If the Iranians had accepted aid from Israel, Boortz could, and likely would, attack them for maintaining a hostile attitude toward the people from whom they were taking charity. It's a "no win". They could only satisfy Boortz by dropping their opposition to Zionism.

I wonder what Boortz would say if the Israelis offered such aid? I'm fairly confident he would attack such "appeasement" by a Labor government. But I can't guess what he would say in the unlikely event that such generosity was supported by Sharon.

I haven't found the Paul Harvey story in any mainstream news source.

Some Muslim takes:

http://groups.yahoo.com/islamiccommunitynet/message/5677

http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=32846&page=NB

Boortz's description of GE's stand is misleading. GE responded to complaints by promising to investigate, and to suspend its adds while it did. The adds were restored after Harvey "clarified".

. . . Evangelical Christians . . . who believe (unlike Muslims) that anyone not believing the way they do is going to Hell.

Islam teaches that atheists and polytheists go to Hell. Whether non-Muslim monotheists have a shot at Paradise is controversial among Muslims.

David, thanks for the added information on the GE situation.

"Islam teaches that atheists and polytheists go to Hell. Whether non-Muslim monotheists have a shot at Paradise is controversial among Muslims."

I'm referring to the Islamic view of Judaism and Christianity as faiths, which in the Koran is very tolerant. My intent was to contrast how Islam views the faith tradition of its American critics with how these critics view Islam.

Lets hope that there are more people in this country like Boortz. If we have to depend on Communist ideolgues like Jeff Smith (who can't stand freedom of speech except their own) to defend our national security, we won't have an America or a nation, but alot more dead people until only cowards and morons like Jeff Smith are left. Thank God that there are those who would still die for his freedom to hate America and be a complete idiot. He is still free to do so, but how much longer?

Ditto what Tom said!!!!

Maybe you folks need a theology lesson. God did not create religion, man created religion. It says in the Bible that religion is an abomination before God. And looking at the world today, it is religious differences causing 99% of the strife today.
Maybe God is trying to tell you something.

History has shown all major religions have had a "bloody" time in their history. Christianity had the Crusades. Catholicism had The Inquisition. Islam is now going through a bloody time, which history will hopefully judge them harshly for, like the Christians and Catholics before them.

Once again Boortz supporters show up with insults and without arguments. Again my low opinion of his audience is confirmed.

Wait a second. There were no insults in what I read. All of the "Boortz supporters" were telling you that your statements are little off the mark. I think people are just showing you some inconsistancies and are upset that someone called you out. I support Freedom of Speech but it seems you rather repress a breath of fresh air and keep breathing trash and baseless ideology.

There were no insults in what I read.

Then you didn't read the sentences with "Communist ideologues", "cowards", "morons", and "idiot".

All of the "Boortz supporters" were telling you that your statements are little off the mark.

What statements are you talking about, specifically? The closest Tom Mitchell got to being substantive was his remark about people "like Jeff Smith" who "can't stand freedom of speech except their own". He didn't quote any statement, by Jeff or anyone else, in support of this characterization.

Why the scare quotes? Tom wrote "Let's hope there are more people in the country like Boortz", and Cowtipper wrote "Ditto what Tom said". I think it is fair to identify them as Boortz supporters.

You called Boortz a religious bigot, for saying Islam isn't a peaceful religion. Islam is not a peaceful religion. Have you ever read the Koran? In the Koran it says, "Kill the infidels, where ever you find them; take them, lay siege to them." Is that peaceful?
You my friend are what I fear in this country. You support dying causes and have no intentions of displaying any type of rational thought. You call out a man who is some one I actually look up to for his ability to blunt and to the point.
I can't believe you people in the Libertarian party think it is so bad to have some speak who is a Libertarian but differs on a few views. I think that is alittle childish. One speaker out of how many? Is he even the keynote speaker?
I believe with my whole heart that we are right in Iraq and that a pre-emptive war was the best route. After 9/11 we had no choice. We went into Afghanistan and got rid of the Tailban and sent al-Queda running. After that what are we supposed to do what for another terrorist attack? Iraq was supporting terrorism. Abu Nidal, a Palestinian terrorist, was running a camp there and possibly even trained Mohemmed Atta with the Iraqi governments knowledge. Also, on the WMD's Saddam Hussein acknowledged that he had them and that is on record in 1998. When you are threatened by countries that support terrorism you abolish the threat. Not entertain it like Clinton did. After all wasn't it Clinton that could have had Bin Laden in 1996 from the Sudan

Fun quotes:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a
brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

Here is the interesting one:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Out of the mouth of Hitlary herself. You are fighting a dying cause my friend. I also agree with an earlier poster, I do hope there are more people like Boortz in the country.

You called Boortz a religious bigot, for saying Islam isn't a peaceful religion.

Do the signatures at the bottoms of the posts not show up on your screen? You seem to be confusing me with Jeff.

Jeff's title was a question, not a statement. His article quotes two other anti-Islamic remarks by Boortz, besides the "religion of peace" one.

That corrects your misrepresentations. I will leave it to Jeff to defend his comments, if he cares to.

Have you ever read the Koran?

Indeed I have. Have you? Or have you just picked up some popular, out-of-context quotes?

The Koran forbids aggression, even against unbelievers. I think that makes Islam more of a "peaceful religion" than Christianity, but that isn't saying much.

The bit of the Koran you quoted refers to a war against pagan Arabs, in which the pagans were the aggressors.

First of all to call Christianity out and say Islam is more peaceful in my opinion is very ignorant. I don't subscribe to the Catholic church. I have read the Koran. Have you read the Bible? If you have then you would understand that when Jesus came he freed the Jews from the Levitical law of the old testament. The New Testament goes above the Old Testament, now where in the New Testament does it say its ok to harm unbelievers? No you can use the crusades or the inquistion arguements if you would like, but they do not represent what I believe. I depise the domga of the Catholic church.
I didn't make a distinction between any of you. I was pointing out some things I disagree with on this site, I don't care who said them. When I say you I'm referring to all of you who run this site.
Jeff rasied the question "Boortz the religious bigot?" He may have been posing a question but all he did was try to prove that is what Boortz is.
Are you not going to comment on the quotes by those Liberals abou Saddam and WMD? Look how long it took us to find Saddam in a country the size of California, what if the WMD's are hidden the same way.

I think I've probably spent too much time crafting a response to this thread. Had JSubstance not been one of the nicer critics to respond to my piece, I wouldn't have bothered.

I found that due to the length of my response, I couldn't paste it all into a single comment space.

What I've decided to do, is here post the Q & A having to do directly with the piece "Boortz the religious bigot?"

Then, you will find that I've posted the rest into "Some questions and Answers," a fresh post in the main section. That will be my response to questions not having to do with the above piece.

I believe that Q&A may be of some general interest.

David T, thanks for answering some of the previous questions partially on my behalf.

Answers to JSubstance:
------------------------------------------------------------
“You called Boortz a religious bigot, for saying Islam isn't a peaceful religion.”
------------------------------------------------------------

** I think if you re-read what I said carefully, you’ll find that I didn’t say that at all.

First, where Boortz is discussing the refusal of Iran to take aid from Israel, and then an alleged incident where someone adhered too rigidly to Islamic practice regarding the veil, I said that Mr. Boortz indicts the religion of Islam without basis. I fail to see how the behaviors mentioned reflect anything about Islam itself, rather than the individuals involved.

Although Muhammad had some problems during his time with certain groups of Jews, and this is reflected in the Koran, I do not think that can be made to support the idea that Islam teaches a necessary hatred of Jews, or by extension Israel.

I think we could all agree that people of all faiths, or no faith, can be prone to overzealousness like that exhibited in the alleged incident involving Riyadh school girls.
------------------------------------------------------------
“First of all to call Christianity out and say Islam is more peaceful in my opinion is very ignorant.”
------------------------------------------------------------
** I didn’t say that at all. My point was that there are people in both Judaism and Christianity who (like some Muslims) find things in scripture to justify their violent tendencies. There are also a heck of a lot of people in all three religions who sincerely see their own faith as being basically one of peace.

I did point out that taking scripture literally finds Islam to not be as exclusive as Christianity in its belief of the relative worth of itself in relation to other religions. Perhaps that attitude is understandable, considering that Islam professes to continue the tradition began by the other two.
------------------------------------------------------------
“The New Testament goes above the Old Testament, now where in the New Testament does it say its ok to harm unbelievers?”
------------------------------------------------------------
** J, The Armageddon “holy war” ideology that I referred to, which is being taught more and more by fundamentalist interpretations of prophecy, requires a final war. No, the New Testament doesn’t teach that it is “ok to harm unbelievers,” except in the context of righteous self-defense (putting aside the “turn the other cheek” question.)

Biblical prophecy is being used, along with what I believe to be suspect systems of interpretation, to indoctrinate many Christians into a mindset where they believe America must fight the Islamic world, and must do so on the side of Israel, which to deny anything to would result in cutting the US off from the blessings of God.

Perhaps J, you don’t buy into this interpretation of prophecy, but I assure you it is becoming more and more prevalent, and is having more and more direct affect on the real-world foreign policy of the US.
------------------------------------------------------------

“Jeff rasied the question "Boortz the religious bigot?" He may have been posing a question but all he did was try to prove that is what Boortz is.”
------------------------------------------------------------
**Yes, it was a question, and I would hesitate before actually judging someone to be a bigot. To comfortably do so (to cast the first stone so to speak) would be to ignore that similar tendencies exist in myself.

Also, I think it likely that Mr. Boortz is speaking in accordance with his genuine beliefs at this time.

I merely hope that he will widen the scope of his criticism to the point where he not only occasionally casts a critical glance at the Judeo-Christian tradition as well as the Islamic, but even begins to see that ultimately it is the individual that must be evaluated, not the religion.

Half seriously: Think what would happen if we start to truly blame religions for the harm done by individuals. What would happen to our legal system? Couldn’t we just substitute the word “religion” for “society,” and find a column somewhere in which Mr. Boortz himself has addressed this very issue? Wouldn’t the “victims” of Islam, for example, be eligible for a government hand out of some kind?
------------------------------------------------------------

Have you read the Bible?

Yes.

. . . where in the New Testament does it say it is ok to harm unbelievers?

I didn't say it does. My point is that the Koran specifically forbids wars of aggression, while the New Testament says nothing about the matter. In my opinion that puts Islam at least one notch higher on the "peaceful" scale.

When I say you I'm referring to all of you who run this site.

I'm not one of the people who run the site. I'm just someone who posts comments, like yourself.

Are you not going to comment on the quotes by those Liberals about Saddam and WMD?

I wasn't planning to, but since you have been so kind as to express an interest I am happy to oblige.

It is common for American foreign policy to have bipartisan support from politicians. Opposition comes from the grass roots, and in this case it developed early and is gathering momentum.

. . . what if the WMDs are hidden . . . ?"

Why would Saddam make the weapons just to hide them?

"It is common for American foreign policy to have bipartisan support from politicians. Opposition comes from the grass roots, and in this case it developed early and is gathering momentum."
Politicians have been saying the same things about Saddam Hussein since the first Bush Administration. I'm sorry but that response is simply not good enough. The Clinton administration said for years that Iraq had WMD and in 1998 Hussein said he had them. Your response lack real substance.

History has shown the "the Prophet" waged war in order to spread his religion. He killed thousands of Jews & Christians because they wouldn't submit to what he wanted. I don't condone what the Catholic church did in the crusades or the inquistion. Islam is still waging a war against the world. The Muslims in the Middle East seem to be the most devout Muslims and the ones who hate Americans the most.

"I'm not one of the people who run the site. I'm just someone who posts comments, like yourself."
Forgive my I thought you were.

"** J, The Armageddon “holy war” ideology that I referred to, which is being taught more and more by fundamentalist interpretations of prophecy, requires a final war. No, the New Testament doesn’t teach that it is “ok to harm unbelievers,” except in the context of righteous self-defense (putting aside the “turn the other cheek” question.)"
I do believe in this prophecy on because I have studied extensivly on this subject. If you can understand what the Book of Revelation says and compare it to what is going on the world today you may agree with me. There are plenty of books on the topic. I have some of them, but they are in storage and I can't give you the names right now. Tim LaHaye is a knowledgable source on this topic.

"** I think if you re-read what I said carefully, you’ll find that I didn’t say that at all."
Your topic implies that Boortz is a religious bigot, you implicated him in the question.

"Had JSubstance not been one of the nicer critics to respond to my piece, I wouldn't have bothered. "
Even though I disagree with you on everything you say, I appreciate that.

The battery in my laptop is dying and I can't find the cord. I'll check back tomorrow.

. . . in 1998 Hussein said he had [WMD].

I don't believe this. You still haven't cited a source.

Your response lack real substance.

Perhaps I failed to address your point because you haven't made it clear what your point is.

Please remember that you and I have different points of view. What you take for granted may not be obvious to me.

I don't understand why you are harping on the comments of Democrats, as if they carried any more weight than those of Republicans.

Would you please just say what your point is?

[Muhammed] waged war in order to spread his religion.

There is some truth to that. It is also true that Muhammed began teaching monotheism peacefully, and turned militant only after his followers were persecuted by polytheist leaders.

He killed thousands of Jews and Christians . . .

Sources? Places? Dates?

Are you talking about massacres, or are you including warriors killed in battle? Arabs -- Christian, Jewish, and pagan -- were fighting among themselves long before Muhammed came along.

I suspect your numbers are too high, but I admit I don't know the relevant history very well. Frankly, I don't believe you do either.

By conquering the pagan Arabs, Muhammed stopped them from fighting among themselves, and suppressed evil customs like infanticide. Converting to Islam, they became less intolerant of Christians and Jews than they had been as pagans.

It is easy to compare Muhammed unfavorably with Jesus, because Muhammed was a political and military leader as well as a spiritual one. But at least give him credit for doing the jobs of both Jesus and Charlemagne.

documentation:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/iraqdecade.pdf
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/999522/posts
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/May20030619.shtml
"Iraq did possess WMD in the 1990s. You can even ask Hans Blix. Saddam's regime itself admitted it to the United Nations, disclosing (among other things) that it had produced large quantities of anthrax and VX nerve gas." This came from an article that I saw and closed it before I could copy the URL, it's 3:19 am, I think you guys can cut me some slack.
"Perhaps I failed to address your point because you haven't made it clear what your point is."
Then I will spell it out for you. I find it very hard to believe that Kerry, Hitlary & the democratic gang can say things about Iraq and WMD for so long (in some cases for more that 10 years) then just go back and say this didn't exist. Hillary had access to intelligence when her husband was in office. I don't buy the arguement "It is common for American foreign policy to have bipartisan support from politicians. Opposition comes from the grass roots, and in this case it developed early and is gathering momentum." It's been well over a decade. Your arguement is stale.

"I suspect your numbers are too high, but I admit I don't know the relevant history very well. Frankly, I don't believe you do either."
I used to help with a church group and Christian Apologetics was a subject that I had a profound intrest in. If I give you sources you more than likely will write them off.
I'm gonna have to go to bed. I will try to get on tomorrow and finish my response to the main page entry. If I don't get on tomorrow I may not be on again until the middle of the week.
Oh and for Jeff. My name is Jason. I live outside of Atlanta. "jsubstance" is what I use online, obviously.

An article in the Weekly Standard is hardly "documentation", much less an article about the article by "Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff". The article doesn't specify the sources used by the Standard. All it gives is another repetition of an unsupported claim.

The article does suggest a source, in a weaselly sort of way.

Baghdad gave a detailed inventory of their WMD arsenal to the United Nations

They gave three inventories of chemical weapons, in 1992, 1995, and 1996, and five of biological weapons, in 1992, 1995 (two), 1996, and 1997. They gave no such inventories in the year 1998.

Here is documentation, courtesy of UNSCOM.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/s99-94.htm

It is clear from these reports that the Iraqis claimed all their biological weapons were destroyed before the end of 1991, and all their chemical weapons were destroyed by August of 1998 at the latest. They make no mention of any extraordinary revelations by Saddam in the year 1998.

The inventories sent to the UN before 1998 could not be the "confession" Saddam is said to have made in 1998. What form did it take? Was it a speech? A press release? An interview with Diane Sawyer? The article doesn't say.

When did it happen? The closest the article comes to giving a date is "Just before Iraq kicked out the UN weapons inspectors."

This repetition of the "kicked out" lie does nothing for the credibility of "Carl Limbacher and the NewsMax.com Staff". UN documents invariably say the inspectors were withdrawn by the UN. Those cited above are examples.

The inspectors were withdrawn in December of 1998, four months after Iraq claimed to be free of banned weapons. Saddam is said to have suddenly reversed himself and admitted to concealing a huge arsenal. This shocking turn of events was then utterly ignored in the UNSCOM report for 1998.

Why would Saddam act that way? Why would he deny having WMD in August 1998, admit to having them in December 1998, then later claim to have destroyed them after 1998? Why not just keep denying he had them?

In any case, I have pointed out that the article does not say when or in what manner Saddam made his alleged "confession". This is important because it makes the claim uncheckable and uncontestable. If it were said that Saddam made these admissions in a speech made on a certain date, then we could read the full text of the speech and see if it was misrepresented, or argue that it was misinterpreted. But we are given a vague date, just before the inspectors were withdrawn, around the beginning of December. We must take the authors' word -- or not.

Summing up, the claim remains unsupported, without a real source and without any authenticating details. It is also inconsistent with relevant UNSCOM documents.

I find it very hard to believe that [certain Democrats can] say this didn't exist.

Even politicians can admit to being wrong.

Boortz has every right to attempt to change the Libertarian party's position in areas where it is obviously WRONG. He can't become a Republican because most of his views ARE Libertarian. The Libertarian party would be more successful IF if adopted a sensible foreign policy. We can't wait for our enemies to arrive. We have to go after them.

Further, Boortz's arguments all make sense. Those espoused by the fruitloop who wrote this web site are "for the birds." (Dodo birds, snipes, crows, and CHICKENS.)

I just think it's funny as hell when liberals try to pass themselves off as libertarians. Just shows how confused these people are. This isn't the first time I've seen this either. I've had conversations with several self-described "libertarians" and they didn't know what the hell they stood for and could only blurt out pro-greenie and anti-bush statements.

When a so-called libertarian blog is supporting and defending the likes of Howard Dean, I have to seriously question your agenda.

What's your real agenda?

This blog reeks of the radical left.

You're right about Boortz, however. He IS an arrogant ass. Typical pilot mentality. God's gift to the universe. However, we need people like him. I'm glad he's on our side.
This is coming from a True Libertarian.

Honestly, I do not enjoy drives like this. And to be honest, I am not a big fan of Ms. Moore. HOWEVER: I find I must reluctantly support getting Neal Boortz booted from the LP Convention. Not because of a policy disagreement. But because Boortz has been suppprting a fraudulent foreign poicy in Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction. No ties to Al-Qaida. Nothing to indicate Iraq was a threat to the US.

Never mind the fact Boortz has been spinning the Paul O'Neil revelation that Bush was wanting to invade Iraq pre 9/11 by saying the Clintons wanted to also. Boortz does not mention that Bush is the one who tried to say the same "war on terror" that had been going on in Afghanistan was happening in Iraq, tried to link it to 911. In other words, Bush wasn't honest about Iraq in the first place. There is the difference.

People who engage in intillectual dishonesty do not deserve to speak at a national convention, simple as that.

I am agenst our, The U.S. , involvment with a war on Iraq, but aprove of letting Boortz speak at the convention. Mr. Boortz gives inteligent ant well thought out reasons for his views. Too many of my fellow Libertarians are so involved with the placments of capitols and commas they don't look at the whole picture. We should welcome well thought out counter views to our own.