« Thanksgiving 2008 | Main | Imus in the Morning »

November 29, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452132569e20105362343be970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The McLaughlin Group:

Comments

Michael Avari

Dear Monica,

Good luck tomorrow.

For your information and that of your readers, this week I hope to release the Friedman-Reich Project, a proposal including an Internet petition to our elected representatives as follows:

"We the undersigned taxpayers of the United States of America in order to,

* restore the competitive advantage of our employers in the world,
* encourage savings and investment,
* facilitate capital formation,
* re-establish economic growth, and
* grow our retirement, children's education, and life savings,

respectfully request of the President and our Congressional representatives to end the double taxation of business profits by eliminating the corporate tax consistent with the plan proposed by Conservative economist Milton Friedman and Liberal economist Robert Reich."

I hope I can count on your and your readers' support, and suggestions.

Regards,

Ummahgummah

Let's not allow this story to die so fast:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/30/2433518.htm

They planned to kill 5,000 people.. those moslems!

Ummahgummah

In the days after the most brutal, cowardly and heinous attack on innocent civilians of all stripes this M.AveriCK has the GALL to calmly write about "retirement funds"

I consider that a slap in the face of the actual vicitms and the future intended victims of islam, namely US.

thorn66

So I guess that means you won't be fasting next Ramadan.

Ummahgummah

I'll be eating some nice pork ribs and drinking a keg of beer.

And then I'll take my pot-bellied pig for a walk where there's a mosk.

Christian Drappi

UG, I find you to be so hilarious.

Michael Avari

The terror attack in Mumbai was indeed heinous and atrocious. We do not know yet the source or motivation of terrorists. The International Herald Tribune reports this morning, "Contrary to earlier reports, it appeared that Westerners were not the gunmen's main targets: they killed whomever they could."

"Rattan Keswani, the president of Trident Hotels, said he had found no basis for reports that gunmen had rounded up holders of American and British passports at the Oberoi and herded them upstairs. 'Nothing seems to suggest that,' he said, noting that a range of nationalities was represented among the 22 hotel guests who died, in addition to the 10 staff members, all Indian."

If it is found ultimately that the source is radical Islam, then we agree all radicalism, especially when expressed violently against life and culture, must be eradicated. We disagree on the solution however: you have not proposed one, I propose a) concentrating the power and resource of the United States on our true enemies; b) engaging our friends in Islam to multiply our effectiveness as our surrogates and allies.

Nonetheless, as upsetting as the tragedy in India is, we must remain strong. We cannot be a force for good in the world if our power is weakened.

The problem of the economy remains; its resolution will allow us to protect our nation and project our power when necessary. Hence my intention to move forward with the Friedman-Reich Project.

MS. M

Yeah I gotta go with "focus on the family"....OUR families....OUR jobs....OUR retirements....OUR fiscal future....I'd most likely support F&R but when you believe (like I do) you got foxes & wolves in charge of the peoples house and those in charge did NOT listen to their constituency prior to "handout" I'm not overly optimistic....I'm still waiting for someone (hopefully dems!) to discuss a "bailout" for the guy funding all this CORPORATE WELFARE....the TAXPAYER.....where is OUR slice of the pie? If somebody came up with a chart (hehehe) the American public wouldn't register a silver......still like my plan & more average Joes do think the way I do it seems....why doesn't WASHINGTON?

thorn66

Michael, et al---

How do you distinguish between the terms "oversight" and "regulation"? I hear many use these terms interchangeably with regards to our financial institutions. Politicians like to rail against "over-regulation" of free-markets, but then claim that...of course we need "oversight." Is there any common understanding or consensus around what anyone means by these terms?

Ummahgummah

UG, I find you to be so hilarious.

POSTED BY: CHRISTIAN DRAPPI | NOVEMBER 30, 2008 AT 02:32 AM

--

I find you to be a spineless little yuppie.

Ummahgummah

b) engaging our friends in Islam to multiply our effectiveness as our surrogates and allies.

--

Like our "steadfast allies" the SOWdis? Or those who murder Christians in Nigeria?

Ummahgummah

Oh no, you meant the Pakis.

Michael Avari

Thorn,

There is no consensus of distinction between oversight and regulation. Regulation is clearer, however, because it is measured against a law or agency rule.

Oversight of economic matters is, roughly and to varying degrees, a means to monitor as opposed to manage (although exceptions abound). Oversight may be provided by Congress or Congressional committee; by Federal agencies such as the SEC, FDIC, etc.; by a conglomerate of agencies and cabinets, such as provided in the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP); or by private concerns such as the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) which sets Generally Accepted Accounting Prinicples (GAAP).

Some oversight is necessary, just as a police force is necessary in a community. Conservatives believe the oversight that oversees best is the oversight that oversees least, to paraphrase the well-known quote about government.

With respect to current crisis, Liberals believe it is due to a failure of oversight or to inadequate regulation, and some of that has merit. For example, the SEC allowed too high leveraging in investment banks which caused them to take inordinate risk. Conservatives believe, as do I, that our oversight and regulation are antiquated and too distributed among agencies. Consolidation and streamlining are necessary.

One problem that no one seems to want to address is that one entity, the Federal Reserve Bank, has no oversight. It is in effect a fourth branch of government with no check or balance.

Does that help?

Ummahgummah

You and your sycophant Droopi-yuppi should go live in Dubai. Since you love the jihadists so much.

There is no "moderate" islam.

PERIOD

Ummahgummah

We have no islamic "friends".

PERIOD

We use them and they use us.

PERIOD

Unfortunately some us believe the sap.

mjfell

Socialist Republic
by Patrick J. Buchanan

Barack Obama and George W. Bush seem to have come away from their study of the Great Depression with similar conclusions:

To wit: After the Crash of 1929, the Federal Reserve did not move fast enough to save the banks and inject cash into the economy. Second, the New Deal, far from being wastrel deficit spending, was not bold enough. So it was that America wallowed in depression for a decade until the unbridled spending and mammoth deficits of World War II pulled us out.

Bush and Obama seem determined not to make the same mistake.

We are all Keynesians now.

Thus, we have the $700 billion Bush bank bailout, the $700 billion "stimulus package" Obama wants by inauguration to "jolt this economy back into shape" and the $800 billion fund Hank Paulson created to get consumers borrowing and buying again.

These come on top of Bush $455 billion deficit, the $29 billion bailout of Bear Stearns, the $105 billion in pork to grease the $700 billion bailout, the $100 billion to $200 billion to keep Fannie and Freddie afloat, the $140-billion-and-counting for AIG, the $25 billion for the greening of GM, Ford and Chrysler, the $25 billion more to save the Big Three and the $20 billion for CitiGroup.

Now much of this overlaps, and some will be retrieved. But we are still staring at a deficit that could approach $2 trillion.

How would this stack up historically?

A deficit of $1.4 trillion would be 10 percent of gross domestic product, dwarfing the postwar record 6 percent run by Ronald Reagan in the Jimmy Carter recession.

Bewailing the "Reagan deficits" has been a staple of Democratic oratory. This will stop. But the politics of this is not the point, the policy is.

Consider what we are about to do. Bush in 2008 spent 21 percent of GDP. States, counties and cities spent another 12 percent. Thus, one third of GDP is spent by government at all levels. Obama and Co. propose to raise that by another 10 percent of GDP. We may soon be north of 40 percent of gross domestic product controlled and spent by government.

That is Eurosocialism.

And where, exactly, are we going to get the money?

Americans save nothing. We spend more than we earn. Thus the levels of consumer debt, credit card debt, auto debt and mortgage debt. U.S. foreign-exchange reserves amount to a piddling $73 billion.

The only nation with the kind of cash on hand we need now -- if we don't print the money and invite another gigantic bubble -- is China, with its $2 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves.

Will Beijing lend back the dollars it has piled up by selling to us?

China certainly has an incentive to keep Americans spending. For our purchases of Chinese-made goods have often been responsible for 100 percent of China's growth. China does not want to kill the American goose that lays those golden eggs -- until the goose can't lay any more eggs. Then they won't need the goose.

But should China decide to lend us the money, what will Beijing demand in interest rates and assurances that we will not default. After all, the U.S. debt is 70 percent of GDP, our savings rate is near zero, and our merchandise trade deficit is still running at 5 percent to 6 percent of GDP.

Unlike the 1950s, we are today dependent on foreigners for two-thirds of our oil and for much of our manufactured goods -- toys, TVs, radios, cameras, cars, shoes, clothes, bikes, motorcycles -- and for the $700 billion to $800 billion we borrow each year to pay for these imports.

With U.S. homeowners, consumers, companies and banks now going bust, why must the nation borrow trillions more to bail them out? So we can maintain our status and standard of living as the last superpower.

Bush and Obama are competing to shovel out trillions of dollars, so we can return to the good times of yesterday.

But wasn't yesterday the root cause of today? Didn't saving nothing and spending more than we earn, purchasing what we cannot afford in cars, consumer goods and houses, buying far more from abroad than we sell abroad -- didn't that cause this crisis and crash?

A family man in America's condition, awash in debt, spending more than he makes, would cut back consumption, find a second job and get out of debt. Or declare bankruptcy, accept the shame and humiliation, change his wastrel ways and start anew.

Is it different for a nation?

Yet we seem to believe we can borrow and spend our way out of a swamp of unpayable debt into which borrowing and spending have plunged us.

We are headed either for default on our debts and bankruptcy as a nation, or something less honorable: a quiet cheapening of the debts we have incurred by inflating and destroying the dollar, robbing our creditors of what we owe them and robbing our own people of the value of what they have earned. And so it has come to this.

What would the Founding Fathers think of us now?

mjfell

PLAN WAS TO KILL 5,000:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1090546/I-told-kill-breath-Captured-terrorists-account-Mumbai-massacre-reveals-plan-kill-5-000.html

The only terrorist captured alive after the Mumbai massacre has given police the first full account of the extraordinary events that led to it – revealing he was ordered to ‘kill until the last breath’.
Azam Amir Kasab, 21, from Pakistan, said the attacks were meticulously planned six months ago and were intended to kill 5,000 people.

Ummahgummah

See.. he was from Pakistan. Why should Pak not be held responsible for this?

On the Jihadwatch forum a moslem showed up telling us the West shouldn't "overreact".

After decades of underreacting it's about TIME we overreacted a little.

Michael Avari

Buchanan is not entirely accurate. The Great Depression was caused by a tightening of the money supply and high tariffs that killed trade. As a protectionist, it is not surprising he overlooks that factor. The rest of his analysis is more or less correct except that investing $350 B of the $700 B in TARP funds in banks is not the same as the Fed expanding money supply. The Fed could have bought (can and should buy) Treasuries in the open market and put the money directly in the hands of consumers and investors (although half of them are overseas).

Buchanan doesn't offer a solution, however, but implies it. By saying government is nearly 40% of GDP he implies government should shrink, which is correct. By saying Americans don't save and invest enough, he implies government is taking too much out of their pockets directly and indirectly.

The solution is either a steep tax cut - which will only add to the deficit, or an end to double taxation of business which will not. This is the Freidman-Reich proposal. It will make unnecessary:

- bailouts
- stimulus packages
- tax loopholes
- government subsidies
- capital gains taxes
- corporate lobbying

It will:

- attract capital to business
- make companies more competitive in the world economy
- halt layoffs and increase employment
- keep jobs here
- increase the value of stocks in retirement and other savings accounts
- reduce the need for businesses to go to banks for credit, thus relieving the credit choke
- ultimately increase government tax revenue

There is no better time to adopt this proposal.

mjfell

See.. he was from Pakistan. Why should Pak not be held responsible for this?

On the Jihadwatch forum a moslem showed up telling us the West shouldn't "overreact".

After decades of underreacting it's about TIME we overreacted a little.

Posted by: Ummah Gummah | November 30, 2008 at 02:37 PM

Ummah---

Unless and until there's evidence of a contribution to this attack by a member(s) of their government, Pakistan should be held accountable for this to the same extent the U.S. government should be held accountable for the actions of Timothy McVeigh.

Ummahgummah

MJ, they allow terrorist training camps in Pak.

Therefore I have to respectfully disagree.

Pak has sponsored terror against India for decades.

There's a history there.

Ummahgummah

It's amazing how cold Avari is writing his little bean counting exercises just a day after the worst most savage moslem atrocity since 9/11.

Nothing to see here.. back to business as usual.. right, Avari?

mjfell

Pakistan president warns India not to over-react:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081129145109.uwxnzd5o&show_article=1

Zardari promised that he would take immediate and strong measures if proof was provided of Pakistani involvement.

"Let me assure you that if any evidence points to any individual or any group in this part of the world, I shall take the strictest of action in the light of this evidence and in front of the world," he said.

mjfell

MJ, they allow terrorist training camps in Pak.

Therefore I have to respectfully disagree.

Pak has sponsored terror against India for decades.

There's a history there.

Posted by: Ummah Gummah | November 30, 2008 at 03:07 PM

------------------------------------------------------

A number of Indian officials have suggested the militants were from the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba -- notorious for a deadly assault on the Indian parliament in 2001 that pushed New Delhi and Islamabad to the edge of war.

The two nuclear-armed neighbours have fought three wars since gaining independence from Britain in 1947.

Zardari argued that reducing the Mumbai attacks to an India-Pakistan problem was counter-productive.

"This is a world threat and all the more reason we have to stand up against this threat together," he said.

mjfell

Responsible governments need to work together to eradicate terrorist training camps, wherever they are.

Ummahgummah

Pak is not a responsible government, MJ. Their secret service the ISI were giant funders of the Taliban.

Pak howls loudly - inspite of uur yearly jizyah payments to them - when we shoot a couple of terrorists in Waziristan.

mjfell

Buchanan is not entirely accurate. The Great Depression was caused by a tightening of the money supply and high tariffs that killed trade. As a protectionist, it is not surprising he overlooks that factor. The rest of his analysis is more or less correct except that investing $350 B of the $700 B in TARP funds in banks is not the same as the Fed expanding money supply. The Fed could have bought (can and should buy) Treasuries in the open market and put the money directly in the hands of consumers and investors (although half of them are overseas).

Buchanan doesn't offer a solution, however, but implies it. By saying government is nearly 40% of GDP he implies government should shrink, which is correct. By saying Americans don't save and invest enough, he implies government is taking too much out of their pockets directly and indirectly.

The solution is either a steep tax cut - which will only add to the deficit, or an end to double taxation of business which will not. This is the Freidman-Reich proposal. It will make unnecessary:

- bailouts
- stimulus packages
- tax loopholes
- government subsidies
- capital gains taxes
- corporate lobbying

It will:

- attract capital to business
- make companies more competitive in the world economy
- halt layoffs and increase employment
- keep jobs here
- increase the value of stocks in retirement and other savings accounts
- reduce the need for businesses to go to banks for credit, thus relieving the credit choke
- ultimately increase government tax revenue

There is no better time to adopt this proposal.

Posted by: Michael Avari | November 30, 2008 at 02:46 PM


Michael---

I agree that the Freidman-Reich approach is preferable to the Keynesian.

mjfell

Pak is not a responsible government, MJ. Their secret service the ISI were giant funders of the Taliban.

Pak howls loudly - inspite of uur yearly jizyah payments to them - when we shoot a couple of terrorists in Waziristan.

Posted by: Ummah Gummah | November 30, 2008 at 03:21 PM


Ummah----

So what's your solution? That the U.S. invade Pakistan?

The U.S. needs to work with and influence Pakistan and India to isolate the source of these terrorists and eradicate them.

Pakistan and India working together to fight against terrorism will build what's currently a nonexistant trust between them.

Ummahgummah

Ummah----

So what's your solution? That the U.S. invade Pakistan?

The U.S. needs to work with and influence Pakistan and India to isolate the source of these terrorists and eradicate them.

Pakistan and India working together to fight against terrorism will build what's currently a nonexistant trust between them.

POSTED BY: MJFELL | NOVEMBER 30, 2008 AT 03:27 PM

--

MJ, I am not saying that I have *THEE* Solution.

What I am saying is that there is no solution until we take a completely sober and unbiased inventory without the rose-colored glasses, the Kool-aid the kumbaya and the wishful thinking.

Let's just take into account the actions of the islamic states and compare that to the treaties they have signed and the commitments they have made.

For starters.

I am certain the discrepancies will be staggering.

MJ, You are aware that Pak tole nuclear secrets from Germany and Holland to get the bomb, right?

Ummahgummah

As far as Pakistan is concerned, my solution is not an invasion, but stepped-up targeted bombings in concert with India.

We give the Paks one month to take control of the tribal areas on the Afghanistan border before we take action.

We bring this stuff up in the Security Council of the UN.

We also make more noise about what the islamic states are trying to foist on us at the UN and that countries like Libya - and Cuba - sit on Human Rights Councils at the UN.

We threaten to defund the UN if our demands aren't met.

This needs to be discussed in the press and in the realm of public opinion.

You see these things all go hand-in-hand.

Ummahgummah

This lopsided focus on trade and economic issues at the expense of social and human rights issues as well as security and sovereignty concerns has weakened us and our allies over the years.

This recent financial crisis is a perfect time to take this inventory and to hopefully realize that we cannot continue down this same path we've been on.

Immigration is not a right but a privilege.

Illegals should be treated as lawbreakers.

Legal immigrants who break the laws, especially when using or advocating violence, should be dealt with harshly.

That included punishment and immediate deportation thereafter.

If the criminal alien uses delays by clever lawyers he shall be subject to detention all the way until the case is settled.

We should also start to bring motions into the UN that when foreign nationals cause financial or other harm that we want restitution for our citizens for that.

Illegal activities by foreigners can be interpreted as an Act of War by that Nation.

Preaching wahhabism in mosks in the West is something I consider an Act of War against us.

Truther

It is not clear who was responsible - possibly traditional, reactionary Hindus.
Still, one must wonder where the koshers are going to come from, if not India. Possibly China. How about some lead in your pickles?


Ummahgummah

"truther", are you sure your name isn't Acornbert Sillington?

mjfell

Targeted bombing within Pakistan in concert with India will only aggravate the tensions between Pakistan and India. It's not in the best interests of the United States to be in the middle of that.

I suggest we bring Pakistan into the mix, to target terrorists, work together with India in a constructive manner instead of increasing tension between two nuclear armed countries which already have long standing disagreements.

Bringing the issue up with the UN Security Council is problematic, but shows a willingness on the part of the U.S. to discuss the issues rather than impulsively acting unilaterally.

The U.S. should treaten to kick the UN out of U.S. borders entirely.

Ummahgummah


FROM THE COVER OF "NEGATIONISM IN INDIA - CONCEALING THE RECORD OF ISLAM"

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/negaind/cover.htm

mjfell

There has been a lopsided focus on global trade, especially within the U.S. We should be dedicating an equal amount of time and effort to the presevation of our national security and sovereignty.

Immigration to the United States is not a right but a privilege, access to which is controlled and protected by our national laws.

Illegals aliens should not be granted amnesty. As law breakers, they should suffer the consequences of breaking immigration laws, including but not limited to deportation.

Under no circumstances shall any local, state or federal within the Unites States be usurped or superseded by any islamic law of any kind. Seperation of church and state is basic to survival of the United States.

Christian Drappi

You and your sycophant Droopi-yuppi should go live in Dubai. Since you love the jihadists so much.

There is no "moderate" islam.

PERIOD

Posted by: Ummah Gummah

------------

If that is my new "UG name", it far surpasses "M.AveriCK". Droopi-yuppi is possibly the funniest thing I have ever heard.

UG, I feel so terrible for you. I feel it is necessary to educate you on Islam.

In Islam, they uphold 5 pillars, this consists of:
1) Belief in a monotheistic God
2) Pray at least 5 times per day, preferably facing Mecca
3) Charity
4) Visiting Mecca at least once in a lifetime, if finances permit
5) Fasting, mainly during Ramadan

There is nothing in the Qur'an nor these pillars that suggest terror. There are, however, a small percentage of Muslims that have perverted this faith. It is a VERY small percentage, and they are actually rejected by, in your eyes, the non-existent "Moderate" Muslims. I have many Muslim friends, and admire some Muslim people (on the other hand I detest some as well, but the point is that you can't generalize) - Dave Chappelle is a Muslim whom I admire; he's hilarious. On the other hand, I, like you, detest Osama bin Laden, Al Queda, the Taliban, etc.

For all the time you spend on this board, you really don't know much at all, and you're hurting no one but yourself.

Christian Drappi

In fact, UG, your close-mindedness, by disliking an entire "Ummah" of people because of a relatively few, cruel extremists' actions is just like a liberal disliking all conservatives because you, UG, misrepresent us.

mjfell

Ummah is correct in pointing out the slow, relentless creeping of islam into western countries and western culture.

If there are so many "peaceful muslims why don't they snuff out the proponents of violence within their own midst?

mjfell

Pakistan's president makes urgent appeal to India:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e1fe5274-bf14-11dd-ae63-0000779fd18c.html

Speaking exclusively to the Financial Times, Pakistan’s president warned that provocation by rogue “non-state actors” posed the danger of a return to war between the nuclear-armed neighbours.

“Even if the militants are linked to Lashkar-i-tayyaba, [a prominent militant group linked to previous attacks against India] who do you think we are fighting?” asked Mr Zardari, whose country is battling al-Qaeda and Taliban militants on its shared border with Afghanistan.

“We live in troubled times where non-state actors have taken us to war before, whether it is the case of those who perpetrated [the] 9/11 [attacks on the US] or contributed to the escalation of the situation in Iraq,” said Mr Zardari.

“Now, events in Mumbai tell us that there are ongoing efforts to carry out copycat attacks by militants. We must all stand together to fight out this menace.”

Truther

These external groups need to trade with each other. The prices of imported goods is too high. When you consider 3 billion people exporting to the US, we should obtain 46" plasma TV's for $200. 300 million people cannot purchase all these products.

The primary concern for our economy is long term stabilty that comes from self-reliance, and a concern for security Another faction can continue developing external economies, and this should still eave a considerable faction that is free - to do what? Maybe jump out into space.


Ummahgummah

The U.S. should treaten to kick the UN out of U.S. borders entirely.
POSTED BY: MJFELL | NOVEMBER 30, 2008 AT 05:38 PM

--

That would be change I *can* believe in.

thorn66

Michael-

Thanks for your response regarding the range of political interpretations regarding economic oversight and regulation.

Below I have cut and pasted an interesting narration in Wikipedia regarding some of the de-regulation history leading up to the current debt crisis. If the historical version below is accurate, it seems surreal that the same Paulson is now in now in a position of authority overseeing the distribution of a multi-trillion dollar bailout/stimulus strategy. Your thoughts?

"In 2004, at the request of the major Wall Street investment houses, including Goldman Sachs, then headed by Paulson, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission agreed unanimously to release the major investment houses from the net capital rule, the requirement that their brokerages hold reserve capital that limited their leverage and risk exposure. The complaint that was put forth by the investment banks was of increasingly onerous regulatory requirements -- in this case, not U.S. regulator oversight, but European Union regulation of the foreign operations of US investment groups. In the immediate lead-up to the decision, EU regulators also acceded to US pressure, and agreed not to scrutinize foreign firms' reserve holdings if the SEC agreed to do so instead. The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, however, put the parent holding company of each of the big American brokerages beyond SEC oversight. In order for the agreement to go ahead, the investment banks lobbied for a decision that would allow "voluntary" inspection of their parent and subsidiary holdings by the SEC.

During this repeal of the net capital rule, SEC Chairman William H. Donaldson agreed to the establishment of a risk management office that would monitor signs of future problems. This office was eventually dismantled by Chairman Christopher Cox, after discussions with Paulson. According to the New York Times, "While other financial regulatory agencies criticized a blueprint by Mr. Paulson, the Treasury secretary, that proposed to reduce their stature — and that of the S.E.C. — Mr. Cox did not challenge the plan, leaving it to three former Democratic and Republican commission chairmen to complain that the blueprint would neuter the agency."[11] Changes to the net capital rule are thought to be an important factor in the credit market meltdown of 2008.

In late September 2008, Chairman Cox and the other Commissioners agreed to end the 2004 program of voluntary regulation."

Ummahgummah

Droopi-yuppi - I'm so glad you have so many fab mooozeleeem friends.

I'm really happy for you.

Have fun at your beheading.

Ummahgummah

There is nothing in the Qur'an nor these pillars that suggest terror. There are, however, a small percentage of Muslims that have perverted this faith. It is a VERY small percentage, and they are actually rejected by, in your eyes, the non-existent "Moderate" Muslims.

--

This brazen attempt at disinformation shall not stand.

Let's hear what prominent mooozeleeeembes have to say on the subject:


[turkish] PM Erdogan: The Term “Moderate Islam” Is Ugly And Offensive; There Is No Moderate Islam; Islam Is Islam

Speaking at Kanal D TV’s Arena program, PM Erdogan commented on the term “moderate Islam”, often used in the West to describe AKP and said, ‘These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”
Source: Milliyet, Turkey, August 21, 2007


[Malaysian PM] Mahathir: No such thing as a moderate Muslim
The former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir "Jews rule the world by proxy" Mohamad, says now that Islam is by its very nature moderate, and so the label "moderate Muslim" is simply redundant. He does not address in detail, however, the jihadist intepretation of the Qur'an and Sunnah, or show why it is wrong: such a refutation remains the Great White Whale of moderate Muslims.

"No such thing as a moderate Muslim - Dr M," from Bernama, with thanks to Ken and Elisabeth:

(Bernama) -- Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad today asked Muslims to do away with false assumptions when declaring themselves as moderate followers of Islam because the religion is indeed moderate.
The former prime minister said Muslims did not need to defend themselves as moderate or liberal Muslims as this gave a picture that were only partial followers of Islamic teachings while others (teachings) were deemed extreme.

"Islam is already a moderate religion...there is no need for us to show that were are more liberal Muslims than others. We are Muslims...period," he said when opening the 45th Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Muslim Welfare Organisation of Malaysia (Perkim) here.

Dr Mahathir, who is also Perkim president, said that even if some Muslims were labelled extremists, it was not because of the teachings of Islam but a lack of understanding of them or the religion being manipulated by irresponsible followers.

"There is nothing extreme about Islam if we follow its teachings as contained in the Quran," he said.

Dr Mahathir said the ummah (faithful) and Islamic nations must intensify efforts to dispel the notion held by many of Islam as being extreme, its followers ignorant, poor, do not know how to administer a country and are fond of asking for help from others.

He said that if the negative perception of Islam continued, it would adversely affect efforts to spread the religion as "no one would be interested to join a religion whose followers are seen as losers".

"People will only be attracted when there is a successful track record...as such only when Muslims become successful in all spheres or better than others in them can we successfully carry out effective missionary activities," he said.

According to Dr Mahathir, efforts must also be intensified to give a clear an correct picture that the religion was not an obstacle to progress.

"We must encourage followers who want to be successful and competitive. We should show that Islam does not stand in the way of followers who want to attain great achievements," he said.

Michael Avari

Christian,

Thank you for showing openmindedness and intelligence with respect to Islam. Your immunity to UG's school-yard bullying tactic of calling names also shows a maturity and self-awareness that is promising for the future of Conservatism.

If you notice, UG has never proposed a single actionable or practical plan for the problem of radicalism in Islam. Never. All we hear is anger and hate. By any standard that is not representative of the American. In fact, if left unchecked ultimately his brand of Islam-phobia will lead to our defeat. Fortunately, wiser heads prevail:

"At no point do the basic texts of Islam enjoin terrorism and murder."

"At no point do they even consider the random slaughter of uninvolved bystanders. "

--Bernard Lewis in "License to Kill" (1998)

----------------

Islam and the Question of Violence
Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr

http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/IslamAndViolence.htm

“As for the meaning of violence as 'rough or injurious physical force or action', Islamic Law opposes all uses of force in this sense except in the case of war or for punishment of criminals in accordance with the shari'a. Even in war, however, the inflicting of any injury to women and children is forbidden as is the use of force against civilians.”

-------------------

Muslim Clerics Declare 'Terrorism is Un-Islamic', a statement issued by a massive conference of Muslim scholars of Darul Uloom

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Muslim_clerics_declare_terror_un-Islamic/articleshow/2813375.cms

"Islam is a religion of mercy for all humanity. Islam sternly condemns all kinds of oppression, violence and terrorism. It has regarded oppression, mischief, rioting and murder among severest sins and crimes"
"Islam prohibits killing of innocent people"

-------------------

The "Green Peril":
Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat

by Leon T. Hadar, a former bureau chief for the Jerusalem Post, is an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute (a Conservative think tank).

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-177.html

"The danger for the Western nations, in particular the United States, is that misperceptions will cloud their judgment of and produce counterproductive policies toward Islam and the Middle East. Instead of viewing Islam as a monolithic force, Western analysts and policymakers should recognize that it is a diverse civilization, divided along cultural, ideological, religious, ethnic, and national lines. Even the term "Islamic fundamentalism" should perhaps be modified to reflect the different movements and groups that are lumped into that category.

-----------

UG is just using the tragedy in India to spread his vile version of xenophobia. And then he dares to accuse others of dishonoring memory of the victims!

But don't respond to his every provocation, unless you find it amusing. Why?

"Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Cheers,

Ummahgummah

Another great "statesman" form the moslem world is famous for the following statement:

“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”
- Houari Boumédienne, former radical dictator of Algeria [died in 1978]


--


How MANY exactly do I have to cite before ANYONE here GETS IT ?!

The comments to this entry are closed.