|options for Michael Savage (all times Eastern): |
6-9pm KNEW (San Francisco) - live; flagship station
All are links that will directly launch Windows Media Player. Some of these stations have options for MAC users.
COULTER: We don't have enough people at the border. We don't have enough people to keep us safe in Washington, D.C.
COULTER: We don't have enough people to stop, you know, bear attacks in New Jersey. OK. What's the point?
O'REILLY: Look, here is what's going to happen. If at this time next year the situation in Iraq is the same as it is now, Republicans will lose all kinds of things in the elections. Hillary Clinton will be elected...
COULTER: But according to you, it should be worse now than it was last year.
O'REILLY: Well, it's not according it me. It's according to all the statistics that our military analysts have uncovered. Not according to me.
COULTER: Last year I said the war was going well. You said the war was going badly. I've just run off a whole slew of things that I consider magnificent successes in the past year, and by contrast we don't have the elite Republican Guard massing outside of New York City or charging — we do have to take the war to them, as we see from the bombings in London and the idiotic response in New York. We can't check every bag of every person to board every subway from now until kingdom come. We have to take the way to them.
O'REILLY: Look, we all know that. A realistic assessment of this action...
COULTER: This constant harping, I think, is just going to lead to another Vietnam, or at least I don't think it will because I think the American people are better than that. But I don't know what the point of it is. War is hell.
O'REILLY: The point is you want to win the situation. And the point is we aren't winning right now, according to our military analysts.
Let's get to the border.
COULTER: We don't win until we win.
O'REILLY: Let's get to the border. Now, certainly we're not winning that. Certainly that chaos has been going on for six years under President Bush, and he hasn't improved the situation one iota, as far as I can see. Do you disagree with that?
COULTER: I do not.
O'REILLY: Thank you. My God.
COULTER: I do not. And it's being going on a lot longer than six years.
O'REILLY: I know, but you expect the Clinton and the Democrats not to do anything.
COULTER: Right. Right.
O'REILLY: But you don't expect a president who's committed to our national security to allow this to happen.
COULTER: Right. No, it's absolutely baffling. Sometimes you have to do the principled thing even if it will cost you votes. Here, doing the principled thing will win you votes.
And still Republicans and Democrats, as you say, they don't really care about national security, but the Republicans, I think George Bush seems to think that this will hurt him with the Hispanic vote or hurt Republicans with the Hispanic vote, which is crazy.
It's a complete misreading of Proposition 187 in California, which a majority of Hispanics voted in favor of. People forget about that. It was a court that overturned that. That was denying public benefits to illegal immigrants.
A majority of Hispanics voted in favor of that. To equate Hispanics with lawbreakers it seems to me is the racist position here, but I think that's what's driving the Republicans.
O'REILLY: All right. Well, you and I agree on that. We disagree a little bit...
COULTER: I'm glad to hear that.
O'REILLY: But I want everybody to know, I want to win in Iraq, and I don't think we have the resources right now to win. If the Iraqis step up and improve their performance, yes, but that has not been proven.
Ann, always a pleasure. You're welcome any time. Thank you.
COULTER: Thank you.
Democrats' new strategy: Almost winning
August 7, 2005
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
( Collapse )
It will be run by me...so there won't be a problem with "debaters", etc.
It is probably true that in every faith ordinary people will pick the parts they like best and practise those, while the scholars will work out an official version. In Islam the scholars had a particularly challenging task, given the mass of contradictory texts within the Koran. To meet this challenge they developed the rule of abrogation, which states that wherever contradictions are found, the later-dated text abrogates the earlier one. To elucidate further the original intention of Mohammed, they referred to traditions (hadith) recording what he himself had said and done. Sadly for the rest of the world, both these methods led Islam away from peace and towards war. For the peaceable verses of the Koran are almost all earlier, dating from Mohammed’s time in Mecca, while those which advocate war and violence are almost all later, dating from after his flight to Medina. Though jihad has a variety of meanings, including a spiritual struggle against sin, Mohammed’s own example shows clearly that he frequently interpreted jihad as literal warfare and himself ordered massacre, assassination and torture. From these sources the Islamic scholars developed a detailed theology dividing the world into two parts, Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, with Muslims required to change Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam either through warfare or da’wa (mission).
So the mantra ‘Islam is peace’ is almost 1,400 years out of date. It was only for about 13 years that Islam was peace and nothing but peace. From 622 onwards it became increasingly aggressive, albeit with periods of peaceful co-existence, particularly in the colonial period, when the theology of war was not dominant. For today’s radical Muslims — just as for the mediaeval jurists who developed classical Islam — it would be truer to say ‘Islam is war’. One of the most radical Islamic groups in Britain, al-Ghurabaa, stated in the wake of the two London bombings, ‘Any Muslim that denies that terror is a part of Islam is kafir.’ A kafir is an unbeliever (i.e., a non-Muslim), a term of gross insult.
This isn’t just a litany of infamy, however. Sookhdeo outlines a difficult path toward evolution of a true moderate Islam:
Muslims must stop this self-deception. They must with honesty recognise the violence that has existed in their history in the same way that Christians have had to do, for Christianity has a very dark past. Some Muslims have, with great courage, begun to do this.
Secondly, they must look at the reinterpretation of their texts, the Koran, hadith and Sharia, and the reformation of their faith. Mundir Badr Haloum has described this as ‘exorcising’ the terrorism from Islam. Mahmud Muhammad Taha argued for a distinction to be drawn between the Meccan and the Medinan sections of the Koran. He advocated a return to peaceable Meccan Islam, which he argued is applicable to today, whereas the bellicose Medinan teachings should be consigned to history. For taking this position he was tried for apostasy, found guilty and executed by the Sudanese government in 1985. Another modernist reformer was the Pakistani Fazlur Rahman, who advocated the ‘double movement’; i.e., understanding Koranic verses in their context, their ratio legis, and then using the philosophy of the Koran to interpret that in a modern, social and moral sense. Nasr Hamid Abu-Zayd, an Egyptian professor who argued similarly that the Koran and hadith should be interpreted according to the context in which they originated, was charged with apostasy, found guilty in June 1995 and ordered to separate from his wife.
The US-based Free Muslims Coalition, which was set up after 9/11 to promote a modern and secular version of Islam, has proposed the following:
1. A re-interpretation of Islam for the 21st century, where terrorism is not justified under any circumstances.
2. Separation of religion and state.
3. Democracy as the best form of government.
4. Secularism in all forms of political activity.
5. Equality for women.
6. Religion to be a personal relationship between the individual and his or her God, not to be forced on anyone.
So that's what went wrong with Islam. I've been wondering about this for quite some time. And this goes along with my idea that just as Christianity had to reform itslef from within, so to must Muslims take responsibility for their religion and its future.
G-d is punk rock
Believing in G-d is punk rock.
Michael Savage is definitely punk, the punkest punk rocker that ever lived.
Being right wing is totally punk rock.
There I said it. And I believe it.
Why the First Bush Administration Refused to Protect Our Borders:http://isteve.blogspot.com/
From the blog above:
That's certainly interesting now that word has come from the LA Times that the latest Bush administration is dunning corporations to build a war chest to "marginalize" conservative talk radio and other pillars of the GOP for opposing the President's amnesty & open borders immigration plan.
25 July 2005
People who "spit hate" at the British way of life should be deported, Tory former Prime Minister John Major said. Mr Major spoke of the "uncomfortable reality" that many terrorists were born or lived in the UK but had been taught to hate its culture.
People who "spit hate" at the British way of life should be deported, Tory former Prime Minister John Major said.
Mr Major spoke of the "uncomfortable reality" that many terrorists were born or lived in the UK but had been taught to hate its culture.
He called for heavier penalties for those who incited violence at this "particularly sensitive time".
"Always difficult to balance this against freedom of speech but I think, at the moment, it is justifiable to protect the public," he argued.
Mr Major added: "As far as those who literally spit hate at our country and there are some of them - they spit hate at our country and they incite - I personally would be prepared to deport those where it is clear that what they are doing is causing civil unrest and may cost other people, as a result of that, their lives."
He also called for more CCTV cameras to deter the threat and the use of intercept evidence in courts. Interviewed on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Mr Major urged the Government to consult widely over new anti-terror legislation.
"They are going to have to carry people with them at this moment," he warned.
He also defended the controversial shoot-to kill policy that led to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.
"I rather prefer the expression shoot to protect rather than shoot to kill - I think that is a more accurate description of what happened."
Guardian Attacks Bloggers for Exposing Pet Islamofascist
Jul. 25th, 2005 | 09:53 am
posted by: lgf
When an Islamic supremacist belonging to the group Hizb ut-Tahrir was exposed on the staff of British newspaper The Guardian, the paper reacted with an anonymously authored hit piece on bloggers, full of slurs and illogic. Don’t miss Scott Burgess’ quietly devastating reply: L’Affaire Aslam: The Ablution Responds.