Posted on 08/03/2011 11:17:42 PM PDT by rmlew
Herman Cain is being lynched for taking a stand. And the people doing it are Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives. Commentators who complain about the "race card" are eagerly laying down the "bigot card" because Cain did what few candidates are ready to do. He clearly spelled out the problem with Islamic involvement in American public life.
If as some insist, Cain's campaign was brought down by his statements about Islam-- then Republicans have accepted the Dhimmi Principle that the viability of a candidate depends on taking a moderate position on Islam. A moderate position being skeptical, but not particularly confrontational. A position that easily leads back to that old "Handful of Extremists" saw.
All this comes down to is an Islamic vetting of presidential candidates. And everyone attacking Cain over it has given CAIR their victory.
All the little condescending pieces on how Cain was a good candidate until he went a little too far off the reservation deserve a head pat from a black gloved hand. What better victory for the Islamists than to have conservative pundits falsely attribute Cain's campaign problems to his opposition to Islam?
What did Cain say that was so wrong? He questioned how Muslims could reconcile a theocracy with participation in American public life. And he came out on the side of communities fighting back against mosque projects. And that's bigotry. Don't ask why it's bigotry. It is. And if you don't believe me, go ask CNN or the Washington Post.
Playing the bigot card is cheap and easy. It's free. And value free.
The real question we should be asking, is it permissible to question the bona fides of members of an ideology that has murdered millions around the world and thousands in America? Can we actually ask whether a theology that calls for the subjugation of the world disqualifies you from taking an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States?
There are two obligations here and they are incompatible with one another. We cannot look into the soul of another person, but the contradiction between the two must be asked and answered. And if we cannot do that, then we have already given up freedom of speech and thought, and exchanged it for the conformity of political correctness. So we say that after a Muslim kills he may be criticized, but not before the fact. And close our eyes to the origin of the act.
Is there a "Good Islam" and a "Bad Islam". The Islam of decent people and of evil terrorists. But where do we find this "Good Islam"?
Not in Pakistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia. What about Indonesia, with its genocides, Malaysia with its church burnings or Egypt with its persecution of the Copts? Forget Muslim countries then, what about countries with Muslim minorities. Nigeria, Thailand and the Philippines. How many heads would you like to see.
Why must we ask is the Muslim world less pluralistic, less free and more intolerant than the countries where they are demanding the right to impose their theocratic legal system on others. And what exactly will happen when they gain that power?
Can you imagine that America will retain its freedoms under a president who believes that the Koran is the writ of heaven, that non-Muslims are inferior, that women are subhuman and that only laws based on the Koran are just?
Can you imagine that police chiefs who believe that women cause their own rapes will protect rape victims? Why even bother asking, when cabbies who believe that seeing eye dogs drive away angels refuse to carry the blind.
When cartoonists go into hiding and Muslim soldiers open fire on their fellow troops, there is no serious debate to be had over what happens when the Koran and the laws of the United States intersect with one another. And the results are bloody.
If religious and ethnic minorities are persecuted in the Muslim world, and if even religious and ethnic majorities are set on by Muslim minorities in the non-Muslim world, then how hard is to figure out what comes next for America? Do we really need a map or a diagram. Should we go once again to the Ground Zero Mosque to understand how much contempt and how much deception is woven into the campaign to subjugate us. To wipe away our laws and freedoms and replace them with the ravings of a 7th century bandit who murdered and raped his way across the desert, turning a multicultural society into a fanatical wasteland.
It is easier not to deal with these uncomfortable questions. To assent to CNN and the WaPo and all the other outlets of the manufactured consensus. To nod your head and say, "Cain went too far. There may be some bad eggs out of Mecca, but we shouldn't be bigots."
So let's talk about bigotry. Talk to the Copts of Egypt, the Christians of Pakistan and Malaysia, or the Jews of Iran. Learn about bigotry from them and what happens when political power is vested in the hands of members of a cult that preaches the absolute political dominance of their theocracy.
Do you want bigotry? The cemeteries of the world are filled with the victims of the Koran. And their number grows year by year. Go the graves of the murdered and the dead, and mumble to them about bigotry. Tell them that singling out Muslims isn't nice. It's not proper. It's not the American Way-- or that flavor of the American Way cooked up by liberals around 1965.
When Orwell wrote 1984, few Americans imagined being too afraid to speak their minds. Now it's 2011 and we are learning to be afraid. And when someone stands up to speak what we know is the truth, then we shiver and bring out the rope. We lynch him as a sacrifice. The way that Europeans denounce Israel, and prosecute Koran burning. An offering for the Dhimmi altar.
This isn't about Cain, who has backtracked his earlier comments. This is about cowardice. Not physical cowardice, but the cowardice of the mind. The timidity of stepping beyond a reasonably safe opinion and following it to its logical conclusion. Of even raising the subject. And the glee of destroying the man who steps slightly to the right of you. Who dares to say what you do not.
Should we be banning Muslims from public office or keeping mosques out of communities? Certainly we should be able to have that question, without cries of "bigot" coming from people who should know better.
If nothing else, the butcher's bill we have paid in the last decade gives us the right to ask those questions. The dead on our side and the killers on theirs means that we have paid for the right to ask those questions in blood. And we go on paying for it with unrecognized sacrifices and unspoken terror. A conspiracy unmasked there, a bomb plot exposed here. An assault there, a rape here.
But will we ask those questions? The Constitution won for us Freedom of Speech, but what worth is it if isn't used. It won for us Freedom of Religion, but what use is it if we allow that freedom to be taken away from us by a theocracy that does not recognize the existence of such a thing. There is no need to take a red pencil and X out any parts of the Bill of Rights. By allowing them to fall into disuse, by destroying the reputations of anyone who makes use of them, we will have accomplished the same thing.
It is startling to me sometimes to see how much bolder the Europeans are than us. What would the condemners of Cain make of Geert Wilders and Oriana Fallaci, or Brits like Pat Condell. Europe may be under siege, but it still has men and women who rise up and speak the truth. And we who have Freedom of Speech enshrined in the Constitution are prisoners of politically correct timidity.
Maybe your back has to be up against the wall to be able to speak out that way. And maybe we must wait for our own No Go Zones, and our own Islamic Councils. To see firsthand that we are losing the country. Maybe when that day comes it will be the shushers of Cain who will be shushed and the ridiculers of a man who dared to speak the truth who will be humbled . When speaking out in the face of terror is no longer a crime and when challenging theocracy is no longer out of sorts.
I would hope and pray that it doesn't take that. That we need not be schooled to desperation before we are allowed to ask whether we can retain our freedom under the rule of a creed that calls every man a slave.
I long suspected the GOP helped the libs trash Palin and I suspected they’d do the same to Cain. It’s taken them longer with Cain than I figured. No, Cain didn’t do anything wrong but they can’t have someone they can’t control. Cain wouldn’t have caved like the weenies did the other day and they know it. That’s why they’re out to get him. Sad they have to act like snotty little 12 year olds.
Vanity has a lot to do with it. Noblesse oblige. We are too big and proud and wonderful to be harmed by others; and they are so few, so humble and disadvantaged. We angelic beings must lift them up and embrace them; our superiority makes us immune to their bombs, their venom, their lice.
Good, because that wouldn't help. A guy who wants to enter politics at the top...well...that puts him in company with Trump, Hillary, and Obama. Money, fame, connections. Take the lift to the Senate or even the White House. No experience necessary.
There aren’t many who will tell the truth about Islam, especially if it threatens their career!
AND IMO our present darkness began when we allowed McCarthy —
be run down for attempting expose the Communist infiltration.
It seems the bloody freakin Muslim have usurped the Communist as they did the German socialist. And now are using the very model taught by Hitlers Reich— and Stalins Communism—and Roger Baldwins ACLU and our own Western /American nature against us to build their bloody caliphate.dmr ? is right in this sense we are a nation of dhimmi.That is what the Muslim
expect and believe us to be.
This piece is not about endorsing individuals. It was about attacking internalized dhimmitude.
///
exactly. i’m sad some people missed that.
but, i’m happy that so many people here understand that Islam is incompatible with democracy and our constitution.
it should be banned as seditious.
(and banned under hate speech laws.
and banned for encouraging violence against women.
and banned for promoting pedophilia.)
good links! you should add them to your list. (i did!)
Wrong, you never supported him in the first place. Besides, if he is done in your eyes, then who would you now support? Cain apologized IF he offended anyone, BUT, he never backed off of his original position. What is wrong with that?
I think he woulda never gotten the attention he got had he not been black and I stand by that...just another conservative businessman..so what?...that is a mighty big club...even I qualify
But hey..he's black and freepers salivate...they never learn...black conservatives do little to increase black vote for us....but Cain grew on me even though I had misgivings about him
But given who's running or might run...I posted...and I am going to give you proof below...that I supported Bachmann, Palin, Cain, Trump and even Santorum...the only social conservatives in the game.
I know nuance escapes most freepers who like things in easy to understand platitudes but I can criticize Cain as a race pick and still realize he is a better candidate than say Romney or Huntsman ideologically for me.
But Cain's buckling to Muzzies here does it for me..I think of who is in the race seriously now...I like the two girls...Perry strikes me as a phony.
So here is a snapshot from before:
To: ansel12; Jim Robinson; RitaOK
Jim Robinson is on record to me publicly that he would support Palin, Bachman or Cain and never Romney or Giuliani... Which is about my same sentiments too
And I asked specifically for clarification from the leadership here given the attacks on Bachman by some here once she got notice after the debate You can google his reply to me or ask him
yourself....now...go ahead...ask JR if he could support Bachman against Obama even though like me his first choice may well be Palin...it’s too early to know how that will shake out but at least now Bachmann its keeping Romney awake at night
171 posted on Tue Jun 28 2011 02:36:06 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by wardaddy (ok...so far I am Palin/Rubio 2012....i can explain easy..just ask) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]
I don’t freepmail fight.
And I don’t care about what you think about me....that is a luxury I only extend to my friends here.
So called conservatives who had wring and finger point and upchuck white guilt over race are part of how Obama got elected and why our country...and especially black community.. has nose dived since The Great Society debacles and deciding a Socialist in love with the North Vietnamese deserved a national holiday all his own.
Reagan, Buckley and Goldwater all knew better.
I said I would support Cain if he could get the nomination but he never will but that yes I think PC race freepers like you adore him because his skin makes him more cool even or it says something. I don’t think he is any more distiniguished than millions of white conservative businessmen or many Congressmen or a few Senators. He is notable for being black and being an outsider I suppose but he is not more conservative than Santorum or the girls.
I never said Trump was a conservative but I like how he fights them and appears unrestrained by conventional politic.
I still prefer Palin or Bachmann.
and I have Polk’s flag on my truck and Bedford Forrest on my wall...maybe you would like to come over some time and visit?
Have you read The Help?
I see you liking it a lot. I grew up with the characters and the writer’s family. You and her have a lot in common in some ways.
You should meet Trumandogz..I like him too but we disagree totally on race.
I don’t think Muslims deserve apologies. They deserve deportation for the most part or a moratorium on letting more in.
We deserve the apology from them.
That is were Cain jumped the shark for me.
Muzzies...either at your feet or at your throat..which do you prefer?
and he blinked
It grieves me to say it but, Herman, you muffed it. Stand your ground, bro.
Haven’t heard....what has Sarah said about her position on gays and Muslims?
As he is building his campaign on the grassroots help and $, you're donation will be very much appreciated. :)
Wise choice and investment !!
You're right. But can you think of any other candidate bold enought to take a stand against the creeping in of Sharia Law? Herman understands the threat that Islamic groups across the country are posing, and he is courageous enough to address it.
Can't help but feel he is the only candidate who doesn't saturate himself in politcal correctness. He could have authored a piece like this himself. He gets it.
stop making so much sense....stupid people are getting a headache
Excellent article! Thanks for posting. Rick Santorum, btw, has also been valiantly outspoken about the threats of radical Islam.
I love Herman, but he needs to get more immersed and educated on that subject - then he’ll not only have the courage of his convictions on it, but he’ll have strong arguments and specifics to support them when challenged (as Santorum does because he’s well-versed).
We need to see Herman able to courageously stand against all the dangerous critics and political correctness, which he will if he acquires more knowledge and gathers the facts to support him.
Difference between BHO and Romney being that Romney would go along with a conservative/Republican Congress and Senate (both of which would be subject to strong public pressure from conservative voters) whereas BHO will definitely NOT.
That’s why it’s critical to put more conservatives in the House and win back the Senate. Then I’d take even a Romney over b. hussein obama.
“The world is going to regret betting on the wrong horse in Egypt, the same way it did in Iran”
BHO orchestrated that, make no mistake. Time after time you’ll see him work to oust all leaders over there who’ve been our ally, historically fought al Queda and kept peace with Israel, in favor of radical Islamic terrorists who want to eradicate Israel. It’s so obvious, but no one has courage to point it out. In every case of a country headed by an Islamic extremist intent on destroying Israel (such as Iran or Syria), watch BHO look the other way and stay uninvolved or refuse to help the people rebelling against those despots.
I have no doubt that King Hussein of Jordan and any other leaders who’ve been friendly to us and tolerant of Israel are marked for removal by the Wan.
I love Spencer and Geller. Here’s another to add to your collection - Brigitte Gabriel:
http://www.actforamericaeducation.com/
If you’re not familiar with her, prepare to be impressed. I’ve met her, heard her speak both in person and through all other media for years - she’s fantastic. Her personal story is very powerful, as a Christian child in Lebanon forced into hiding when Muslims attacked and overtook her town. She’s been a consultant to the military, national leaders, speaks tirelessly on the threats of Islam - and must utilize bodyguards everywhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.