Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Focus on 'American Thinker'

From time to time, I hope to review some of the websites on my list of links. Most readers don’t always have time to ‘surf’ everyone’s list of links. The American Thinker has been on my list of links for some time. Current articles illustrate why.

What kind of book would be banned in India? Lifson, at AT, writes about a book written in Arabic and English that aims to covert Muslims to Christianity. Dhimmi-whipped politicians in India cave to Islamic objections.

Baehr, at AT, reminds us how Islam has fueled the attacks against Israel since 2000—even in after the economic gains during the 1990s. Islamists aren’t concerned with the well-being of Arabs in captured territory. There goal is clear.

Baehr’s comprehensive review of left-wing hatred for Israel is a classic and they reprint it here. He makes a distinction of what we, today, call liberal:
“I distinguish between leftists and liberals by one key test: how they feel about the country in which they live. If you tend to regard America as a primarily flawed, evil, unjust, racist country (or at least when Republicans are running it), and most importantly, believe that the US is the primary threat to world peace internationally, then you are a leftist, and not a liberal.”
Unfortunately, modern liberals doesn’t make this distinction—at least not often enough. Baehr describes the problem in detail. Here’s another fellow’s description of the left-Islam alliance.

Speaking of the delusional left, Lifton comments on a tribute to Che Guevara. He quotes an excellent article in the New York Sun. Here’s another quote:

Ernesto "Che" Guevara was a sociopathic thug, a man who genuinely relished killing, a man with a passion for putting his pistol to other men's heads and blowing their brains out, preferably when they were bound, gagged, and blindfolded.”
And he gives details (not for the faint of heart.) Doesn’t anyone on the left feel embarrassed by the love that their comrades show for Arafat (“the father of modern terrorism”) and Che Guevara?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Compliments, I fall randomly on your blog and I discovered you're my same ideas on politics, and a right concept of meaning of "liberalism". In Europe - I'm shure you knows - "liberal" and "leftish" are very different, sometimes opposite, terms...
On correct meaning (mainstream, central...) of liberalism, I've founded my blog "Salon Voltaire". a little bit satyric and critic against "conformism of anti-conformists"...
(that's pity, in italian)

12/28/05, 11:01 AM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

articles.php?article_id=5108 , "The Most Controversial Book You Never Heard Of,"

to which you linked.

I immediately recognized the information about The True Furqan. Dr. Shorrosh's book about Islam is one of the first I read after 9/11.

Dr. Shorrosh, an evangelical Baptist Palestinian, came here to the D.C. area last May. Alas! I couldn't attend any of his several presentations because of the car accident I had on May 17. Of course, because he debunks Islam, Dr. Shorrosh is frequently threatened. Ah, the religion of peace.

Now, back to your article, with its many links.

12/28/05, 11:44 AM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

Thanks, Nick. I’m glad you pointed out that the word “liberal,” as used outside of the USA, still retains the original meaning. Many Americans don’t know that. It’s a valuable word that I hate to see bastardized. It’s hard to fight common usage but I general use the term “left” and sometimes I distinguish between “far left” and “left-liberal.” The latter retains some liberal elements (most often civil liberties) while omitting support for a liberal economy (or allowing a grudging support for a degree of free markets.) A better term for the left-liberal might be “social democrat” but Americans aren’t used to the term.

I argue for a restoration of classical liberalism based on the rights of the individual. But I welcome discussion by many people who respect this tradition even if they don’t completely believe we should work towards re-establishing a liberal order.

Your blog looks interesting and refreshing … at least as I’ve been able to read with this tool.

12/28/05, 1:48 PM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

AOW, I knew the name sounded familiar (i.e. Dr. Shorrosh.) I must have read it on your website. It goes to show how little gets reported in our media. Somehow, I can’t help but think the media dismisses the violation of free speech when it comes to preaching religion … in particular when someone is preaching Christianity to those outside the faith.

Also notice how little coverage the Danish ‘cartoon’ story gets. Apparently, this speech isn’t considered important enough to protect.

12/28/05, 1:57 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

Dr. Shorrosh is fluent in both Arabic and in English. Too few people know of his work.

Have you seen his Twenty Year Plan? It was written three years ago! Guaranteed to make your hair stand up, I think.

12/28/05, 10:02 PM  
Blogger Rancher said...


Through the blogosphere the message gets out. The 20 year plan has nothing new but is a nice summary of how the invasion is planned. Thanks for the link. The fly in the ointment is the blogosphere, we will not be silenced!

12/29/05, 1:50 PM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

“The Twenty Year Plan” was an accurate summary of the tactics of the enemy. And, in our ignorance, we are susceptible. I wish people would refer to Islam as a political ideology. It clearly is. That fact that has a religious cast is minor compared to the purpose for which it was created and the centrality of politics to this ideology.

Dr. Shorrosh looks like he has an excellent opportunity to get the truth out—especially among Christians who think Islam is just another religion.

12/29/05, 3:29 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

Yes, Dr. Shorrosh's "Twenty Year Plan" is nothing new. But how many dhimmis recognize the progression which is in process?

Dr. Shorrosh has a limited audience, but those who hear him are convinced. The conservative evangelicals are not usually persuaded by secular arguments.

As I've said before, we infidels--Christian, Jewish, agnostic, atheist, whatever--must unite because this enemy required a united front to go down to defeat. I try to learn arguments of different types so that I can reach people of different persuasions.

The blogosphere is an arena of hope for me.

12/29/05, 5:25 PM  
Blogger beakerkin said...


My blog has made similar points for a while. Liberals kindly step away from the Commies and then we will talk.

No I think what we are witnessing is Marcusse's hierchy of victims with Muslims at the top . Then come Gays, Blacks, Women, Hispanics and Native Americans.

Thus Gay Commie 167 defends Iran's execution of homosexuals as he condems the "racist " trials of Tookie Williams. Muslims get to kill blacks in Sudan up until they ran out of Christian Blacks and starting killing Muslim black and started confusing the PC Math. Muslims get a free pass to opress women in the name of multiculturalism.

We have both seen 167 create races out of groups that are non racial
Muslim, Arabs and Palestinians. We have seen that any critique of the Religion of Rest In Peace is racist and not allowed any notion of free speech. This is also the rationale that transformed education into indoctrination at your local university.

Jason remember smackdown WWE type of posts are on my blog. You did have some Jihadist for a while. They gave you a prize and did not even nominate Mr Beamish, Pam or the Beak.

12/29/05, 7:44 PM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

AOW, you are right, we have to reach disparate groups of people who need a different emphasis. That’s why on my reference list of books I have books on Islam written by secular (ex-Muslim), Christian, and Jewish authors. If I could find a Buddhist author I’d put him or her on the list.

I always hope to wake-up the more non-religious types of people but I take pride in the fact that I have a broad audience who understands this is a threat to us all. And Rancher is right, we can reach many on the Internet; and we’ll bypass the mainstream media.

Beak, I tried arguing with some “moral equivalency” types over on Harry’s Place. Actually Old Peculiar (Katy) was doing the arguing and she didn’t need any help from me. But this one guy just won’t let go with this absurd “Fundamentalists of all religions are the same” routine. Actually, his variation was “Puritans.” So I threw my 2 cents in but he would deal with the content of any of our posts. Perhaps I should give more effort to combating these people. Their ignorance and superficiality encourages others to take the easy way out and repeat the same old “moral equivalence.”

Why is it so hard for them to say "Islam is far worse than everything else?"

12/29/05, 9:42 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

Jason: Why is it so hard for them to say "Islam is far worse than everything else?"

That's what I don't understand! I have to attribute the denseness to some kind of brainwashing.

12/29/05, 9:53 PM  
Blogger LA Sunset said...

Good articles all of them, Jason.

The thing that stands out on the Che article is how much of a cult following this thug is getting these days. I see shirts with his image on them, worn by young people that have no idea what this jerk did, or stood for.

The thing that concerns me is the amount of Latino adoration he gets from Hispanics, both here and in Latin America. As they become a larger population here(because the current administration is doing very little to control the border), the more he is being promoted as a hero, within the ranks of our country's young people.

12/30/05, 7:47 AM  

<< Home