Top Menu

Why Islamophobes Hate Ron Paul

(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.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Pingback: Meet the Racist Who’s Calling Ron Paul a Racist « Revolt of the Plebs()

  • Saladin

    @ 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

  • Believing Atheist

    @Khushboo,

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

  • khushboo

    @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!

  • Michael Elwood

    @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

  • Géji

    @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.

  • http://www.inspiredbymohammed.com Inspired by Mohammad

    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.

  • Anticipated Serendipity

    @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.

  • Anticipated Serendipity

    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.

  • Abdul-Rahman

    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”.

  • Michael Elwood

    @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

  • http://www.muslimamerica.net/mp/stranger.htm Hajj Dawud

    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.

  • Pingback: Militant Libertarian » Why Eric Dondero, Former Aid, is Smearing Ron Paul: He is a Rabid Islamophobe and Sharia Conspiracy Theory Nut()

  • Géji

    “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.

  • Géji

    @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.

  • http://www.muslimamerica.net/mp/stranger.htm Hajj Dawud

    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.

  • Michael Elwood

    @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.

  • Awesome

    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.

  • khushboo

    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.

  • Believing Atheist

    @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.

  • khushboo

    @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.

  • Michael Elwood

    @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

  • Saladin

    @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

  • khushboo

    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!

  • Saladin

    @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.

Powered by Loon Watchers