Robert Spencer

|

Pamela Geller

|

Bat Ye'or

|

Brigitte Gabriel

|

Daniel Pipes

|

Debbie Schlussel

|

Walid Shoebat

|

Joe Kaufman

|

Wafa Sultan

|

Geert Wilders

|

The Nuclear Card

Why Islamophobes Hate Ron Paul

Posted on 02 January 2012 by Danios

(image from an Islamophobic website)

DISCLAIMER: LoonWatch has not endorsed any candidate for President of the United States.  This article should not be seen as such.

Islamophobes absolutely hate Ron Paul.  Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs–the King and Queen of Islamophobia on the internet–dedicate page after page on their hate blogs lambasting the Congressman and presidential hopeful.

Why do they hate Ron Paul so much?

There are three major reasons why they detest him:

(1) Ron Paul stands up for American Muslims against Islamophobia.  For example, he defended the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque,” arguing that the entire controversy was “all about hate and Islamophobia.”

(2) He has been one of the most vocal opponents of the Bush-Obama curtailments of civil liberties that specifically target Muslims.

(3) Paul is the only major presidential candidate to oppose America’s wars in the Muslim world.  Even more importantly, Ron Paul links reason #1 above (the Lesser Islamophobia) to reason #3 (the Greater Islamophobia), arguing that “in order to perpetuate this foreign policy…they have to perpetuate this hate toward Islam.”

This third reason is also why mainstream politicians and the mainstream media dislike Ron Paul and have tried their utmost to destroy him.  Fox political pundit Bill O’Reilly argued that Paul’s views on foreign policy “disqualifies him” as a candidate for president.  Here is exactly what O’Reilly said:

His foreign policy disqualifies him in my eyes as an American…

Bill O’Reilly has inadvertently touched upon something very deep and meaningful:  ”As an American,” foreign policy must include waging war.  To do without war would simply be un-American.

One recalls the words of H. Rap Brown, the chairman of the civil rights group Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), who famously declared in 1967:

Violence is as American as cherry pie.

Brown uttered this statement during the height of the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War.  While blacks were being beaten up and hosed down in the streets of America, the United States was raining death down upon the Vietnamese population halfway across the earth.

H. Rap Brown was not the only one in the civil rights movement who linked the struggle of blacks in America to the struggle of the darker skinned peoples of the world.  For instance, Martin Luther King, Jr. called America “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” for its war-making:

The Soviet Union brought attention to America’s “Negro problem.”  Michael L. Krenn writes on pp.89-90 of Race and U.S. Foreign Policy During the Cold War:

By 1949, according to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, “the ‘Negro question’ [was] [o]ne of the principal Soviet propaganda themes regarding the United States.” “[T]he Soviet press hammers away unceasingly on such things as ‘lynch law,’ segregation, racial discrimination, deprivation of political rights, etc., seeking to build up a picture of an America in which the Negroes are brutally downtrodden with no hope of improving their status under the existing form of government.”  An [American] Embassy official believed that “this attention to the Negro problem serves political ends desired by the Soviet Union and has nothing whatsoever to do with any desire to better the Negro’s position.”

Apparently, only the United States is allowed to saber rattle and invade countries on the grounds that the “existing form of government” is discriminatory or unjust to part of its population.

With the world’s spotlight on America’s treatment of its darker-skinned citizens–and those same citizens linking their struggle to America’s foreign wars against darker-skinned peoples–the United States moved in the direction of racial integration in the 1970′s.  America’s longest war was also grudgingly brought to an end.

But today, despite the fact that we have been waging wars for two decades in the Muslim world and in just the last couple years bombed over half a dozen Muslim countries, the anti-war movement is, at least compared to the 1960′s and 70′s, all but dead.

Ron Paul is one of the only major political figures–and the only major presidential candidate–to oppose America’s wars.

And that is why he is in the cross-hairs of anti-Muslim bigots, who see the world in apocalyptic holy war terms: the jihad will bring an end to Western civilization as we know it so we must destroy them first!  This is their fundamental world view, which is why sustaining and protracting the wars against the Muslim world is their greatest desire.

Ron Paul threatens that paradigm.  He dares to cogitate that it is our military interventions in the Muslim world that result in Islamic terrorism against the United States and her allies.  He had the chutzpah to include 9/11 in this: “They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.”

In the American national discourse, this is next to blasphemy.  But, in the rest of the world (especially in Muslim countries), this is not just common knowledge, it’s common sense.  In fact, nothing could be more obvious.

It’s precisely because this idea is so obvious and self-evident that it must simply never be uttered in the United States.  Anyone who does so must be condemned as unpatriotic and, worse, as Unserious.  Such a person’s character must be viciously attacked.

That’s exactly what is happening to Ron Paul.  Unfortunately, Paul deserves much of the blame for making himself such an easy target.  The racist newsletters are a gold-mine for his opponents.  Pamela Geller gleefully called them a “bombshell,” arguing that his presidential bid is now “unrecoverable” and that “[h]e is done.”

The evidence against Ron Paul, that he wrote those vile things against black people, is certainly very strong.  The only saving grace for Paul is the fact that those racist screeds do not sound anything like him.  Whether or not this alone can outweigh the proof against him, I do not know.  Whatever the case, Paul’s delay in disassociating himself from the letters, his ever-changing excuses, and his questionable associations are enough to condemn him.  (A balanced article on Ron Paul was written by the indefatigable Glenn Greenwald.)

Under normal circumstances, I’d have nothing but absolute contempt for Ron Paul.  In fact, even if he didn’t have such racism-related baggage,  a progressive like myself would have nothing to do with a man who wants to get rid of social welfare programs, the Department of Education, etc. etc.  When it comes to domestic issues, there is probably very little Ron Paul and I would see eye-to-eye on.  Worse yet, I find many of his views on such matters to be outside the realms of reasonableness–I’d go so far as to call them loony.

Yet, many progressives like myself are finding themselves inexorably drawn to Ron Paul.  That is because he is the only major presidential candidate to oppose America’s wars.  Stated another way: the rest of the candidates–including the incumbent president (who expanded the War on Terror)–are war-makers.  Ron Paul is the only peace candidate.

This says a lot about the state of our union more than it does about Ron Paul.  War-making has become such a staple of American life that the only man who stands a chance (and a slim one at that) of bringing an end to Endless War is a loony, fringe candidate with a questionable and possibly racist past.

I have been criticized by some Islamophobes for daring to say anything positive about Ron Paul.  But, the fact that a person of my views (a progressive peacenik) is forced to consider Ron Paul is indicative of how truly violent and warlike our country has become (or, rather, has always been).  This underscores my main counter-argument to the Supreme Islamophobic Myth: we, as part of the Judeo-Christian West, have been and are still, just as, if not more, violent and warlike than the Muslim world.

This fact is underscored even more by the fact that the reason why Ron Paul has been “disqualified” as a realistic candidate is because, in the words of Bill O’Reilly, of his peace-loving foreign policy.  Imagine, for instance, if an Iranian candidate for the Iranian presidency could never realistically win unless he advocated for war against other countries.  What would it say about Iranians if they, by convention and consensus, refused to elect someone who advocated peaceful relations with the rest of the world?

One would expect that progressive peaceniks like myself would have more options to choose from than just one candidate.  But because warmongering is an essential component of being president of the United States (and serving in the military is almost a prerequisite to getting elected–imagine if Iranians would demand that their leaders must have sometime in their lives fought jihad), there is virtually nobody to vote for.

In an earlier article, I wrote of how war has been a part of the American psyche since the very beginning, from 1776 all the way to the present.  We’ve never gone a decade without a major war, and no president in our history can truly be considered a peacetime president.  Yet, somehow even after waging wars for more than 91% of our existence, we look at ourselves as peace-makers and “those Moozlums over there” as violent and warlike.

A verse from the Quran is most fitting here: “When it is said to them: ‘Do not make mischief on earth,’ they say: ‘We are but peace-makers.’  In fact, they are the mischief-makers, but they realize it not.” (2:11-12)

*  *  *  *  *

Something else that reinforces my argument is the fact that even Ron Paul, the single peace proponent in the presidential race, does not seem to oppose war based on peacenik principles.  He usually raises financial and political arguments against the wars, instead of humanitarian ones: We’re bankrupting ourselves.  Or: These wars result in terrorism (against us).

Our moral compass should not be dictated by money or self-interest.  We should oppose these wars because killing innocent civilians is morally atrocious.  This is what should be the main argument:

Not this:

Let me clarify: there is nothing wrong with raising financial and political arguments as secondary reasons to end the wars.  In fact, I would encourage doing so.  But, the primary motivation behind opposing wars should be less self-centered (the war is costing us too much money, they may retaliate with terrorism against us, too many of our young soldiers are risking their lives over there), but more humanitarian towards the victims of our aggression: we are killing innocent civilians.

Ron Paul’s emphasis on financial and political reasons, as opposed to humanitarian concerns, seems to be consistent with his ideology.  (After all, he supported Israel’s bombing of Iraq in 1981 and seems unconcerned if Israel bombs Iran on its own accord.  This indicates to me that it is not the dead in Iraq or Iran that bothers him so much, but only that it would cost us money to kill them or would risk retaliation against us for doing so.)  What does it say about America if even the one and only supposed peace candidate is against wars not out of humanitarian reasons but financial and political concerns?

Even if I am being too harsh on Ron Paul and it’s just a political consideration to focus on financial and political reasons, what does it say about us Americans that we can only be convinced based on our wallets and not on our consciences?

*  *  *  *  *

I don’t say this very often, but Pamela Geller was absolutely right when she said  about Ron Paul that “[h]e is done.”  He most certainly is.  And so dies the only candidate who could have ended America’s Endless Wars.

One should point out, however, that just because the Islamophobes have found the Kryptonite that will kill Ron Paul (the racist newsletters) this doesn’t change the fact that Paul’s foreign policy views were correct.

Let this be a lesson to groupies and fan boys of Ron Paul, a lesson that groupies and fan boys of Barack Obama should also heed: do not put your hopes in a man, because if you do, that man will often, if not always, disappoint you. Put your faith in a conviction instead.  If you hold on tightly enough to the conviction and not the man, it will persevere.

Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011.  

DISCLAIMER: LoonWatch has not endorsed any candidate for President of the United States.  This article should not be seen as such.

112 Comments For This Post

  1. mindy1 Says:

    I am getting sick of politicians-the major parties are getting annoying, and I do not know who to trust. I do not want a progressive like Obama, but I do not want a right wing nut either. I HATE THIS, I don’w know who to choose

  2. Sam Seed Says:

    I’m not much in the way of US politics but this is a great article.Well done again Danios. How is it that anyone that tries to do good, the likes of Geller come out screaming like a banshee. I hear she gets excited when Muslims suffer, I pity the woman.

  3. Muhajirun Says:

    Great article, and whether we like Dr. Paul or not…he is the only candidate that would repeal the NDAA which NoBama just signed into law. It is astounding for a covert such as myself to see NOTHING…not a peep…about this bill from the Muslim community.
    See: https://sites.google.com/site/muhajirun2012/

  4. CentristAmericanMuslim Says:

    I’m probably voting for Ron Paul if it were between him and Obama. That being said, it seems the Republican Party in general are quite weak – not to mention, bigoted, homophobic, hypocrites, etc.

  5. Garo Says:

    Danios wrote:

    “We’ve never gone a decade without a major war,and no president in our history can truly be considered a peace time president.”

    Danios,

    The above statement of yours is not exactly accurate. Reasons:

    ~ President Dwight Eisenhower stopped the Korean War and stood fast in his determination to provide the American people with the peace they yearned for.

    ~ In the last seventy years, only Eisenhower’s eight years in the White House were peaceful;in the sense that American blood was not shed in wars,somewhere,in the world. America was in peace with the rest of the world,less the Cold War with the Communist Block. Cold means cold and no shedding of blood was involved.

    I do dare calling President Eisenhower a truly President of peace. In fact his decency and sense of humanity are revealed by the following words of his,responding to the extreme pressure exerted on him to start an endless war with Communist China,in 1953,immediately after he stopped the Korean war,as quoted by writer,John Nichols of The Nation magazine:

    “Every gun that is made,every warship launched,every rocket fired signifies in the final sense,a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers,the genious of its scientists,the hope of its children.[...] This is not a way of life at all in a true sense. Under the clouds of war,it is humanity hanging on a cross of Iron.”

    Because Eisenhower was very popular among the American people,whether they were Republicans Democrats,or Idependents,he was able to reject the push for war by the warmongering and war profiteer forces. In fact,he kept them under a leash and kept America out of wars for eight straight years.

    If all the above does not say plenty about Eisenhower’s push for peace,I really do not know what does!

  6. Senor Says:

    Garo:

    The Korean war never ended, so Danios is correct on that account. That’s why we still have troops there on a base.

    As for Ron Paul, I think he is the best candidate out of all of them. He is the only one who is not a corporatist.

  7. mindy1 Says:

    @Garo, makes me wish someone with integrity like that would run-nowdays it’s all about getting elected and reelected. The amounts of money spent on campaigns could help so many people in the world… :(

  8. Jakester Says:

    “we are killing innocent civilians” …… and as long as we do not even ‘Bodycount and keeping People from realizing how we chop up People Worldwide, the Principal of ‘Worthy & Unworthy Victims’ will stay a vital Part of Our cruel Inconsideration.

  9. Ernesto Says:

    Muhajirun, no president can repeal a law, only congress can repeal laws. Presidents can only repeal regulations. Furthermore, if the congress passes a bill with a veto-proof majority, the president is legally prohibited from vetoing it.

    It also bears mentioning that a fair amount of Islamophobes and other types of racists adore ron paul because of his desire to repeal all federal regulations against things like discrimination based on race and religion– and instead leave that up to the individual states. That would result in states with an agitated Islamophobic voting base mobilizing to ban hijabs, taqiyahs, minarets and mosques– and the federal government would be powerless to stop it, effectively abandoning all Muslims in those states to the whims of the ignorant.

  10. Gremlin Says:

    those who support the war deserve to suffer as the people they invaded

  11. Leaveit2Bob Says:

    Are you capable of writing an article without going off on your usual rants?

  12. Hajj Dawud Says:

    Muhairun writes: It is astounding for a covert such as myself to see NOTHING … not a peep … about this bill from the Muslim community.

    Those of us who read the Signs also read the Ayat that says “It is the same to them whether they are warned or they are not warned ~ they do not keep faith.” No one can avoid seeing the Signs ~ that’s why they’re called Signs. So keep on keeping on ~ we’re just witnesses. Continue planting the tree, become the beds of your houses, cling to the stump of a tree, remain aloof from the parties of contention, and be grateful that we only have to witness it once, while others will have to live it forever.

  13. Garibaldi Says:

    Good piece Danios. It may be true that Ron Paul will be unable to recover from the “racist newsletters,” but I am not ready to preclude the chance that he will. He may possibly gain some momentum if he wins or comes in second in the first few primaries. I would like to see a debate between Paul and Obama, that would be interesting.

    I read Greenwald’s piece over the weekend, it was excellent and the most balanced yet!

  14. Julieann Wozniak Says:

    I find the concept of islamophobes’ hatred of Mr. Paul ironic, since he enjoys the unvarnished support of white supremacists who hate everyone else. Just saying. If it wasn’t for this last, and his desire to scrap all environmental, consumer, and workplace safety regulation, and his antiabortion stance, I would be a Paul supporter, too. I really dislike the wars and the “Patriot Act,” having spent time on Pennsylvania’s terror watch list, along with Gene Stilp’s pink plastic pig.

  15. Danios Says:

    @ Garo:

    Dwight Eisenhower was President of the United States from 1953 until 1961. During this time, the U.S. was involved in the Cold War, which was a time of war, not peace.

    In 1953, the U.S. was involved in a covert war in Iran. In 1954, the U.S. was involved in a covert war in Guatemala. Tom Wicker writes of Eisenhower: “Both wars were…fully approved by Dwight D. Eisenhower, the man of peace…”

    Furthermore, the U.S. was involved in the Vietnam War during Eisenhower’s presidency. The Vietnams Veterans Memorial considers 1955 the start of American involvement in the Vietnam War. The first American to be killed in Vietnam was in 1956, as recognized by the Vietnam Memorial Wall and confirmed by a Department of Defense review.

    The reality is that Vietnamese were dying long before that, with American backing of the French occupation starting right after World War II.

    It is up to you to decide if all this makes Dwight D. Eisenhower a peacetime president. That in and of itself would speak volumes of how we need to set the standard so low for American presidents.

  16. khushbooa Says:

    I know that most of us Muslims are no longer registered Republicans b/c too many of them are nuts but in order to vote for Ron Paul in the Primaries, I suggest we register as Republicans asap. He has his faults but he’s still better than Obama.

  17. khushboo Says:

    Ron Paul has denied and disavowed the racist comments made on his newsletter. He said he doesn’t read everything that was on his report and only discovered it years after the fact. In other words, he accepts that those words were racist. Unless there’s evidence, there’s nothing more to it and we need to move on from something that happened decades ago.

    He simply believes in every man for himself and less gov’t. Gov’t. has way too much power over us and as a result, we’re losing our freedom.

  18. Awesome Says:

    The racist newsletters canard was pulled back during the 2008 campaign as well, and yet, somehow, Ron Paul’s support has managed to grow since then. It’s being pulled again, because it’s really the only thing that they can really attack him with.

    And seriously, would anyone have even heard about those newsletters if they weren’t brought up by the media to attack Ron Paul? With a decades-long track record of things we actually know that he has said and done, it seems strange that 1 or 2 articles in an obscure newsletter would be all the dirt that they could find attached to his name, if the racist allegations were true.

    Some of his policies seem strange, but then when reading the reasoning behind them, they do, in a way, make sense. He is a strict constitutionalist, and everything that he has said and done is consistent with that. It is strange to see people attacking the only candidate who actually believes in, and wants to uphold, the constitution to the letter. Do people not believe in the fundamental, founding principles of the state anymore?

    I find the concept of islamophobes’ hatred of Mr. Paul ironic, since he enjoys the unvarnished support of white supremacists who hate everyone else.

    @ Julieann Wozniak

    Islamophobes hate Ron Paul because they support statism, while he stands against it. White supremacists hate statism and so consequently some of them tend to support Ron Paul.

    The reason this is so, is because Islamophobes emphasize restrictions on the civil liberties of others (specifically Muslims), while white supremacists emphasize their own civil liberties to be as racist as they please towards others, without being regulated by the state.

    So although both may hate the same groups of people, their ideas in regards to it are very different.

  19. moxy Says:

    Funny how anyone who opposes the Gift of a Grateful Nation our Obama is labelled a right winger, and in the same company as Nixon, Reagan, and Bush II:
    has it occurred to you pundits that the State does give a damn which hand of tyranny is gloved?

    And that Obama is the same as the other fascists— after one thing: his vanity ?

  20. Garo Says:

    Danios,

    Just for the records,I am not a Republican,nor am I a Democrat. I have been Independent voter all of my adult life. I follow no man or woman. I have been my own man and intend to remain so as long as I live.

    I have tried to be fair to Eisenhower,based on what I read,witnessed on my white and black TV,when I was still a university undergradute student,in the 1950′s. He did lead the free world in the 1950′s through his MORAL AUTHORITY,which America and the rest of the world needed so badly these days. America then was the most admired country in the world,including among the people who lived within the confines of the Iron Curtain(Soviet Union then).

    I had read every book published about Eisenhower,I could find,due to the fact I was impressed by his career. Hence,what I have written about him,here,on this thread and other websites in time past,has been based on what some respectable historians had written. I have selected what John Nichols had quoted was to reveal Eisenhower’s decency and concern for the humanity and human conditions. As far as I am concerned that alone speaks volumes about the decency of Eisenhower,especially if one remembers that his years in the White House must be relatively compared with the rest of the American Presidents. It is all relative,including historical “truth?”.

    If I am wrong in my assessment of Eisenhower and his years in the White House,I alone shoulder the blame for such an error,and no one else.

  21. khushboo Says:

    Sad News! Obama just signed the National Defense Act. Say goodbye to your rights now. :(

  22. Durendal Says:

    There are probably many reasons “Islamophobes” reject Ron Pauls policies but I doubt rejection of the Iraq/Afghan war is part of it. In fact both are rejected on the principle that Islam and democracy are not compatible and thus nation building is seen as an act of futility.Geert Wilders who can certainly be counted as a leading “Islamophobe” voted against deployment of Dutch forces to Afghanistan for this reason.The “war on terror” is also rejected as a concept.In fact US foreign policy since at least the second world war has actually helped Islam establish and maintain itself and expand.The Saudi’s being the best example of this.They depend on US protection to maintain their power. Islam was also seen as a bulwark against communism and wholeheartedly supported by the USA.The Islamisation of Pakistan (Reagan’s support for the dictator Haq arming the Pakistani military) and the creation of the Islamic Jihad against the Soviet Union was largely funded and encouraged by the USA.So a drawing down of US forces and the untangling of the US Empire might not be such a bad thing from the “Islamophobe” perspective which has often done more harm then good and was mostly useless at best.The support for the KLA wasn’t a highlight of US foreign intervention either.Ron Paul would certainly cause quite a enormous shift if he ends up doing what he says he wants to do.Islamophobes reject any politician that doesn’t have a clue about what Islam is.I don’t think Ron Paul is specifically hated in general “hate” is a rather silly emotion to begin with but opposition sure.

  23. Believing Atheist Says:

    Ron Paul is a dangerous and bigoted Presidential candidate, yet so many are blinded by his foreign policy that it is all they see in him and exalt him for it. This is a myopic and one-dimensional view in my opinion.

    Open your eyes about Ron Paul.
    Ron Paul is a homophobe and loathes people with AIDS
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39698_Ron_Paul-_AIDS_Patients_Are_Victimizing_Innocent_Citizens

    Ron Paul is a racist.
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/265961_Ron_Pauls_racist_newsletters_p

    And more info here
    http://www.alternet.org/news/153551/ron_paul_and_libertarianism%27s_dirty_secret_–_pandering_to_racist_%22rednecks%22_to_get_ahead/

    Ron Paul is anti-women, anti-civil rights and anti-equality
    http://www.alternet.org/news/152217/why_do_some_progressives_support_ron_paul%2C_even_though_he_is_anti-woman%2C_anti-civil_rights%2C_and_anti-equality/

    Open your eyes everybody!

  24. ali Says:

    Quebec mosque vandalized: http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/gatineau-mosque-target-of-vandalism-2

  25. Awesome Says:

    @ Durrendal

    Islamophobes reject any politician, clued or not, that doesn’t share their particular views on Islam. Their ignorance, bigotry and hatred needs to be reassured by the candidate for them to consider him viable.

    @ Believing Atheist

    Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, and even a basic understanding of his proposed policies would show that they are completely consistent with the constitution:

    ronpaul.com

    ronpaul2012.com

  26. Black Infidel Says:

    What Believing Atheist posted is true about Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not anti-Muslim but he is still a loon.

  27. Ali Says:

    I agree with Believing Atheist. While many of us may find RP’s views on foreign policy refreshing, we cannot excuse his (recent) past comments and many of his other views.

    It disappoints me that our people have not matured (politically) beyond ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.’

  28. HGG Says:

    I suppose it’s ok if Paul is a bigoted, disgusting individual as long as he’s not bigoted against the right people, right?

  29. Shlomo Says:

    Danios both you and Believing Atheist should apologize for spreading rumors and distortions about Ron Paul

    He is not a racist at all. And has responded to these smears time and time again:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw

  30. Believing Atheist Says:

    American Muslims you are an oppressed people, demonized and marginalized in society. You should not then turn around and push for a candidate who will alleviate that oppression of you to a certain extent but in substitution oppress others, mainly the poor. Ron Paul for instance wants to abolish the department of education and the minimum wage. Both of these potential moves will hurt the poor. Cutting minimum wage will recreate wage slavery in America
    http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/ron-paul-abolish-minimum-wage-to-help-poor-people/

    He also wants to abolish healthcare for the poor claiming:
    “Why should anyone be forced to subsidize the medical care of others? Very few individuals would personally assault their neighbors at gunpoint and steal thousands of dollars to pay for their own medical needs. How could any freedom loving person agree to delegate such criminal acts to the government by supporting a compulsory health insurance system?” http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/

    Tell me now is oppressing the poor Islamic? Those Muslims who wish to vote for Ron Paul should really examine their own religion and the deeds of their prophet, who loved the poor and took care of them personally in addition to mandating that Muslims take care of the poor in society.

  31. Shlomo Says:

    Believing Atheist I do not see anything wrong with what Paul said.

    It is very much a fact that a majority of AIDS victims in the West are the victims of their own promiscuous sex, mostly men anyway. Paul is correct that from a libertarian perspective the rest of us should not have to suffer for foolish lifestyle choices. Ron Paul is fully correct that such cases should be handed through charitable organizations such as churches and so on and the state money, our tax money should not go into it. Taxes should be given to those who deserve them

    The anti-woman, anti-equality, anti-minority is complete and utter nonsensen demonstrating you are just reading typical LIE_BERAL propaganda without giving Ron Paul the time to elaborate his views. Even the very article you linked to from Alternet has plenty of voices in its comments tearing its falsehoods apart. NO, he is not anti-gay, he is leaving that to the states to decide for themselves. No, he is not anti-abortion, he is leaving that to the states to decide as well

    Facts on the ground are a ginormous federal government makes democracy impossible. When you return power to the states, each conglomerate can then have greater say over their own affairs. This is why large countries created states and provinces to begin with

    This is the problem with religious liberals. They will never be satisified until their doctrines are shoved in every nook and cranny like any fundamentalist evangelical christian.

  32. Nur Alia Says:

    Ron Paul is not a blind Zionist. This is what the REST of the world needs in an American president.

    No matter what Mr. Paul is within the borders of the US, it is what he is not outside of the borders of the US that benefit us all.

  33. CriticalDragon1177 Says:

    @HGG

    No I wouldn’t say that, but regardless of what Kind of person he actually is, I doubt that he will get the Republican Nomination anyway.

  34. Inspired by Mohammad Says:

    Good work Danios, as usual.

    I’ll be honest and admit that I oppose Ron Paul, but for none of the reasons mentioned above.

    I fear that if Ron Paul, were to take over, and do what he says he would do, he would make the US military even stronger than what it is now. So while he may oppose wars now, he may not when the deficit shows a plus.

    Thus, as horrible as it sounds, I want someone who will continue to lead the US into bankruptcy. The USA needs to learn a lesson it will never forget.

    Sorry. I know you’ll find this offensive, and probably shout at me, but that’s how i feel. I think that is also why I still like Obama.

  35. Disappointing Says:

    I think there is something seriously wrong with people who think Ron Paul’s (suspected and unproven) racist thoughts are more important than ending wars that are killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of people. This says it better than I can:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/102804.html

  36. Abdul-Rahman Says:

    I agree nearly completely with Ron Paul’s foreign policy points (ending the wars, ending the military industrial complex, ending aid to the Zionist entity colonialists, etc). However I completely disagree with most of Ron Paul’s domestic policies, as they are completely extremist capitalism (i.e. Ron Paul saying he was okay letting someone without health insurance just die, etc) and also sadly tinged with undercurrents of racism such as Ron and his son Rand Paul saying they don’t support the civil rights act and that civil rights should not have to extend to someone’s “private property” (like a restaurant, etc). We have come far enough that, I am completely for mandating that a business not be allowed to be racist, period.

  37. Lilly Says:

    Soo… who is the safest candidate?

  38. Shlomo Says:

    @ Danios read this:

    http://www.salon.com/2011/​12/31/​progressives_and_the_ron_pa​ul_fallacies/

  39. khushboo Says:

    Ron Paul is a homophobe and loathes people with AIDS”

    Not true. If he did, I would never root for him. He said that Insurance Co. should figure out the coverage for Aids patients and not force it upon others who don’t want to pay. Does that make him a hater? How is that even homophobic? You’re assuming that he’s blaming gays for Aids. He never blamed them.

    For those who think he’s a bigot, please provide proof. I would actually like to HEAR what HE said that’s bigoted and NOT what’s written by others.

  40. Ali Says:

    Ron Paul is not racist at all. He has been in the congress for a long time, and his voting is sufficient enough to reveal what kind of a man he is. His speeches and his writings also do not give any evidence of racism.

    It is very clear that main stream media, Faux leading the pack, is desperate to stop him. He’s the best candidate for American muslims, for all minorities and for all Americans despite his flaws. He looks like a saint when compared to other Republican candidates. He is also better than Obama. Obama was a huge disappointment for me.

  41. Believing Atheist Says:

    @Inspired by Mohammad,

    You wrote: “Thus,as horrible as it sounds, I want someone who will continue to lead the US into bankruptcy. The USA needs to learn a lesson it will never forget.”

    You said this is why you are voting for Obama. Are you aware that Obama is a millionaire and will not at all be personally impacted by leading the U.S. into bankruptcy, just as George W. Bush wasn’t personally impacted for killing innocents abroad or wasting Clinton’s surplus?

    Your idea will hurt the poor and innocent in America. It will hurt the single mother who will be unable to feed her children due to the destroyed economy, you’re not going to hurt Obama.

    Which means you believe in collective punishment. You believe the sins of the fathers (metaphorically in this case Bush/Obama), are trickled down to the sons and daughters (we the people of the U.S.), the majority of whom opposed U.S. invasion of Iraq and a substantial number of whom wish to withdraw from Afghanistan. That is your lesson in a nutshell.

    Furthermore, how do you know Ron Paul will enhance the U.S. military? What research or evidence do you base this conclusion on? Or is this more of your speculation like when you claimed Dr M and I were one and the same? Please don’t run away this time and change your name.

  42. Isa Says:

    “A verse from the Quran is most fitting here: “When it is said to them: ‘Do not make mischief on earth,’ they say: ‘We are but peace-makers.’ In fact, they are the mischief-makers, but they realize it not.” (2:11-12)

    It’s eerie that you quoted this verse, Danios. This is the exact thought I had when I first read that verse eight years ago, when Bush was about to declare war on Iraq.

  43. HGG Says:

    A former aide talks about Ron Paul:

    http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-from-fmr-ron-paul-staffer-on-newsletters-anti-semitism/

    (yes, I notice the site, but it’s been reported elsewhere and that had the complete letter)

    I know a lot of his views will sound like music to many here, especially about Israel (or “Zionist Regime” if you prefer) but I want to direct your attention to this:

    “Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11…

    ..At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay,” much to the great relief of Jackie and I. He never explained why, but I strongly suspected that he realized it would have been political suicide; that staunchly conservative Victoria would revolt, and the Republicans there would ensure that he would not receive the nomination for the seat in 2002.”

    So much for the “principles” of Ron Paul.

    I’ve always considered Paul a nutbag with disgusting views. But I at least respected him for sticking to his principles. In the end, he’s just a sleazeball politician like the rest.

  44. Awesome Says:

    The “let them die” line reflects a poor understanding of what his policies actually amount to, as it presumes that his ideas about medicare would end up with a conclusion like that. What people don’t realize, is that his ideas about medicare would allow a more direct relationship between doctors and patients without having to go through bureaucracies like they do now.

    It is unfortunate that people think that getting rid of government programs for people would be a bad thing when they don’t even realize how unnecessary, inconvenient and restrictive they can be for everyone besides the bureaucrats who run it.

    Also, if there is real evidence of bigotry on RP’s part (besides those questionable newsletters) I would like to see it. It is strange and ironic that the people who have all these negative things to say about him, don’t even know him, nor what he actually stands for.

    And how is it that people call Ron Paul an “isolationist” when it has been clearly explained that he is a “non-interventionist”?

    Also, how can someone be an individualist and a racist? Someone who views people as collective racial groups is a racist and by definition, cannot be an individualist who views people as individuals, and vice versa. We know Ron Paul is an individualist, so how can he possibly be a racist? It makes absolutely no sense. An individualist is the farthest you can get from being a racist.

    Ron Paul:

    - small government as outlined in the constitution
    - honest money
    - non-interventionist
    - individualist
    - pro individual rights and liberties
    - de-federalization of federal programs
    - de-centralization in general

    That sounds sensible enough. And what do the alternatives to Ron Paul offer?

    - more corporate plutocracy
    - more endless wars for profit and control
    - more loss of civil rights and liberties
    - more debt slavery
    - economic apocalypse

    And needless to say, that won’t end well for anyone. The only other choice besides those 2 is a 3rd party candidate, and it is unlikely that you can get enough people to vote for one before its too late.

  45. corey Says:

    this looks like a good “what if they were muslim” http://news.yahoo.com/man-arrested-explosives-airport-army-expert-001817371.html

  46. Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32) Warning Contains Irony Says:

    Safest cadidate for me personally is Ron Paul buts thats because I live in France ;-)

  47. Hajj Dawud Says:

    Lilly Says: Soo… who is the safest candidate?

    The one least likely to be able to use the power of the President.

  48. eslaporte Says:

    First of all, I’d like to see America adapt a European-style foreign policy, like that of the EU. This would mean that diplomacy would naturally come first and the use of military force would only be concidered for actually national survival or authorized by the Security Council. The need to get Security Council authorization would force the US into greater diplomacy with members (Russia and China). I know full well that the US is not capable of this – but it could be with the right change to US national identity and priorities. The main difference between Europe and the US is when and how to use military force.

    Second -end American power projection! The only thing I like about Ron Paul is his foreign policy. Ending wasteful American power projection should be a Number One issue! Paul would bring American military forces out of the umpteen number of countries where America has its nose in the faces of others and where America is not needed (like Europe). The use of power projection in the post Cold War world is simply a Royal Waste of taxpayers’ money and tends to provoke conflict rather than bring peace.

    Ending wasteful power projection is the only thing I like about Ron Paul!

  49. badboo Says:

    “The evidence against Ron Paul, that he wrote those vile things against black people, is certainly very strong…

    … When it comes to domestic issues, there is probably very little Ron Paul and I would see eye-to-eye on. Worse yet, I find many of his views on such matters to be outside the realms of reasonableness–I’d go so far as to call them loony.”

    Is this Ronpaulophobia? Or perhaps “nonliberalpoliciophobia”? :)

    Please, the man is coherent and straightforward, intelligent and articulate.
    You may not like some of the policies which are stemming from his libertarian worldview,
    but wouldn’t the left wing extreme policies of ‘anarchism’ border on the same principles? Cut the hands of government, he says; yes, from economical issues which is a negative, but also from cultural and religious issues. As a Moslem, I don’t want a liberal administration imposing ‘a belief in gay marriage’ on me and my children in the name of political correctness and anti-homophobia laws, neither I approve of a rightist administration imposing his anti-Sharia worldview and restricting my freedoms. I should think of my camels,
    Liberals want to ride them, and Republicans want to confiscate them; but Paul will leave them to me, and will leave every other people’s camels to everyone. He might not propose the best of the systems, or he migh tpropose a no system, but in a crazy world, where every system can lead to a system of domination or manipulation, he might be our best chance of putting things on the right track.

    And about the welfare, if we are so attached to it, why don’t we organize one independently; and on the top that’s a religious duty. Why wait for the government?

  50. Lilly Says:

    Hajj Dawud… So… I should vote for my cat?

  51. Believing Atheist Says:

    @Khushboo,

    Are you a woman? If so here is the link again (I posted it once for my reference to AIDS) where Ron Paul said sexual harrassment laws need to be abolished
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39698_Ron_Paul-_AIDS_Patients_Are_Victimizing_Innocent_Citizens

    Paul also defended a passage from the same book that suggested victims of sexual harassment should quit.

    “They have the right to work there or not work there,” he said, adding that federal law does not need to cover sexual harassment as violence in the workplace is already prohibited.

    In regards to AIDS we all should take care of each other, because we are one family and share one world. AIDS patients need our help. Not all AIDS is transmitted via sexual activity. Arthur Ashe got AIDS through a blood transfusion I believe (I may have to recheck).

  52. Believing Atheist Says:

    @Shlomo,

    I don’t have to apologize to Ron Paul. I linked all of my evidence. You say however that Ron Paul is none of the things Alternet says he is. Well here are his own words on why is against the 1964 Civil Rights Act
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

    He said: “Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.”

    Affirmative Action helped a lot of African-Americans enter college and obtain a better life via lucrative careers. Without such help from the Federal government this progress could not have been made.

    Furthermore, Ron Paul assumes that racial harmony would’ve been established without government intervention to set things right. That’s false. Tell me how would segregation be abolished without government intervention? And before that how would slavery be abolished without government intervention? If it were left to the states to decide these things then you would have some free states and some slave states and some integrated states and some segregated states.

  53. Hajj Dawud Says:

    Lilly asks: Hajj Dawud … So … I should vote for my cat?

    I don’t suggest that. I vote for the candidate I think can do the least damage, who I also think is electable. For most people, that’s the only influence on “government” they can have.

  54. Awesome Says:

    @ Believing Atheist

    Why do you not address the fact that even though Ron Paul opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he has also said that he would not repeal it?

  55. khushboo Says:

    Believing Atheist, I’ve already read that and it doesn’t prove anything. He’s already mentioned that many times that he would rather have state laws instead of federal laws involved. He believes in less gov’t. There is no proof that he has anything against Aids patients or women in general. Do you want to work with someone who sexually harassed you? Ofcourse you can sue but you also have a right to quit. and do you want the govt. to force you to donate money to Aids patients. Wouldn’t you rather choose where you want your money donated? Too much power to the gov’t. is not good for anyone.

    He’s a straightforward guy and it might sound harsh to some people but that doesn’t make him a bigot.

  56. Saladin Says:

    Believing Atheist

    Ron Paul: Drug War In U.S. Has Racist Origins 1988
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXHQM2SASFU

    I will be making a more detailed case for why Ron Paul is not a racist later but you should read watch this first

  57. Saladin Says:

    22 reasons why Ron Paul is not racist

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/ccbaxter/22-facts-that-dont-jibe-with-ron-paul-being-a-rac-41xp

  58. Saladin Says:

    @Believing Atheist Says:
    January 3rd, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    “@Shlomo,

    I don’t have to apologize to Ron Paul. I linked all of my evidence. You say however that Ron Paul is none of the things Alternet says he is. Well here are his own words on why is against the 1964 Civil Rights Act
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

    He said: “Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.”

    Affirmative Action helped a lot of African-Americans enter college and obtain a better life via lucrative careers. Without such help from the Federal government this progress could not have been made.

    Furthermore, Ron Paul assumes that racial harmony would’ve been established without government intervention to set things right. That’s false. Tell me how would segregation be abolished without government intervention? And before that how would slavery be abolished without government intervention? If it were left to the states to decide these things then you would have some free states and some slave states and some integrated states and some segregated states.”

    Ron Paul was and is opposed to all Jim Crow laws which was state enforced racism and institutionalized racism that different than than people being racist in their private life why can you not understand that the two a different he says that the state must treat every one as a individual unlike liberal who want to treat people as groups

  59. Saladin Says:

    correction two are different not two a different

  60. Believing Atheist Says:

    @Saladin,

    Ron Paul was posing as a racist in 1995
    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/12/ron-paul-thought-his-newsletters-were-pretty-great-1995/46548/

    Even if we assume he is not a racist (and I am not sure we tangibly can), he is something much more sinister…a fraud!

    So now let’s hypothetically assume that Ron Paul is not a racist. Does that still make him a good human being or a humane Presidential candidate? Foreign policy wise yes but certainly not domestically.
    Here is why:
    http://crooksandliars.com/kenneth-quinnell/ron-pauls-racism-isnt-worst-thing

  61. khushboo Says:

    Our military guys want peace! They know how devastating these wars have been.
    Most of them have donated and are voting for Ron Paul!

  62. khushboo Says:

    Was watching the Iowa Caucus news on CNN earlier and they had another “technical difficulty” when it came to showing support for Ron Paul. This has happened before. Please check this out:

  63. Géji Says:

    HGG Says: < I suppose it’s ok if Paul is a bigoted, disgusting individual as long as he’s not bigoted against the right people, right?"

    I don't know who are those "right people" you're talking about, but if you're meaning the Muslims, then although bigotry against anyone (be the Muslims or others) is deplorable and must be condemned, facts do speaks for itself that for the past 10yrs or so, it is the worldwide Muslim Community that had suffered the most more than any other group at the hand of Big-Boss-USA/Client-Server-EU hegemony ambitions. The level of slaughter and destruction Empire brought upon them have way past the mere bigoted statements. So, if there is someone willing to stop the bloodshed first, isn't that the most important? Or is it that as long as one and his loved ones are not living in between the lines of fire being bombed on a daily bases, thus one can have the luxury to see it as secondary issue to whatever racial statements. Therefore we should prioritize racial slurs over human lives is that it??

  64. khushboo Says:

    Actually, many blacks support Ron Paul. Majority of his supporters are non-whites. Ironically, it’s the white Republicans who are criticizing him the most using the race card.

  65. Saladin Says:

    @Believing Atheist Says:
    January 3rd, 2012 at 8:31 pm

    “@Saladin,

    Ron Paul was posing as a racist in 1995
    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/12/ron-paul-thought-his-newsletters-were-pretty-great-1995/46548/

    Even if we assume he is not a racist (and I am not sure we tangibly can), he is something much more sinister…a fraud!”

    He was the publisher not the editor and he did not know that it contained such level of bigotry he trusted his editor and since know one complained to him while he was publishing them he did not think there was a problem with them I showed you a 1988 video of him condemning the drug war as racist he condemned the FBI surveillance of Martin Luther King in a William F Buckley interview in 1988, in Freedom Under Siege a book he wrote in 1988 he said individual’s have rights and these group labels must be dropped when having the state give rights it must give them to all individual’s not few in the 1995 video does not provide evidence he was supporting the bigoted statement in the news letter he was not saying the letter was great because it had bigoted statement and accepted moral responsibility for it and said it was his mistake for seeing more closely what went on under his name why do you ignore all the other evidence showing he is not a racist to make your claim I will address the second part of you statement soon for now read this http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

  66. iangould Says:

    Why do peopel assume that ron Paul will, if elected, be able to wave his magic wand and end all of America’s wars overnight?

    If eelcted, Paul will find himself cosntraiend by Congress, the courts and interantioanl treaties. Unless he stages a putsch which I think is a distinct possibility.

    We can be reasonably certain that he will use the power he does have to appoint an overwhlemingly if not completely whtie and male Cabinet; nominate far-right neo-confederate “state’s rights” candidates for any Supreme Court vacancies; reintroduce the global gag rule and conduct an anti-semitic witchhunt (sorry “audit”) at the Fed.

    Likely results of his froeign policy: North Korea invades South Korea; China annexes Taiwan; the Taliban take over Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal and Iran launches a general war in the Gulf.

    When oil hits $500 a barrel and the National Guard is patrolling “high crime” (i.e. black) neighbourhoods nation-wide all you Ron Paul supporters can pat yourselves on the back.

  67. khushboo Says:

    Wow! Iangould must be a psychic!

  68. Awesome Says:

    @ iangould,

    I do believe Ron Paul has already said what he would do, which is outlined here:

    http://www.yaliberty.org/yar/plan-for-a-freedom-president

    Unless they have something to hide, there is nothing wrong with auditing the fed. How exactly is it antisemitic to do so? Or are you suggesting that what such an audit would reveal, might encourage antisemitism among some people? Sorry, exposing reality isn’t antisemitism, unless pro-semitism involves covering it up.

    Since Iran hasn’t actually initiated any war in over a century, your fears about them are unjustified. It is unlikely that you can name 1 undisputed fact that supports your contentions.

    Also, without US intervention, anyone who’s interested in what goes on in other countries would obviously be more than free to do something about it, as long as they can afford it on their own, without wasting taxpayer money, the lives of the unwilling and draining the economy.

    As for what Ron Paul can do as president, yes, he literally could, as the commander-in-chief, end all the wars the US is in practically overnight, by recalling the US military from overseas. He can even invalidate any executive orders that he wants to. He can also give his “state of the union” address as often as he needs to, informing and rallying people in support of him as well as his ideas and there would be nothing congress nor the corporate media could do about it. Congress simply cannot survive while resisting the people and the president. They’d eventually get with the program, congress, under enough pressure, would eventually cave in to president’s proposed plans that are agreeable to people.

    Any sensible person would vote for Ron Paul.

  69. Abdullah67 Says:

    How can any knowledgable Muslim be opposed to Ron Paul’s economic/domestic ideas? Do you know how destructive the Federal Reserve system is? Do you actually believe fiat money made out of thin air is halal? Do you believe that spending what you don’t have and bailing out banks is an Islamic approach?

    I think many of my Muslim brothers and sisters who would even consider voting for Obomba or any of the other Republicrat candidates should educate themselves on how the Fed really operates, and how this relates to the growing welfare/warfare state. The history of central banking is all about power grabs and currency manipulation. This is the system that will usher in Masih Dajjal (The Anti-Christ) inshallah.

    Like it or not, Ron Paul is the only American politician who is calling out the counterfeiters. That’s why Wall Street and the corporations hate him. Because he wants to expose and stop the gravy train.

    Islam advocates charity for the pleasure of Allah, not theft by the government. Income taxes were considered tyranny by most of the classical scholars. Yet, now we have modern Muslims calling for higher taxes, socialism, and casting votes for someone who’s already proven to be hostile to the Muslim world (Obomba) hoping for a few free breadcrumbs…It’s actually quite sickening.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate that would allow for competing currencies (i.e gold dinar, ect.) and allow for true religious freedom in the USA. How do you think these banksters like the idea of Sharia compliant (usury-free) loans and financial institutions? They hate it, and want all of us to be debt slave dependents. Wake up people.

    Go read “END THE FED” immediately…please.

  70. Believing Atheist Says:

    @Khushboo,

    What kind of screwed up logic is that? So if black people vote for a racist that makes him unracist? Many black people broke from the Republican party and voted for Woodrow Wilson but he was admittedly a racist, his words were broadcast in the racist film “A Birth of a Nation.”

  71. khushboo Says:

    Believing Atheist, he is not a racist and your “so-called” evidence is not evidence. He’s never said anything racist! In fact, he’s against racial profiling.

    You honestly think Blacks would vote for him if he was a racist? Would Muslims vote for islamophobes? Does that sound logical to you??

  72. khushboo Says:

    correction: meant to put quotes around evidence.

  73. iangould Says:

    “Unless they have something to hide, there is nothing wrong with auditing the fed. How exactly is it antisemitic to do so? ”

    The FEd is already audited annually.

    Ron Paul like many conspiracy nuts claims that the audits are fradulent.

    The ovwerwhelming majority of adherents of such conspiracy theories are anti-semites, soem like ron Paul use euphemisms like “trlaterist” etc to obfuscate their anti-semitism. why do you think he’s the darling of Stormfront and White Supremacist groups like The Council of Conservative citizens?

    Tell me, if a future President ordered masr detentions of Muslim Americans would you take the same “only the guilty have seoemthing to hide” attitude?

  74. Saladin Says:

    @iangould
    First of the president has power in terms of moving troops that one area where Ron Paul would have the most power and by us being in the Afghanistan and Pakistan region we are the one destabilizing Pakistan and giving the the pushing the Taliban to become antagonistic to Pakistan. America cannot be the policeman of the world it does not have the resources first of and second of Ron Paul has said if you want to go to war you make a declaration of war through the United States congress and they vote on it it through the congress you do not do invasions willy-nilly. Ron Paul is not conspiracy nut second those same nationalist groups you admit that Ron Paul is not one of them. The Fed looks out for wall street it gave Trillions in interest free loans what the hell is anti-Semitic about that.

  75. khushboo Says:

    If the FED was Thoroughly audited, there wouldn’t be an economic collapse and the $ wouldn’t be worthless.

    Ron Paul and others attempted to propose the HR 1207 bill to examine ALL the activities of the FED but was rejected by the Senate. In fact some congressment tried to water it down by allowing audit of only SOME of the activities while others remain a secret. That’s not auditing!

  76. Saladin Says:

    @iangould

    “There is a statute in place that allows audits of the Federal Reserve; however, the most crucial activities of the Fed are specifically exempted. I seek to remove these exemptions to get a clearer picture of what is going on with our monetary system. For instance, what arrangements does it have with other foreign central banks? What the Fed does on that front could very well affect or undermine foreign policy — even contribute to starting a war. We also need to know the source and destination of funds provided through the Fed’s emergency funding facilities. This information will provide a more accurate and complete picture of the true cost of these endless bailouts and spending packages and could very likely affect the decisions being made in Congress. ”

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21427.html

  77. Michael Elwood Says:

    @khushboo

    “Would Muslims vote for islamophobes? Does that sound logical to you??”

    Sadly, the answer is yes. Never underestimate the capacity of some immigrant Muslims for self-delusion. When they hear Paul or one of his groupies like “Mooslims” talk negatively about “blacks” and “browns”, it doesn’t bother them at all. Because they’ve deluded themselves into thinking that they are All-American, white, Aryan, Republicans. So Paul and “Mooslims” must be talking ’bout someone else. And when they hear Paul talk about lower taxes (or no taxes), they get all moist and tingly in their nether regions. Because taxes are “un-Islamic”. And they tend to eat away at the profits of all those Islamic liquor stores immigrant Muslims own.

    Please excuse my sarcasm, but imagine if the roles were reversed. Could I and a bunch first or second generation Americans just waltz into Egypt, Palestine, or Pakistan, and start dictating to people who have been there for centuries how to vote?

    Have we forgotten the Bush years already? Have we forgotten how Bush talked about a humble foreign policy, and how profiling is wrong? Have we forgotten how all the self-appointed immigrant Muslim leaders fawned over Bush the way they fawn over Paul? Have we forgotten how they, in their infinite wisdom and understanding of American politics, tried to pressure non-immigrant Muslims to vote as a bloc with them?

    I haven’t forgotten. In fact, I remember it like it was yesterday. Around this time before the 2000 elections, I was hanging out on what was then called a Yahoo Club. Later, they changed it to Yahoo Groups. Today I don’t know what they’re called (or if they still exist). There were a lot of regulars there, including me and a “black” lady who was interested in converting to Islam named Cyndi (or Cyd, as she was affectionately known). Suddenly, one of the immigrant Muslim shills appeared, littering the board with pro-Bush propaganda. He said much of the stuff about Bush that we hear about Paul (how Bush “shares our values” and how Muslims need to vote as a bloc, yadda yadda yadda). When Cyd (whose family was active in the Democratic party in New Jersey) voiced reservations about Bush, the immigrant Muslim shill called her a nigger, and went on a tirade about how “blacks” were ruining the image of Islam in America, and how “blacks” were ruining the unity of Muslims in America. I don’t know what happened to Cyd, but I’m guessing she didn’t convert to Islam. In fact, before I stopped hanging out over there, I remember her talking about her new interest in Buddhism.

    In the 2000 elections, the vast majority of immigrant Muslims voted for Bush, and the vast majority of non-immigrant Muslims voted for Gore. Bush got elected, and then 9/11 happened. And immigrant Muslims have been getting the nigger treatment ever since (including the immigrant Muslim shill who called Cyd a nigger).

    Now, here we are in 2012. And I have a feeling immigrant Muslims are about to repeat history.

    For an exceedingly long conversation on the pros and cons of Paul, you can read the one below:

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/ron-pauls-unforgivable-sin-of-opposing-americas-sacred-wars-and-why-are-muslims-so-warlike/comment-page-1/#comment-86851

  78. khushboo Says:

    @Michael

    Sadly, I voted for Bush in 2000. Little did I know that he would turn out to be a loser that he is. I was young and naive then. I thought he’s a friend of the Arabs so he’ll be friends of Muslims. Many of us Muslims thought the same way. We never thought he would be an Islamophobe and self-appoint himself as “crusader” before bombing Afghanistan and Iraq.

    I voted for Obama and am just as disappointed. I now learned that Democrats are not as openly biased as most Republicans but they are very sneaky in getting what they want with no care at all for the 99%.

    I’m not making the mistake of voting for a guy who will keep on bombing Muslim countries with money we don’t have. Ron Paul has been consistently anti-war for 30 years and has warned us time and time again about the economic collapse but no one listened. I’m certainly listening now and I’m surprised that all people can talk about is what a racist he is.

  79. Believing Atheist Says:

    @Michael Elwood,

    Many black Muslims and black Muslim movements are not regarded as true Muslims and true Muslim movements by Mainstream Islam. The only purely African-American versions of Islam i.e., an interpretation of Islam, which is purely unique to African-Americans is version that was preached by the Noble Drew Ali of the Moorish Science Temple and the version that was preached by Wallace Fard who would later be the guiding force behind the Nation of Islam and Elijah Muhammad.

    Both Drew Ali and Wallace Fard distorted the message of Islam however as Drew Ali believed in reincarnation (something Islam doesn’t) and Wallace Fard committed shirk by proclaiming himself to be God (at least according to Elijah Muhammad).

    For more information on this please read this book starting on pg 225. It’s called “Islam’s Black Slaves” by the historian Ronald Segal
    http://books.google.com/books?id=fdh3GYnXvrAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Islam's+black+slaves&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lxMGT6GYH8j40gHtveCrAg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

    I wish I mentioned this book when I debated you on Islam and slavery as it would’ve furthered my point. But it is good for this discussion as well.

    Having said that I believe, Michael you are creating a schism between Immigrant Muslims and indigenous Muslims, a divide, which should not exist as it serves to empower anti-Muslims who will play divide and conquer games with the Muslim community.

    This divide should not exist because all Muslims are equal and one before Allah. I believe Mainstream Islam needs to recognize this as well and incorporate NOI and other fringe groups within the community of Islam.

  80. khushboo Says:

    NOI under Fard & Elijah Wood was pretty extreme in its thinking that Elijah was the prophet and whites are inferior to blacks as well as interacial marriages being forbidden. Farahkhan kept it extreme but as of late, it’s toned down a bit and has more Islamic elements to it like praying on Fridays, fasting during Ramadan, etc. In the Quran, everyone is equal no matter what the race and until that’s accepted as well as the fact that prophet Muhammad is the last prophet, it can’t be considered true Islam among mainstream Muslims.

  81. Awesome Says:

    The FEd is already audited annually.

    Ron Paul like many conspiracy nuts claims that the audits are fradulent.

    - What Ron Paul has actually said, is that the most crucial activities of the Fed, are exempt from that annual auditing process you mentioned, which is why he introduced the “Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009″ to reform the auditing process by removing all exemptions, and having full transparency of the Fed’s activities.

    It isn’t a “conspiracy theory” to state a verifiable fact; that certain activities are exempt from the annual audit.

    The ovwerwhelming majority of adherents of such conspiracy theories are anti-semites, soem like ron Paul use euphemisms like “trlaterist” etc to obfuscate their anti-semitism.

    - It is often the case that people who are called “antisemites” aren’t actually so. It’s a term that has been abused far too often, and unfortunately conflates real antisemites with people who simply aren’t “pro-Israel”, and everyone in between.

    why do you think he’s the darling of Stormfront and White Supremacist groups like The Council of Conservative citizens?

    - Probably for the same reason he’s the “darling” of constitutionists, minorities, as well as those who are anti-war, and young people in general who want real change: Because his ideas have more of a universal appeal to them, and go beyond party lines.

    Everyone is going to have their own, personal interests that they feel would benefit from voting for Ron Paul. It is ultimately irrelevant who likes him or doesn’t like him, since they have no influence on him nor on his policies.

    There is no evidence of racism on Ron Paul’s part, and as for those newsletters, here is a “Reality Check” on them:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95CagSkXZYc#

    Tell me, if a future President ordered masr detentions of Muslim Americans would you take the same “only the guilty have seoemthing to hide” attitude?

    - I would not have that attitude in such a situation. However, such a situation is entirely different from wanting a full transparency of the activities of a supposed “government by and for the people”. People have every right to know exactly how their tax money is being spent by a government that is supposed to represent them.

    Detaining people who have not committed an actual crime is different from auditing a governing body that people pay money to.

  82. Michael Elwood Says:

    @khushboo

    Whether Bush, Obama, or Paul, they all have their pluses and minuses.

    @Believing Atheist

    “Many black Muslims and black Muslim movements are not regarded as true Muslims and true Muslim movements by Mainstream Islam. The only purely African-American versions of Islam i.e., an interpretation of Islam, which is purely unique to African-Americans is version that was preached by the Noble Drew Ali of the Moorish Science Temple and the version that was preached by Wallace Fard who would later be the guiding force behind the Nation of Islam and Elijah Muhammad.”

    It’s odd that those are the groups that pop into the minds of “mainstream” Muslims when they think of “black” Muslims. They are a minority, within a minority, within a minority. There have always been more “black” Muslims outside those groups than within them (Dr. Aminah Mcloud addressed this issue in one of her books).

    “Both Drew Ali and Wallace Fard distorted the message of Islam however as Drew Ali believed in reincarnation (something Islam doesn’t) and Wallace Fard committed shirk by proclaiming himself to be God (at least according to Elijah Muhammad).”

    I agree that both distorted Islam. But they aren’t unique in that regard. The Druze and the Yazidi also held beliefs about reincarnation and God incarnating in humans. And, as I’ve pointed out in the past, the racialism and racism of groups like the NOI are mirrored in some “mainstream” Muslims.

    “I wish I mentioned this book when I debated you on Islam and slavery as it would’ve furthered my point. But it is good for this discussion as well.”

    It wouldn’t have helped you much, bro. :-) Trust me. I’ve read almost everything you can read related to Islam, slavery, racism, etc. It’s a hobbyhorse of mine.

    “Having said that I believe, Michael you are creating a schism between Immigrant Muslims and indigenous Muslims, a divide, which should not exist as it serves to empower anti-Muslims who will play divide and conquer games with the Muslim community.”

    I’m not creating a schism between immigrant Muslims and indigenous Muslims. It already exists. And it already serves to empower the anti-Muslims. Why do you think they feign concern about “black Africans” in Sudan and Nigeria being persecuted by “white Arabs” (even though they are usually the same color)? They’re trying to make Islam unappealing to “black Africans” and “black Americans” by portraying it as a “white Arab” religion (as opposed to Christianity, which is oh-so-black and oh-so-African).

    The divide between immigrant Muslims and indigenous Muslims is similar to the divide between German Jews and eastern European Jews in the past. There was little interpersonal or organizational interaction between them in the past. Now those divisions aren’t so pronounced. There is little organizational and interpersonal interaction between immigrant Muslims and indigenous Muslims. Immigrant Muslims have their organizations, and indigenous Muslims have theirs. Perhaps the most glaring example of the lack of interpersonal interaction is the lack of intermarriage (particularly between immigrant Muslim women and indigenous Muslim men). I don’t have any statistics, but I bet there are more marriages between immigrant Muslim women and non-Muslim men than between them and indigenous Muslim men.

    “This divide should not exist because all Muslims are equal and one before Allah. I believe Mainstream Islam needs to recognize this as well and incorporate NOI and other fringe groups within the community of Islam.”

    You’re right that the divide shouldn’t exist (for the reason you mentioned), but it does. And I don’t think that “mainstream” Muslims need to recognize the NOI because they are insignificant within the American Muslim community. Immigrant Muslims need to understand that they won’t succeed at integrating into non-Muslim America until they first integrate into Muslim America. Indigenous Muslims don’t need recognition from immigrants Muslims.

  83. Hajj Dawud Says:

    Michael Elwood writes: … the divide shouldn’t exist, but it does.

    Oh, no ~ it does need to exist, absolutely.

    Islam is not monolithic and it is not intended to be ~ it’s intended to be as diversified as humanity is diversified. The “unity” of the muslims is adherence to God’s Mercy that He sent down with Muhammad ~ which was complete, established, and fully manifested at a very specific, explicitly identified point in time.

    That unity among the muslims was fractured before Muhammad was buried, and the fracture was cemented by the murder of ‘Uthman. There is no “blame” in that ~ it’s what was expected and ~ obviously ~ intended. Nothing happens that God does not intend to allow to happen, and that was what did happen 1400 years ago. And would-be “leaders” of the muslims are still waiting for it to happen, in whatever “sect” or “party” they believe is still that unity established shortly before the Messenger died.

    So what has come to America from the “muslim world” as “Islam” is not Islam as it was established during the lifetime of the prophet, but 1400 years of division and conflict, “certified” by priests and politicians to be “the real thing” according to their party. Every party claiming to have “introduced Islam to America” has introduced some of Islam buried beneath sectarian divisiveness and adversary contention. Every English-language translation of the Qur’an has falsified fundamental elements of Islam. And every American muslim who has failed to embrace, in toto and without question, the sectarianism of any of the ethnic parties has been “recognized” as “not really muslim” and most have been driven away from the masajid.

    And from that “divide,” God has raised an ummah and here, Islam has returned as it began: a complete stranger to the ethnic muslims. The “divide” will continue to exist, and that also is what we were told ~ by the Messenger ~ would happen.

    Immigrant Muslims need to understand that they won’t succeed at integrating into non-Muslim America until they first integrate into Muslim America.

    That has started happening.

    Indigenous Muslims don’t need recognition from immigrants Muslims.

    We are severely limited in what good we can do for ethnic muslims who do not recognize us as muslims, but we don’t need “recognition” from anyone, least of all them.

    I don’t think that “mainstream” Muslims need to recognize the NOI because they are insignificant within the American Muslim community.

    The so-called “Nation of Islam” of Elijah Muhammad was entirely his creation. W. Farad Muhammad had nothing to do with it, but had other students who did not go crazy as Elijah did, so we do know what happened. Louis Farrakhan has said that Elijah’s freemasonry was erected to protect his people from the Arabs. Most of “the Nation” followed Warithud-Deen, Elijah’s son, toward “orthodox” Islam as represented by ethnic parties. Whether Farrakhan’s faction is “significant” remains to be seen, but what is virtually certain is that no white person with academic or political credentials knows anything meaningful about Farrakhan’s NOI ~ at least nothing they would talk about.

    The enemies of humanity didn’t show up in America just yesterday. Indigenous American muslims watched them arrive and set up shop.

  84. Géji Says:

    @Micheal Elwood, I usually agree with you posts, but I have to go with Believing Atheist on this one, I think as Muslims especially in today’s world, we need more unity and unifying talks more than ever before. Divisiveness will only give more strength to the people who already hate us, and whether we’re Black Muslims, White Muslims, Brown Muslims or Yellow Muslims doesn’t matter the least to them, they don’t care for our various colors, its our Muslim-ness the’re after. We are only visible to them through their hate of Islam and nothing more. They’ve been working hard ever since the Cold war was over, to create out of Islam something monstrous that need to be dealt with with the same zeal as Communism, and as such need to be wiped at any coast. So for them, the new “threat” became the religion that is adored and glorified by Billion and half human beings and who have a huge ideological appeal to many more, those reasons being precisely why this very attractive monster need to be stopped. And so are especially after 9/11, every hate-filled heart on this planet cashing in on this, from high-ranking officials to lower class peasants.

    But let me quote what Dr Robert D. Crane said on his new book “Islam: A Testament” on this very subject.

    1— “In politics the two most powerful motivators are fear and religion. This is especially true in America and the Muslim world where religion is a powerful force and therefore can be harnessed in the pursuit of power for whatever purpose.”

    2— “We are now in the middle of an almost unique example of this truism. Muslims are not the only ones who exploit religion for political ends. American extremists, both political and religious, are exploiting religion by demonizing Islam as the necessary first and decisive step in a perceived war of self-defense against universal evil.”

    3— “A principal weapon in what has been termed the Fourth World War is the orchestration of words or symbols, known as mimes, in mimetic warfare. This kind of warfare attacks the mind of the victim subliminally in ways that shape thought without the victim knowing that one’s thinking has been reshaped.”

    4—“On September 1, 2007, presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, sent out a letter to his supporters pegging his new campaign on a single theme that he hoped would be a sure-fire road to electoral victory in a time of great national peril. The theme is simple. He declared, ‘The transcendent issue of the 21st century is the struggle against radical Islamic extremism’.”

    5—“In the American lexicon developed in the war against Communist global conquest, the world is full of harmless tyrants who seek only their own power at home and therefore can be co-opted to serve American purposes. Such tyranny is different from totalitarianism, which by definition seeks control of the human mind not only as a means to consolidate its own power but primarily as the ultimate end of its own destiny.”

    6—“Whether by design or not, the use of this emotive word, ‘totalitarianism,’ became an instrument of thought control and escalated the battle against terrorism to the ideological level of grand strategy, because totalitarianism was the major global threat to Western civilization for most of the 20th century.

    7—“By the mere turn of a phrase, this seminal thinker of the NeoCon movement transformed Islam from a religion that occasionally has been distorted to justify both private and state-sponsored terrorism into a generic monster that must be fought wherever it raises its ugly head, because ‘Islamic totalitarianism’ by definition threatens the survival of the Free World. This simple change in terminology served to short-circuit thought so that operational doctrine and specific military plans no longer need to be based on knowledge. The thinking has already been done and encapsulated in the new language, where a false symbolism becomes an unchallenged reality. And by a process of a self-fulfilling prophecy, the potential danger becomes real and thereby triggers a spiraling confrontation of action and reaction with the zero-sum result of universal chaos.”

    ————————————

    So if we Muslims don’t wake up to this reality, and keep on busying ourselfs with worthless internal infighting, dividing eachother into pitiful subgroups such as Shias Vs Sunnis Vs Sufis Vs Ahmedis Vs NOI – Or – Black Muslims Vs Brown Muslims Vs White Muslims Vs Yellow Muslims ect, then at the end we will only have ourselfs to blame if their sinister scheme pays off by succeeding, it already showed its fruitfulness in so many ways with Islamophobia while Muslims were busy bickering and despising eachother between “traditionalists” Vs ” modernists”.

    I also will like your opinion on this, you may think I’m paranoid, and please if you do don’t hesitate to say so, but I’m sure you’re aware of the religious tensions arising in Africa, especially in Nigeria, and that right after the split (according to plan) of Sudan, the ‘media’ focus has been lately on Nigeria where things are getting pretty heated, and turning into ugly. After the Christmas bombing, another Church has been attacked by a gunman, which of course as expected, made the selective Western “media” gleeful as always when it comes to “news” related to Islam/Muslims, the usual unsaid but always apparent on their faces “see here’s another proof of the “evil” of Islam” or the “that’s why we’re invading and bombing” was not short once again in ‘media’ circus. Now here where you’ll think I’m crazy, but I think that the scheme designed in Washington is behind this religious tension in Nigeria, just like it was for Sudan so Nigeria follows, after all what’s just one more country in their game? And after succeeding in splitting the largest country in Africa, maybe the same will work for the most populous one? Cause for sure smaller countries and less densely populated ones are easier to control in order to still without much notice the natural resources isn’t? I also think they’re trying to use this pattern in inducing several religious civil wars between Christians and Muslims in different parts of “Black” Africa, and preferably à la Rwanda style in killings and Sudan style in splitting. But of course the main focus of the show will be on when a Muslim blows-up things and Churches than when a Christian blows-up things and Mosques, thus the main actors of the show will be Muslim Africans not the Christian Africans, cause after all it’s Islam that runs the show, not Christianity. The most militant and most intolerant version of Christianity which is Evangelical Christianity, have been exported to Africa solely for that purpose to radicalize the Christian Africans communities against Islam, and in fact did become quite popular in recent years amongst various Christian denominations in Africa. I myself had few Christian friends from Africa who after they’ve been pushed by their pastors to embrace EvangeliCA Christianity, became so radicalized by their pastors on Sunday Masses against Islam, that they’ve “decided” (and I swear I’m not kidding on this) Quote – to no longer “openly” hang with you because we’ve reasons to believe you follow Satan’s work thus against Jesus spirit, may Jesus have mercy on you – Unquote…… And those weren’t kids, but grown ass individuals whom I’ve known for years in Canada. We also have on this very Site one individual who goes by the pseudonym “Proverb” and who by his/her own admission claimed Quote ” I’m a non-American Black Christian” and who holds the same views that Islam is “satan’s work”. And I think because of Evangelism this sort of radical mentality it’s becoming widespread amongst different Black Christian communities, whether they’re in Africa or elsewhere, and with our own fair share of nutcases in Africa or elsewhere, the situation its becoming much more dangerous in Africa, and while the Western Muslim Communities are busy infighting as always, or putting their whole focus on the Middle-East, or are distracted by Islamophobes at home, nobody is paying attention to the growing problem between the Christian and Muslim communities in Africa which is in my opinion at least aflamed by Western Islamophobes. Anyway let me know your views on this. Salaam.

  85. Géji Says:

    “So what has come to America from the “muslim world” as “Islam” is not Islam as it was established during the lifetime of the prophet, but 1400 years of division and conflict, “certified” by priests and politicians to be “the real thing” according to their party.”

    I’ve always heard of the pretentious holier-than-thou attitude some Western Converts displays at times, though never witnessed myself. I’ve heard that equipped with their newly found knowledge, they immediately force the role of a Marabout educating its pupils at Madarassa, and suddenly take it as stick to beat over the head (just like Marabouts tend to do) anybody who’ll dare to differ with their own cultural baggages imported to the newly found field, and when they don’t succeed with the stick, turn bitter like sour grapes attacking the very community they’ve voluntarily joined. And so I’ve witness.

  86. Hajj Dawud Says:

    Geji writes: I’ve always heard of the pretentious holier-than-thou attitude some Western Converts displays at times, though never witnessed myself.

    Some adolescents never get past that stage of maturation and individuation, and can’t see anything else. A lot of “new muslims” turn around and condemn a Christianity that they never saw when they were Christians, and then later judge Islam by the muslims ~ or by their “Christian” values ~ and turn around and condemn an Islam they never saw.

    I’ve heard that equipped with their newly found knowledge, they immediately force the role of a Marabout educating its pupils at Madarassa, and suddenly take it as stick to beat over the head (just like Marabouts tend to do) anybody who’ll dare to differ with their own cultural baggages imported to the newly found field, and when they don’t succeed with the stick, turn bitter like sour grapes attacking the very community they’ve voluntarily joined.

    In cases like that, “their newly-found knowledge” is not yet “knowledge” ~ it lacks context and perspective that can only be attained by considerably more study and a broadening of one’s horizons. We live in a time when preachers abound like butterflies ~ and convey the substance of moths, making God’s Promises seem like cotton candy and without substance in “this world.” Jews, Christians and muslims ~ in the tens, if not hundreds, of millions ~ are waiting for a hero, a “Savior,” so they can at last start doing what God tells them they need to be doing right now.

    In the case of Islam, the classical sources ~ usually unknown to those “holier-than-thou” adolescents who apply their pre-Islamic values to judge muslims ~ state quite specifically that “Allah will take possession of the knowledgeable and the ignorant will take their places and go astray and lead astray.” Before he died, the Messenger said to a companion “I see darkness descending among your houses like rain.” There is an abundance of both prophetic and historical evidence that Islam as it was established would disappear from among the muslims, and would be made to appear again, after that, just as much of a stranger as it had appeared during the time of the Messenger.

    In Muslim America’s recognition of the truth and fulfillment of those prophecies ~ that you try to conflate with the adolescent “sour grapes” incidence of “pious criticism” ~ there is no such failure of context and perspective ~ see the opinion of someone whose qualifications to render such judgments are undeniable. There is no “cultural baggage” to be discarded other than the cultural baggage of 1400 years of corrupted reversion to the ways of ignorance. There is no “bitterness” or “condemnation” or “adverse judgment” and most certainly no “holier-than-thou” attitude to be seen unless projected by those who ascribe purity to themselves, who are merely seeing themselves in a mirror. Nor is there any “pretense” ~ a century of demonstrable success, including over ten years of immunity from the post-9/11 backlash actions by governments and attacks by the enemies of humanity, is not some pseudo-intellectual pipe dream.

    Those who think that the “Islam” imported to America from the eastern hemisphere is what was established during the life of the Messenger are blinded by their apparent success in the life of this world in America. They include those “marabouts” of whom you speak, who are convinced that they can succeed while their forebears were prevented from “true Islam” in the Eastern Hemisphere, or were simply lacking in understanding of the real world and Islam that the new generation does not lack. Maudoodi couldn’t make it work in Pakistan, but they can make it work here. Or ‘Ali Shari’ati, or Sayyid Qutb, or Sa’id Ramadan, or any of the other “reformers” or “revivalists” rejected by their own people: the self-identified “foremost” in America can make all of them succeed in America. It’s pretentious fantasy.

    Success in Muslim America has come from taking responsibility for what ALLAH has placed in our hands, not from some vain ambition to resurrect the blood-stained glories of the various eastern dynasties ~ Abbasid, Andalusian, Ottoman, or any other. What we have from the eastern hemisphere is a wealth of instruction on how to turn a society steeped in Islam into a slum ruled by tyranny and corruption, with everyone of any faith at all subjugated by force of arms wielded by owners of The Fire. It’s valuable, but it’s not what was established in the time of the Messenger.

    And so I’ve witness.

    Then bring your witness, not ignorant insinuation from the gutters of your imagination. You know nothing about Muslim America.

  87. Michael Elwood Says:

    @Géji

    “I usually agree with you posts, but I have to go with Believing Atheist on this one, I think as Muslims especially in today’s world, we need more unity and unifying talks more than ever before.”

    We’re all in agreement in that regard. I wasn’t disagreeing with the need for unity. I just believe the self-appointed Muslim “leaders” here in America have done a piss poor job at actualizing it. I also think they tend to conflate unity with uniformity.

    “Divisiveness will only give more strength to the people who already hate us, and whether we’re Black Muslims, White Muslims, Brown Muslims or Yellow Muslims doesn’t matter the least to them, they don’t care for our various colors, its our Muslim-ness the’re after.”

    I agree.

    “I also will like your opinion on this, you may think I’m paranoid, and please if you do don’t hesitate to say so, but I’m sure you’re aware of the religious tensions arising in Africa, especially in Nigeria, and that right after the split (according to plan) of Sudan, the ‘media’ focus has been lately on Nigeria where things are getting pretty heated, and turning into ugly.”

    I don’t think it’s crazy or paranoid at all. In fact, I’ve said in the past that Islamaphobes were trying to instigate a conflict between African Muslims and Christians. However, besides a few hot spots like Nigeria, there isn’t much tension between Muslims and Christians in Africa:

    http://www.pewforum.org/executive-summary-islam-and-christianity-in-sub-saharan-africa.aspx

    The Islamaphobes will also try to introduce a “racial” element into the equation by implying that there is a conflict between “white” Arabs and “black” Africans. And Western Islamophobes have tried to reinvent themselves as the champions of “black” Africans (after centuries of slavery and colonialism). However, the division between Saharan “white” Africa and sub-Saharan “black” Africa is a Western invention. Many of the “white” Saharan Africans we hear about in the Western media are as dark, if not darker, than the “black” sub-Saharan Africans (do a google search for shuwa Arab or Haritin). And many of the “black” sub-Saharan Africans are as light, if not lighter, than the “white” Saharan Africans (do a google image search for the indigenous “coloured” Muslims, not to be confused with the “Indian”, Dr. Abdullah Abdurahman and Ebrahim Rasool). Now, ask yourself, why do they portray Arabs as “white” when they’re in Africa, but portray the same Arabs as “brown” when they immigrate to Europe or America? Islamophobes don’t really believe, or care, that “white” Arabs are racist against “black” Africans. They hate Arabs and Africans equally! They just say that to try to instigate a conflict between Muslims and Christians.

    It’s the same here in America. American Muslims are usually divided between “black” Muslims and “white” Muslims (with many immigrant Muslims fancying themselves as “white”). However, a charitable assessment of that view is that it’s an oversimplification. A less charitable assessment of that view is that it’s an outright distortion. Take a look at this video of the American Muslim, Vernel Fournier, jammin’ with another American Muslim, Ahmad Jamal (he’s the dude on the drums rockin’ the Hitler mustache):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qc3VaXtW5M

    Now, ask yourself, where does Fournier, who is a couple of shades lighter than most “white” immigrant Muslims, fit in this black/white taxonomy? Where does Malcolm X, whose grandfather was from Scotland, fit in this black/white taxonomy? Where does Muhammad Ali, whose great-grandfather, Abe Grady, was from Ennis, County Clare, Ireland fit in this black/white taxonomy? Where does Keith Ellison, who has a genealogy similar to Fournier, X, and Ali fit in this black/white taxonomy? Where do I, who has a similar genealogy to Fournier, X, Ali, and Ellison, fit in this black/white taxonomy? Should we just ignore this, and allow American Muslims to continue being divided between “white” Muslims with no European ancestry and “black” Muslims with a lot of European ancestry?

    This is why I keep getting on immigrant Muslims about racism and racialism. If they know that Islamophobes are trying to divide us along racial lines (among other things), we do they continue to buy into it?

    If you have a lot of time on your hands, you can read through some of the past discussions on the “racial” divide:

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/12/loonwatch-response-to-asra-nomani/#comment-46987

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/01/ayaan-hirsi-ali-change-the-constitution-to-eliminate-muslim-rights/#comment-53130

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/11/allen-west-defends-selection-of-joyce-kaufman/#comment-37243

    wa ‘alaykum salaam

  88. Abdul-Rahman Says:

    Salamu alaikum Michael Elwood, very good writing and points you make in your post. I especially liked how you went into the “Arab” vs. “African” nonsense right wing neocons in the US often propagate to try to justify their racism and imperialism against Arab peoples.

    As you stated the people of northern Africa (that we term “Arabs”) are most often dark skinned themselves; and anyone who has studied the history of this part of north Africa would realize that all the people there are indigenous (in the cause of those termed “Arab” today, they were just culturally and linguistically Arabized). And as for any conflicts, you are completely correct by saying the US neocons hate both “Arabs” and “Africans”.

  89. Anticipated Serendipity Says:

    Politicians tend to be sleazy and I don’t think anybody should invest too much into any candidate. I agree with Michael Elwood on that. And only in America would someone like Ron Paul be seriously considered for the highest office in the land.

    LOL. Of course, auditing the Fed is anti-Semitic, didn’t you know the Federal Reserve and the US’s entire economy is controlled by Jews?

    @Khushboo
    If there are no sexual harassment laws what is to prevent some sleazy guy at work from groping you? It baffles me how a woman can be okay with someone with such misogynistic political views. The threat of being sued deters potential harassers from harassing. If that threat no longer exists expect to see a rise in workplace sexual harassment. Employers and co-workers don’t have the “right” or “freedom” to sexually harass. The same goes for racial discrimination. Ron Paul is no humanitarian, he’s a fiscal conservative of the anarcho-capitalist variety and wars cost money. As for AIDS victims, should not chronic smokers, drinkers, drug addicts and those with conditions arising from poor diets also be treated in a similar way?
    Why am I not surprised you were one of the duped ones who voted for Bush in 2000?

    @Abdullah67
    Oh yes and mosques, churches and other religious institutions should provide healthcare to those who can’t afford it, right? I think I’ve said this before but the khilafa was actually considered a welfare state and groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir envisage a very socialistic economic system for a caliphate. I’m a capitalist but I don’t believe Islam supports or opposes any particular economic system.

  90. Anticipated Serendipity Says:

    @Believing Atheist
    You can put mud into a coke bottle and call it coke but it’s still mud and the NOI can claim to be Muslims but as long as they’re Black supremacists who believe in a “prophet” after Muhammad (pbuh) then they’re not really Muslims and it’s not just the NOI, the Druze, Yazidis, Ahmadis and other heretical groups also fall into the same category. Most African American Muslims aren’t even NOIers anyway.

    My cousin is friends with a Saudi woman (let’s call her Alice) who derided another friend of hers who is half Jordanian/half Russian (let’s call her Sally) b/c the latter’s mother was Christian and as such regardless of the fact that she was just as good a Muslim as the Saudi, she’s not sufficiently Muslim b/c her mother isn’t “really” Muslim. The Jordanian father is like the embodiment of Arab stereotypes. He left his wife with seven children, married a young cousin from home then came back years later only to force his daughters to marry his relatives so they could get visas and he could bring his whole clan here. The Russian mother converted to Islam when they married but is now nominally Muslim and has been for years, I bet that had something to do with how she was treated by the Muslims in her life. I consider it a blessing that Sally is still Muslim and practicing considering how she was raised and the fact that some of her siblings aren’t Muslim but Alice considers herself superior b/c she’s not only a born-Muslim but also a Saudi (somehow that increases one’s Muslimness). There are also converts all over the net who shit on so-called “immigrant Muslims”, Michael Elwood being a case in point.

    @Geji
    I hate, hate, hate apologists and blame-shifters. Muslims bombing churches and killing Christians in Africa is somehow the West’s fault and I’m guessing you were opposed to the partition of Sudan? Perhaps if the northern-based government wasn’t engaging in genocide in the south partition wouldn’t have been necessary. The British were wrong in even putting the two together as one in the first place. If Nigeria continues the way it is I don’t think partition would be a bad idea for them either, sometimes divorce is necessary if two parties can’t coexist peacefully.

    I’m Muslim myself but being pissed off at the media for reporting on Muslims attacking Christians and their places of worship and attributing it to Islamophobia is just silly. Maybe its terrorist groups like Boko Haram, hoping to eradicate Christianity from their countries by bombing Christians, that you should be directing your outrage at rather than the media doing its job or evangelical Christianity. Other than Nigeria and Sudan, Christians and Muslims actually do fine together in Africa as a whole. There are countless African countries where the two religious communities live side by side in peace.

  91. Inspired by Mohammad Says:

    Loon Watch,

    Can you make it website rule that a person cannot promote his or her own website here.

    Hajji Dawud/Shaykh/Parker do that a lot here. A lot of websites have a rule against pimiping your own blog. I think now after witnessing Hajji Dawud and others pimiping their own blogs so shamelessly here, you should implement it.

    It should be sufficient that they can link to their blog in their comments, but whent he comments themselves are but a cover to promote their websites, you should draw the line.

    Thank you.

  92. Géji Says:

    @Michael Elwood

    > “We’re all in agreement in that regard. I wasn’t disagreeing with the need for unity. I just believe the self-appointed Muslim “leaders” here in America have done a piss poor job at actualizing it. I also think they tend to conflate unity with uniformity.”

    1- Assalamu alaikum, thanks for the reply, and I agree that those who “took” the position of “leadership” aren’t doing very well at all, though I also believe the culpability should not fall only on them, but the community as whole. If every Muslim took the responsibility of tackling even bit by bit the difficulties we’re facing, whether internally and externally, and did his or her little part as little as it may be, instead of waiting for “leaders” to “guide” us or “officially” speak for us, then we would’ve been better off than we are today…… As for those “self-appointed leaders”, there shouldn’t be any “self-appointment” when it comes to leadership, even in Mosques, and this is another problem the Muslim community, whether they’re in America or elsewhere need to tackle as well. And especially with Islamophobia raging, I think it’s best if we elect our own “spoke-persons” and “leaders”. So in the spirit of the “Arab Spring”, I’ll say bring democracy to the Mosques as well. I don’t know about you, but I swear there are times I rather those “leaders” not to speak at all, at least not in my name as Muslim, for their views sometimes are even at odds with the spirit of Islam, thus not representative of most of us.

    > “The Islamaphobes will also try to introduce a “racial” element into the equation by implying that there is a conflict between “white” Arabs and “black” Africans. And Western Islamophobes have tried to reinvent themselves as the champions of “black” Africans (after centuries of slavery and colonialism)”

    2- Michael, I agree, but I’m afraid that already started, isn’t that precisely what took place in Sudan?

    > ” Many of the “white” Saharan Africans we hear about in the Western media are as dark, if not darker, than the “black” sub-Saharan Africans (do a google search for shuwa Arab or Haritin). And many of the “black” sub-Saharan Africans are as light, if not lighter, than the “white” Saharan Africans (do a google image search for the indigenous “coloured” Muslims, not to be confused with the “Indian”, Dr. Abdullah Abdurahman and Ebrahim Rasool)”

    3- I don’t quite follow what you’re trying to say here, but I don’t think you’re suggesting that Congoleses or Ugandans or Zimbabweans are “lighter” than say Tunisians or Algerian or Libyans.

    > ” It’s the same here in America. American Muslims are usually divided between “black” Muslims and “white” Muslims (with many immigrant Muslims fancying themselves as “white”).”

    4- Michael, brother, let me be as honest as I can, and please believe me when I say I don’t mean to offend, but I really fail to understand why in some of your posts you waste much energy and time needed in other bigger issues of this “Ummah” in crises -(and with you being a smart guy and all thus your opinions needed)- on how the “immigrant” Muslims decide to “describe” themselfs. I believe that for Muslims this should be the last of their worries as we already have far too many on our plate, but anyway if those “immigrants” you’re referring to are the American Muslims who originated from the Middle Eastern, then maybe they’re “getting” the idea of being under the “white” category from the United States Census, 2000, and here’s “why”.

    —– The current U.S. Census definition includes white “a person having origins in any of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa.[118] The U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation describes white people as “having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa through racial categories used in the UCR Program adopted from the Statistical Policy Handbook (1978) and published by the Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce.[119] The “white” category in the UCR includes non-black Hispanics.[120] —–

    5- Thus, maybe that’s where they “get” the “audacity” to see themselfs as “whites” lol. But all funny aside, remember that Jews and other groups in US that today “falls” under the category “white”, weren’t perceived as such less than few decades ago, so I guess things change on the “whiteness” issue in US/EU discourses according to their moods on said groups. And I’ve read the links and saw your video (very interesting btw), but to be frank with you Michael, I seriously don’t care how Middle Easterners see themselfs, whether they see themselfs as “white”, or “black”, or “brown”, should be I think nobody’s business but their own, as there are indeed “white” Middle Easterners just as the other self-proclaimed “whites” of this world, and there are those “brown” Middle-Easterners just as the other self-proclaimed “browns” of this world. But who’s to say who’s what anyway? The way people see themselfs are none but their own affairs in my opinion. But I think that this whole “race” issues who only contribute to problems rather than solve them, can only be a lost case anyway, for it only bring further divisions among societies and nothing good never did came out of it. But I think that especially as Muslims who should define ourselfs by our devotion to God and who’s best following His path more than anything else, we shouldn’t waste our time on “race” or on “skin “colors, remember that the Prophet(saw) warned us about this. Thus, what one should judge and expect from the originated Eastern Western Muslims, whether they see themselfs “white” or not, its how they’re tackling the issue of racism, especially that towards their more “darker” complexion brethren, but not only those, they are also some “lighter” complexion convert to Islam who face the same problems from some members of the community. I’ve heard the difficulties converts – Black or White – especially when it comes to marriages, face within the community, and particularly from the older generation. So for sure that need to change, and did change in many ways with the newer generation of “indigenous” Muslims, but its also the responsibility of the “newer” Muslims to report and confront if they see such bigotry. For sure that’s yet another “area” where those “leaders” have failed miserably, but with education and going back to the roots of what a “Muslim” its supposed to be, I think we’ll be able to tackle it.

    6- As for the word [ "immigrant"] Muslims, I gotta say I’m not fond of the term “immigrant” to begin with, especially in context of American, Canadian, Australian, as everybody living in those places (save Natives), all in one way or the other originated and “immigrated” from somewhere else, thus I don’t think its fair if its used to describe people who obtain their citizenship, or worse if its used to describe first or second and beyond generations.

    Salaam.

  93. Michael Elwood Says:

    @Abdul-Rahman

    Yeah, I hope no one buys the Arab vs. African narrative some in the media keep feeding us. I do occasionally come across some who do though.

    @Anticipated Serendipity

    “There are also converts all over the net who shit on so-called ‘immigrant Muslims’, Michael Elwood being a case in point.”

    Shit on immigrant Muslims? LOL Is that how I come across? I always fancied myself as being diplomatic! Alright, sis, I’ll try to cut back on the shitting. :-)

    @Géji

    I skimmed through your post, and I think we’re mostly in agreement. I’ll read it more carefully and respond (if necassary) tonight or tomorrow.

    Salaam

  94. khushboo Says:

    @anticipated

    I also voted for Obama. Why aren’t you blaming me for that?! You must be an Obama fan loving all the wars increasing more and more debt at our expense!

    FYI: there are more than enough laws protecting us from sexual harrassment and there is indeed help available for AIds patients. You don’t need more laws unless you want this country to become a socialist country. We already have too many laws that are helping the rich only because they can get away with it through pricy lawyers that help them find loopholes while we suffer. We need to reduce laws, set term limits, and get rid of too many corrupt poliicians. We need to run our own lives and not be so dependent on the gov’t.

    I see how petty criminals who stole $20 go to jail for years while the rich bankers who steal billions from us get bonuses instead of jail time. The laws are really helping out aren’t they?! I’m sure you ‘re also happy with the new NDAA bill that was just passed and signed by your Obama for “our protection.”

    You’re the one who needs to open your eyes! I’m wide awake now thank you very much!

  95. Believing Atheist Says:

    @Khushboo,

    I would love for this country to be a European style socialist country and that’s why I am afraid of Ron Paul.

  96. Saladin Says:

    @ Danios you are being inaccurate when you say Ron Paul on want to stop the wars due only to economic reasons he stated clearly many times that we should seek diplomacy with all nation and should only go to war when congress makes a declaration not on any one persons says so

  97. Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 16.69 Says:

    Inspired by Momammed
    Not that you are promoting a website in any way ;-)
    Is that a link I see on your name or are you just pleased to be coloured red /orange ?

  98. Géji Says:

    @Michael Elwood

    > ”I skimmed through your post, and I think we’re mostly in agreement. I’ll read it more carefully and respond (if necassary) tonight or tomorrow.”

    Salaamu Alaikum, thanks for the reply again, and I’m please to find out that “we’re mostly in agreement”, which I agree with said statement, as for the rest, you don’t need to respond because my post was just observational, and there aren’t any questions for you to answer, so no need to bother, enjoy your time. Salaam.

    ——————————

    @Anticipated Serendipity Says: < "I hate, hate, hate apologists and blame-shifters"

    Wow Einstein! Why such "intelligent" jargon? Why so much emotions? hate, hate, hate, you say?? LOL, but seriously did I by any chance touched a sensitive imperial cord or what? —– And by the way, why haven't I once saw you showing such strong emotions against the very imperialists who are slaughtering the people you've claimed you're "from"? Must it be some pitiful state you're in?. —– But anyway, irrational emotions and laughing matter aside, although I'm not interested in picking a "fight" with you on this Site, for I'm sure both of us have better things to do, I have to point out bro or sis (Michael Elwood seem to think you're a "sis", so I'll go with that for now). Thus "sis", I have to point out that more often than not, in your posts, you seem to support and even appreciate the imperial missions of so-called "West" lead by the US of 'A'- [or as I like to call it, the UV of 'G' (the United Villages of Globe)]- since it went on drunk about conquering the globe at gun-point. —— So therefore, I have yet to see you condemn their activities with much vigorous efforts, as you do for "other" terrorist organisations. And just to let you know, I'm not the only one who thinks that Empire have gone terrorist long ago, thus capable of anything at this point, for for sure most empires usually tend to end up as such anyway, just as they did in the past.

    And FYI, it's highly pathetic of you to suggest otherwise , for it's far from me the idea of "apologizing" for despicable groups such as Boko Haram-(the last name being case in point, they ARE Haram)-, or for any other Muslim terrorist monsters out there. And I swear by Allah the Almighty, had I had the opportunity to strangle them with my bare hands, I wouldn't hesitate for a second (of course after trial according to Qur'an), for they have brought nothing but stress and shame on the whole community of Muslims. And you know what else einstein? I blame the Muslim community more than anybody else, for the very existence of those disgusting groups. Maybe if the global Muslim community had formed a joined army to take care solely of our own trash(present or future), especially since Empire narrative now and since "9/11" has been "war on terror", we wouldn't see such hideous groups forming so easily, whether now or in the future. But instead here's yet again another area where the Muslim community has failed miserably, by letting Empire use such groups to fight for them when it pleases their imperial ambitions, or letting them use as an excuse to wage all out destructive "wars" that its only aimed at innocent Muslims, for the pursue of global conquest and nothing more.

    Thus, any Muslim who do not realize how much the situation is getting even more dire than previously, for Empire guns are now pointed at Iran, and that shamelessly and audaciously right after Iraqis massacre. Any Muslim who's unable to see through Empire dangerous games and the terroristic, murderous mission it set forth for the Muslim world, or who's unable to see how profound the cowardice of the global Muslim community become, unwilling to speak up and confront such naked aggressions, and who's not upset about and protesting the ugly realities, thus claimed "Muslim" can only be dead behind the eyes.— Salaam to you "sis".

  99. Stephen G. Parker Says:

    @ Sir David – I THINK what “Inspired by Mohammad” means when she talks about “pimping” web sites is the fact that on another thread I responded to a false accusation that I am an “anti-Semite”. In denying the accusation, I said that anyone who fairly reads my blog articles can clearly see that the accusation is false; and I suggested that anyone who wishes to see what I believe will find the answer at my blog.

    Now to my way of thinking, that’s just reasonable. In the wildly unlikely event that someone should read something “Inspired by Muhammad” said and have a knee-jerk reaction that he/she is an ‘anti-Semitic, Hezbollah loving Nazi’ ( :lol: ) – and say so in a loonwatch comment – I would say it would be quite reasonable for her (let’s go with that, so I don’t have to keep saying “him/her” every time) to refer people to her web site to refute the accusation. Apparently “Inspired by Mohammad” doesn’t agree with me, though. :roll:

    If that is NOT what she is referring to, then I don’t know what it could be.
    She said that it should be okay to link to an article in our comments, and doesn’t actually seem to object to the link associated with our names.

  100. Inspired by Mohammad Says:

    Sir David

    Inspired by Momammed
    Not that you are promoting a website in any way
    Is that a link I see on your name or are you just pleased to be coloured red /orange ?

    Read my comment carefully. I said it was sufficient that a blog can be linked in the comment where it says ‘website’.

    Talking about or promoting your OWN website when writing comments at another website is strictly forbidden in most forums. It’s called ‘pimping your own blog’. The rule makes sense. It ensures that people who post comments are genuine supporters (or enemies or whatever ) of the cause, and not just there to pick up traffic and divert readers to their website.

    My linking to a website in the ‘website’ box, does not mean i’m pimping it. because first it’s not my website, and second, I don’t talk about it.

    Why do i get the feeling you did not read my comment properly :)

  101. Inspired by Mohammad Says:

    Sir David,

    Though Hajji Dawud/Shaykh is the most avid pimper of his own blog here, in all fairness others do it too, i’ve seen other bloggers posting links to their own blogs, it’s not their fault because Loon Watch allows it, and it is irritating, and unprofessional.

    Other websites I go to, ban people immediately if they pimp their own blogs. Rightly so, in my opinion.

  102. Hajj Dawud Says:

    Sir Stephen writes: I suggested that anyone who wishes to see what I believe will find the answer at my blog. Now to my way of thinking, that’s just reasonable.”

    As you can see from a recent post above, the “pimping your own blog” nonsense is aimed primarily at me. Here’s why:

    I’ve been fighting the loons ~ the “Islamophobes” and the enemies of humanity ~ on the Web, on their home ground ~ FreeRepublic, MSN, LibertyForum, the USS Liberty Court of Inquiry, and some other “public Web discussion forums” that are openly or secretly run by “Islamophobes” ~ since 1997. I’ve been banished from those four ~ and others ~ because I debunk their false representations effectively.

    I don’t publish a blog ~ what I write that’s appropriate to a “blog” goes to a private mailing list with educated, professional subscribers on four continents. What I write at the blogs and forums goes into a text file and is sent to that list, partly for peer review, after which it goes on the Muslim America website for reference use by writers who take on the loons on their home ground ~ solid, on-point refutations of the habitual contentions of the anti-Islam brigades, the hasbara teams, and the nut cases. My laptop recently ate one such text file, erasing over year’s worth of writings that I had sent to our mailing list ~ and received from a subscriber a complete copy of everything sent to the current list, and to all of its predecessors, for the last seven years, which included everything I’ve posted to anti-Islam blogs and forums for those years.

    And when I can address a contention by referring to something I’ve written twenty times before, refining it each time to shorten it and make it more directly effective against the propaganda attack, I link to the appropriate page and sometimes include a short extract or introduction.

    At the Muslim America website visitors can find over ten years of debunking the lies of the loons, in Christian forums, Republican forums, technical forums, libertarian forums, and “cacophony” forums (like Daily Bell, BoingBoing, CNN, Freedom Portal, the Seattle Times, USAToday, and the Washington Post) to which someone has sent me a link to refute a specific lie. Over ten years of defeating the agenda to “Divert, distort, denigrate, disrupt or destroy any discussion of anything adverse to any agenda of the enemies of humanity.” And over ten years of being the target of the “Dismiss, discredit, denounce, demonize or deny any proponent or professor of humanly effective inspiration” agenda that those with eyes to see are watching ~ now ~ at LoonWatch.

    Google the phrase “muslim america” and you’ll find the Muslim America website at the top of the list of hits ~ yesterday it was the first four links at Google. The Muslim America website has been at the top of that list for at least seven years. We don’t “promote” it ~ we don’t need to. We don’t use any of the “tricks” to put it at the top of the list ~ we do nothing at all. Search on any number of topics related to Islam or religion, or the stock lies of the enemies of humanity related to Islam, and you’ll find the Muslim America website in the list. We don’t use “keyword” headers on our web pages. We don’t care about traffic, the site is located on an Internet backbone with no bandwidth limits ~ DDoS attacks fail regularly.

    We just added Dominions of Faith: Humanity is the Crown of Creation yesterday, because it is (in my opinion) too long and too tangential to LoonWatch’s purposes to post here as a comment. It’s the first page that’s been added to the website since we set up “The Priceless Muslim America Bookstore” ~ where there are no prices, everything is there for free download. There’s no advertising on the entire website. There are no “donation” requests ~ the “donations” page, if you can find it, discourages donations. Go to the Wayback machine and you’ll find that there have never been any “fund” requests on the website. Muslimamerica.net is in the “top ten million” websites for traffic, which is just the way we like it. Our other three domain name sites aren’t even visible, and two-thirds of the muslimamerica.net site is not accessible through the public pages, you have to find links somewhere else ~ if you can at all, most of the pages are not linked in any public forum.

    We’ve also hosted graphics for others engaged in this “war in the heavens” against humanity. Our Network Operations Center runs chat rooms inaccessible from the Muslim America website. We run several Majordomo mailing lists not accessible from the Muslim America website. None of our password-protected or encrypted pages are reachable through the Muslim America website. And we host a library of literature from, about, or related to Islam on three terabytes of web space not accessible from the Muslim America website, on a server physically located in our offices, on machines to which no one else has any access.

    We didn’t start fighting the loons yesterday or even two years ago ~ we’ve been at it for a while, and we know the dirty ways they fight ~ Geller isn’t even the tip of one of the icebergs they’re running on the Web to sink efforts such as LoonWatch, fighting lies with truth.

    That’s why the “pimping your own blog” nonsense is being injected ~ off-topic ~ into a discussion of “Why Islamophobes Hate Ron Paul,” and why “Hajji Dawud/Shaykh is the most avid pimper of his own blog here.” And Hajj Dawud doesn’t even write a public blog.

    It’s just lunacy.

  103. Inspired by Mohammad Says:

    Sir David,

    There you are, HajjiDawud pimping his blog. That was an example

  104. Hajj Dawud Says:

    There you are, HajjiDawud pimping his blog. That was an example

    To gain exactly what, “Inspired”? I’ve been at the top of my field for over thirty years, our needs are satisfied with no effort on my part, and the only interest I have in people like you is keeping a good distance between us. So for what purpose am I “pimping” a website whose main traffic is from search engines that routinely put it at the top of highly specific searches?

    Your devotions are not my devotions. Whatever you imagine that I “want,” based on what you would want, is most probably the opposite of what I actually want. And with reference to the Muslim America website, I doubt whether you could even imagine what I might want.

    Muslim America’s active website is hosted on our Local Area Network that serves Madrasat al-’Ulum-e-Shar’iah (the Muslim America School of Law), the Muslim America Children’s Forest, Masjid al-Amr, administrations of communities of faith associated with the indigenous sector of Muslim America, and a few discussion forums and chat rooms. It all sits on machines under the direct physical control of our Network Operations Center, inside our offices. You couldn’t gain access to that website even if you knew the domain names that lead to the password screens ~ you’d never reach the password screens, the connection request would be ignored.

    So who’s “pimping” what here? And for what purpose? We’re already established with more dominion than we ever wanted, and threatened by nothing.

    As for your notion that webmasters and forum hosts commonly prohibit linking to participants’ websites, that’s nonsense. Forum hosts routinely ask participants to post links to “off-topic” material on the off-topic posters’ websites or ISP “home pages.” Here at LoonWatch, trolls take discussions completely off-topic all day long ~ perhaps some twisted notion of “Free Speech” allows that.

    Your aim is censorship, plain and simple. There are views, facts and perspectives you don’t want seen by LoonWatch readers.

    And that’s how you’re “Inspired by Mohammad,” who didn’t even stop a Bedouin from peeing on the wall of the mosque in Madinah.

    Which is all you’re doing.

  105. Ilisha Says:

    Visitors are allowed to link to their blogs and other resources they feel are relevant to the discussion.

    If the administrator determines there is too much “blog pimping,” offenders will be contacted directly and asked to scale back.

  106. Hajj Dawud Says:

    Ilisha writes: If the administrator determines there is too much “blog pimping,” offenders will be contacted directly and asked to scale back.

    Or comments are deleted, when a particular link is unwanted. It’s not always clear what will be “acceptable” and what not ~ the persistent troll posts, and replies to them, make it impossible to know that, but “disappeared” comments are sometimes instructive.

    Since October 26 (2011), at least 110 Loonwatchers have followed links to our website 187 times ~ 104 of the 187 were from links in comments, not the link in my screen name. At least three Loonwatchers have followed most, if not all, of the links I’ve included in comments. Sixteen Loonwatchers had done some exploring on the site by the time I stopped keeping track of the LW traffic after the first couple of weeks. Those numbers don’t include visitors whose browsers don’t identify the location of the link they followed, which statistically runs about 30%, so they’re certainly “lower” low numbers than they would be.

    So LW administrators can compare “110″ (LW visitors to the MA website) with the number of LW regular readers (which we suspect is much larger) and draw any conclusions they want ~ I really don’t care, I’m not a “fame” or “popularity” junkie and I don’t measure the worth of the Muslim America website by the volume of traffic it gets. The public website tells us whether more or fewer people are realizing that “faith” might have something to do with their lives ~ that information is in the search engine queries that bring visitors to the site, not the traffic statistics.

    People in most web forums post links to pages they think other readers might want to see. There are muslim readers at LoonWatch ~ some actually practicing and doing Islam, and some learning, thinking, and talking about doing that. We could post links to “talking about Islam” websites all day long ~ but we have a “doing it” website that we think is more worthwhile than “talking about it.” Some agree, some don’t ~ that just tells us about them, it tells us nothing about ourselves. But the enemies of liberty will stop at nothing to prevent anyone from seeing a “doing it” muslim website ~ and that identifies them.

    Posting links to websites is fine as long as you’re not affiliated with the site? What kind of a mind can wrap itself around that?

  107. Anticipated Serendipity Says:

    @Khusboo
    Obama is only continuing the wars and path to destruction that Bush the Younger started, two wars and a decline that could’ve been avoided had Bush not been elected to begin with.

    I’m not an Obama fan, nor am I an American and my country is actually doing relatively well amid the global financial turmoil, despite us being more “socialistic” than the US. By most standards the US is very far from being anything close to a socialist country, and I thought it was all the market deregulation and unlimited spending of the Bush era that started this mess anyway? I suppose everybody should get a tax cut and more regulations be scrapped. I’m sure that’ll work.

    LOL, you’re an Obama voter but somehow he’s “my Obama”.

    No I’m not happy at all with the NDAA bill. Detention without charge or trial is not right, not for anyone, but the cold truth is that the US has almost 200 non-US citizens detained in its foreign dungeon in Cuba and arbitrary detention has been okayed for us non-Americans for a long time now, so welcome to the party!

  108. Anticipated Serendipity Says:

    @Geji
    The internet connection went faulty then disappeared for a week, sorry for the late reply.

    There’s no point in flogging a dead horse, dear. I think the evil West gets more than its fair share of criticism on this site. It baffles me how anyone can have the audacity to state: “Islamist group in Nigeria kills Christians, it must be the West or the Evangelical Christians fault”, because the possibility that there are some Muslim extremists in Nigeria who are of the conviction that Christians must be eradicated is just too far-fetched. There’s no way the most logical conclusion can be the correct one, right? The West must be involved. That said, I don’t support any form of imperialism and would like proof of your assertion that I support Western/American imperialism. You appear to support sitting around and blaming all of the ummah’s problems on the omnipresent Western imperialists, rather than doing something about it or at the very least acknowledging it.

    When I’m on “anti-jihadist” website and there are comments linking everything from Hitler to McVeigh (yes, I’ve read McVeigh was in cahoots with “Muslim terrorists”) to Muslims, I similarly point out the lunacy of that.

  109. Ilisha Says:

    @Hajj Dawud

    “Posting links to websites is fine as long as you’re not affiliated with the site? What kind of a mind can wrap itself around that?

    You left off the first part: “Visitors are allowed to link to their blogs and other resources they feel are relevant to the discussion.”

    The second part was directly addressing the “blog pimping” allegations that were being debated. The point is that visitors don’t need to have a debate among themselves because the administrator sets and enforces the policies.

  110. Hajj Dawud Says:

    Ilisha writes: The point is that visitors don’t need to have a debate among themselves because the administrator sets and enforces the policies.

    Exactly. My point is that starting such a debate is no more than an attempt at censorship and a way of taking a discussion off-topic, as in “Divert, distort, denigrate, disrupt or destroy any discussion of anything adverse to any agenda of the enemies of humanity.”

    I’ve been watching the enemies of liberty take advantage of short attention spans to keep people from thinking things through, for over a decade. On any subject related to Islam or Israel it’s a professionally-directed organized activity with partisans at least monitoring virtually every Web forum for any discussion that needs to be dominated or disrupted. Muslims are just as intent on spreading their “message” ~ which usually contains something true, relevant to the reader or not ~ as are the zionists on spreading their “hasbara” ~ which usually contains something true, relevant or not.

    John Deere, owner of the now-defunct LibertyForum.org political discussion forum, refused to believe that disrupting deliberative discussions, a time-honored strategy of partisan political warfare, was organized and running in his forum even after we proved it with forensic evidence. The loons had already taken over his forum, and he couldn’t hear the warning. His forum became a cacophony of trivial mindless contentions, and died.

    The loons are here, at LoonWatch, obviously and more subtly. The “Divert, distort, denigrate, disrupt or destroy any discussion of anything adverse to any agenda of the enemies of humanity” is in full play here, and some of it is organized and professional. LoonWatch is a real threat to the loons, and is being taken seriously.

    What is most threatening to them is that LoonWatch is not a “muslim” party effort, but more “secular” and oriented on human rights rather than religious liberty per se. It’s not part of the “religious squabble,” it’s about the essential wrongness of demonizing and dehumanizing people. The loons have refined the “religious squabble” to a boring art, concealing the fact that it’s contention over “religion as a tool of oppression” as opposed to “religion as liberation,” with undeniable history showing both. But here, their “religious squabble” arguments fall flat ~ they have to fall back on tactics of provocation and disruption.

    “Blog-pimping” (whatever that is) isn’t a debate, it’s a provocation and disruption. It has nothing to do with Why Islamophobes Hate Ron Paul.

    The polis was the ancient Greek city-state. The word politics comes from this Greek word. The polis was the central urban area that may also have controlled the surrounding countryside.

    When we step into the political arena, we’re dealing with parties, not the individuals who make up those parties. The loons are a party, connected financially to another party, which in turn is related to another party. We see the individuals ~ we also have to see the parties, which we can do by recognizing the tactics and strategies ~ and aims ~ of the parties controlling “the surrounding countryside,” the individuals we see. When we see someone trying to disrupt the discussion, that is the party; ad hominem attacks are the party; provocation is the party; obfuscation, misrepresentation, and falsity are the party. It’s not necessary to name names, and it’s seldom possible to tell whether an individual is part of the party or part of the countryside ~ but the tactics work (or don’t) whether the individual knows what he’s doing or has just acquired a habit from compulsory public education or at the fringes of political activism.

    Why do Islamophobes Hate Ron Paul? Because he speaks plainly and sincerely, which the loons and the liars and the leeches cannot do, and just that exposes the sell-out, bait and switch shell game of “American democracy,” and there’s nothing they can do to stop it short of killing him.

    But they might be able to divert discussions about Ron Paul and what he’s saying and doing, at LoonWatch, by talking about that crime of the century, “blog-pimping,” which is a red herring in the first place. LoonWatch and LoonWatchers can do nothing for me, I have nothing to gain here by posting links to the Muslim America website. And that’s my point: the aim is censorship and disruption, not any imaginary “offense.”

  111. Saladin Says:

    @Danios & @Believing Atheist Ben Swan has revealed the ghost writer

    @Danios you should update this article to include that

  112. donnel fenton Says:

    Why would anyone vote for Ron Paul.(1) He doesn’t like wars (2)against
    the draft(3)Backs the constitution(4)wants to bring back morality,snore.
    5.Repeal US Supreme court rulings on full immunities to judges and
    prosecutors, Forced arbitration on Americans wiping out due process,AT&T
    case. allowing inlimited corporation donations to politicians thus owning
    them(99.9%)–.(6) wants to bring our troops home-Boooooooooooooooo, party
    pooper! Whats wrong with what we have had over the past fifty years,
    corruption, low IQ Washington DC politicians, New world order, Tarper
    banks who steal our tax $$$ and now want to do away with the Constitution
    and I say Yes to that. Groupie party voters(demos/repubs) unite for
    more of the same. Polish up your children to offer themselves up to
    the War profiteers.

5 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Why Islamophobes Hate Ron Paul | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper Says:

    [...] Why Islamophobes Hate Ron Paul [...]

  2. Why Islamophobes Hate Ron Paul « Anti Islam: FAQ – 99 Says:

    [...] Why Islamophobes Hate Ron Paul [...]

  3. Militant Libertarian » Why Eric Dondero, Former Aid, is Smearing Ron Paul: He is a Rabid Islamophobe and Sharia Conspiracy Theory Nut Says:

    [...] Yesterday, I wrote an article about why Islamophobes hate Ron Paul. [...]

  4. Meet the Racist Who’s Calling Ron Paul a Racist « Revolt of the Plebs Says:

    [...] hate Ron Paul, who fired him long time ago (even before the 2008 election).  Dondero hates Ron Paul for the reasons that every Islamophobe does: (1) Ron Paul opposes Islamophobia against American Muslims; (2) he opposes the Bush-Obama [...]

  5. Meet the Lunatic Who’s Calling Ron Paul a Lunatic « The Ugly Truth Says:

    [...] hate Ron Paul, who fired him long time ago (even before the 2008 election).  Dondero hates Ron Paul for the reasons that every Islamophobe does: (1) Ron Paul opposes Islamophobia against American Muslims; (2) he opposes the Bush-Obama [...]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here
Advertise Here