The ‘Rejection’ Party

I disagree with this statement “I can’t explain the GOP’s actions any better.”

Sure you can. I have more faith in your intelligence than that. 

The party of rejection, or the party with more than half a brain? A Muslim convention hosted by the Islamic Society of North America? I’d pass too:

“According to terrorism expert Steven Emerson, ISNA “is a radical group hiding under a false veneer of moderation”; “convenes annual conferences where Islamist militants have been given a platform to incite violence and promote hatred” (for instance, al Qaeda supporter and PLO official Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi was invited to speak at an ISNA conference); has held fundraisers for terrorists (after Hamas leader Mousa Marzook was arrested and eventually deported in 1997, ISNA raised money for his defense); has condemned the U.S. government’s post-9/11 seizure of Hamas’ and Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s financial assets; and publishes a bi-monthly magazine, Islamic Horizons, that “often champions militant Islamist doctrine.”

The “black themed debate” looked more like a convention of left leaning journalists and why would a serious candidate spend time speaking a language that 90% of the voters can’t understand?

Unless one were left leaning, unable to speak English or a supporter of Islamic jihad there were good reasons to have avioded each of these events, and none had anything to do with “rejecting” anyone’s race or color.

Race baiting is an ugly thing my friend.

Emerson? “His work has drawn much criticism. Louay Safi, the Director of Research at the International Institute of Islamic Thought has described Emerson as belonging to “a network of anti-Muslim pundits who, driven by bigotry and exclusivist ideology, are bent on marginalizing Muslim Americans, and using unscrupulous tactics to distort the image of Muslims.” [9] Emerson was criticized after the Oklahoma City bombing, which he attributed to a Middle Eastern terrorist attack, arguing that it was “done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible. That is a Middle Eastern trait.”

“In a recent article published in the National Review Online  (June 28, 2007) under the title “Radical Outreach: Bush coddles American apologists for radical Islam,” Emerson lashes out against President Bush for appointing a special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Emerson made it clear that he resents Bush’s initiative, which is aimed at mending fences with the Muslim world”

Sounds like the terrorism expert just doesn’t like Muslims.

And 16 million Latinos are eligible to vote. Not exactly small potatoes.

And if the black-themed debate was too left-leaning, why wouldn’t Republicans encourage one that isn’t perceived as too left leaning?

It might be useful . . . . . . to address Emerson’s criticism directly.

If you want to dismiss Emerson’s criticism of ISNA, consider addressing the points he makes, rather than relying on Safi and the Saudi-government-funded IIIT. 

Yup; Emerson’s first, tentative guess as to the identity of the OKC bomber was wrong.  The difficulty for those who want to dismiss Emerson is that he’s been demonstrably right far more often.

Do you say…? ..That 90% of Black don’t understand what Republicans are talking about?

I find that offensive.

I think he was saying… … that 90% of black liberals don’t understand what mainstream conservative Republicans are talking about. 

You have a right to be offended by that, but do try to keep it in perspective:  seems to some folks that 99% of liberals, overall, don’t understand what mainstream conservatives are talking about, which would argue that black liberals tend to be smarter than the average liberal.

:)

one might address it directly if exposer had thought to put a link to his source material above so his argument could be seen in its entirety and in context.

Well, if that’s all it takes… … there’s no need to wait for exposer to do so; I’ll be happy to provide a
link to Emerson’s latest piece on the unindicted co-conspirator organization, ISNA.

After rather a lot of documenting ISNA’s rather troublesome connections and alliances, Emerson concludes: 

ISNA officials can say they “condemn acts of terrorism” all they want, but the evidence supporting their ties to, and true feelings about, terrorist groups like HAMAS and PIJ, is overwhelming. The Department of Justice has started to take note. One can only hope that other branches of the government and mainstream media will follow suit.

And perhaps one can hope the same about the New Journalistic Fellows at the Minnesota Monitor, too. 

Hope does spring eternal, after all.

Hmm…. … the link didn’t, apparently, link.  Try this: 

http://counterterror…

and, for that matter, this:

http://counterterror…

Tick, tick, tick So, perhaps the problem with responding to Emerson’s contentions wasn’t the lack of a link, eh?

By now . . . . . . I think the above is a clear conclusion.  And it’s also fair to guess that Robin should (will?  I dunno) be a little more careful about, metaphorically, writing checks that her mouth can’t cash. 

Yup. Looks like my first guess was right; Minnie Mon’s inability to deal with Emerson’s rather serious allegations wasn’t simply the lack of a URL.

I disagree with this statement “I can't explain the GOP's actions any better.”

Sure you can. I have more faith in your intelligence than that. 

The party of rejection, or the party with more than half a brain? A Muslim convention hosted by the Islamic Society of North America? I'd pass too:

“According to terrorism expert Steven Emerson, ISNA “is a radical group hiding under a false veneer of moderation”; “convenes annual conferences where Islamist militants have been given a platform to incite violence and promote hatred” (for instance, al Qaeda supporter and PLO official Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi was invited to speak at an ISNA conference); has held fundraisers for terrorists (after Hamas leader Mousa Marzook was arrested and eventually deported in 1997, ISNA raised money for his defense); has condemned the U.S. government's post-9/11 seizure of Hamas' and Palestinian Islamic Jihad's financial assets; and publishes a bi-monthly magazine, Islamic Horizons, that “often champions militant Islamist doctrine.”

The “black themed debate” looked more like a convention of left leaning journalists and why would a serious candidate spend time speaking a language that 90% of the voters can't understand?

Unless one were left leaning, unable to speak English or a supporter of Islamic jihad there were good reasons to have avioded each of these events, and none had anything to do with “rejecting” anyone's race or color.

Race baiting is an ugly thing my friend.

Emerson? “His work has drawn much criticism. Louay Safi, the Director of Research at the International Institute of Islamic Thought has described Emerson as belonging to “a network of anti-Muslim pundits who, driven by bigotry and exclusivist ideology, are bent on marginalizing Muslim Americans, and using unscrupulous tactics to distort the image of Muslims.” [9] Emerson was criticized after the Oklahoma City bombing, which he attributed to a Middle Eastern terrorist attack, arguing that it was “done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible. That is a Middle Eastern trait.”

“In a recent article published in the National Review Online  (June 28, 2007) under the title “Radical Outreach: Bush coddles American apologists for radical Islam,” Emerson lashes out against President Bush for appointing a special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Emerson made it clear that he resents Bush's initiative, which is aimed at mending fences with the Muslim world”

Sounds like the terrorism expert just doesn't like Muslims.

And 16 million Latinos are eligible to vote. Not exactly small potatoes.

And if the black-themed debate was too left-leaning, why wouldn't Republicans encourage one that isn't perceived as too left leaning?

It might be useful . . . . . . to address Emerson's criticism directly.

If you want to dismiss Emerson's criticism of ISNA, consider addressing the points he makes, rather than relying on Safi and the Saudi-government-funded IIIT. 

Yup; Emerson's first, tentative guess as to the identity of the OKC bomber was wrong.  The difficulty for those who want to dismiss Emerson is that he's been demonstrably right far more often.

Do you say…? ..That 90% of Black don't understand what Republicans are talking about?

I find that offensive.

I think he was saying… … that 90% of black liberals don't understand what mainstream conservative Republicans are talking about. 

You have a right to be offended by that, but do try to keep it in perspective:  seems to some folks that 99% of liberals, overall, don't understand what mainstream conservatives are talking about, which would argue that black liberals tend to be smarter than the average liberal.

:)

one might address it directly if exposer had thought to put a link to his source material above so his argument could be seen in its entirety and in context.

Well, if that's all it takes… … there's no need to wait for exposer to do so; I'll be happy to provide a <href>link to Emerson's latest piece on the unindicted co-conspirator organization, ISNA.

After rather a lot of documenting ISNA's rather troublesome connections and alliances, Emerson concludes: 

ISNA officials can say they “condemn acts of terrorism” all they want, but the evidence supporting their ties to, and true feelings about, terrorist groups like HAMAS and PIJ, is overwhelming. The Department of Justice has started to take note. One can only hope that other branches of the government and mainstream media will follow suit.

And perhaps one can hope the same about the New Journalistic Fellows at the Minnesota Monitor, too. 

Hope does spring eternal, after all.

</href>

Hmm…. … the link didn't, apparently, link.  Try this: 

http://counterterror…

and, for that matter, this:

http://counterterror…

Tick, tick, tick So, perhaps the problem with responding to Emerson's contentions wasn't the lack of a link, eh?

By now . . . . . . I think the above is a clear conclusion.  And it's also fair to guess that Robin should (will?  I dunno) be a little more careful about, metaphorically, writing checks that her mouth can't cash. 

Yup. Looks like my first guess was right; Minnie Mon's inability to deal with Emerson's rather serious allegations wasn't simply the lack of a URL.