday to you,
Happy Birthday to Lynnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn,
Happy Birthday to you.

How old are you? Okay 61. That is just a young pup.

And many more.

-from Round Rock Ron

Ps- I think the army should be made up of all homosexuals. Rim-shot!

[lwoolley]

Ben,

Knowing as I do, many who self-identify as "Liberals" I believe your definition of their characteristics is fundamentally inaccurate. I will add that their definition of a "conservative" is generally as fundamentally flawed. If you could tolerate the paradigm shift it might be educational to sit down with a few self-defined liberals and actually get to know them and from whence they derive their beliefs. I once was a die-hard conservative and when faced with an open discussion and honest debate realized that there were legitimate issues and ideas on the other side of the political spectrum.

Like I said earlier though, the Liberals I know think of me as a fundamentalist conservative, but one who recognized them as human beings and not "things" to be attacked. Of course there are Conservatives who insist that i am a raving liberal.

Frankly, your description of Conservatism sounds like a dial-back to the mid-19th century. I am curious as to why you think Richard Nixon took us off the gold standard. As an economist I have studied that issue veer carefully. I also know that the world supply of gold is largely under the control of Russia and South Africa, even to the degree that they can, and possibly are manipulating the price of gold. Are you suggesting that we turn control of the value of the dollar over to the Russians?

I would also be interested in knowing which version of Christianity should set the values. The most devastating war in the history of Western Civilization was fought over that issue, and to some degree is still going on. If we use a democratic method. there are more Roman Catholics than any other single branch of Christianity, so do we use the standard set by the Pope?

I note that the writers of the Constitution totally omitted the mention of "God" and seem to have done so very consciously. Are you in favor of overturning that aspect and having an amendment establishing the United States as a Christian state with a state recognized church? Since the National Cathedral is Episcopalian and I am a member of the Episcopal Church of the United States, that might be to my advantage. After all the Russians have an official religion as do the Germans and the English, should we?

If we should be at war with a religion, namely Islam, what do you propose we do with the several million mainly Sufi Muslims who are here in the United States and are full citizens? Should they be imprisoned for their religious beliefs? They mostly came here after being persecuted in so-called Islamic states and are in many places of responsibility. Notably the number two man at PIMCO is rather clearly Muslim. He is a third generation American. What would you recommend we do with him?

We, for better or worse, are highly dependent on oil that comes from Islamist states like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. We also have very cordial relations with states like Qatar where out Southwest Asia Command is located and also our central supply and maintenance operations for that entire part of the world. Qatar is an official Islamist state. Should we declare war on it?

When I was in the Army I had a close relationship with several Muslim officers from that part of the world. They were good, honest men who greatly admired the United States. They, and in my experience, the vast majority of Muslims do not in any way consider us as their enemies. I am curious as to why you would consider Islam to be the enemy. Nazi Germany was an official Christian state. Russia is today officially a Christian state, it is also potentially the most likely nation for us to enter into a serious war with in the 21st Century. The Chinese government sponsors attacks on the United States via cyber warfare on a regular basis and military writers there have considered war with the United States to be inevitable for decades. The Chinese government is also anti-Muslim. How does identifying our main enemy to be Islam work with that set of facts?

You might want to also consider that Timothy McVeigh attested to having a set of views that seem to fit the definition of "Conservative" you provide. Admittedly he only killed 168 people, including a day-care center full of children rather than 3,000 as in 9-11, but since 9-11 there have been a significant number of conspiracies thwarted involving planned mass murder using explosive devices originating from extremist right-wing American groups. Certainly those plots were in the minority, but we have had two major terrorist attacks in the United States over the past few decades, and one of them was from a set of "conservatives" who were very anti-Muslim, and, as I wrote, apparently holding a belief set that is very similar to the one you outlined. If we go to war on Islam rather than on groups that advocate mass murder for ideology or political reasons how do we deal with the follow-on McVeighs amongst us?

These are not indented to be arguments, just questions. I have offered similar questions to Liberals and they have provoked some good discussions. In the past when I have offered questions like these to self-described Conservatives, they have simply gotten angry and cut off communication.

Last but not least, Teddy Roosevelt was a very strong proponent of gun rights, individual rights, and a small federal government. He was aggressively pro-Christian and in most of his written comments seems to have had a set of beliefs that are very similar to the list you provided. He very strongly believed in self-sufficiency and that the state had no business helping poor people as it would encourage sloth. Do you really consider his beliefs to be antithetical to yours?

Presuming you have read this far, thanks for the opportunity to question. Again, I want to emphasize that I have put at least as extensive and pointed a set of arguments to people who describe themselves as Liberals.

Sincerely yours,

Jeff McClure

[lwoolley]

Jeff,

I'm afraid your premise about Timothy McVeigh is faulty. He was NOT a Christian, nor a conservative. His own authorized biographers quoted him as saying his religion was "science" (closer to the Eco-Wacko types) and that he was an agnostic (note that I put agnostics in the "liberal" column). McVeigh was also a Neo-Nazi. As you know, the term "nazi" translates to the "National SOCIALIST Party." Socialism, as I outlined below, is a "liberal" tenet. It is simply communism with a dash of nationalism thrown in for extra effect. There is strong evidence that McVeigh operated out of a Nazi compound in Elohim City, OK and potentially had assistance from Islamic groups (John Doe #2 was never identified). That would make sense since the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini and Adolf Hitler were best friends and allies in WWII. They both had a common enemy - the Jews. McVeigh is also consistently held up by the left as some poster boy of justification that most terror attacks are not perpetrated by Muslims. The truth is that most are - BY A LONG SHOT.

Here's a list of Islamic terror attacks for just the LAST TWO MONTHS:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#attacks

While I concede that I do not know investing nearly to the degree that you do, you clearly do not understand Islam / Shariah law to the degree I do. Islam is a fundamental political system with a religious component. It is a strict system of governance. It's the basis for the Islamic Caliphate (Ottoman Empire). In Islam, Shariah Law is considered the supreme "Law of the Land." Such a thing would clearly be a usurpation of our Constitution and makes Islam an Article VI issue, not a First Amendment issue. If you are a Constitutionalist, surely you can concede that very important distinction. It's called "creeping shariah" - Islamic progressivism if you will.

The writers of the Constitution used the word, "Creator" instead of "God." Not sure of your point here. The word "Creator" even offends Obama, apparently. He likes to leave it out when reciting that portion of the DOI (one of many examples that firmly entrenches him in the liberal column below).

I am not an economist as are you and will not go to the mat with you on the gold standard. That said, the inherent restriction that such a standard would necessarily put on those who put us in the mess we're in now is clearly a good thing. The debt we're leaving our children and grandchildren cannot be justified and it cannot be sustained by Quantitative Easing, Stimulus Bills, Deficit spending, Bailouts, 2B2F, TARP, Entitlement programs, "one time payments," reparations (Pigford), or huge amounts of debt.

As for Teddy, I'll abstain from pontificating further until I become more learned about him. The fact that McCain reveres him DOES raise a red flag, however. McCain is a mess.

I also said nothing about attacking Qatar. I think I specifically said we should identify the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD as the enemy. They view western culture as THEIR enemy.

Ben Barrack - "Let's Talk About Something Important!"
www.benbarrack.com
“My concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right”
- Abraham Lincoln

[lwoolley]

Ben,

Thanks for the reply.

To the best of my knowledge, Sharia law is a goal of only a very small percentage of Muslims, and certainly not of the Sufi branch of Islam.

I have read quite a lot about Timothy McVeigh's stated beliefs. He ranted against liberals, Muslims, and Jews. He was very angry at the NRA and resigned because they had become, in his words, "liberals."

I cannot find the term "Creator" anywhere in the Constitution. If it is there, please let me know where it is hidden.

You made a very clear statement that our enemy is "ISLAMISM" (the caps are yours). From that a declared Islamic state is one adhering to "Islamism." Sharia law is not in force in the vast majority of Islamic states any more than Christianity is the law in Germany or Ireland (a declared Catholic state). I am quite familiar with Sharia, and also that I have spoken with many Muslims who adamantly believe that Sharia is a perversion of Islam in much the same way that Christian law imposed in the middle ages (e.g. the Inquisition) was a perversion of Christianity.

By the way, the capture of Timothy McVeigh was an accident. Law enforcement was out in force looking for "middle-eastern looking young males." McVeigh had an obscured license tag and had been arrested and was sitting in jail for days before the dots were connected and a bulletin went out.

Indeed Hitler's organization created the Muslim Brotherhood to attack British interests in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein's Baath Part was patterned after the Nazi's and its origin was sponsored and funded by the Gestapo in the late 1930s. Factually that has nothing to do with Socialism. Norway, Denmark, and a host of other U.S. allies are officially governed by "Socialist" parties but are also hotbeds of capitalism. Nokia is in an officially Socialist country, as is Volvo. You would be hard pressed to find oppression and unhappiness in any of the Scandinavian countries. In many ways they have more individual freedom than do we!

Jeff

[lwoolley]

Glenn,

Thank you for the correction on the spelling of Mr. Beck's name. Indeed I do know the difference between tenant and tenet, however as I oft use my iPad to respond to the group's discussions I sometimes fall victim to it's determinations!

Your questions puzzle me and give me cause to wonder if you have some ulterior motive. They are far too simple.

The sole reason you and Lynn cannot set up shop printing U.S. currency is that to do so would be a violation of the law. When we were on a de facto gold standard, you could not have possessed bullion gold for the same reason.

As for debasement of the penny, what difference does it make what a penny is made of? To the best of my knowledge the penny has never been based on the value of copper. It is and has been for as long as I am aware, merely a symbol of 1/100 of the value of a dollar.

Has Gresham's law been repealed? Perhaps a quote from Wikipedia provides the most succinct answer:

Gresham's law is commonly stated: "Bad money drives out good", but is more accurately stated: "Bad money drives out good if their exchange rate is set by law."
This law applies specifically when there are two forms of commodity money in circulation which are required by legal-tender laws to be accepted as having similar face values for economic transactions. The artificially overvalued money tends to drive an artificially undervalued money out of circulation [1] and is a consequence of price control.

Since we seem to be on the subject of the currency in use, I would love to hear a thoughtful discussion of how the gold standard would be implemented. The reason it became illegal for Americans to own gold other than in the form of jewelry or coinage was that the price of gold tends to be very volatile and whole economies have historically been crushed by gold speculation. Would a dollar be valued at 1/1200th of an ounce of gold? If so what happens when, as I suspect it will, gold returns to around $350 per ounce? Would we then be better off as all indebtedness rose to five times the current value of the loan and the money supply shrunk by 80%? Are those who advocate a return to the gold standard in favor of the government confiscating all gold held other than in jewelry or coin collections?

The Romans had arguably the most successful currency in the history of the world, and while they initially made it from electrum, later they substituted base metals. It was not the metal that created the value but the face on the coin backed by the right of violence to enforce the law of Rome. Counterfeiting or defacing of a Roman coin had a simple punishment, death.

Jeff

[lwoolley]

Happy Birthday, Lynn! I wanted to be the first to call your program today w/ b'day blessings, but was unable to carry it out! (I never forget your birthday, because my youngest son, Andrew, was born on your birthday! Andrew is 19 and now you are. . . ??? (oh, yeah, you already said, "over the hill"!)

Hope you have a very special celebration. I am so thankful for you and your courage and willingness to broadcast the constitutionally correct, though "politically incorrect" views. Without programs like yours, I fear that many of us would have already succumbed to the pressures of the culture.

Thanks again, Lynn! May you have many, many more birthdays before moving on to the Other (Better/Best) Side!

Julie

[lwoolley]

Hi Lynn, Isn't today your birthday? If so Happy Birthday!! And now you are older than I am. I still listen everyday and enjoy the show. There is so much bad stuff going on in the world that it is hard to keep up with all of it, but between you, Rush and Sean, I think I'm pretty well informed. Plus you guys make my workday fast and interesting. Thanks!

Steph

[lwoolley]

I believe I clarified "Creator" was in the DOI (See below).

So you don't deny Timothy McVeigh was an agnostic who viewed "science" as his religion? Remember, I said my examples were extreme ends of the spectrum. No comment on the rash of Islamic terror acts outweighing those of non-muslims?

If you are familiar with Shariah law, how familiar are you with the terms, "Taqiyya," "Kitman," and "Muruna?"

Unless you understand them, you're not as familiar with Shariah as you might think. All true Muslims, whether Sunni, Shiite, or Sufi are commanded to desire Islam to rule the world.

Hitler did NOT create the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood was created in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, in Egypt, 4 years after the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, with the stated goal of re-establshing the Ottoman Empire, using a 100 year plan.

They allied with Hitler. He did not create them.

Ben Barrack - "Let's Talk About Something Important!"
www.benbarrack.com
“My concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right”
- Abraham Lincoln

[lwoolley]

Obviously the people you heard had a very different take on the Qur’an than did the people with whom I have spoken. I would not be surprised to find that members of extremist groups can and will do that.

Just for the record, I am no great fan of Islam and consider it to be an immature religion, not terribly different from what Christianity was at the time of the Crusades. I also know there are a great many Muslims who do not consider it appropriate to lie and who consider jihad to be a form of self-examination.

My objection is to your declaration that our war is with, as you capitalized it, “Islamists.” I have known quite a few Muslims who I have respected and have returned the respect. For whatever it is worth, I became aware of a blatant lie that was being presented to several Muslim officers by an American officer. When I challenged him on it, he said, “It’s o.k., they’re ‘rag-heads’ and lying to them doesn’t count.” That officer was supposedly a fairly serious Christian. His behavior does not make Christianity a religion that approves lying, even if he believed it to be so. He also told me that all Muslims were servants of the devil so deceiving them was a virtue. Since he was rather seriously senior to me, I could do nothing about his behavior.

As I said, if you read the Looming Tower, you may get a bit of the other side of the story. I personally believe that making an entire religion into our enemy is very counterproductive for the United States. We gained a lot of ground by making friends with the largely Shinto nation of Japan and with Germany after it had effectively worshiped at the Nazi altar.

You and I agree that the Muslim Brotherhood is a serious threat. So does the government of Egypt and the governments of other middle eastern countries. There is no doubt that Al Qaeda is our enemy. The Saudi’s agree with us on that position as due quite a large number of other Muslim states. Yes, they receive their funding from some Saudis, but the IRA-Provo Branch was and to some degree is still funded from America. That Christians can be terrorists and even have clerics who will announce it is a good idea does not make Christianity a religion that supports lying. At least that is my position.

Jeff

[lwoolley]

Just because there are some Muslims who don't lie doesn't mean their holy book doesn't tell them to.

One more thing on Shoebat.

His grandfather was the village chieftain of the Palestinian village of Beit-Sahour in Bethlehem and was close friends with Hitler's favorite arab, Haj Amin al-Husseini. I think that makes him more than qualified.

As if that weren't enough, his maternal great grandfather was close personal friends with Winston Churchill, who was EXTREMELY CRITICAL of Islam.

In case you're not familiar with what Churchill said..
http://www.allaboutmuhammad.com/winston ... islam.html

I don't excuse the behavior of that soldier you mentioned but perhaps if his government was honest about what we're fighting, he wouldn't be so frustrated.

Besides, I believe our men in WWII shared similar sentiments toward the Japanese and the Nazis. After all, it is war.



Ben Barrack - "Let's Talk About Something Important!"
www.benbarrack.com