Nuts! It Takes All Kinds
Via The Armorer:
‘NUTS!’ — Allen West’s Strange, One-Word Response To Being Called Out For Ties To Islamophobes
Earlier this month, a local chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) sent Rep. Allen West (R-FL) a letter asking him to cut off ties with leading anti-Muslim activists like Pamela Geller and Brigitte Gabriel with whom he had shared stages before. Muslims protect and serve our great country and are afforded equal protection under law,” said the letter. “We shouldn’t have to defend our rights to worship freely or participate in the governing of our society.”
Now, CAIR has received a letter from West with a one-word response to their request. In what the Miami New Times is calling possibly “dumbest thing ever written on congressional stationery,” West simply wrote back, “NUTS!” Here’s a copy of the letter:
And those at Think Progress were very perceptive to note: “Whatever he meant by his response, one thing West did not appear to offer is any sort of condemnation of the radical anti-Muslim company he has been keeping.”
Category: Geezer Alert!, Politics
I really don’t see what the squabble is about. A citizen associates with a group of like-minded people. Another group, opposed to the first, attempted to get said citizen to disassociate from his group. He told them to get lost. Sounds as American as apple pie to me. I’d have done exactly the same thing, in his place.
CAIR overstepped a bit, and got rapped on the knuckles for it. This situation, and others like it, are what is needed to develop the clarity of vision and insight necessary for both groups to interact with each other. Our nation has always had a tension between the rights of the individual vs. the demands of the group.
“I haven’t conflated this event concerning West with the Islamic world at large, but by even the most generous measure, it’s a fraction of the Muslim population that acts against what we consider our interests, a number far below what I would consider ‘plenty of them’.” That fraction is relative. Lets take just the Arab world, with about a population of 300 million(same as entire US). Lets say that only 10 percent are willing to take up arms or support these entities, thats still 30 million people to pull from! Thats still a huge pool of manpower to be tapped, even if it is spread between factions(Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc). Thats more then enough to sustain a van guard terrorist group. Going back to my origional point, we haven’t even factored in the nonarabs or state actors yet. “We have activists and elected officials that seem to operate from the position that Islam is a threat that will bring down western civilization.” Yeah because thats never happened in the past. Its moral and ethical code is not the same as our own and that does stem from the Koran and the Prophet Mohammed’s example. “I personally think it stems from a sense that the idea of American infallibility must have an actor playing the foil in order to survive.” I completely disagree with you. Pride in your nation is not the same as belief in its infallibility. I think there are people both left and right, who think our power is infinite, and therefore we don’t need a strategy to at least guide us of anykind. we should simply jump at the opportunity of any intervention, whether it serves ar interests or not. “We can certainly have a positive effect on tempering the wave of radicalism [though I believe it to have a shelf life anyway], but we certainly do not always pursue the sensible course of action to that end.” That shelf life is the wall of unsuccess, and the price those that chase it pay. That tempering instrument is a blade not a dialogue. I do agree with… Read more »
“That fraction is relative”
So is yours.
“I think there are people both left and right, who think our power is infinite, and therefore we don’t need a strategy to at least guide us of anykind. we should simply jump at the opportunity of any intervention, whether it serves ar interests or not.”
That pretty much plays into the point I was making.
“That tempering instrument is a blade not a dialogue. I do agree with your second point in the abstract but not in this circumstance.”
Discarding the dialogue completely, in favor of the blade is not an approach favored by any quasi-to-mainstream politician or political party in this nation.
I agree with you on immigration, it’s a shame that no party or Administration has had the balls to tackle it. But our nation can be destroyed from within, if we allow our citizens to be classified based not on their actions, or even intent….but their race, class or religious ideology. I will defend my nation to the end, but that encompasses enemies both foreign and domestic.
There are worse politicians in office than West, but his brand of Republicanism is one factor that drove me from the GOP. I lean to the right in voting practice, but am far more selective in vote I cast my vote for. None of the above has been my Representative more times than not.
And I’m a Libertarian, not a Paulite…he’s a bit….eccentric. But thank you for the civil response.
“That fraction is relative”
So is yours.”
But massive when compared to the jihadist faction, and your domestic one.
“Discarding the dialogue completely, in favor of the blade is not an approach favored by any quasi-to-mainstream politician or political party in this nation.” I concur, but this is also a mute point. Sometimes it is the only option however reluctant we may be to admit this.
“I agree with you on immigration, it’s a shame that no party or Administration has had the balls to tackle it. But our nation can be destroyed from within, if we allow our citizens to be classified based not on their actions, or even intent….but their race, class or religious ideology. I will defend my nation to the end, but that encompasses enemies both foreign and domestic.” It is being destoyed from within.
The franchise of who and what of being a citizen of this nation means has been so deluted through masssive immigration that it has no clear defintion anymore. The idea that the government(s) represent, relatively speaking, one united people, with a common culture an lineage has been lost. Just look at the west coast, we went from the beach boys to Mexifornia in one generation. How did that happen? I question many of my fellow citizens allegiance, not simply because they disagree with me, but because of those very actions.
“And I’m a Libertarian, not a Paulite…” I’m an old fashion people are going to do stupid things conservative, but not a libertarian for way too reasons to list here.
Cedo
“But massive when compared to the jihadist faction, and your domestic one.”
Possibly, and this starts getting into game theory, but after 10 years of our recent military existence within Muslim nations, why haven’t we seen anywhere near a number that you proffer, act against us? This relativity resides in a paradigm where our very presence is one of the most inciteful actions perceived by Muslims
“It is being destoyed from within.”
Possibly, but in my opinion from far more varied actors than you are wont to admit.
“The idea that the government(s) represent, relatively speaking, one united people, with a common culture an lineage has been lost.”
I would posit that a course of action you are likely to endorse would be altering the Constitution, because any action that represses freedom of religion and association [barring criminal activity] is counter to the Constitution.
I agree that people will do stupid things as well…..I just think they should have the freedom to do such, and abide by the consequences that follow.
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy’s in agreement with The American Islamic Leadership Coalition (made up of more than 25 organizations and leaders speaking for those they title as the “silent majority” of Muslims in America. ) hold the same view Allen West ascribes to in the video I posted. All note this fight is not about religion but a political ideology. All of this is stated clearly in the video right of screen on Dr. Jasser’s AIFD website and in the commentary found on AILC website (see link below).
CI, if you have the time, I’m very interested in hearing your views on those representing the “silent majority” in the Muslim community and their agreement with Allen West?
http://americanislamicleadership.org/ailc_response_nsct
I looked at the AILC link briefly when you posted it last, and I’ve read some of their statements in the recent past.
Given a bit more time, I’ll certainly go through their writings again.
Thank you, I appreciate your response.
Correction on my post:
? to . on last sentence
At CI, the Borg? Are you still hanging out there? And, I declined to respond to you? Too funny.. “I’m concerned with the general strain of PC amongst much of the
GOPleft towards segments of the American citizenry.”. Fixed it for you.“I would posit that a course of action you are likely to endorse would be altering the Constitution, because any action that represses freedom of religion and association [barring criminal activity] is counter to the Constitution.”. Wow, did you wipe the stink off of that before you pulled it out of your ass?
“Fixed it for you.”
Except you didn’t. The right has it’s script of institutional offenses, preconceived and unquestioned notions, and general emotion ally based meme’s….just as the left does.
Nice try.
“Wow, did you wipe the stink off of that before you pulled it out of your ass?”
Instead regurgitating my phrase [which was in response to a previous rebuttal for something I didn’t actually say”….why don’t you sack up and rebut what I did say.
Tell me, what is in anyway erroneous about the sentiment that “because any action that represses freedom of religion and association [barring criminal activity] is counter to the Constitution”?
Surely a smart guy like you can proffer a cogent argument in support of your position?
CI,
I guess I may not be too smart, but you lost me a long time ago. How about you put up one single argument. Something basic where the conclusion follows directly from the premises. You don’t like Allen West for some reason and yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda… I am lost from there, so throw me a bone and start from the top.
The conclusion cannot follow the original position when diversions and distractions are thrown in from all sides. The topic went from West to Islam in general due to the lack of desire to defend West’s actions, but instead make it a referendum on Islam in America.
Since many posts are responses to other comments and responses, you’d best read through the page, I’m not going to encapsulate it for you.
I guess you are just seeking attention then.
Wow, I’m trying to read what CI has written without laughing. His “logical” and “well reasoned” points (those are extreme stretches in description) are smacked down by both logical and extremely sarcastic “crotitchy” old vets. Its actually kinda funny.
Keep spinning the Hamster wheel there CI. I’m sure in your bizarro world mind you’re winning this argument, but West’s remark is both subtly nuanced and as Charlie Sheen might say “winning”
I was trying to make sense of it myself, but I couldn’t. I asked him to try and tie it together and he wasn’t “willing to”. I guess we don’t live on the same plane of thought he does, I have to go read a book and get my learnin’ on.
Enter the knuckledragger…….CI either you are being obstinate or you just do not understand what it is that Congressman West is trying to say. In a politically correct/neutral way Congressman West told CAIR to both Fuck Off and sent a warning that if CAIR wished to play this game with him he would bring out the big “guns” and put them back into their zone of influence which is definitely not where Congressman West resides.
CAIR works as a pseudo cover for Hamas and other Islamic terror organizations. They have been unindicted co-conspirators in a couple Federal cases. CAIR attempted to “persuade” Congressman West to drop friends with whom he obviously has a close relationship but who also have viewpoints that go against CAIR’s wishes. CAIR wanted Congressman West to surrender his friendship with these people and, like General MacCauliffe of the 101st Airborne, his reply to the request was NUTS. Personally I’d simply have told them to fuck off and told the press to chew on that for a few weeks.
CI I suggest you wrap your head around some obvious facts about CAIR and their support of Islamic Terror organizations before you worry about what one Congressman said to them when they asked him to surrender his personal beliefs and friendships.
“Possibly, and this starts getting into game theory…” please don’t attempt to explain the world through game theory. Half of the proponents of game theory find it tough to define much less project into the future with it. “…but after 10 years of our recent military existence within Muslim nations, why haven’t we seen anywhere near a number that you proffer, act against us? This relativity resides in a paradigm where our very presence is one of the most inciteful actions perceived by Muslims.” I would surmise partly because we have culled so many of them in places as diverse as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. Getting back to an earlier point their cause is far less appealing, at least as aimed directly at the US. Second their objectives are not all the same. Some choose to fight the near enemy, some the far. “This relativity resides in a paradigm where our very presence is one of the most inciteful actions perceived by Muslims.” That presence was precipated by their toleration/support of jihadists, who attacked us, culminating in 9/11. It was put down by our force of arms. Our writ rules. See above. “It is being destoyed from within.” Possibly, but in my opinion from far more varied actors than you are wont to admit.” Fair point. “I would posit that a course of action you are likely to endorse would be altering the Constitution, because any action that represses freedom of religion and association [barring criminal activity] is counter to the Constitution.” That is the point it IS criminal activity. CAIR is an unindicted coconspirator according to the FBI. Its subversion. The illegal aliens and their offspring are also lawbreakers and we should be rid of. How many Somali, I’m sorry Minnesotan, jihadist am I going to hear about. What course of action are you implying? Who said anything about altering the Constitution? The Constitution is a governing document for a distinct people. It was not written with the world in mine. It doesn’t tell you how big your Army must be, when you should go to war, or how… Read more »
“Surely a smart guy like you can proffer a cogent argument in support of your position?” How’s this, you seem so concerned about “dominionISTS” and “Christian reconstructionISTS”, but it was jihadISTS who murdered approximately 3000 Americans and other folks, including Muslims, on 9-11-01, not to mention Ft Hood, Little Rock, and tried in Detroit and Times Square.
“I’m sorry sir, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” Well said, Cedo, but some think that it must be, because, if we don’t tolerate those who would kill us, we’re intolerant.
And, what can anyone expect from someone who defends CAIR, Keith Ellison and Debbie Watercan Shultz? http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/07/west-v-wasserman.html
This from:
SGT Ryan Smith
US ARMY 2002-2007
B Btry, 2nd Bn-20th FA, 4th ID
Taji, Iraq 2003-2004
Q-West/Baghdad, Iraq 2005-2006
SGT Ryan Smith on Allen West (posted in comment section of article linked here:
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2010/10/wasserman_schultz_other_dems_c.html
find comment by posted name, date and time below:
Posted by: Ryan Smith | October 22, 2010 4:39 PM
@ Cedo -“That is the point it IS criminal activity.”
Worshiping an invisible deity is not criminal activity. What CAIR may or may not have done can be criminal activity. What is the grand solution [as I asked UpNorth] that doesn’t violate the freedom of religion as outlined in the Constitution? Criminal acts are already codified, religion is not. This points exactly to the Constitution.
@UpNorth – Society has always endured terrorism, whether called by that or other names. Islamic terrorism is a threat, but not one where we must radically alter our way of life. I am more concerned with movements within our nation that can have a direct impact on my freedoms.
I had thought that answering questions with questions was bad form? Do you have a solution, or do you just like having something to bitch about?
But of course not fellating West equals defending CAIR, Wasserman and Ellison. What a black and white mental state you operate in…guess it save you from any critical thought.
So, you’re denying that the whole point, from #10 onward, was that you’re “less and less impressed with West”? Ooops, my bad, that was a question, wasn’t it? Oops, did it again.
As to “not fellating West”, no,you aren’t, but you certainly do fellate CAIR, Ellison and Schlitz.
“Islamic terrorism is a threat, but not one where we must radically alter our way of life.”. Right, we’ll just make sure we have enough people around to pick up the bodies. That way, nothing will get altered.
And, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t we “radically alter our way of life” after 9-11? My bad, did it again.
As to black and white mental state vs the gray mental state you operate in, I’m fine, thanks.
“So, you’re denying that the whole point, from #10 onward, was that you’re “less and less impressed with West”? ”
You’ll have to walk me through the morass of your thought process…..you’re making no sense whatsoever.
“Ooops, my bad, that was a question, wasn’t it?”
Yep. You really seemed to hate that when done to you, guess you’re a hypocrite. You never did find the stones to answer my question to you.
“but you certainly do fellate CAIR, Ellison and Schlitz.”
Really? Do tell. Should be rather easy for you to prove that point. You of course will again not have to stones to carry that line any farther, because you cannot back up what isn’t true.
“Worshiping an invisible deity is not criminal activity.” Correct in itself, but those actions it may inspire are.
“What CAIR may or may not have done can be criminal activity. What is the grand solution [as I asked UpNorth] that doesn’t violate the freedom of religion as outlined in the Constitution? Criminal acts are already codified, religion is not. This points exactly to the Constitution.” See below.
So why not try to curtail them? There are plenty of policy and legal means to do this. My whole point is Islam is something very alien to not only American or Britannic law, but also Western civilization. It’s holy law is semipolitical making it hard for much of the Ummah(Islamic world) to live alongside non muslims, unless my force of arms. Lets do political experiments on them in their lands, to further our interests abroad, not our own backyard.
#72 “And, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t we “radically alter our way of life” after 9-11? My bad, did it again.” I think your being sarcastic here, but I agree with you. With the exception of some airport screenings, we didn’t change OUR way of life. We went abroad and changed THEIRS!
Hypocrite? Don’t have the stones? What am I supposed to do, run off the playground, crying because you’re accusing me of that which you do?
IF you want to, click on the link, CI. As far as answering your questions, see posts #64. Says all that needs to be said about you.
Now, you can play your game, again, or still, and get in the last word.
“Correct in itself, but those actions it may inspire are.”
Exactly. This can occur with most religions.
“My whole point is Islam is something very alien to not only American or Britannic law, but also Western civilization.”
Islam has been recognized as not only a religion in America, but a religion that requires codified protections alongside the ability to worship other religions…..going back as far as [off the top of my head] Jefferson’s comments on the Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom.
Any suppression of the religion, or the ability to worship, is going to fall flat against the Constitution.
“Exactly. This can occur with most religions.” Yes it can, but it has on a scale in Islam that is unique. If you want to understand the character of a religion, start with its founder. Mohammed was a warrior which makes him distinct amongst the major religions.
“Islam has been recognized as not only a religion in America, but a religion that requires codified protections alongside the ability to worship other religions…..going back as far as [off the top of my head] Jefferson’s comments on the Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom.” I’d suggest you look up what the ambassador of Tripoli, informed Jefferson in London, what the justification for attacking our shipping by the Corsairs was. Then look at what action the later President Jefferson took to deal with the Islamic pirates. It wasn’t a dialogue!
“Any suppression of the religion, or the ability to worship, is going to fall flat against the Constitution.” That why its being challeged on political grounds not religious.
“Yes it can, but it has on a scale in Islam that is unique. If you want to understand the character of a religion, start with its founder. Mohammed was a warrior which makes him distinct amongst the major religions.”
I’m not sure the attribute of unique is terribly accurate, but it certainly appears so for present day radical Islam. The Christian God of the Old Testament doesn’t necessarily come off as Mr Nice Guy either.
“Then look at what action the later President Jefferson took to deal with the Islamic pirates.”
I’m fairly well versed in the actions of the Barbary Coast, but these are two separate events. It wasn’t ‘Musselmen’ of early America that were causing problems, it was the Bey’s and Pasha’s along the Southern Med. A foreign policy problem to be dealt with, as it was.
“That why its being challeged on political grounds not religious.”
I would be interested to see the foundation of such challenges, that hold a religion – and it’s law abiding adherents – culpable for the actions of Islam’s radicals.
“I’m not sure the attribute of unique is terribly accurate, but it certainly appears so for present day radical Islam. The Christian God of the Old Testament doesn’t necessarily come off as Mr Nice Guy either.” No he wasn’t and this comparison has often been made before. There is one key distinction, God spoke of defeating enemies in certain LIMITED circumstances, not for eternity. With a plethora of information on dividing booty, taking slaves, deception(lying to your adversaries), hunda(ten year truces),and governing(political) code on how to manage occupied lands. It is extenstive and very unique.
“I’m fairly well versed in the actions of the Barbary Coast, but these are two separate events. It wasn’t ‘Musselmen’ of early America that were causing problems, it was the Bey’s and Pasha’s along the Southern Med. A foreign policy problem to be dealt with, as it was.” again like I said, what was their justification again?
“I would be interested to see the foundation of such challenges, that hold a religion – and it’s law abiding adherents – culpable for the actions of Islam’s radicals.” But their not law biding thats my point.
“But their not law biding thats my point.”
This is the salient aspect of the discussion, I believe. If you are referring to those Muslims who commit criminal acts, I am in complete agreement with you…..but those acts are already illegal and enforceable.
When I am considering the argument against Islam, as proffered by the pundits, politicians and some in the general public….I am speaking to Muslim Americans. We’ve had notable speakers call for the right of communities to build Mosques, as well as opposition to planned and in-progress Mosques. There’s a general temper even here, that Muslim Americans are “a problem” to be dealt with. So if the argument is that Muslims at large are not law abiding, then that’s a mighty steep legal hill to climb, [as well as quite the intellectual stretch]……and I would be interesting to hear the prosecutorial arguments.
That should read “We’ve had notable speakers call for the right of communities to ban Mosques”.
My coffee hasn’t kicked in yet.
“This is the salient aspect of the discussion, I believe. If you are referring to those Muslims who commit criminal acts, I am in complete agreement with you…” the problem is those very acts were inspired by the acts of the founder of said religion. At the very least why do we need to burden ourselves with this problem, in our frontyard? This gets back to the entire immigration issue.
“There’s a general temper even here, that Muslim Americans are “a problem” to be dealt with.” Thats because they have often shown to be such. How many times have we heard of the mythical muslims backlash, that never remotely appears? Again for the reasons I’ve stated above why not atleast try to contain this?