Great for Goode. I hope he never apologizes (he has no reason to-if the truth is painful then that's too bad) no matter how much pressure is applied to him. And I'm sure a great deal of pressure WILL be applied. Let common sense prevail once in a long while.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 21, 2006 7:42 AM

BRAVO!!!....Stick to your guns, baby, and keep the Quran out of my country's laws!...And as for immigration, reforms are desperately needed, otherwise, not only with Shira law prevail, but so will an influx of illegals coming up from Mexico....This has to stop!....Build the friggen wall!!!!!.....

Posted by: Oiznop at December 21, 2006 7:51 AM

To swear by the koran, while the koran gives leave to lie, vitiates the central purpose of the oath and makes a mockery of it.

To hell with these liars dissemblers and deceivers, also known as jihadis and followers of that child rapist Mohammad.

Talking to, or worse, being advised by an islamist, is an exercise in stupidity.

God bless America and give her victory.

Posted by: dgene at December 21, 2006 7:55 AM

One of four hundred and thirty five. Now we're even.

Posted by: limes at December 21, 2006 7:57 AM

Uh!Oh!- I think I hear Katie, Rosie, (and all of the other MSM whack jobs)!! That evil republican. It is funny to see CNN written on top of this story. They'll be all over this, while Al-Q smuggles some nukes under our noses. Its funny how all these MSM, yuppie p.c.types have a billion 911/Busch conspiracy theories. The real conspiracy is the MSM aiding and abbetting(sp?) our enemy. I applaude Rep.Goode for keeping his backbone.

Posted by: americanmadestrat at December 21, 2006 8:00 AM

The congessman's choosing as a defense the lying verse from the Quran is what I call softball.

The Quran in effect calls for the overthrow of our Constitution.

Ellison should be tried for treason.

Posted by: paulc37 at December 21, 2006 8:00 AM

109 AL-KAFIRUN(jew and christian)- THE INFIDELS

In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.

Say: O infidels![1] I worship not that which you worship,[the G*d of abraham][2] nor will you worship that which I worship
[the pagan moon god allah].[3] I shall never worship those gods whom you worship,[4] nor it
appears will you ever worship Allah, whom I worship.[5] to you be your religion, and
to me mine.[6] 109:[1-6]

Though muslims recite this surah over and over to show the tolerance of islam, what it actually shows is that allah is not the G*d of Abraham!

surah 9}_29,Fight those people of the Book (Jews and Christians) ""WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALLAH"" and the Last Day, do not refrain from what has been prohibited by Allah and His Messenger and do not embrace the religion of truth (Al-Islam), until they pay Jizya (protection tax) with their own hands and feel themselves subdued.[29]

In the above ayah allah admits that he(allah) is not the G*d of Abraham, the Jew and Christian worship! If as we believe there is but one G*d, then allah is an imposter, allah is satan!
To permit the qu'ran to be showcased in the whitehouse and government ofices would be the equivilance of showcasing a satanic manual or hitlers mein kamfh!

Posted by: thndrbang1 at December 21, 2006 8:03 AM

"Rep. Goode's Islamophobic remarks send a message of intolerance that is unworthy of anyone elected to public office," the council's Corey Saylor said in a statement. "There can be no reasonable defense for such bigotry."

Muslims are totally unapologetic defenders of their societies and values (not allowing Christian proselytization, the Saudi's confiscating Bibles etc etc). How DARE Muslims suggest that we infidels have no right to defend our own societies and values against their stated intentions of using the demographic weapon to eventually conquer us and subjugate us under Sharia law! We have EVERY moral right to defend ourselves, starting first and foremost by democratically deciding on who has the right to come here and live! If CAIR is so damned concerned about bigotry then they ought to first address the intolerance that is rampant in Muslim societies where infidels live as second-class dhimmies.

"Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye." --Luke 6:42

Posted by: Caroline at December 21, 2006 8:07 AM

It's funny how that poor, oppressed muslim 'student' was humiliated that a congressman did not have anything on the wall from the koran. I'd like to ask the student: If islam is supposedly the third Abrahamic faith, then why aren't the 10 Commandments part of islam as they are the other two Abrahamic faiths? I would also have said that our currency has 'In God We Trust', not 'In Allah We Trust', because we don't trust allah.

Posted by: Rick at December 21, 2006 8:09 AM

Ellison should be tried for treason.

Can he be impeached before he takes office?

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 21, 2006 8:20 AM

The Council on American-Islamic Relations asked Goode to apologize.

His reply could be to lift his leg and PTHTHTHTh

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 21, 2006 8:21 AM

Caroline-

The theme in all the gospels re hypocrisy-deception being from "the evil one" is much of the message of Jesus. Again and again he comes back to that theme, as he greets Nathaniel ("an Israelite in whom there is no guile"), his condemnation of deceit-hypocrisy with the Pharisees, when he wrote in the sand the secret sins of the men who said the woman caught in adultery must be stoned as per "the law', in his command to "let your Yes be Yes and your No be No-all else comes from the evil one". The quote of Jesus by Luke is part of the theme.

Though I have great reservations re organized religion, the message of Jesus is powerful re deception. Again and again his anger is directed at deception and hypocrisy, as he gently understands (but does not condone) the sinful nature of humans.

Unfortunately, many of the preachers who pretend they are "Christians" are precisely the frauds he condemned and he said he would not recognize them. Jesus saw through the deceivers and shouted from the roof tops re their deception and was murdered by deceivers and "useful idiots" for that. Deception stinks.

Posted by: Frank at December 21, 2006 8:29 AM

O/T but great news:
Court orders vilification retrial
Barney Zwartz, Religion Editor
December 14, 2006


Pastor Danny Nalliah
Photo: Shaney Balcombe
Other related coverage
Pastors will keep 'telling truth' on Muslims
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Two Christian pastors found to have vilified Muslims under Victoria's religious hatred law won their appeal and hailed the decision as a victory for free speech.

The Court of Appeal ordered the case to be reheard at the original tribunal, before a different judge and with no further evidence. It set aside the orders for public apologies in newspaper advertisements and for the pastors not to repeat their remarks.

Last year Judge Michael Higgins found that Pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot and Catch the Fire Ministries vilified Muslims at a seminar on jihad in Melbourne in March 2002, in a newsletter and a website article.

He said these suggested that the Koran promoted killing and looting, that Muslims wanted to take over Australia and terrorists were true Muslims.

Justices Geoffrey Nettle, David Ashley and Marcia Neave overturned that finding but rejected the appeal that the Racial and Religious Vilification Act was unconstitutional.

They ordered the Islamic Council of Victoria, which brought the original complaint, to pay half the appellants' appeal costs but left the costs of the original hearing to be decided by the judge who rehears the case.

After the hearing, Pastor Nalliah said: "I'm really thankful to the Lord. I would be pleased to see it completed and not go back to the tribunal, but what we got was more than a blessing."

He said it was a great day for free speech. He added that all laws needed to be tested, and this now had now been tested and found to be a bad piece of legislation.

Pastor Scot thanked his supporters and vowed to continue conducting seminars on the Koran and Hadiths (Islam's sacred texts). "Some Muslims have got the idea they have to hide the truth, and that's very sad," he said.

"People should know it from the primary sources and not be misled by politically correct teachers who don't know the reality of Islam and want to glorify it with false pretensions and assumptions, " he said.

Posted by: thndrbang1 at December 21, 2006 8:35 AM

These new Pharisees stink. To pray for "deliverance from evil" is to ask God to let us escape all deception, including our own, as per Jesus. It's a real challenge. Jesus said prostitutes and gangsters would be with God before decievers. It's food for thought.

Posted by: Frank at December 21, 2006 8:36 AM

Frank - more proof that Muhammad was a false prophet, recognizable by his fruits. The utter hypocricy of Muslims accusing infidels of being "bigots" is laughable but they appear to be completely incapable of grasping that.

Posted by: Caroline at December 21, 2006 8:38 AM

What neither Dennis Prager nor anyone else has addressed is the fact that the Qur'an is unsuitable for oath-taking in the United States because it allows Muslims to lie to unbelievers (3:28, 16:106).

Taking the oath of office - actually it starts on the campaign trail - is the license to lie.

They don't need the koran for that one.

Posted by: infidel! at December 21, 2006 8:39 AM

Goode saying no to muslim integration is GOOD. Newt saying that the flying imams should have been arrested is good.

We need to better press this with the pols--wise ones tell us how. How do we stand up en masse to the PC tide of the day?
I read that Goode has gotten lots of email on this topic. You have to know the CAIR idiots are calling Goode bad.

If accurate, this linked article shows email to Goode had some factor in his taking a stand.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149192272498

"Duncan said Goode wrote the letter earlier this month in response to HUNDREDS of e-mails he had received from constituents concerned about Muslim Rep.-elect Keith Ellison's decision to use the Koran in his swearing-in ceremony"

Do we have email links to Congress for any issue on JW? It might be a Goode thing too.

Posted by: BB at December 21, 2006 8:45 AM

It's funny how that poor, oppressed muslim 'student' was humiliated that a congressman did not have anything on the wall from the koran. I'd like to ask the student: If islam is supposedly the third Abrahamic faith, then why aren't the 10 Commandments part of islam as they are the other two Abrahamic faiths? I would also have said that our currency has 'In God We Trust', not 'In Allah We Trust', because we don't trust allah.

Posted by: Rick

>>> oh my goodness, you want to bring fire to the muslims eyes, point out the Israeli
"Star Of David" on the back side of the american one dollar bill, on the right hand side right above the american eagle!
then be sure and tell them they carry the Israeli symbol around in their pockets all day long!
See it, take out a one dollar bill, turn the backside face up, look right above the american eagle, see the "Star Of David" how it just seems to burst through the sky above the american eagle!
Revelations 12_14, And to the woman(Israel) were given two wings of a great"eagle"that she might fly into the wilderness to ""her place"" where she is nourished for a time, a times and half a time! from the face of the serpent.

Posted by: thndrbang1 at December 21, 2006 8:49 AM

Caroline-

Even the "judge not, lest you be judged, for what standard you judge by you will be judged" (my quote is from memory) is a command against hypocrisy-deception. It's not a command against making judgements. Again, it's a command re hypocrisy-deception. He definitely roots evil in deception. We cannot love that which we cannot trust.

Posted by: Frank at December 21, 2006 8:51 AM

The Council on American-Islamic Relations asked Goode to apologize.

His reply could be to lift his leg and PTHTHTHTh

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 21, 2006 08:21 AM

What a waste of perfectly good urine. Better to throw pig poop at them!

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 21, 2006 8:55 AM

C-

If trust and respect are the basis of a warm regard and love, then Muslims are cold bagels. No grown-up person can be loved unless they are trustworthy and deserving of respect. Otherwise they are infantile and stunted in their nature.

It's OK to be a infant or child when an actual infant-child, but when a man or woman grows up, the requirement is trust and respect, or else there cannot be love. Deception is emptiness that produces fear and violence. It cannot be otherwise.

Posted by: Frank at December 21, 2006 9:03 AM

"In 1993, before CAIR existed, Ibrahim Hooper told a reporter: "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future."[106] On the Michael Medved radio show in 2003, Hooper made the same point more positively: if Muslims ever become a majority in the United States, it would be safe to assume that they would want to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law, as most Muslims believe that God's law is superior to man-made law."
http://www.meforum.org/article/916

I see. So its OK to deprive us of our freedoms and make us second-class citizens in our own countries as long as you accomplish it demographically? And anyone who objects to this scenario is a bigot? They must take us for utter fools.

How about Muslims first demonstrate that they are capable of treating infidels as complete equals in their own countries first. Then, when they've demonstrated that they are all grown up and ready to join the community of man, they will be welcome everywhere.

Posted by: Caroline at December 21, 2006 9:08 AM

"if Muslims ever become a majority in the United States, it would be safe to assume that they would want to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law"

The enemy within, sleep on America.

Posted by: sounder at December 21, 2006 9:17 AM

I wish Canada had someone like Virgil Goode -- someone who would stand up for a *sane* immigration policy and stop the number of illegals flocking here!

We can't even deport terrorists -- supporters, MEMBERS of the PFLP -- who enter Canada!! or make that Cana-duh!! (I suspect that a large number of illegal Muslims entering the U.S., enter via Canada).

This has to stop. Canada needs laws which go beyond the "Security Certificate" (which currently is virtually unenforceable).

Posted by: J.S. at December 21, 2006 9:20 AM

Another thing, forgot to mention. About HYPOCRISY. It's almost funny. Canada (duh), has a so-called refugee board (appointed members of you know what religion) who have NO qualms about deporting Coptic Christians back to Egypt -- since, after all, Egypt is SUCH a wonderful, tolerant Country!! BUT, if the Canadian government wants to deport a Muslim back to Egypt, then the lawyers start screaming that that simply can't be done!! Egypt is just not good enough in terms of "civil rights!" The different standards applied (whether you happen to be a Muslim terrorist or a Christian Copt) is outrageous -- and, no this is not "islamaphobia" -- in fact, it's the opposite. There are far, far too many rights for terrorists here in Canada, and not enough rights for non-terrorists! That's the reality.

Posted by: J.S. at December 21, 2006 9:29 AM

No Moslem is qualified to hold any American office on the grounds that our government is based on an established social contract, an understanding between the governing and the governed. This is what our Bill of Rights and our Constitutional framework of government is based upon. Since Moslems do not recognize any authority other than their devil Allah and his perverted, pedophile "prophet," they cannot be expected to uphold, let alone be loyal to, the constitutional democracy we have established. As such, they cannot be trusted to defend the rights of the governed. As such, they are disqualified and must never be allowed office of any kind. They would only use whatever power they were given to destroy liberty in the United States.

Posted by: A.I. Steamroller at December 21, 2006 9:31 AM

BB asked: "How do we stand up en masse to the PC tide of the day? "

The futurist Buckminster Fuller used the concept of a "trim tab" to describe how change occurs. A trim tab is the small rudder on the rudder of a capital ship. Although the trim tab's mass is a tiny fraction of the ship's mass, movement of the trim tab determines the ship's course.

And Bucky applied this concept to himself: “I'm just an individual, I don't have any capital to start things with, but I can learn how to throw those low pressures to one side or the other, and this should make things go in preferred directions, and, while I can't reform man, I just may be able to improve his environment a little."

With what we know today about the dynamics of tipping points, it is easy to see how the intentional application of trim tab sensibility can affect change in even the most intractable problems.

And seeing that Goode's letter was a response to hundreds of emails, it's not a stretch to see that each of us is a potential trim tab in correcting our Ship of State.

O Ship Of State

Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
We know what Master laid thy keel,
What Workmen wrought thy ribs of steel,
Who made each mast, and sail, and rope,
What anvils rang, what hammers beat,
In what a forge and what a heat
Were shaped the anchors of thy hope!
Fear not each sudden sound and shock,
’Tis of the wave and not the rock;
’Tis but the flapping of the sail,
And not a rent made by the gale!
In spite of rock and tempest’s roar,
In spite of false lights on the shore,
Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea!
Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee.
Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears,
Our faith triumphant o’er our fears,
Are all with thee,—are all with thee!

~Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Posted by: Malinois at December 21, 2006 9:40 AM

Virgil Goode is the Representative from Virginia's 5th District though I think it fair to say he is a representative of many citizens in the USA. I think most elected officials in this counrty lack political courage. Mr. Goode will be counted among political officials that do have courage.

A message of support from those who believe Mr. Goode did the right thing is in order.

His office is not accepting emails until January 4, 2007.

A written note of support might take 5 minutes of your time plus the cost of a stamp.

Virgil Goode
70 East Court Street
Suite 215
Rocky Mount, VA 24151

Posted by: omvi at December 21, 2006 9:44 AM

Thank you for posting Rep. Goode's address. I will be sending him a letter of thanks, and will also be sending notes to other members of congress and the Senate asking them to take notice of Rep. Goode's words and actions.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at December 21, 2006 9:47 AM

Everyday the anti-jihad forces grow stronger. Somedays it doesn't seem that way, but people in the free world will eventually come to their collective senses. The true believers will see to that, I'm sure.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at December 21, 2006 9:51 AM

This is Goode news indeed!

I've been wondering where the heck our elected leaders have been on this subject. Not every congressman can have their head in the sand, can they? And I would fully expect a gentleman from the South to hold Congressman Goode's sentiments. These guys aren't pushovers and they generally do things the way they see fit, hence the term, Good Ole' Boy Network.

They also know when a dog won't hunt, and Congressman Goode seems to clearly get that many of these folks DON'T work in Europe and doesn't want to repeat that scenario in the U.S.

It is very heartening to know that there is a supporter of our best interests on the subject of Islam in Congress and that he is committed to standing up and clearly stating that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. We here need to let everyone know and there needs to be such a fit pitched by the people of America that CAIR shut's it's mouth and backs down. Then we need to get Congressman Goode to start the process to dismantle CAIR by investigating what Andrew Whitehead over at Anti-CAIR already knows, and get it out of America for good.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 21, 2006 9:57 AM

CAIR doesn't miss a beat, do they?

Does anyone doubt my statements earlier this year -- that CAIR and the Islamic lobbyists around VA and MD have one simple strategy in mind?: to promote Islam further into our legal system and Congress, at any cost?

Goode is now in my "Friends and Commonsense Folks" folder in my bookmarks.

Bravo, Virgil.

To CAIR: Get the Hell out of my country. How's that for Islamophobia?

Posted by: Foehammer at December 21, 2006 10:04 AM

Here's some information on how to contact Congressman Goode. Everyone here needs to send a letter of support to him so he knows we are behind him and ready to stand with him, because the whining backlash against him from CAIR in the coming days will surely be cacophonous. This is our chance to ride the coat tails of the Flying Imam debacle and use it to expose CAIR's true agenda and turn the tables on them. American's hate to have to put up with incessant whining, because we've heard it from other groups for decades and, quite frankly, we are sick to death of it. Isn't it ironic that these Islamic folks always seem to get the timing wrong?

Let's send a HUGE message to CAIR that they will not be running or Legislature, they will not be running our lives and that Islamic intolerance will NOT be tolerated in the U.S.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 21, 2006 10:11 AM

Oops, forgot the link.
http://www.house.gov/goode/

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 21, 2006 10:11 AM

I'd like to ask Rep. Ellison if his oath on the Koran will include a duty to uphold Art. IV s. 4 of the United States Constitution:

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Full text of Article IV is available here.

I do not believe that a shari'a state can in any way be construed as a "republican form of government." So, does Rep. Ellison believe that the Koranic injunction to apply shari'a law is wrong, or does he believe that his oath does not apply to upholding Art. IV, s. 4? If it is the latter, he should not assume his Congressional seat. If it is the former, then he had better tell the people who elected him.

I'd like to know where the idiots in the MSM are on this issue. Personally I think it is rather important. Our representatives are supposed to uphold and defend the whole Constitution, and if they are not willing to do so, they should resign so the people can elect a person who will.

Posted by: Darius LaMonica at December 21, 2006 10:15 AM

the dhimmis in america at present are but a few.
we the people must ensure we never permit them to achieve postions of power in america ,especially in government!
we should be vocal and visual in our support of representatives like Virgil Goode and let those dhimmis know they will not be invited to return to office next term!

Posted by: thndrbang1 at December 21, 2006 10:15 AM

Bravo for Rep. Goode! He better watch out, as I'm sure CAIR and their willing MSM stooges will bring the mother of all PR wars against him.

I'm sending him an e-mail of support.

Posted by: Proud Infidel at December 21, 2006 10:18 AM

We live in America. In America there is a constitution and elected officials are sworn in with the bible. If you choose to be an elected official, you must submit to the customs and laws of your country - not the other way around. If you move to this, or any other country, you must submit to the laws and customs of that country - not the other way around. How hard is this to understand, really?

I don't agree with Goode on limiting immigration. By and large, Muslims (indeed, everybody who moves to America) assimilates rather well. Much better than Europe. First of all, the US doesn't allow new legal immigrants to go on the dole except for the very small percentage who have refugee status. That would not include most Muslims. Second, most of the immigrants who come here are very attracted to the inalienable rights, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. In addition, people in the US - as apposed to Europe - are very open and inviting. They want to know everything about you and happily invite you to participate in every block party, parade and what have you. This refers to immigrants of all brands and stripes - not just Muslims. Third, the opportunities of an free market economy (in the US, unfortunately not in Europe) are rather more appealing than bloody Jihad. That all aids in assimilation.

Immigration (legal) is good for the economy and we are already having problems filling skilled labour jobs because, while illegals flood the borders, legal immigration is too restrictive. Immigration provides younger workers, which helps alleviate the inverted pyramid population problem we have due to declining birth rates. Having said that, people from key areas (like Russia and Muslim countries) need to be checked extra carefully. There is a difference between racism and xenaphobia and national security.

Finally, despite the fact that I disagree with Goode and Robert Spencer about further limiting immigration from a purely economic standpoint, I believe they have the right to say what they wishe. For Goode in particular, a large part of his job is public debate and forced silence or watering down of opinion in public debate is counterproductive. He has the constitutional right to free speach. Of course, CAIR also has its right demand a an apology. And Goode is under no obligation to apologize for his opinions, full stop.

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 10:18 AM

I WOULD HAVE TO STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH SOME OF THIS.

First of all,

"I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped."

Resources swamped? Thats not what it's about. It's about being swamped by psychotic muslims that want to subjugate everyone not like them. It's about stopping the muslims from imposing sharia law everywhere. It's not about resources. Resources? What like, money? food? services?
So what he's saying is that immigration needs to be limited to save resources. That applies to everyone, not just muslims. Does he think about that for starving non-muslim africans in southren Africa? Resources? What about non-muslim indians? You wouldnt want to help them?

You want to halt muslim immmigration BECAUSE OF RESOURCES???????????????? That is the dumbest reason ive ever heard. And it's disgusting. You want to throw them out becuase you want to keep your ritches for yourself, is that it????? The way he says it he makes it clear that he only cares about resources. Thats ridiculous. He obviously has no clue about anything because there is a much better way he could have said it. I mean, doesnt it sound a little greedy this way? Shouldnt there be a smarter reason? Perhaps the fact that most of the muslims who would come to america want to destroy it???? Maybe thats a better reason?? No? Resources?

Resources....

Oh, and who cares if they use a koran to swear in to congress? What difference does it make? The muslim is going to behave either way whether he swears in with a bible or a koran. This is a stupid issue to raize. Why care about something so stupid and insignificant when there are millions of muslims that need to be deported from america immediately before they turn into 20 million-strong. Ridiculous. How stupid. It's INSIGNIFICANT. IT'S NOT ABOUT HOW HE SWEARS IN TO CONGRESS IT'S ABOUT HIM BEING ALLOWED TO SWEAR IN AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!! COMPLAIN ABOUT A MUSLIM ___BEING___ IN CONGRESS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!! FOR FUCK SAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: bff at December 21, 2006 10:19 AM

oh i just cant wait til congressman elect keith ellison aka muhammad elison aka keith hakim muhammad aka keith x muhammad begins demanding a special private room for his 5 daily prayers and a bidet be installed in every wash room so he can wash not wipe after every use!
let the fun begin!
Does anyone beside me find it rather strange keith ellison gave up his american birth name for a muslim name but then used his american birth name to run for office?
Is this taqqiya?

Posted by: thndrbang1 at December 21, 2006 10:22 AM

Congressman Goode's Washington DC office has a live and polite person who is answering phone calls (on the first ring even).

I just expressed my sincere expression of support and gratitude for his courage. I also let him know that if he ever decides to run for office in the state of Mississippi--he has my vote.

Posted by: ReformedPresbyterian at December 21, 2006 10:22 AM

Just another thought...

What I don't get is why the MSM is so willing to bend to the will of terrorist front groups like CAIR and IMPAC? Why?

In the 1980's I couldn't understand why they were so happy to exhalt the likes of Gorbochev. He was not a nice guy - he was a guy driven to perestroika because Reagan drove him into bankruptcy, not out of some benevolent realization that communism is bad. Then there was Crazy Carter's dictator appeasement campaign - again exhalted by the media. But Reagan, who made the most positive changes in this country probably in the entire 20th century, they paint him a communicative idiot. Bush won't negotiate with terrorists and he's painted as a bumbbling moron. CAIR and MPAC whine about non-existant mistreatment of Muslims, deny Muslims had anything to do with terrorism (despite overwhelming evidence), impinge on everyone else's rights and get painted by the media as angels.

What's the matter with people?

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 10:31 AM

perhaps what america needs today instead of a military draft as congressman rangel suggest is a political draft. get rid of these life time politicians who think politics is a way of fleecing the american tax payer. and giving them a nice comfy life with benifits and pensions that would make many kings jealous!
start having politicians selected randomly through a draft, serve an obligatory 4 year term and be gone.
ofcourse the president and vice could still be elected by the majority of the electoral college!

americas politicians serving a life time in politics get way to cozy with the enemies of america and the cash they are willing to shower on politicians of america willing to do their bidding!

Posted by: thndrbang1 at December 21, 2006 10:40 AM

http://www.foehammer.net/2006/12/virgil-goode-is-no-dhimmi.html

Posted by: Foehammer at December 21, 2006 10:41 AM

Bff,

with regard to resources, Goode simply has a poor grip on economics. He is guilty of the same mistake that socialists make all the time - the lump of wealth fallacy. In case you're unfamiliar with it - it is the fallacy that wealth exists in a large lump which is distributed among the population. The economic reality is that wealth is created through entreprenuership in a free market economy. The free market economy is why the US has created so much wealth in the world.

Europe is largely socialist by comparison. Entreprenuership is stifled and wealth creation by extension. Largely socialist European countries are basically zero-sum societies existing on accumulated capital (an artificially created, diminishing lump of wealth). New immigrants, unable to create wealth in as stagnant economy, must then suck off the same teet and there's less resources to go around with every new body.

Goode's understanding is very European. He doesn't seem to understand the economy of the country in which he lives.

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 10:42 AM

citycat wrote:

"CAIR and MPAC whine about non-existant mistreatment of Muslims, deny Muslims had anything to do with terrorism (despite overwhelming evidence), impinge on everyone else's rights and get painted by the media as angels.

What's the matter with people?"
--

Don't forget that more than a few CAIR talking-heads, past and present, have documented connections to Islamic terrorist groups.

Posted by: Foehammer at December 21, 2006 10:45 AM

Foehammer,

IMPAC and CAIR are just terrorist front groups.

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 10:51 AM

I THINK HE WOULD MAKE A GOODE PRESIDENT!

Way to go Rep. Goode! I wish we had more congressmen w/ the gonads to stand up and speak the hard truth about our disastrous immigration trends, in spite of the charges they will undoubtedly face of being "racist" or "bigoted".

There is nothing racist about defending yourself against muslim jihad. Keep the white psychos out too! Let them have Paris, but it ain't gonna happen in the USA!

Posted by: Tookson at December 21, 2006 10:55 AM

Muslim immigration to non-muslim nations needs to stop. The war that it will cause will destroy any short term economic benefit (if there is any).

Is this the attitude that we want to import?

Beheading for trespassing in Saudi Arabia.

http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003490.html

Posted by: Borg at December 21, 2006 10:58 AM

Saudi Arabia: "Trespasser" Sentenced By Islamic Court To Beheading
Saudi Arabia, purported ally of the West, is as far from the West as a country can be. A story from New India Press demonstrates how alien the country is. An Indian national, 31-year old Jojo Joseph, wanted to see his wife, who worked as a nurse near Medina. She had just given birth to their son.

Mr Joseph, who was based in Jeddah, where he was an employee of an electronics company, traveled towards where he thought his wife was based, and lost his way. He found himself on the road to Medina.

Unbeknownst to Mr Joseph, during the pilgrimage season, this road was forbidden to non-Muslims. He was arrested by police at Al-Azeez, and was hauled before a religious court on Monday. Full of that Islamic tolerance which the Saudis like to promote in the West, the religious court ordered that Mr Joseph should have his head sliced off on Tuesday, merely for "trespassing into a Muslim-only area".

Mr Joseph told his relatives back home in Mariyapuram, India, who contacted Oommen Chandy, leader of the opposition and former chief minister of Kerala state. Chandy contacted the Indian Embassy in Saudi Arabia and various ministers.

As a result, the External Affairs secretary managed to convince the Saudi Government that Mr Joseph had merely become lost and had no malicious intent.

When the Saudis insist on promoting their religion in the West, and fund groups like CAIR to change the legislation in Muslims' favor, one wonders how they would feel if Muslims were ordered to be decapitated for trespassing on kaffir territory.....

UPDATE: The same story as above is carried by The Hindu, but the Arab News tells a different tale entirely. There are still elements which disturb.

The Arab News states that he was a passenger in a taxi, and therefore the taxi-driver should have been blamed for taking "Jojo" into a forbidden area. It reads:

There is no recorded incident where a non-Muslim was executed for entering restricted space in Madinah or Makkah. Authorities generally treat these violations in much the same way trespassing is dealt with. In cases where the violation seems accidental, authorities will simply escort the trespasser out of the prohibited zone.

Joseph was arrested and detained for three days after the taxi apparently took the wrong route and strayed into the prohibited zone of the city. The man was rushing to a hospital where his wife had given birth. Persons volunteering as morality enforcers spotted the man's maroon work/residency visa (denoting the carrier is non-Muslim) and called police.

Posted by: Borg at December 21, 2006 10:58 AM

There is scarcely a single non-Muslim inhabitant of England, France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Spain, or any other country in Western Europe who, knowing what he now knows, or perceives, would not, if he could rewind the clock, undo the policy of permitting large-scale -- or even small-scale -- immigration by Muslims, and almost all, if not all, of such inhabitants would gladly, if they could, have halted all Muslim immigration altogether. It has become a permanent security nightmare, and a permanent threat to the legal and political institutions, and social arrangements, everywhere accepted in the Western world. That large-scale Muslim presence has required tens of billions of dollars to be spent, now and forevermore, on monitoring of Muslim populations and guarding airports, train stations, subway stations, bus terminals, airplanes and trains and busses, ports, government buildings, churches and synagogues, all identifiably Jewish institutions including day-schools, all the most important Christian sites (such as the Vatican), museums (whose contents offend Muslim sensibilities) and much more. Every country in the West has developed institutions, laws, has permitted the free inquiry that permits the enterprisee of science, has created conditions for the creation of works of art, none of which, and not for one minute, could have been created by Muslims or under Islamic rule.

And everywhere in the Lands of the Infidels the large-scale presence of Muslims has created a situation of much greater unpleasantness, expense, and physical insecurity than would exist without such a presence. That no one in Western Europe now denies; the quarrel is over what can or should be done about that.

Posted by: Hugh at December 21, 2006 10:59 AM

"There is scarcely a single non-Muslim inhabitant of England, France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Spain, or any other country in Western Europe who, knowing what he now knows, or perceives, would not, if he could rewind the clock, undo the policy of permitting large-scale "

Did you count all the socialists and other pro-muslim leftists with that? They dont even see that there is a problem here. With everything that they now know, I dont think that they would make any changes.

These people arent as good as you might think, they are evil, vile scum that want these muslims in their lands all over the place. They will never recognize that there is a problem, not even when they are set on fire and while they are on fire they will still say "It's not really that hot, quite nice actually".

Posted by: bff at December 21, 2006 11:08 AM

ps: i meant "set on fire by the muslims themselves"

Posted by: bff at December 21, 2006 11:10 AM

Thanks Isabella.
My congression rep just got an email on this topic:

To the Honorable Joseph Knollenberg,
I want you to speak up and support legislation regarding the need to BLOCK both ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AMNESTY and also the LEGAL IMMIGRATION OF MUSLIMS to our country.

The trends in Europe and in our own country show that we will lose our way of life within one generation if we do not stem these tides for obvious reasons. Congressman Virgil Goode of VA has recently done this nation a great service with his recent taking a stand and not backing down to the PC crowd. What say you?

Posted by: BB at December 21, 2006 11:11 AM

Off topic:

Schools' Islamic lessons inaccurate, group says

Ummah News Links

Posted by: ummahnewslinks at December 21, 2006 11:12 AM

Hugh wrote:
"It has become a permanent security nightmare, and a permanent threat to the legal and political institutions, and social arrangements, everywhere accepted in the Western world. That large-scale Muslim presence has required tens of billions of dollars to be spent, now and forevermore, on monitoring of Muslim populations and guarding airports, train stations, subway stations, bus terminals, airplanes and trains and busses, ports, government buildings, churches and synagogues...."

--
But Hugh, President Bush has called Islam the Religion of Peace. Didn't you get the memo?

I wonder if Americans were to better understand the economics of Islamic immigration, if we would have such a hard time convincing people of the danger?

Hmmm....

Posted by: Foehammer at December 21, 2006 11:12 AM

Oh, and who cares if they use a koran to swear in to congress?

I DO. I think it is disgraceful and disrespectful to our heritage and our country.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 21, 2006 11:12 AM

What I don't get is why the MSM is so willing to bend to the will of terrorist front groups like CAIR and IMPAC? Why?

The MSM is anti-government and is generally to scared to broadcast the truth. Can't offend the Muslims, now can we? The truth just might scare the citizens into Islamaphobia. (and the citizens should be concerned and should know the truth).

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 21, 2006 11:17 AM

It's a much bigger disgrace that there is even a muslim IN congress at all. That alone makes the swearing-in issue insignificant. It's almost like getting hit by a car and then complaining about the fact that the car was not a BMW but a ford. I mean who the fuck cares thats not the point!

Posted by: bff at December 21, 2006 11:17 AM

Just guessing, but I think the writer that Robert is referring to may be Lawrence Auster, and I have just a few comments about the ongoing ad hominem attacks Auster has levelled at so many people. It just seems off the wall to me that Auster sometimes seems so determined to try to wipe every potential "competitor" off the boards -- many good people who have solidly proved their worth in the War against militant Islamism. Victims of this scathing execretion have ranged from the finest Middle East experts to the best of the progressive Muslim theorists in whose hands much of the future peace of the world may rest.

In Robert's case, there are some rather spectacular specific examples of Auster's modus operandi -- which is basically to say the opposite of what's true and to do it in print. Those examples (to name a few) include:

(1) saying that Robert has no objection to Muslim immigration if Robert advocates a questionnaire on shari'a -- a suggestion made by everyone from Daniel Pipes to the European Union. Suggested quesionnaires vary in complexity, but the one thing they all do is provide grounds for deporation and explusion if lies are found.

(2) Auster's criticism of such questionnaires seem to paint a false image of those suggesting them as dolts who can't figure out that some will lie. Of course they know that! Don't be ridiculous. But what such questionnaires are meant to be adjuncts to efforts to criminalize some elements of shari'a law and to sound an overt warning that attempts to implement elements of shari'a law contrary to and abrogative of constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms of the host country will be met with decisive action. Basically it says: Openly and overtly disavow odious elements of shari'a law or stay the hell out -- and if you play a game with us about it, you're outta here.

(3) Auster's normal modus operadum is indicative of a kind of severe projection -- and and manipulation. It usually goes this way: Auster says something outrageously false (see above) and demands a response. The object of the attack gives a reasoned response. Auster claims they are now being defensive (but demanded they defend themselves). But what I've noticed is that those responding to Auster's ad hominem attacks (Robert among them) have given substantive, thoroughly annotated factual responses. When it's pointed out to Auster that he is scathing people who don't deserve it, he claims he's being viciously attacked. In other words, he projects onto others what he does constantly himself -- without the least substantiation whatsoever.

(4) And he peppers these assaults with a kind of adolescent attack on the masculinity of his objects of derision, using terms like "unmanly". I have to repress the urge to laugh at this, because every time he says that about people who get overtly threatened by Al Qaeda -- threatened with brutal death, torture, and attacks on members of their families, even their children -- and they still keep publishing books that get banned by the worst regimes in the world and still appear as public speakers ... well, I dunno about you, but I wouldn't call such people unmanly. Sorry, but that just doesn't come to mind for me. And I can't help laughing, because every time Auster does this, Irish Spring commercials pop into my mind. And then on a very sad level, I also wind up thinking that it's embarrassingly transparent when people try to make careers out of attacks on people who are making serious efforts -- people on both the Western and Islamic side of the problem -- to solve it. I get embarrased for them. And I feel like writing them little notes congratulating them for siding with Al Qaeda. Must make Bin Laden's day to read this crap.

(5) And finally, Auster's take on Robert's recent article on Blair, multiculturalism, Judeo-Christian values, etc., seems totally off the wall. There's nothing in it that Robert hasn't said before. Before writing a critique of someone's total orientation to fighting the war on terror -- or commenting on their worldview about such things -- it's really good just to read all their books and as many of their articles as one can. I know it's a tall order when there are so out there, but if you have a question, you can always JUST ASK. You can JUST ASK and with regard to people who are functioning fairly, they will answer you.

And, in fact, Robert's answered Auster on many occasions. I think the projective terms here with which Auster accuses those whom he may see as rivals are ones he might want to take to heart as elements of his own character that need work. Frankly, it's a spiritual issue, and it doesn't appear that it's being dealth with.

I'm a great believer in open discussion. Certainly I have disagreed with Robert about important things, and he's certainly not agreed with me about a great many things. But disagreements on issues can be made without this kind of invective, which is actually a form of disinformative personal attack. And the victims of it are NOT just those being personally attacked, but also the American public that is being mindfucked (sorry, but that's what it is) when they have to be subjected to adolescent games in print while they're trying to fight the war on terror. I will be less furious about these "Pundit Turf Wars" when I'm able to take that service flag sticker off the window of my car.

I hope Robert will forgive me is this just makes matters worse, but I think it just needed to be said. It seems as if there isn't anything the objects of Auster's disaffection can say that isn't turned against them. So perhaps it'll help if one of the rest of us says it occasionally so these dishonorable attacks on Auster's part don't just pass without comment forever.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at December 21, 2006 11:17 AM

as a matter of fact, I think the MSM should start reporting the writings in the Qur'as, starting with 9:29

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 21, 2006 11:19 AM

A comment I made on another blog from ummahnewslinks article:

"We always say 'Prophet Muhammad,' " Pharoan said. "Omitting the word 'prophet' is disrespectful."

. . .

"Teachers should ask themselves, 'Am I teaching fact or opinion?' " Pharoan said.

So, Pharoan, having us call Ol' Moe a 'prophet' in our curriculum is a fact or an opinion?

We all know muslims lie, so what else is new?

Posted by: Rick at December 21, 2006 11:20 AM

Suggested quesionnaires vary in complexity, but the one thing they all do is provide grounds for deporation and explusion if lies are found.

........Far easier to just ban Muslim immigration

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 21, 2006 11:26 AM

THing is that every invention and discovery beneficial to mankind has been inventied by people that have put ANY religion to one side. THese inventors and scientists and physics have FLOWN TO LOFTY PLANES...OF EXISTENCE. THEY HAVE FOLLOWED THEIR THINKING - THEIR DREAMS.

While the islamics strive to keep people grounded and chained to the earth.

In the past:

potable water - purifying water - ancient Rome

- aqueducts - ancient Persians - developed further by the Pagan Romans.

-gardens -from ancient Egypt and Babylon

- wheat - as far as I can trace it - came from Sumeria - NON-MOSLIMS.

(cous-cous is a form of pasta)

-millet - originated from China - & is also grown in Pagan Black Africa

rice from China - Taoists- Buddhists - Confucians - & other non- Moslims

- tea - came from China.

- sugar - from Pagan Black Africa

- olives & its products - discovered & developed in Pre-islamic times by ancient peoples of the Mediterranean basin.

coffee - from Pagan Black Africa

dates, figs - Pre-islamic Mediterranean basin

grapes - see above

melons, etc. - same as above

rice - fr China

chickens - fr. China -

pigeons as food - pre-Islamic times

puff pastry for pies- ancient Egypt

- tobacco - Pagan Black Africa

- Poppy - medicinal - Pagan Asia Minor

-mint - from Europe

- onions discovered in Pre-islamic times millennia ago

- tomatoes - corn - from Pagan Americas

- chilis - from Pagan Americas

-papyrus and all papers- Ancient Egypt - even before China

Islamic script - from Syrian and Aramaic ( researched)

- minarets - from Persian architecture
(researched)

- Moorish architecture in Spain - La Alhambra - is actually Byzantine architecture - as the arches show

- the domes - are actually Ancient Roman architecture - as you can see from the example of the Pantheon in Rome

- The Baths - are fr. ancient Rome & Greece- the Hammams in Turkey are simply the old Byzantine structures

soap - Sumeria & ancient Egypt

- roses - from China and ancient Persia

- perfumes - ancient Egypt, etc.

- horses - domesticated - ancient Hittites

- glassware - is from ancient Egypt - Greece-Rome

- chemicals used to color are from modern science labs.

the autos - fr. the American Ford - non-moslims

- electricity - discovered in ancient Greece - re-discovered starting from Amer. Ben Franklin - fully by Nicola Tesla http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/96jul/tesla.html

(Tesla was born a christian in Croatia. It occurs to me, there must have always been some trouble with the islamics there. )

and also the Amer. Edison- a non-moslim

- pillows and cushions are from ancient Greece and Rome

- the Taj Mahal is actually a Hindu temple

- all good things - invented - developed by Non-moslims. Pre-islamic times were NOT a time of chaos - but organized, fluorishing cultures.

EVERY single thing...used in the past and today.

And btw, I want you to know that the prostrating and touching your foreheads to the Earth - is an ancient - Pre-Islamic form of worshiping the Earth. ANcient Peoples knew that every time you touched your forehead to the Earth - you were absorbing energy into the brain. Science has validated this - not for worship - not in a cold, analytical study - there is an energy grid surrounding the Earth - that waves of energy come from the ground. So every time one takes off the shoes "on sacred ground" and touches the Earth in any way - one is absorbing these energy waves. THAT is why muddy children have so much energy...and adults don't. Because we instantly wash off the mud.

All the inventions and discoveries used by islamics. This includes the world wide web- to the microphones used for the call to prayers. And the clocks to keep time.

My God! What would the moslems do without us!

WHAT would they do without us!

Ye, Islamics - what are you going to do if you conquer and take over the entire world? Like a wound clock, it may run a little while, but eventually it will run down and then stop completely.

Without the imagination, and dreams of reaching to the Highest - to the Highest God - reaching for the Gold ring in the carousel - there will be nothing - by stagnation and decay.

The only thing allowing any blossoming is constant ACTION- and CHANGE. This is the basis of Life - down to the subatomics.

islam does not allow this.

islamics can always say, they will conquer and use the "zinnis" ( is that what slaves are called?) - but sooner or later, the philosophy of the conquered will bleed into the islamic thinking.

And I want to say, for the islamic men - looking forward to 72 virgins.

Is THAT all you look forward to? Is that all your hopes and aspirations? Is that all all your yearnings?

What about love? Every human being of any religion or not, yearns for love- a sublime love of your heart. Of the Soul.

Islamics, with all your talk of allah, allah this - allah that - allah says this - allah says that.

And all your phrases begin with " IN the name of Allah the merciful"

I have NOT once - heard any moslem state that he wants to be with allah - or meet allah, or be with allah. NOT ONCE!

ANd I haven't heard any islamic man say that he wants to be with his loved ones that have died - his granddad, or even his son, never mind about the womenfold.

Isn't that strange? It's strange to me - because I do want to meet my Creator - and worship Him - and then met those of my beloved ones that have gone before me.

How come you - Islamics - don't mention this?
Don't you want to meet your Creator face to face - and worship Him - face to face?

72 virgins just couldn't cut it for me! They'd be blah and boring - compared to being in the constant presence of God!

Allat

Posted by: allat at December 21, 2006 11:31 AM

Morgaan Sinclair wrote:
"Frankly, it's a spiritual issue, and it doesn't appear that it's being dealth with."

--

Where Islam is concerned nothing is ever just a spiritual issue: no separation of church (mosque) and state in Islam/Shari'a Law. Dhimmis and fools like Auster would like to think and say otherwise, but nobody should be fooled or cowed into submission.

It's Islam.

Posted by: Foehammer at December 21, 2006 11:33 AM

Ummahnewslinks, Rick,

Yep. One man's "prophet" is another man's "mohamed". I don't get how Pharaon doesn't understand that.

Also, if the dean of the cathedrals wants to read parts of the Koran to muslims about how there's no compulsion in religion and how Christians and Jews are their people too and must be protected and "kaffir, you have your religion and I have mine..," (I forget the citation but the rest of the surah is about living together in peace with each other) FINE BY ME. They need to hear it. Mass conversion out of Islam is a pipe dream. Might as well convert them into the first half of the Koran - that's were the teachings are more passifist.

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 11:36 AM

"The Qur'an is unsuitable for oath-taking in the United States because it allows Muslims to lie to unbelievers (3:28, 16:106)."

THAT is all we should need to know - WHY? There is no way to know whom among Muslims takes a literalist point of view regarding their faith or inherent hatreds towards those who reject their sky god.

Posted by: Quantum Infidel at December 21, 2006 11:38 AM

"And btw, I want you to know that the prostrating and touching your foreheads to the Earth - is an ancient - Pre-Islamic form of worshiping the Earth. ANcient Peoples knew that every time you touched your forehead to the Earth - you were absorbing energy into the brain".

Posted by: allat at December 21, 2006 11:31 AM

After 14 centuries of doing this one would think Muslims have developed superior mental powers and might actually be correct in their belief that they are indeed the master race. However, all we have seen and heard from them prove otherwise. Therefore, I think it's safe to say that Muslims have brain damage since they obviously have not absorbed any energy into their brains with all that prostrating. Poor devils-no wonder they're always so angry.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 21, 2006 11:56 AM

I hope this gets lots and lots of press and controversy. The more the better. More people would become aware of the content of islam's "holy" texts
and the intent of islam to overthrow our way of life.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at December 21, 2006 12:13 PM

citycat,
Are you beginning to see that allah isn't who you thought he was?
I hope and pray that you will find the truth.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at December 21, 2006 12:17 PM

I don't agree with Goode on limiting immigration. By and large, Muslims (indeed, everybody who moves to America) assimilates rather well.
Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 10:18 AM

Hmmmmm.

IMPAC and CAIR are just terrorist front groups.
Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 10:51 AM

So which is it citycat? They assimilate well into American society like Mohammed Atta, or their just terrorist front groups? If Cair exists in the US and is a terrorist front group, what is the percentage breakdown of the terrorists in CAIR as opposed to those Muslims who desire assimilation.

Better yet, while your at it, why don't you enlighten us to an effective way to determine the private mindset of each and every Islamic immigrant during the screening process of them attempting to gain entrance to this country.

What would be an acceptable ratio, in your mind, of peaceful Muslim assimilators compared to potential terrorists to allow further immigration of Islamists into this country.

The current US fertility rate, around 2.0, is an acceptable replacement rate and does not support your statements that additional immigration is required.

Your logic is flawed and I see little to no difference from what you say, and what organizations like CAIR seek to exploit in this country to further their cause of domination of the US by Islam.

It is true that not all Muslims are terrorists, but since the terrorists don't have big red horns on their head, it is difficult to discern the two based solely on their mutual embrace of I-S-L-A-M to some degree.

Get with the program sister, will ya?

Posted by: awake at December 21, 2006 12:24 PM

Look at Zawahiri's hematoma, a real sign of piety
http://www.indepundit.com/archive2/zawahiri.jpg

Posted by: Carolyn2 at December 21, 2006 12:31 PM

If you support Congressman Goode for having the courage to push for immigration reforms and highlight the efforts to erode America's foundations, let him know and let your own representatives know as well. He is going to get BLASTED hard. I contacted his office today and gave left my thanks and support. The number is 540-484-1254 but likely busy. I also reviewed his activity in the house and very much wish I could support him more from Florida.

Posted by: Tracy K at December 21, 2006 12:46 PM

citycat,
Are you beginning to see that allah isn't who you thought he was?
I hope and pray that you will find the truth.
Posted by: Carolyn2

Carolyn,

You are a dear woman and I remember talking to you a couple of months ago. I really appreciate that you're coming from a good and kind place in asking me that question. However, I'm a strong, opinionated, highly educated, successful, well read, middle-aged woman - and come from a long line of such women. Moreover, you may remember that I come from a close-knit family which includes Muslims, Jews and Christians and have made myself intimately familiar with all of them. I'm not a young thing lost in the darkness searching for the truth about God on an internet board. In light of this (although I know you didn't mean it that way), your comments/questions in your post are condescending. My spirituality is mine and would likely not be considered part of any religion (we already got to that in the last discussion). The beliefs I held before are the beliefs I hold now and you don't know them all because - well, I don't think I owe complete strangers a full explaination on a message board.

Suffice to say that I believe in the entire US constitution and hold it as a model for all governments. I particularly believe in inalienable rights, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, freedom of speach and information and I believe in protecting those things. I believe in a merciful God who created and loves all his creatures. I don't believe the Koran is the word of God and I don't believe the bible is the word of God either. But I believe that they both contain Godly things (also, ungodly things). In short, I think that if you take just the 10 commandments, Corinthians I chapter 13 (sorry, I can't cite worth a damn), and the aya from the Koran "if it contradicts itself, it is not from God", you really can't stray too far from the right path. What religion would that be? I don't know and I don't care. That has been the case before I started posting here and is still the case. I'm not lost, my dear Carolyn. But I still appreciate your concern.

What's more relevant to the board is that I'm as terrified of the Islamic political ideology as anyone else. And I don't care if it's real Islam or misunderstood Islam or whatever. It must be fought and I'm afraid the lefties don't understand the threat as much as they didn't understand the communist threat.

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 12:49 PM

The depth of their attack is because Goode told the truth.

After WTC 93 attack they should have stopped immigration. Buchanan said to and they called him a racist bigot. The 19 hijackers came in "legally" after WTC 93. The MSM, Democrats, even Republicans had to lie on 9-11 and call restrictionists bigots to cover up their own complicity.

Mineta was covering up the next day. He said no profiling. The truth was he already had specific warnings. On 9-12, Mineta, was covering up the warnings.

Bush gave his religion of peace speech to cover up the August 6, 2001 PDB he got saying "bin Laden determined to attack in the United States".
Bush had to have a reason to ignore the warning. His reason was that Islam is a religion of peace. That was his cover story for not responding to the warnings.

Bush killed the 3000 people by negligence. If Bush was commander of a ship he would have been court martialed and judged guilty and relieved.
Bush's face on 9-11 was an, "I should be court martialed look".

Congress should have impeached him for ignoring those warnings. Bush was covering up and obstructing Congress's power of impeachment. He still is.

The attack on Virgil Goode, and on Tom Tancredo, etc. are all part of this cover up for the 9-11 guilt.

As much web presence on liberal blogs for this as possible is needed. Putting up basic information in a neutral way will help. What is "obvious" on Jihad Watch is totally unknown to many people.

Just cut and paste snippets with attribution from the many articles is enough to totally turn around and stop the liberal propaganda machine. This is vital. If your local newsaper allows comments, paste there. E-mail your rep or Senator. They are attacking Goode deliberately. They have had him in their sights and been planning this. Its not just spontaneous.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 21, 2006 12:51 PM

Awake,

As I've said before, in a previous discussion, you are rude and nasty and have never said a civilized word to me - ever. Thus, I don't wish to speak to you directly. You are, of course, free to challenge me in that vicious little way that you have any time you want but don't expect a response.

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 1:00 PM

While Congressman's remarks have been (correctly) construed as “intolerant” by at least one US-based Muslim organization, it is absolutely the apex of hypocrisy for anyone to level such a claim in view of the overwhelming prevalence of intolerance throughout the Muslim world and even in non-Muslim lands where there is a critical mass off Muslim expatriates.

What we cannot forget are simple political truths which the Islamic challenge should have reinforced. Among these truths is that the principles of a free society require toleration of the tolerant, but demand that intolerance be shown towards those who not only reject such free society's values but look forward to the day when they are brought down.

Congressman Goode, stick to your guns!

ohara

Posted by: OHara at December 21, 2006 1:05 PM

Congressman Virgil Goode has been attacked by Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr. of the 8th District for New Jersey. The attack was in writing and a copy of same is posted at Pascrell's website. Pascrell is the NJ Rep for the 8th District.

CAIR's website is crowing about it now even as I write these words.

Pascrell's attack on Goode could have been written by CAIR itself. For all I know it was. Or maybe it was written by Naseem.

Want to give Bill Pascrell, Jr. a piece of your mind?

Take the time to write him a letter in support of Goode:

Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr.
Robert A. Roe Bldg.
200 Federal Plaza
Suite 500
Patterson, NJ 07505

Posted by: omvi at December 21, 2006 1:10 PM

I just talked to the very polite young lady who answers the phones at Congressman Goode's Washington, D.C. office and she said he is getting tons of calls of support from people all over the country. She also said the best way to show support is to e-mail him and write him at his Rocky Mount address because he will get it faster than sending it to D.C.

Write him here:

70 East Court St., Suite 215
Rocky Mount, VA 24151
Phone: (540)484-1254
Fax: (540)484-1459

Call him here:

Phone: (202)225-4711

I'm off to write him a letter right now.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 21, 2006 1:10 PM

Omvi posted Goode’s address above but it’s worth repeating:

Virgil Goode
70 East Court Street
Suite 215
Rocky Mount, VA 24151

In my letter of thanks, a copy of the 28th Amendment was included. He might be in a fighting mood when the smoke clears.

Posted by: limes at December 21, 2006 1:12 PM

The e-mail for Congressman Goode will be down until January 4th, I'm sure for the holidays. But you can fax him here: (540) 484-1459.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 21, 2006 1:13 PM

"While Congressman's remarks have been (correctly) construed as “intolerant” by at least one US-based Muslim organization, it is absolutely the apex of hypocrisy for anyone to level such a claim in view of the overwhelming prevalence of intolerance throughout the Muslim world and even in non-Muslim lands where there is a critical mass off Muslim expatriates.

What we cannot forget are simple political truths which the Islamic challenge should have reinforced. Among these truths is that the principles of a free society require toleration of the tolerant, but demand that intolerance be shown towards those who not only reject such free society's values but look forward to the day when they are brought down."

Posted by: OHara

WOW! So well put that I thought your post bears reprinting. Thanks.

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 1:29 PM

I just left a message with Goodes' secretary at(540)484-1254, voiced my firm approval of his stance and his actions, told her to tell him I hope he spreads that philosophy throughout the Congress and wished them all a Merry Christmas.

Got through on the first call, too.

Posted by: Foehammer at December 21, 2006 1:31 PM

While sending comments to the Congressmen above, and stay very very polite, also send a copy to one of your Senators or your Congressman. Its better to do one than none.

Senate.gov

You can look up your Senator. Be polite and short and quote a snippet from Jihad Watch that makes them look at it.

House.gov

We want to build mind share with Congress for Jihad Watch. You can't use html, but just use

www.jihadwatch.org.

We were attacked:

WTC 1993

East African embassies August 1998

USS Cole October 2000

WTC and Pentagon 2001.

Not until after the 4th attack did we do anything.

Bin Laden declared war in 1998.

Complete 9-11 Timeline

Can quote from above as well, short with the link as text.

bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa with bold on quotables

"Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life.” On that basis, and in compliance with Allah’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. "

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 21, 2006 1:37 PM

Carolyn writes:

"Look at Zawahiri's hematoma, a real sign of piety"

Actually, it's a SIGN OF THE BEAST

Revelation 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
Revelation 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Revelation 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. (666)

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at December 21, 2006 1:39 PM

We were attacked, we are at war. Congress is supposed to protect us. That's in the Constitution. Part of protecting us is stopping immigration by those who already attacked us from the inside. They have to do that, its in the Constitution.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 21, 2006 1:40 PM

Talk about a pipe dream!

Citycat writes

"Mass conversion out of Islam is a pipe dream. Might as well convert them into the first half of the Koran - that's were the teachings are more passifist."

I don't know what "passifist" means, but Islam moved PAST the pacifist stage to the homocidal stage and there it will remain until the beast is slain and the false prophet's name obliterated from the earth.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at December 21, 2006 1:44 PM

Oath of Office

Source: Congressional Record (House) - Updated March 10, 2005

OATH OF OFFICE MEMBERS, RESIDENT COMMISSIONER, AND DELEGATES

The oath of office required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), to be administered to members, Resident Commissioner, and Delegates of the House of Representatives, the text of which is carried in 5 U.S.C. 3331:

"I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

has been subscribed to in person and filed in duplicate with the Clerk of the House of Representatives by the following Members of the 109th Congress, pursuant to the provisions of 2 U.S.C. 25

After Pearl Harbor they fulfilled their oath by stopping immigration from Japan and Germany until after World War II was over, and our armies occupied all enemy homelands. They have to stop Muslim immigration until all enemy homelands in the 100 year war the Pentagon has said we are in are occupied or at real peace with us.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 21, 2006 1:46 PM

From the sewer:

VA Rep Asked to Apologize for Anti-Muslim Remarks

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

VA REP ASKED TO APOLOGIZE FOR ANTI-MUSLIM REMARKS
Rep. Goode slams Quran, election of Muslims, growth of U.S. Islamic community

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 12/19/06) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) tonight called on Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) to apologize for anti-Muslim remarks he made in a recent letter to a constituent.

Goode's letter to the head of the local Sierra Club chapter slammed the planned use of a Quran for the ceremonial swearing-in of Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress. (No religious texts of any kind are used for the official swearing-in ceremony.)

"I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way," wrote Goode. "The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran."

Goode also decried the growth of the American Muslim community. He wrote, "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America." (Keith Ellison has traced his family's roots in America to the year 1742.)

SEE: Anti-Muslim Letter Goes Out to Hundreds - Not All are Amused

"Representative Goode's Islamophobic remarks send a message of intolerance that is unworthy of anyone elected to public office," said CAIR National Legislative Director Corey Saylor. "There can be no reasonable defense for such bigotry."

Saylor said Goode should apologize for his remarks and offered to arrange a meeting between the congressman and members of the Muslim community in his district.

The controversy over Representative-elect Ellison's use of the Quran for the ceremonial oath began with a recent commentary by Dennis Prager, a member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, in which he wrote that swearing an oath on the Quran "undermines American civilization." CAIR has asked that Prager be removed from the taxpayer-supported council.

__________________________________________________
NO APOLOGY NECESSARY- CAIR is also attempting to shut down a video game called "Left Behind-Eternal Forces", being sold at Wal-Mart. CAIR says that it promotes religious violence(against Muslims)and that it should be pulled from the shelves......

CAIR should run their mouths in the direction of their beloved co-religionists who are in reality committing religious violence all over the world instead of once again attempting to tell Americans what to buy their children for Christmas....

According to Wal-Mart.....They are not pulling this game.

Posted by: DCWatson at December 21, 2006 1:50 PM

My God! What would the moslems do without us!

Same thing they do now, kill each other and make suvivors suffer.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 21, 2006 1:51 PM

Surely it is not a sheer accident -- as Hugh Fitzgerald would have us believe -- that Congressman Goode is a Republican and Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr., who attacked Goode is a Democrat.

Posted by: remote_control at December 21, 2006 1:53 PM

Americans, check out www.numbersusa.com to get involved with this immigration issue. They make it very easy to get involved sending faxes to all of your particular public officials from your districts, and phone calls, etc. Check them out! Get involved! This site DOES WORK! Hundreds of thousands of faxes are hard for our politicians to ignore.

Posted by: fedupinamerica at December 21, 2006 1:55 PM

Oath for Senators

Oath of Office

History

oath site:senate.gov

Oath info at Wiki

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 21, 2006 1:59 PM

Here is a site for the video game that CAIR has their granny panties twisted over:

http://www.eternalforces.com/

Posted by: DCWatson at December 21, 2006 2:00 PM

He's going to have to kowtow after awhile- it will become a legal battle that will sink him.

DC Watson- you make a good point- Kids playing a religious game are seen as 'intolorant' BUT Muslims murdering Americans and Jews all over hte world aren't? I call bull crap on the game issue! http://sacredscoop.com

Posted by: CottShop at December 21, 2006 2:02 PM

Preamble Constitution

Preamble
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 21, 2006 2:03 PM

immigration controls on Muslim countries are supposedly racist, even though Muslims are not members of any single race or ethnic group

It's interesting to note that while Islam is not a race, it's certainly a political, as well as religious ideology. And countries all over have and do impose immigration controls on countries with whom they have political differences (e.g. communist countries vs. non-communist countries, India vs. Pakistan, China vs. Taiwan, North Korea vs. everybody, etc.).

Saudi Arabia has pretty strict immigration rules re: tourist visas...is that racist?

Muslim countries' restrictions on travel to/from Israel....is that racist?

Countries charging different visa fees to residents of different countries....is that racist?

The U.N. imposing sanctions on entire countries....is that racist?

The Arab oil embargo against the USA....was that racist?

Posted by: yadayada at December 21, 2006 2:03 PM

The kuran is for burning and/or paper-shredding and NOT oath-taking by Muslims (or anybody else) in US courtrooms!!!!!!!!

I pointed out here too a while back (and I am certain other posters here did, too)that for anyone to practice taqiyya while actively on a witness stand in an American courtroom would be guilty of committing PERJURY--which is a felony under US law and punishable by at least 10 years in a penitentiary!

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Incidentally, observing that Islam contains homicidal and numerous other violent elements ("divine" in origins no less, the Muslims would have us believe) is an OBSERVATION--not an act of bigotry as the Muslims and Communist lobby in the western democracies would have us believe (and continue to shriek to the fawning western media).

All persons and nations everywhere reserve the right to defend themselves from Islam and its inherent ideological-inspired brutality.

We never permit ANYONE to tell us otherwise!!!

Posted by: pythagoras at December 21, 2006 2:07 PM

"It isn't bigotry, Corey, and I just provided a reasonable defense in brief. I'd be happy to expand on these matters in a debate with you. You can contact me here."

Rober my friend, this coward Saylor has nothing to stand on, and would be destroyed by you in a debate. None of the CAIR "elite" have anything to debate with. All they can do is sit in their offices, make phone calls harrassing American businesses and politicians, and call everybody anti-Muslim bigots if they speak the truth about their belief system.

What a sorry specimen they are. With all of their whining and disruptive antics, they have become America's ingrown toenail.

Posted by: DCWatson at December 21, 2006 2:10 PM

It was bigotry for CAIR to hold the congressman to a higher standard than they would hold themselves. hypocrites..(CAIR)

Posted by: squire at December 21, 2006 2:16 PM

"Therefore, I think it's safe to say that Muslims have brain damage since they obviously have not absorbed any energy into their brains with all that prostrating. Poor devils-no wonder they're always so angry."

---------

Ya got me pal!

Allat

Posted by: allat at December 21, 2006 2:21 PM

I don't know what "passifist" means, but Islam moved PAST the pacifist stage to the homocidal stage and there it will remain until the beast is slain and the false prophet's name obliterated from the earth.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2

My dear Ynkedoodl2, "passifist" means that I got little sleep last night and am in dire need of another cup of coffee!!

I mainly wrote the post you're responding to tongue-in-cheek. But, now that you mention it...would be nice to drag it back to the "passifist" stage. :-)

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 2:27 PM

Citycat:

Take it easy w/Carolyn. You didn't have to be like that! You didn't have to go for the knock-out punch like you did. I'm here defending her good intentions. I suppose you're going to turn on me next?

Top all of you taking punches against the Left - I'm fr the left - and I can see the danger of islam.

Thing is where- a leftist or rightists - a duck needs two wings to fly - so we all as hell better get together with our 2 wings or else we ain't going to fly - fly free and liberated.We need boths sides to be united, right NOW!

Allat

Posted by: allat at December 21, 2006 2:29 PM

Awake,

As I've said before, in a previous discussion, you are rude and nasty and have never said a civilized word to me - ever. Thus, I don't wish to speak to you directly. You are, of course, free to challenge me in that vicious little way that you have any time you want but don't expect a response.
Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 01:00 PM

Typical pro-Islamist response. Instead of refuting individual points of criticism I made towards yourself and your ideological beliefs as professed in your previous posts, you choose to write them all off not on account of what I said, but rather on what you perceive me to be.

When you are nearly the lone voice in opposition that Pakistan's banning of Robert's book was a good thing, you should stop a second and think. Maybe most of us are wrong and you are right. I'm sure Robert is feverishly reading-up on the subject matter to attain your level of education, as we speak.

I do not believe that you understand the true nature of Islam and the very real threat it poses to Western society. The again you might, and are just being disingeuine about your true stance on the issue.

You disagree with Goode and Spencer with regards to immigration in the US. Even Hugh chimed in about the immigration issue. They could all be wrong, I guess, but I tend to believe the moderators of the site more than the borderline inane ramblings of a "strong, opinionated, highly educated, successful, well read, middle-aged woman", whatever that means.

By the way, besides calling your opinions inane, the rest of this post is certainly civilized. I look forward to responding to your opinions "in that vicious little way that I have."

Posted by: awake at December 21, 2006 2:31 PM

"highly educated, successful, well read"

That's not relevant to this discussion. The relevancy is that every one here is a human being with a heart and soul.

Allat

Posted by: allat at December 21, 2006 2:35 PM

I can see George Soros, CAIR, and the ACLU right now digging into this guys past. They will be foaming at the mouth for dirt on this guy, and the media will ready to run with it.

For God sake I hope this guy has a clean back ground. His comments have to stand without retraction. But if the left finds anything on this guy then his comments and his faults will be further spread over the Republican party.

CAIR and the ACLU have been too quite on this. Prepare for noise.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at December 21, 2006 2:42 PM

The Council on American-Islamic Relations asked Goode to apologize.

"Rep. Goode's Islamophobic remarks send a message of intolerance that is unworthy of anyone elected to public office," the council's Corey Saylor said in a statement. "There can be no reasonable defense for such bigotry."

Rep. Goode could have told the Muslim student the whole truth, that "this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and morality. It owes nothing to Islam or Islamic teachings. In fact, the teachings of Islam stand in stark contrast to the ideals of freedom, tolerence, liberty and equality embodied in or constitution. Our nation has fought several wars, and lost thousands of soldiers, fighting against nations seeking to destroy our constitution and way of life. I cannot dishonor those dead soldiers by hanging a book on my wall that is anathema to everything they fought for".
Amazing that Corey Saylor should critize Rep. Goode for bigotry and intolerance when he himself is devoted to the triumph of a religion that believes that bigotry and tolerance a virtue and mandate from God.
If Mr. Saylor is really interested in combating bigotry and intolerance, he should spend his time in the Islamic world defending Christians and Jews against the murderous intolerance that he seeks to import into this country.

Posted by: rational at December 21, 2006 2:42 PM

"The kuran is for burning and/or paper-shredding and NOT oath-taking by Muslims (or anybody else) in US courtrooms!!!!!!!!"

------

Can't you recycle for the outhouse? Hahahahahhah!

Allat

Posted by: allat at December 21, 2006 2:45 PM

What neither Dennis Prager nor anyone else has addressed is the fact that the Qur'an is unsuitable for oath-taking in the United States because it allows Muslims to lie to unbelievers (3:28, 16:106).

Taking the oath of office - actually it starts on the campaign trail - is the license to lie.

They don't need the koran for that one.

Posted by: infidel!

>>>the qu'ran is self admittedly a book of satanic revelations!

>>>SURAH 22}_52-53-Never have We sent a Messenger or a prophet before you, O Muhammad, with whose wishes Satan did not tamper; but Allah abrogates the interjections of Satan and confirms His own revelations, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.[52] He makes Satan’s interjections a temptation for those whose hearts suffer from the disease of hypocrisy and whose hearts are hardened - that’s why the wrongdoers are in such an extreme dissension[53]

now this ayah and the tafsir to it is quite interesting. they admit the perfect man muhammad was decieved by satan into accepting satanic revealtion and adding them to the qu'ran.
notice in the ayah above allah claims these satanic revelations are permitted to remain in the qu'ran as a temptation to hypocrit muslims!
Who would have thought the qu'ran itself admits it is a book of satanic revelations!
now muslims are left with quite a dilemma. allah claims only allah knows the interpretation of the revelations in the qu'ran ,but he leaves satanic revelations for the muslims to decide which is revelations from allah and which are those from satan
(i suspect they are both the same)

Tafsir al-Jalalayn: surah 22}_52-53
And We did not send before you any messenger (rasūl) - this is a prophet who has been commanded to deliver a Message - or prophet (nabī) - one who has not been commanded to deliver anything - but that when he recited [the scripture] Satan cast into his recitation, what is not from the Qur'ān, but which those to whom he [the prophet] had been sent would find pleasing. The Prophet (s) had, during an assembly of the [men of] Quraysh, after reciting the [following verses from] sūrat al-Najm, Have you considered Lāt and 'Uzzā? And Manāt, the third one? [53:19-20] added, as a result of Satan casting them onto his tongue without his [the Prophet's] being aware of it, [the following words]: 'those are the high-flying cranes (al-gharānīq al-'ulā) and indeed their intercession is to be hoped for', and so they [the men of Quraysh] were thereby delighted. Gabriel, however, later informed him [the Prophet] of this that Satan had cast onto his tongue and he was grieved by it; but was [subsequently] comforted with this following verse that he might be reassured [of God's pleasure]: thereat God abrogates, nullifies, whatever Satan had cast, then God confirms His revelations. And God is Knower, of Satan's casting of that which has been mentioned, Wise, in His enabling him [Satan] to do such things, for He does whatever He wishes.That He may make what Satan has cast a trial, a test, for those in whose hearts is a sickness, dissension and hypocrisy, and those whose hearts are hardened, namely, the idolaters, [hardened] against acceptance of the truth. For truly the evildoers, the disbelievers, are [steeped] in extreme defiance, [in] a protracted feud with the Prophet (s) and the believers, for his tongue uttered mention of their gods in a way that pleased them, and yet this was later nullified.

Now the question begs to be asked, how can these satanic revelations be a temptation to hypocrits muslims if these satanic revelations are not permitted to remain in the qu'ran?

Posted by: thndrbang1 at December 21, 2006 3:00 PM

starting at very least, but not ending, with the institution of mechanisms to screen for jihadist sentiments

Which equates to full and total denunciation of the Koran and the Sunnah.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 21, 2006 3:05 PM

Take it easy w/Carolyn. You didn't have to be like that! You didn't have to go for the knock-out punch like you did. I'm here defending her good intentions. I suppose you're going to turn on me next?

Top all of you taking punches against the Left - I'm fr the left - and I can see the danger of islam.

Thing is where- a leftist or rightists - a duck needs two wings to fly - so we all as hell better get together with our 2 wings or else we ain't going to fly - fly free and liberated.We need boths sides to be united, right NOW!

Allat
Posted by: allat

Dude! Chill out! I like Carolyn. What knock-out punch are you talking about? I didn't intend any knock-out punches and I was not being sarcastic with her, if that's what you mean.

As for the left, I'm talking about the che-loving, Chavez cuddlers who embrace for every threat to personal freedom. I'm pretty sure you're not that far left.

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 3:10 PM

This is one of the reasons I do not share the same views about the Mexicans. The problem is when you lump the Mexicans with the Muslims you several issues:

(1) You make them allies which they would never otherwise

(2) You open the door to being called a bigot becuase Mexicans are a ethinic group where as Muslimes are not.

(3) Mexicans despite all the claims otherwise are not un-western. The are catholic and are coming here to make money. You can't get more American then that. Yes they speak a different language but so did Italians. They will learn. In fact we may need the Mexicans to bump up our poor growth rate. We need more youth and dare I say it babies and we just are not producing enough.

Thus we need to deal with them in different ways. We should build the wall but set check points (Like Ellis Island) where we screen the Mexicans coming in. Make sure they are healthy and also make sure to set up the laws that they don't get benis from the government until they have been here for at least 10 years and are citizens etc.

The Muslim immigration won't be fixed by a wall or fence. People need to understand they get in due to the state dept. letting them in. They get in becuase some arab sultan paid their way in. They in a sense bribed them into to this nation. Also unlike the mexicans they are not here to work but instead convert and bring Islam.

Ask yourself this: If you are a Saudi young man who is radical and want to get into the US to cause harm how do you do it?

Do you go Mexico and walk a long way OR do you get a student visa and have some prince sponsor you (unless he is your father and you get in anyway).

1st: Fix State Dept. and clean up the student Visas. They should go to Indian Hindus and Chinese refs. They have more to offer.

2nd: Worry about borders

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at December 21, 2006 3:13 PM

"...who embrace for every threat to personal freedom."

Who embrace every, not "for" every. Typo.

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 3:16 PM

They get in becuase some arab sultan paid their way in. They in a sense bribed them into to this nation. Also unlike the mexicans they are not here to work but instead convert and bring Islam.

Posted by: greatcometof1577

What about some reguluar Egyptian shmo who doesn't really give a damn about Islam and stuff but just wants to come here, study and get a job? Technically, he'd be Muslim but he hasn't been to a Mosque since he was a kid and doesn't really care about that stuff. But he's from a Muslim country and has an Arab name, of course but he doesn't want to convert anyone - least of all himself. As a practical matter, what do we do about those guys?

Also, would you be for giving asylum to female Muslims who come here to get away from the oppression of Islamic countries?

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 3:28 PM

citycat, I think you mean well. Good points. But your arguments sound eerily similar to those that led to the dhimmification of parts of Europe. A kind of slippery slope that assumes all people are assimilatable. Maybe they are in very small doses. I refer you to the Brussels Journal.

Also, I like Spencer AND Auster. BOTH make good arguments. I'm somewhere in between their views. BOTH are important! That's my $0.02, and keep the change.

Where is GIA???????? I miss his biting humor and sharp wit!!!!!!!

Posted by: Infidelus Maximus at December 21, 2006 3:39 PM

I have much appreciation for such an honest leader as this Republican Rep. Virgil Goode, but I am afraid his bluntness will only constrain his ability in maneuvering within the deteriorating political systems, especially, if the majority of American people do not overwhelmingly come to his succor. No doubt, it will take more than just the cheering and the hooting of the crowds to support him; it will require a gigantic political movement to make a difference, such as that of a Civil Right Movement, founded in the fifties and sixties, followed by great masses in the marching to Washington D.C.—anything less than that will only land Goode into a political isolation, especial in today’s politically-correct environment.

With his new controversy, now Goode’s political opponents, the democrats, will surely harness the opportunity to call him a begot and ostracize him, and members of his own party will shunt away from him, lest they be guilty by association. Ex-Republican Senator, Trent Lott, had been one, pressured out of the office by the Democrats, and shunt by his own party members in 2002; ex-Republican Senator, Bill Frist had been another, instigated by the NAACP, also pressured out of the office by the Democrats, and shunt by his own party members in 2004. Given that the ACLU will soon join in, perhaps Goode’s fights with CAIR will continue to widen until he goes out of the office.

In regard to this, Robert Spencer has referred back to the faulty immigration controls as its origin, which, I strongly believe, is much larger than that. The faulty immigration controls had begun decades ago, since the birth of the Civil Right Movement. Although the movement had produced many good things in America, it has now become an unmanageable monster, from which the multiculturalism found its foothold, and from which we have numerous of the legislation of useless laws and loopholes for the civil right activists to exploit. The damages, that they have inflicted to the entire system as a whole, have reached to such a pitch that they have completely crippled America in all aspects of its domestic and international policies, ranging from no prayer at public schools to no God in the Pledge of Allegiance, from racial profiling to Dubai Port issue, from Abugraib controversies to Guantanamo detainee water-borne interrogations, etc. & etc.

Having said all these, one might ask, “What can we do to reverse it?” Had this question been raised decades ago, the solution to it would have been much simpler, but we, as a nation, have long been in slumber and in excessive indulgence, while our enemies were broaching into our systems, discovering our vulnerabilities, and exploiting them to their great advantage. If we were to overhaul the entire system now, it will take a tremendous public effort to lift the colossal deadweight, which means that we would need a great many exceptional leaders to gather the masses along with them to swim against the turbulent political-current. Do we have such leaders? Yes, we do. Bill Frist had been one, Trent Lott had been another, now, Virgil Goode is still another, and many more. Finally, will American people support them, like the people did in the pass, with Martin Luther King, Jr.?

I doubt it; there has not been a trace of indication yet!

Posted by: ssa at December 21, 2006 3:42 PM

"citycat, I think you mean well. Good points. But your arguments sound eerily similar to those that led to the dhimmification of parts of Europe. A kind of slippery slope that assumes all people are assimilatable. Maybe they are in very small doses. I refer you to the Brussels Journal."

Posted by: Infidelus Maximus

Max, I don't think all people are assimilatable at all. Some people want to escape the hell they live in only to recreate it in a new place, not getting that those customs and laws led to their homeland being hellish in the first place. It's maddening - and a big problem.

Please tell me which of my arguments are similar. I didn't realize. Also, are you in Europe or the US? The situations are a bit different in each.

There was a very interesting issue of the Economist magazine devoted to this very issue. It came out this summer, if you can get your hands on it.

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 3:47 PM

Infidelus,

Sorry - that issue of the Economist was entitled "Eurabia".

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 3:53 PM

Bravo Robert, for not mentioning "another writer of some prominence" by name. (BTW I'm sure it's not L. Auster as speculated by an earlier post). I hope you continue to avoid mentioning his name in the future as well...no need to give his shrill, personal attacks any credibility by acknowledging his existence.

Posted by: Xero G at December 21, 2006 4:07 PM

"What about some reguluar Egyptian shmo who doesn't really give a damn about Islam and stuff but just wants to come here, study and get a job? Technically, he'd be Muslim but he hasn't been to a Mosque since he was a kid and doesn't really care about that stuff. But he's from a Muslim country and has an Arab name, of course but he doesn't want to convert anyone - least of all himself. As a practical matter, what do we do about those guys?"

"Also, would you be for giving asylum to female Muslims who come here to get away from the oppression of Islamic countries?"

Posted by: citycat

(1) Egyptian Shmo: No unless he changes his religion to a less dangerous one or no religion. Secular Muslims are great until their children get religious.

(2) Muslima: Yes but that is becuase I am a single MALE and would always be in favor of increasing the female to male rato to 2:1. Just kidding but I would let them in as refugees but once again they would be forced to change their faith to a less dangerous religion or none at all.

Islam as a faith cannot be practiced "as is" becuase it goes counter to western civilzation and freedom. To be a muslim you must also want a Islamic state. If you don't want that you will burn hell. A secular muslim needs to change and just become a secular man becuase his children will be pulled back into the faith.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at December 21, 2006 4:12 PM

Citycat

Perhaps I should say it this way....

...no more muslim immigration...

Coming to America is a privilege not a right. Islam as a faith have done everything they can do to lose that privilege. Now the muslims already here there is not much we can do for now. We will have to find some way to absorb them.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at December 21, 2006 4:23 PM

To be a muslim you must also want a Islamic state. If you don't want that you will burn hell.

Posted by: greatcometof1577

I'm quite sure that you're mistaken about that one sentence. Although, there are people who believe that (except the burn in hell part). You don't have to live in an Islamic state to be Muslim and you certainly will not burn in hell.

I see your point about the children - this has been a problem in England. However, here in the US they tend to get more secular and stay secular. But not always.

You say: "No.unless he changes his religion to a less dangerous one or no religion."
and
"Just kidding but I would let them in as refugees but once again they would be forced to change their faith to a less dangerous religion or none at all."

Aside from being totally sympathetic to your plight as a single male, I wonder how you would enforce a change of religion. It seems that you would have to closely monitor thought - and I'm not sure that this is possible. Also, What would you do about people who are born American and convert? What if an 15th generation American reads the Koran and decides to convert? And what about the Ba'hai? If you're not familiar - they are a Muslim sect but reject the notion of Jihad entirely. It just isn't part of their religion and they don't identify with other Muslims.

I see where you're going with this but I just don't see how you'll achieve it in practice.

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 4:26 PM

thundrbang1, they deleted your excellent post before I could copy it. I have just been reading Revelation again recently, trying to make sense of this crazy time, and your interpretation of biblical prohesy was just what I have been praying for. They left the islam post on, but deleted the biblical post. Could you send me your biblical post?

Posted by: fedupinamerica at December 21, 2006 4:26 PM

Virgil Goode
70 East Court Street
Suite 215
Rocky Mount, VA 24151

:) - omvi

Thank you OMVI. My support 100% will go to Virgil Goode. He is doing us proud.

I am really disappointed with Bush. He has let many folks like me down.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at December 21, 2006 4:27 PM

SSA,

I think you said it beautifully. We are so paralyzed by the dogmas and doctrines of the left that have dominated our polityical, social, moral and cultural life for the last 40 years. that all we can do now is wait around for the axe to fall on our necks.

Posted by: rational at December 21, 2006 4:36 PM

Here are Virgil Goode's phone numbers. Why not call and tell him (or leave a message with his staff) that you support Virgil Goode 100% and want immigration of Muslims to the U.S. to end because you think Islam is incompatible with freedom. Thank him profusely for taking his courageous stand on the Qur'an and immigration.

Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202)225-4711
Fax: (202)225-5681

Rocky Mount, VA 24151
Phone: (540)484-1254
Fax: (540)484-1459

Danville, Virginia Office
Phone: (434)792-1280 or (800)535-4008
Fax: (434)797-5942

Farmville, Virginia Office
Phone: (434)392-8331
Fax: (434)392-6448

Charlottesville, Virginia Office
Phone:(434)295-6372
Fax:(434)295-6059

Posted by: traeh at December 21, 2006 4:39 PM

...and maybe when you call you should also mention that you heard about Congressman Goode at jihadwatch.com...

Posted by: traeh at December 21, 2006 4:41 PM

Coming to America is a privilege not a right. Islam as a faith have done everything they can do to lose that privilege. Now the muslims already here there is not much we can do for now. We will have to find some way to absorb them.

Posted by: greatcometof1577

Yes, it is a privilage and not a right. I completely agree. But that is why the US grants Visas to individuals and checks out those individutals - not Muslims as a group but individuals. As an individual, you have to prove that you're visa-worthy, then greencard-worthy, then citizenship-worthy on an individual basis. Your alliegance must be to this country.

I came from a communist country, despite the fact that communism's goals (world domination and oppression) were similar to Islamo-fascism. As long as I didn't work to subvert this country (or commit crimes, etc.), I could stay and get citizenship. If I wanted to start a small commune on my property with some of my friends, nobody would care (I wouldn't, mind you - I'm a raging capitalist). Similarly, if a Muslim person came over here and prayed five times a day but didn't work to subvert the country, I don't think we would mind that. But that's why individual checks are so important - and that's why I can't understand CAIR's and IMPAC's bristling every time a Muslim is checked an extra time at the airport. Well, as they're both terrorist front groups, I can actually understand - but, you know what I mean.

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 4:43 PM

If Rep. Ellison is allowed to swear an American oath on the quran it would be permissible, from a Muslim point of view, because he is required to cover up his true Islamic motives and fool the Infidels. "So help me God" also covers both bases, so he can happily lie with a straight face.

The fact that this is even being considered is beyond reason. He cannot serve America and the Ummah at the same time, It is either one or the other - end of story.

No Muslim should be allowed to hold any position of authority concerning U.S. citizens. Once appointed to office, the situation will only get worse, and harder to undo. Everything possible should be done to make sure this does not happen.

Posted by: Dsinc at December 21, 2006 4:48 PM

Our Founding Fathers never, ever, meant for the Koran, or Mulitculturalism to be prevalent in our nation.

We have sold our souls to the DEVIL! And he is now collecting his DUES!
Posted by: americaningermany

American guy, America has always been kind of Multicultural - what with the British, the Spanish and the French colonizing it. Plus, then there's the issue of Africans who came here largely by way of slavery. Then, there are the Irish, Polish, Italien, Greek, etc. immigrants. I think what made it mulit-cultural was that inalienable rights, life liberty, pursuit of happiness, and freedom of religion part of the constitution drafted by...you guessed it, our Founding Fathers.

If I had to guess, I think you don't really give a damn about the Koran or any of it if Muslims would just only keep their Jihad in their pants (if you get my drift).

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 5:00 PM

"I came from a communist country, despite the fact that communism's goals (world domination and oppression) were similar to Islamo-fascism. As long as I didn't work to subvert this country (or commit crimes, etc.), I could stay and get citizenship. If I wanted to start a small commune on my property with some of my friends, nobody would care (I wouldn't, mind you - I'm a raging capitalist)"

Posted by: citycat

The problem with that analogy is that Communism is not religion. Communist are not going to blow themselves up becuase hello they are atheist. Yes you are correct when you say individual muslims are not all alike but how can we be sure their children won't be more conservative in their views of the "faith". Also Islam has much deeper roots in arab culture then communism had in western culture.

Let me say this. When you came to America I can almost guarantee if you said: "I am a Communist" you would not have gotten in during the cold war. We are at war with Islam and thus the same should apply. You see you said all I needed to hear: "I'm a raging capitalist"

I need to hear from would be new-comers from Egypt: "I'm a raging anti-jihadi" or "I'm a raging anti-sharia" or "I'm a raging anti-muslim"

Then you get an ok in my book. Now of course they can lie. But in my world lying on immigration documents would be a federal crime and you would be sent back from wence ye came.

Alas my world is not the real world however..

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at December 21, 2006 5:08 PM

When the Pope gave his now famous speech at Regensberg, he invoked the words of Manuel II Paleologus, Byzantine emperor of the 14th century, he prompted a firestorm of criticism and demands for apology. The message imparted by the Pope and, then, by the emperor so many centuries ago is the universal appeal to reason. That Christianity can co-exist with secularism is due to the long-lasting Greek and Roman traditions of thought and reason. The idea is that truth is grounded in fact and that reason is grounded in truth. Truth cannot be absent of reason, or rather should not be absent of reason.

The Pope, I feel elloquently so, described the Muslim religion of being so given to violence and bloodshed, so devoid of reason, that it cannot be effectively argued as truth. That so many people commit attrocities and, indeed, commit so many sins in order to supposedly do the will of God ought to tell them something, but it does not because they fail to understand the true nature of God and His ideals for humanity.

In fact, the ultimate ideal of Christianity is a practiced and ultimately enacted complete lack of sin. Perfection is the goal of all Christians -- to be without sin is to be God-like. Mohammadism lacks this as its goal and actually calls upon its believers to do any number of sins, supposedly on God's behalf. Killing, maiming, lying, cheating, stealing, cursing, raping, torture, kidnapping for ransom, all of these things are committed by those people who say they represent God's will. It is a religion that prompts people to commit all measures of evil and which compels the enemy to divorce themselves from truth - God's true will, or alternately good will. One only needs to read books by the greatest Christian authors and historians to understand that, in fact, a good number of our secular ideals are founded in the sacred understanding of the proper relations of man to man and of man to God. These traditions are ultimately predicated by the Golden Rule and are best expressed in the thoughts of John Locke, 17th century English philosopher which are a part of our Declaration of Independence and are also found within the Japanese constitution, which we drafted on behalf of the Japanese people. It is an appeal for all mankind to uphold the divine truth -- a social contract -- that defines the proper interaction of man in society and thereby limits it only concerning those things which should be protected. These are life, liberty, and property. This is the basis for our law - protection of these things and enforcement of the social contract which is an expression of the Golden Rule. In the secular, these define proper interaction between men, while the relationship between man and God is a personal one that, itself, must be protected from infringement (thus, the freedom of religion).

Religion becomes a negative force if it emplores its believers to go against the social contract and to infringe upon personal liberties. Islam is such a religion and is therefore contrary to good will and God's will. It is without reason, full of contradictions and full of hypocracy. Thank God that we live in a country that best represents the true will of God - may her laws never be abridged.

Posted by: Eudaemon at December 21, 2006 5:20 PM

Islam is a joke. The Muslims are a whole breed of clowns.

Not sure if you folks already know that ...Osama Bin Laden Takes Credit For Crocodile Hunter's Death... he stated that "We have no compassion for those who exploit Allah's creation for their own gain and glory, and we will continue to strike with righteous barbs into the oppressors' hearts," bin Laden said. The videotape was released to the Australian Animal Planet channel on Sept. 9, five days after Irwin's death. "Praise be to Allah, who permitted the wronged to retaliate against the oppressor in kind!"

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at December 21, 2006 5:21 PM

Poll at www.nbc4.com

Should Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode apologize for his comments about Muslims?

If you support Goode vote No.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 21, 2006 5:25 PM

Greatcometof1577,

As it happens, lying on immigration documents is indeed a federal offense and will very likely get you sent back from wence ye came! See? Your world IS the real world after all!

They actually don't ask your political or religious affiliation when you get off the boat as far as I remember. However, you have to pledge to uphold the US constitution, abide by US laws, make yourself available to be drafted into the armed forces and to swear to protect the United States of America and not work to subvert the interests of the country. And I mean you LITERALLY have to sign a contract that has all that in it. So, you can be a commie or a jihadi but if you violate any of that - it's back from wence you came time!

Frankly, commet, I'm a little disturbed by this little trend of American converts who go from MTV-watching skateboarders to Taliban warriors seemingly overnight. In my little world, I'd close down mosques that create the holy roller jihadis. That's pretty much subverting US interests, isn't it? But my world is so obviously not the real world...

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 5:27 PM

Actually, multiculturalism is a disease that sprouted up in the past few decades. People coming to America in the early part of our country's history and at the turn of the last century were not welcomed in for their diverse ideas and opinions. They were ostracised for their religious beliefs (American WASPs didn't take too kindly to Italian, Irish or Polish Catholics,) and made to feel like they were not as valuable as those who spoke English with no accent. But you know what? They got over it, learned English, dove in head first into our legendary melting pot and built businesses and families and lives to be proud of. They did not carve out a little space for themselves and spend countless hours whining that somebody said something mean to them. They would have starved to death if they'd tried that crap.

No, they assimilated and they were proud to be Americans, because they understood what that meant to the rest of the world. The Msulism coming here now have been told since they were knee high that America is the land of B.S. and that it is ripe for the pickin'. That is the difference. Multiculturalism is what got us into this mess. It will do nothing to help us get out of it.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 21, 2006 5:32 PM

Oh, and who cares if they use a koran to swear in to congress? What difference does it make? The muslim is going to behave either way whether he swears in with a bible or a koran. This is a stupid issue to raize. Why care about something so stupid and insignificant when there are millions of muslims that need to be deported from america immediately before they turn into 20 million-strong. Ridiculous. How stupid. It's INSIGNIFICANT. IT'S NOT ABOUT HOW HE SWEARS IN TO CONGRESS IT'S ABOUT HIM BEING ALLOWED TO SWEAR IN AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!! COMPLAIN ABOUT A MUSLIM ___BEING___ IN CONGRESS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!! FOR FUCK SAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: bff [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 21, 2006 10:19 AM

Good one bff. At least Goode took the first right step. He only needs training to do it right, right?

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at December 21, 2006 5:34 PM

Eudaemon,

Nice post. especially: "Thank God that we live in a country that best represents the true will of God - may her laws never be abridged". Here here.

The Pope also invited Islam to abandon violence as violence is not reasonable. Contrary to popular belief, there may be a way for that to happen - it hinges on the Koranic aya which says "if it contradicts itself, it is not from God". The only question is, if you use that clause, will you come out with the peaceful part of Islam or with Jihad? The two contradict - which will be chosen by the mainstream?
_____________________________________________________

MusHuntCowboy,

I see it's once again time for the Osama and Aymen comedy hour. I actually laughed out loud when I read that.

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 5:37 PM

Citycat

"They actually don't ask your political or religious affiliation when you get off the boat as far as I remember"

PROBLEM NO. 1

"However, you have to pledge to uphold the US constitution, abide by US laws, make yourself available to be drafted into the armed forces and to swear to protect the United States of America and not work to subvert the interests of the country. And I mean you LITERALLY have to sign a contract that has all that in it. So, you can be a commie or a jihadi but if you violate any of that - it's back from wence you came time!"

IF that is true then half the people at CAIR should be getting their tickets ready....

And Ibrahim Hooper would be in jail for treason.

btw according to wikipedia (the place no one trust) it claims his middle name is "Fresh" is this true or just vandalism? I mean was his real name before his great conversion really "Dougie Fresh Hooper"?????

Once again my world...not the reality as of now.

"Frankly, commet, I'm a little disturbed by this little trend of American converts who go from MTV-watching skateboarders to Taliban warriors seemingly overnight. In my little world, I'd close down mosques that create the holy roller jihadis. That's pretty much subverting US interests, isn't it? But my world is so obviously not the real world..."

That would work for me...but I view Islam as the problem thus all mosques in the end need to be closed. The religion is just flawed.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at December 21, 2006 5:40 PM

Oh, and who cares if they use a koran to swear in to congress? What difference does it make? The muslim is going to behave either way whether he swears in with a bible or a koran. This is a stupid issue to raize. Why care about something so stupid and insignificant when there are millions of muslims that need to be deported from america immediately before they turn into 20 million-strong. Ridiculous. How stupid. It's INSIGNIFICANT. IT'S NOT ABOUT HOW HE SWEARS IN TO CONGRESS IT'S ABOUT HIM BEING ALLOWED TO SWEAR IN AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!! COMPLAIN ABOUT A MUSLIM ___BEING___ IN CONGRESS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!! FOR FUCK SAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: bff [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 21, 2006 10:19 AM

Good one bff. At least Goode took the first right step. He only needs training to do it right, right?

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at December 21, 2006 5:44 PM

Greatcommetof1577,

"IF that is true then half the people at CAIR should be getting their tickets ready....
And Ibrahim Hooper would be in jail for treason. "

It's true, my friend. And I oughta know! My John Hancock is all over one of those documents.

I sincerely doubt Hooper's middle name is "Fresh". However, he's a convert to Islam (ANOTHER ONE - see what I'm talking about?) and that may have been his "street" nickname. US citizens born in this country are not subject to deportation. But they can be jailed.

I never understood why he said he wanted the US government to be Islamic in the future, but now that I know that he's a convert, I understand. He's never twisted in the wind under the thumbs of the mullahs (read: lived under an Islamic regime) and doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and how good he has it. Ask an Iranian if they want to live in an Islamic regime - I assure you, the answer is "no".

I vote for sending him to live in Iran for a couple of years. What do you say, commet?

Again, my world, eh?

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 5:58 PM

"He's never twisted in the wind under the thumbs of the mullahs (read: lived under an Islamic regime)"

Muslim extremists (i.e., those who want the world to be authentically Islamic by hook or by crook) consider all the extant Muslim regimes to be not truly authentically Islamic, and they consider all bad features of all the extant Muslim regimes to be due to Western corruption and evil influences, with no blame imputed to Islam per se.

Posted by: remote_control at December 21, 2006 6:04 PM

Remote control,

What you say is true. They are all idiots. That's like what the Berzerkley crowd told me about communism "The Communism in Russia is not REAL communism. REAL communism would be great". Well, real communist utopia is unattainable (and undesireable, in my opinion). And real authentic utopian Islamic is similarly unattainable. What is attainable is what we have in the world today. No thanks.

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 6:10 PM

citycat

Yep you are right now it just says "aka Doug Hooper" so we can chalk that up to vandalism.

"Ask an Iranian if they want to live in an Islamic regime - I assure you, the answer is "no"."

If they are a true muslim they would say yes.

If they are a half-hearted, really Zoroastrian type then of course no they don't want Islamic law.

That is why you ask: "Are you a muslim?".
If yes then ask: "What do you think about sharia?"

etc etc etc....go down the line.

Mr. Spencer already has this all figured out and the questions he would use. He would give a better answer on how to do it etc.

As for Hooper wanting to live in Iran I think the answer he would give is no...

Dawah is his mission on earth!

He is sending invites!

And if we say no...

We all know what is next....right!

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at December 21, 2006 6:26 PM

greatcometof1577:

I assure you betw the 2 types of immigrants - illegal or legal- I'd rather take the Mexicans - for the reason that their intention is to be absorbed into U.S. Like other immigrants before them. And it's not them insisting on Sp. in schools - it's the bloody multiculturalist. If you hear Mexs asking for dual languages, its the fever they're caught.

and because they are the same culture and religion - to begin with.

Allat

Posted by: allat at December 21, 2006 6:48 PM

Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation Sends Quran to Virginia Congressman

Ummah News Links

Posted by: ummahnewslinks at December 21, 2006 6:50 PM

The question of whether Muslims should take their oath on Koran in British courts has gone by the board here.

"OATH-TAKING - SOME PRACTICAL POINTS
The Oaths Act 1978 accords statutory precedence to Christianity, but it is essential that proper
respect is paid to the religious beliefs of all litigants.
The holy book of people from any community who often come to a court should be available: it
is likely that most demand will be for the Gita, the Qur’an and the Sunder Gutka."

There are even legal cases cited in legal guidelines on equality of treatment of minorities:

Lord Lane C.J. in R. v. Kemble [1990] 91 Cr.App.R.178

"In this case a Muslim witness in the criminal trial had previously sworn an oath on the New Testament, although in the Court of Appeal the same witness swore an oath on the Qur’an. He told the Court of Appeal on oath that he considered himself consciencebound by the oath he made at the trial. He added that he would still have considered the oath to be binding on his conscience whether he had taken it upon the Qur’an, the Bible or the Torah. The Court of Appeal accepted his evidence, finding that he considered all those books to be holy books, and thus that he was conscience-bound by his oath. This is despite the fact that in Islamic jurisprudence an oath taken by a Muslim is only binding if taken on the Qur’an.

Since it cannot be assumed that every believer knows all the theological doctrines pertaining to their faith tradition, in the court room the emphasis is upon receiving the live testimony and determining the credibility of the witness on the basis of how much they consider themselves bound by the oath or affirmation. For witnesses who openly profess to be adherents of a particular faith which is scripture-based, the swearing of an oath is a profoundly solemn undertaking. "

Posted by: wallyUK at December 21, 2006 6:52 PM

So many comments and I've read them all in pieces (at work) throughout the day but its difficult to go all the way back up to see who said what so pardon me for not crediting particular posters for their comments.

But citycat - I think the specific issues you raise about the example of the secular Egyptian student and the oppressed Muslim women are good ones.

Re the Egyptian student, I agree with the poster who said No because its the second generation who "get Islam" that we need to worry about. That's why I don't see how this questionnaire idea could work. The first generation could be quite honest in their answers but when their kids "get Islam" how could they possibly be deported on the basis of what their parents said on the questionnaire if their parents were truthful? This is what we're seeing all over Europe. Moreover, another poster stated that during WWII we did not accept German and Japanese immigrants. No doubt this is part of the reason why Muslims object so strenuously to the notion that Islam has anything to do with the "War on Terror" because if we noted honestly that we are indeed in a DEFENSIVE war against Islam, we would have grounds to stop Muslim immigration, just as we stopped Japanese and German immigration. For how long would we need to do this? Well, for as long as Islam is at war with the west (and we are defending ourselves). That could be a very long time indeed. Maybe if Muslims were confined to their hellholes they would force an enlightenment in Islam which would end the war. (Note - not a reformation. Wrong model. The Christian reformation returned Christians to the original texts. That's the last thing we need in Islam).

Does that mean that we should accept no male Muslims whatsoever, such as the hypothetical Egyptian student you refer to? I wouldn't go that far. I would say we should accept Muslims who have concretely demonstrated through their actions - maybe their writings or political activities in Muslim lands that they are active reformers of Islam. Their own works should demonstrate that they endorse a separation of church and state or that they believe in equal rights for women. There are several people who come to mind here (the German Bassam Tibi, for example, or the Afghan Muslim male who lambasted Islam for its misogyny). I have no objection to giving them safe haven here in the US so that they can continue their important work towards reforming Islam and be free from the threat of death for apostasy while doing so.

But prior to 1965 we were often quite selective in our immigrants, demanding that they actually have something to offer the country.

As to the women issue, that's a harder one. Certainly, there's no shortage of Muslim women who are militantly Muslim and have donned in-your-face Islamic garb in the past several years. Maybe they are under the influence of their husbands to some extent and if there were fewer Muslim men here they wouldn't be doing that. But in general the problems with Islam and Islamic societies can't be solved by simply letting all the women who can, come here. Although if alot of the women fled and left large numbers of males scratching their heads, maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing. Also, if there were way too few Muslim men here for them to hook up with they would obviously have to marry infidels and wind up just sort of absorbed into the general population. That's a hard one to answer, actually. I'm open to arguments either way.

As to native Americans who convert to Islam, once the larger problem of Muslim immigration was taken care of, these would mostly remain fringe cases and little to worry about (just as they've always been). It's when you have large numbers of Muslims intimidating and pressuring infidels that you get the large numbers of conversions, merely in self-defense.

And of course with regard to genuine apostates, open the door. And that's easy to track. One visit to a mosque and you're out. (Something which doesn't hold for those whom merely profess to be moderates. They would still be going to the mosque. And as you said, how can we possibly know what is going on inside their heads?)

Posted by: Caroline at December 21, 2006 7:05 PM

We can start by seeing what's going on inside their mosques. My brother is an armor battalion commander there and knows full well ALL of themosues in iraq double as armories...not some, not most, BUT EVERY DAMNED ONE ON THEM.

THAT is why we're not allowed to inspect them, that "holy place" & "purity" crap is BS and the islamofascists know it, and the ONLY reason we're not allowed to inspect them...even after they've fired on us from there, even when they call for jihad from their minaret!
Thanks to political correctness...

(Universal accepted rules of engagement before say that, holy or not, if it's used for any act of war, and calling for jihad, using it as armory, etc DO qualify...IT'S A LEGIT TARGET, PERIOD...and it gets promptly blown to kingdom come)

Gabrielle is right...PC is killing us...it's not "the war" that's unjust. It's our troops being told to fight another POLICE ACTION with both hands tied behind their backs.Solution: NOT more troops...more common sense,and the problem's solved)

Posted by: jcom972 at December 21, 2006 7:39 PM

There is no such thing as Islamophobia. If this is a meaningless term, then nothing can be Islamophobic. A phobia is defined as an irrational fear. To fear Islam is not irrational for all the reasons elicited on this site.

I am proud to be a 21st century Crusader!

Posted by: TBranin at December 21, 2006 7:41 PM

Point of fact re diversity immigration:

Several northeastern Democratic Senators pushed that legislation back in the '80's because they noticed, to their dismay, that the working-class Irish and Italian ghettoes on which their predecessors had ridden to glory were no more, and being replaced by immigrants who tended to be more entrepreneurial (as well as non-European) and a little more inclined to vote for the Stupid Party (Stupid because it decided to give in to willy-nilly nativism rather than explain itself a little more carefully) than the older immigration. Back when I worked for the State Department, consular officers generally disparaged the "diversity" (it really did indeed mean non-Hispanic and non-Asian) immigrant visas as "the Irish sweepstakes".

Frankly, if Ted Kennedy really wants to see the restoration of the Old Boston of his bootlegger dad's day, he ought to urge the native Irish and Italians to start breeding again.

(the slightly swarthy)
Kepha

Posted by: Kepha at December 21, 2006 7:54 PM

Just saw Wolf Blitzer interview Keith Ellison about this whole controversy. Lots of platitudes from Ellison, including opposition to terrorism but not one question from Blitzer along the lines of - how do you feel about Sharia/Islamic law?

Posted by: Caroline at December 21, 2006 7:55 PM

Congressman Goode deserves our praise and thanks for having the intellectual honesty and backbone to stand up and speak the truth.

Why aren't more of our leaders in Congress joining him and endorsing his stance? Since our Congress seems to be letting Rep. Goode take on CAIR alone, it appears that many who desire to lead lack the integrity and personal fortitude that it takes to defend a legitimate, yet politically unpopular position. These weaklings are satisfied to go along with the status quo to remain popular; let the terrorists immigrate here, dilute our political power and exploit and corrupt our laws and freedoms.

I can say unequivocably, that I would vote a man of courage like Rep. Goode into the White House over the rest of the weaklings cowering in the wings waiting to seize power. And, whether you agree with President Bush's unpopular war or not, you know in your heart that Islam means to conquer the West and that we will not be spared a bloody confrontation if we don't defuse radical Islam now before it's too late.

Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at December 21, 2006 8:17 PM

Congressman Goode, On this Christmas Eve weekend I wish you all good things for you and yours. I hope you and your staff read here often. When the holiday is past and your email is up and running I'm sure you will have a flood of support for your efforts. There are many people of great courage standing up now. We should all support them. Congressman Goode and many more put themselves at risk to further freedom and I pray for them daily.

Posted by: fox1 at December 21, 2006 8:43 PM

Caroline, Was Wolf Blitzer smiling away? I'll bet he was.

Posted by: fox1 at December 21, 2006 8:49 PM

Virgil Goode is my representative. I live minutes from Rocky Mount, Virginia.

I have, for the last four months, written him several letters begging him to learn the ugly truth about Islam, and visited his offices to speak personally with his staff. I sent Robert Spencer's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" and "The Truth About Muhammed" to his office. One of his staff had begun reading the books the last time I walked into his office, which was a week or two before Thanksgiving. I also recommended that the staff member buy and watch the new DVD "Islam:What the West Needs to Know", and show it to Goode and everyone else on the staff.

I took every opportunity I could to speak with the staff members present about Islam and to inform them of ALL the shocking aspects of Islam. All in all I probably spent no more than 45 minutes of my time talking to his staff. A paltry amount considering the consequences of NOT doing so.

They were far more receptive than I expected, and some of the things I told them, some of those ugly FACTS about Islam, settled into their minds before they even cracked a book. One of the staff members told me that. He told me that after I visited him he began questioning the news media and things he read on the internet. He said he thought about what I had told him when he and Virgil were contemplating helping a woman obtain a visa for her "husband" from Morrocco. They decided against it....no doubt because Virgil understands the immigration crisis we are in, but also because he and his staff now have questions and facts about Islam that just won't go away.

Once you know, you can't stop knowing....

How much did I influence Virgil Goode to make such a courgeous statement? I don't know. I imagine at least a little......maybe a lot.

What I DO know is that EVERYONE who wants to get in this fight against Islam should jump in it RIGHT AWAY....IMMEDIATELY.......and the first thing you can do is write ALL your representatives and let them know your thoughts about what Islam truly is, and implore them to learn more about Islam. Send them Robert's book and the DVD "Islam:What the West Needs to Know."

Write letters, buy books for your representatives, your friends, your neighbors. Start conversations about it with anyone and just throw out a few "Did you know"s. Don't worry about winning any big arguement, don't worry about seeming nervous or confident, just plant the seeds, plant the facts, plant the questions..... and you never know what will happen.

I'm damn proud to have Virgil representing me. And I can't tell you how great it feels to think that I may have played a big part helping Virgil strike a blow against this tremendous scourge, this vile ideology called Islam.

Do what you can. Believe and know that it will make a difference.

vashine

"Be bold, and mighty powers will come to your aid."

-- Basil King

Posted by: vashine at December 21, 2006 8:59 PM

fox1: "Caroline, Was Wolf Blitzer smiling away? I'll bet he was."

Wolf Blitzer smile?? Does Blitzer even have teeth cause I don't recall EVER seeing him smile! No, but what was weird was that towards the end it seemed like he was trying to put words in Ellison's mouth, in order to help his defense which struck me as odd because I thought Blitzer was supposed to be a big defender of Israel. I must be missing something here. (I must admit, Blitzer has a good poker face. I don't watch him all that much but in passing I find it difficult to discern where he's coming from, which I think is the proper stance for a serious journalist to take).

Posted by: Caroline at December 21, 2006 9:04 PM

Thank you Vashine for telling us this. History is made by one person at a time, or two or three at a time. One person can make a difference.

One witness to the truth can change the world, if they have the courage to speak up, and the ability to repeat it endlessly even though nothing seems to happen, no one thanks you, and you never see anything come of it.

Thank you Vashine.

Thank you Virgil Goode.

Thank you Hugh, Robert and fellow posters.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 21, 2006 9:06 PM

citycat,

I feel you only half understood my comments. I do apologize, as I can tell that you are reasonable and it is with this in mind that I attempt to expound upon my prior comments.

Our forefathers attempted at some point to define the bounds of human understanding and attempted to affectively question the very foundations for the societal construct. During the enlightenment, philsoophers sought to, through reason, provide for a more thorough understanding of not only the physical universe, but also the societal universe. Why should there be certain authorities that are beyond question, when reason is used to question. Reason is necessarily founded on human experiences - both religious and otherwise. If there is something in religion that is contrary to human undertanding, then it is necessarily false.

Somewhere along the line, and I'm sure that the centuries of persecution, murder, mahem, plague, tumult, and war had something to do with it, Europeans argued effectively that many institutions that had been formed to do good for society was actually doing bad. The fruits of a diseased tree are almost certainly diseased as well. Therefore how can society better construct its institutions to better provide the most peaceful and beneficial system for its people.

The ultimate good is for individuals to experience freedom, but with an understanding of their responsibilities to ensure their actions provide for the general welfare. Freedom does not mean the ability to do whatever one wishes, and the best way to guage the efficacy of one's actions is to determine how much good results from them. Certain individual rights are in affect to protect the individual from popular will, but there can be no doubt that the ultimate goal is for a peaceful and productive society. Even Communism probably had this as its ultimate goal--though it dismissed a great deal of human nature and too much infringed upon individualism. The best system is the one that necessarily balances the individual with societal demands--something that Europe is still struggling with today. Multiculturalism is very much a manifestation of this struggle.

In fact, the enlightenment philosophers' ideas are just as much applicable today as they were then. And today Europe is fighting the same authoritarian dogmas that at one time pervaded Christianity and which even today persist in Islam -- and there is virtually no end in sight for the lack of reason and idiocy that seems so prevalent in Muslim society. Europe has fooled itself into thinking that they should be accepting of people who think differently from them, even if those who think differently are diametrically opposed to the very foundations of European society. What the good congressman was attempting to convey was his belief that we should be careful to ensure the trend that we see in Europe is not carried out in our own society. It is a well-founded fear that is growing day by day - for barely a day goes by that some Muslim group does not commit some attrocity in the name of Allah.

And rest assured, if Muslims had it their way -- our laws would be abridged. When I emplore God to ensure that our great country remains unchanged in its institutions and laws, it is with the same fear that the congressman feels...may God continue to protect us from those who would harm us and may He also continue to bless us with peace and prosperity.

Posted by: Eudaemon at December 21, 2006 9:15 PM

Wow Vashine! That is awesome and inspiring! The fact is that Muslims are absolutely relentless in their conviction that they can affect the course of things in our countries, using every sort of tactic, including relentless letter writing campaigns, stopping by to get to know their representatives etc. Just what you describe. That's how they parlay such a tiny minority into a powerful force. If our much larger force put in just a fraction of the effort they do, well, that would pretty much be the end of Islam. The west hasn't even begun to fight this on an ideological level for one. At this point its all hush-hush as the word quietly spreads, with everyne trying very hard to avoid causing offense. Imagine what would happen if loud, unabashed criticism of Islam and how it departs from our own values, became widespread and mainstream and literally millions of people just said NO! Imagine if millions of infidels were simply as bold and unapologetic as Muslims!

Imagine!

Posted by: Caroline at December 21, 2006 9:20 PM

Caroline, I almost never watch Wolf, but when I do I can't always get a read on his being. I don't trust him. Most of our spooned out news can't be trusted. If Ellison were being interviewed by Robert Spencer or Horowitz or Charles Johnson I could take it as gospel, but not Wolf and Co.

Posted by: fox1 at December 21, 2006 9:31 PM

"just said NO"

Just say no to Iran having Nukes.

Just say no to Pakistan keeping nukes.

Just say no to Pakistan putting nukes on missiles on subs off our shores.

Just say no to A Q Khan's getting their Ph.D.'s in Belgium and taking the secrets of nukes back.

Just say no to not publishing the 28 pages of the Congressional report on Saudi Arabia's links to financing al Qaeda and 9-11.

Just say no to keeping Pakistan's role in terrorirsm hidden.

Just say no to PC.

Just say no to Muslim immigration.

Just say no to Islam.

Just say yes to truth.

Thank you Caroline for this phrase and thought.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 21, 2006 9:33 PM

Vashine,

About 2 A.M. last night I read about this at the CAIR website.

So I drafted a letter of support to Congressman Goode.

If you wish to contact me, I'll send a copy to you.

robertcorrow@sbcglobal.net

Posted by: PRCS at December 21, 2006 9:41 PM

Old Atlantic - a bumper sticker I would like to put on my car:

Just say NO to dhimmitude!

Posted by: Caroline at December 21, 2006 9:52 PM

Good bumper sticker Caroline. That's what Virgi Goode or Bay Buchanan should say next time they get accosted by the MSM apology police.

Its interesting that the Saudi Religious Police, Paul Begala, and the MSM police all want Virgil Goode and Bay Buchanan to say the same thing.

I wonder if Virgil Goode's two names have something to do with his deciding to stand up for truth and Americans.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 21, 2006 10:21 PM

Besides sending a note to Congressman Goode, why doesn't everyone write their own Congressman and ask them to support the Goode? (Official congressional web sites will only take an e-mail from someone living in that congressional district.)

Posted by: RecycledCG at December 21, 2006 10:27 PM

Ok, once more, the hubbub has inspired me to a creative outlet in a graphic medium:

http://www.foehammer.net/2006/12/new-war-poster-this-is-enemy.html

I hope you like it: "A picture is worth 1,000 words", so they say, especially when it's showing the desecration of the most important words any of us have probably ever read.

Feel free to share the image as you see fit.

Posted by: Foehammer at December 21, 2006 10:29 PM

Finally, it's beginning to feel alot like Christmas.

Posted by: awake at December 21, 2006 10:53 PM

Foehammer, great job.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 21, 2006 11:04 PM

There is a little issue here that I had intended to politely skirt but since Morgaane Sinclair let the cat loudly out of the bag and after just going over to Auster's site and reading his lengthy comments, it is a bit difficult to avoid. Like a poster (Quantum Infidel I believe) stated above, I very much admire both writers. I find this all quite unfortunate. I do very much admire Auster's consistent and uncompromising anti-Muslim immigration stance (hell, I nominated the guy for anti-dhimmi of the year because we couldn't nominate JW staff) but his criticism of Spencer bothers me partly for the reason that in criticizing Spencer he is basically biting the hand that feeds him every day. Or did I miss where Auster was running a website that was the premiere place on the web to learn daily about the facts of Islam and to become conversant in Islamic ideology as it relates to the daily news about Islamic jihad? What books has Auster written about Islam that have made the threat clear to so many ordinary people in such a manner as to support, in the end, the harsh conclusions that Auster himself draws? If Spencer weren't running this site and writing his books and if Hugh weren't regularly writing and commenting here and sharing his knowledge, precisely why would anyone read Auster and come to share his conclusions about Islam? I haven't seen any independent scholarship about Islam on Auster's part. He comes to the conclusions (and they are good and solid conclusions that he indeed boldly states) that he does about Islam because this site forces the inevitability of the conclusions that Auster's readers draw (and Spencer accomplishes that in a very subtle way which Auster fails to give him credit for) and which Auster merely boldly states. But Hugh Fitzgerald has boldly stated all those same conclusions here many times and I don't get the impression that Hugh is getting his ideas from Auster (although I once joked that I had never seen Auster and Hugh in the same room together and so couldn't verify that they weren't the same person). Auster keeps pursuing and nitpicking on the minor issues of what is or isn't fair criticism, citing this or that email and showing a consistent pattern of making things very personal when others generally don't display the same consistent pattern. But it's the larger picture that one needs to look at in terms of fighting the global jihad and in that, it seems to me that he is losing sight of the forest for the trees. The focus on the trees brings a petty quality to his posts on this issue when he could instead, it seems, focus his attention more generously on the forest.

Posted by: Caroline at December 21, 2006 11:08 PM

To Congressman Keith "Uncle Abid" Ellison: Welcome to Washington!

Posted by: Kepha at December 21, 2006 11:15 PM

Old Atlantic: "I wonder if Virgil Goode's two names have something to do with his deciding to stand up for truth and Americans."

I hadn't really thought about it before you drew attention to it but it does sound rather like an old-fashioned Puritan name.

Posted by: Caroline at December 21, 2006 11:22 PM

Didn't Virgil lead Dante out of the Inferno?

Posted by: Foehammer at December 21, 2006 11:51 PM

Caroline, good points on Jihad Watch's contribution to the education of Lawrence Auster. Robert Spencer runs Jihad Watch on the self-discovery method. He tries to hold back on forcing conclusions on us, and just lets us debate in the seminar room.

The result is we come to the conclusions that Hugh, Auster, Vashine, Virgil Goode, etc. come to.

As you and Foehammer point out, Virgil Goode is the Puritan soul to lead us out of the Inferno after a dose of Common Sense at Jihad Watch.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 22, 2006 12:22 AM

Robert; Hadn’t hear of your detractor before now but just finished reading a few of his articles, including his response to your introduction. My impression is that our collective goal should be to pull the team together for the big win. The Congressman’s stance earlier today shows that common sense, aided and abetted by brave people like yourself, is moving the West forward towards awareness, and eventually action. I like ice cream, regardless of the flavor.

I’ve gained great respect for your work and the manner in which you present your arguments. Consider this a comment more than a criticism, but I think that you give your critics too much airtime. When one becomes successful in his endeavors, he becomes a target. Its natural and you should recognize it for what it is- a testament to your achievements.

Very Respectfully;

Posted by: limes at December 22, 2006 1:21 AM

I was very impressed with your defense of Rep. Virgil Goode's letter denouncing the Islamunistofascistification of America. I particularly enjoyed the part where you wrote that Muslim politicians like Keith Ellison cannot be trusted because a commentary on the Quran allows Muslims to lie to unbelievers.

Are you considering writing something similar about LDS politicians like Mitt Romney and Gordon Smith? Their holy book, The Book of Mormon--the same book that Sen. Smith held when he was sworn into the Senate--tells Mormons that thievery and murder are righteous acts when committed in the name of the Lord.

Specifically, I'm referring to 1 Nephi 4, the story of how Nephi acquires the Brass Plates of Laban before leaving Jerusalem for Cancún. 1 Nephi 4:13 is the key verse:

4:7 Nevertheless I went forth, and as I came near unto the house of Laban I beheld a man, and he had fallen to the earth before me, for he was drunken with wine.

4:8 And when I came to him I found that it was Laban.

4:9 And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel.

4:10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

4:11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.

4:12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

4:13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

4:14 And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.

4:15 Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law.

4:16 And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass.

4:17 And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause -- that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.

4:18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.

4:19 And after I had smitten off his head with his own sword, I took the garments of Laban and put them upon mine own body; yea, even every whit; and I did gird on his armor about my loins.

4:20 And after I had done this, I went forth unto the treasury of Laban. And as I went forth towards the treasury of Laban, behold, I saw the servant of Laban who had the keys of the treasury. And I commanded him in the voice of Laban, that he should go with me into the treasury.

4:21 And he supposed me to be his master, Laban, for he beheld the garments and also the sword girded about my loins.

4:22 And he spake unto me concerning the elders of the Jews, he knowing that his master, Laban, had been out by night among them.

4:23 And I spake unto him as if it had been Laban.

4:24 And I also spake unto him that I should carry the engravings, which were upon the plates of brass, to my elder brethren, who were without the walls.

4:25 And I also bade him that he should follow me.

Now that sounds a lot worse than telling a lie to me, but then again, Mormons tend to be more "white and delightsome" than Islamunistofascists, so I suppose it balances out.

Posted by: Gen. JC Christian, patriot at December 22, 2006 1:35 AM

General; I went on a religious text-reading binge in 2002, which included the Book of Mormon. The part where the unenlightened tribe was turned into Indians kind of creeped me out too. I’ve worked with a lot of the faithful and they are pretty good people though.

There’s a Mormon joke:

Q: Why do you take Mormons fishing in a group?
A: Because if you just take one, he’ll drink all your beer.

And the corollary:

Q: Why don’t you take Muslims fishing in a group?
A: Because, if you do, they will demand that you either convert, give them all of your fish, or die.

Go Romney.

Posted by: limes at December 22, 2006 1:54 AM

Actually, multiculturalism is a disease that sprouted up in the past few decades.

Multiculturalism was invented in academe to act as a vehicle for globalization.

To a good extent, the newfound drive for multiculturalism (which requires self-loathing to work) was impelled by the drive to readjust our collective attitude towards Afro-Americans.

But, what impelled the want for globalism? I ain't gonne say the word. Those hairy Moslems piss me off enough and, it being Christmas, I ain't say the word Marxist and then get myself all... whoops.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 22, 2006 5:26 AM

the attacks have begun on Virgil Goode. not only by cair and other muslims terrorist supporting organizations in america ,but the dhimmicrat politicians have begun attacking Virgil Goode! One dhimmicrat whose name evades me at the moment stated on national tv news, Mr Goode needs to learn about "true" islam!
I nearly choked on my morning coffee!

Posted by: thndrbang1 at December 22, 2006 6:44 AM

I was watching a discussion on tv last night and the participants were debating Congressmans Goodes comments about Islam. When the subject was raised that CAIR has terrorist roots the guest speakers tried very hard to say "it ain't so"; I wish the following article was in the hands of the one individual who tried to expain CAIR's relationship to HAMAS. He was quickly drowned out by the typical leftist tactic of not allowing you to speak. This particular speaker also tried to point out Mr Ellisons financial backing by CAIR and to point out his years of training under Louie "the Lip" Farrahakhan' Nation of Islam. I suspect he was trying to say Mr Ellisons background, even though he is American born, clearly shows he is Muslim and favors Islam over the government of the United States of which he is now a member.
I felt the American public did not get a valid or clear understanding of the evils of CAIR.

I submit the following article to give everyone a little information about CAIR:

FROM JOSEPH FARAH:

The Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR, is leading a witchhunt against the nomination of a very good man, Daniel Pipes, to the board of the U.S. Institute for Peace.

CAIR is not what it seems – not what it pretends to be.

It is not a group fighting for equal rights for Muslim-Americans. It is not a group trying to protect the interests of Muslims in America. It is not a group promoting human rights for anyone.

It is a group whose real mission is changing the very character of America – remaking it in the image of the Islamo-fascists who fund them from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

You will never hear a nice word about America from the Council on American-Islamic Relations. It's a hate group. It spends all or most of its time and resources denigrating America, condemning it as a pariah state that exploits and oppresses Muslims.

According to CAIR, America is a terrible place for Muslims. At the same time, CAIR boasts Islam is the fastest-growing religion in America. It makes you wonder: If conditions for Muslims are so bad in America, why is Islam so popular? Why are Muslims flocking from all parts of the world to the United States – this hideous concentration camp for Muslims?

I'll tell you why. Many Muslims have come here and continue to come here to escape the Islamo-fascism of places like Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia – places about which CAIR never has a bad word to say.

CAIR was late to the party in condemning Osama bin Laden for the Sept. 11 terror attacks. It finally got around to it three months after the fact. Don't expect to hear any CAIR officials condemn suicide bombings by the terrorists in Hamas. The founder of this organization is on record in support of the goals and tactics of Hamas.

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he wants the United States to become a Muslim country.

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," Hooper told the Star Tribune. "But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

Founded in 1994, CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association of Palestine, identified as a "front group" for the terrorist group Hamas, according to Steve Pomerantz, former chief of the FBI's counterterrorism section.

Another ex-FBI counterterrorism chief, Oliver "Buck" Revell, has called the Islamic Association For Palestine – Hooper's former employer – "a front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants."

CAIR advisory board member Siraj Wahhaj was named by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White on Feb. 2, 1995, as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators in the attempt to blow up New York City monuments," including the World Trade Center in 1993.

How seriously can we take the charges of a group that called the conviction of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers "a travesty of justice"? How seriously can we take a group that called the conviction of Omar Abdel Rahman, who conspired to blow up New York City landmarks, a "hate crime"? How seriously should we take a group about which Steven Pomerantz, former FBI chief of counter-terrorism, says: "CAIR, its leaders and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups"?

Very seriously.

But just don't assume the group has any credibility.

The real goal of this group was made clear by its chairman, Omar M. Ahmad, who told a rally of California Muslims in 1998: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

This is the real CAIR. Amazingly, some American people and institutions have fallen for CAIR's ad hominem attacks on Daniel Pipes, a scholar among scholars. No less an establishment enterprise than the Washington Post editorialized last week against Daniel Pipes' nomination. Despite its extremist history, CAIR is making inroads in the media.

It would be tragic if the Senate failed to confirm Pipes because of the rantings and ravings of an extremist group like CAIR.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 22, 2006 6:46 AM

i suspect the dhimmicrats are just happy to have Virgil Goode to attack and talk about to keep from having to speak about their boy sandy berger and his theft and destruction of classifed documents and the little kiss on the cheek he got as punishment for his crime!

Posted by: thndrbang1 at December 22, 2006 6:52 AM

Virgil Goode is being invited to appear on every national news media outlet in america! They want him to defend his stance on muslims in america and being voted into positions of government!
We need to flood Mr Goodes E-mail with talking points to help him make americans aware of exactly what the problem is!

Posted by: thndrbang1 at December 22, 2006 6:55 AM

Mr spencer and Mr fitzgerald here and now is your chance to do americans and this wonderful country a great service!
You both should contact Mr Goode and help him explain to america what the dangers are of electing muslims to positions of power in americas government!
But Mr Goode needs the help and advice of experts on the satanic cult of islam !

with your expertise on islam, the muslim terrorist organizations can call on cair and others to debate Mr Goode on national tv!
You know they will, not in a debate but they will use their old talking points and cite abrogated verses from the qu'ran to try to show americans islam is a peaceful religion!

Posted by: thndrbang1 at December 22, 2006 7:02 AM

this is why muslims are dominating the propaganda outlets in america, when anything happens that concerns the muslims cair and other terrorist muslim supporting organizations run to their defense! They are quick to make any offense committed by the muslim appear as the muslim was innocent and was only arrested or charged because he is a muslim!
We better start doing the same!
Virgil Goode is coming under attack by the dhimmicrats and islamic terrorist supporting organizations!
We need someone like Mr spencer and Mr Fitzgerald to step up and offer their services to Mr Goode!

Posted by: thndrbang1 at December 22, 2006 7:15 AM

Caroline, limes et al.:

Distortions of the philosophies of positions of honest people need to be discussed; unless they are refuted they are taken as truth. Worse, they are disseminated all over the internet. They appear in Arabic prefaced by: "And even Lawrence Auster (or fill in the blank) says that Spencer (or fill in the blank) is dishonorable (or fill in the blank).

Letting a lie, or a whole series of them, pass without comment is the silence that gives consent.

So if I've acted impolitely, Caroline, I do not apologize. And if I've let the cat out of the bag loudly, as you say, my question would be why the rest of you have not.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at December 22, 2006 7:20 AM

Let all these developments continue. I believe that at some point in the future, more people who have been care less over the contents of the koran will want to actually look into the book that Ellison wants to take oath upon and ask some questions concerning its corellation with the American constitution.
Some congressmen and Lawyers will want to interprete the koran before it can be accepted as a responsible book for oath taking.
The different between christianity and Islam is that anytime a christian deviates and does bad things, he is taken back to the Bible to correct him, but any time you take a moslem back to the tings written in their scriptures, you will see that their scriptures support violence.
Time will tell.
The question will one day be: Is the Koran a credible book enough for one to take an oath of office in the United States? Can someone who pledges allegiance to the Koran equally pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States?
time will tell. There is hope for Truth.

Posted by: Nwachinemere at December 22, 2006 7:45 AM

Morgaan - actually I was very impressed by your thoughtful defense of Spencer. I shouldn't have used the term "loudly" and I didn't mean to imply that you were impolite. The way Spencer avoided naming names in the original post made me hesitant to address the issue openly until you did so, that's all. But of course to anyone who has been following this, it was obvious to whom he was referring anyway.

Posted by: Caroline at December 22, 2006 8:03 AM

Eudaemon,

Thanks for the clarification, but I agreed with you because I understood your post the first time around. You write it beautifully, by the way. There are, of course, people who call themselves Muslims (whom you would probably NOT call Muslims) who embrace age of enlightenment thinking and, thus, reject large parts of their religious texts - either by reinterpreting it or by simply ignoring it. In fact, 1940's and 50's Egypt was a pretty good example of that.

This is NOT the case for Wahhabists. Unfortunately, the Saudis have tons of oil money with which to fund Wahhabi madrassas and mosques and propogate a very literal reading (conflicted as it is) of the Koran - abrogating that which gets in the way of violence. If they had their way, as you point out, we would be denied every personal freedom and our laws would be abridged. Unfortunately, they have the means to set the course for mainstream Islam.

To all those who think communism is "merely" a political ideology:

YOU ARE WRONG! It replaced religion it WAS religion. Six year olds were brainwashed from their first day in school, handed toy rifles and taught to lay down their lives in order to spread communism throughout the world. You were taught that the state is supreme, higher than you, the collective is everything and you are nothing but an interchangeable cog. All non-communists were pigs who didn't deserve to live. The entire population was dehumanized. Neighbour turned on Neighbour, brother turned on brother. Nobody got to see the outside world and the outside world was not allowed in. My childhood resembles a Hezbollah upbringing - with communism as my God and the spread of it (by hook or by crook) as my ultimate duty. It was EXACTLY like same - disturbingly so.

When we got to the US, we tried to tell the Jimmy Carter appeasement monkeys all this but they wouldn't listen and didn't believe us. Just as they aren't listening and don't believe now.

Posted by: citycat at December 22, 2006 8:51 AM

Caroline,

"But prior to 1965 we were often quite selective in our immigrants, demanding that they actually have something to offer the country."

Yes, I really don't understand why that has changed. In fact, immigration today seems to focus on unskilled, uneducated people who are more likely to become burdens. At the same time, highly educated people (the ones who are least likely to risk it all by becoming illegals) are not granted visas and greencards.

As far as the converters - the problem is that Ibrahim Hooper is a convert. And, you know know what they say about the zeal of a convert....
Not to mention a lot of the converts in America are black. Unfortunately, Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons have taught the wider black population to whine and moan about everything. Thus, CAIR, led as it is by a convert from this stratta of American society is as whiney replica of Al Sharpton's followers. Most immigrants are not accustomed to whining in their home countries (where they are likely to get arrested for such behaviour) but learn quickly. CAIR actually ACTIVELY foments discontent among the various Muslim communities. CAIR is not designed to enhance relations between Muslims and non-Muslims - it is designed solely to CREATE the discontent about which they then complain and push their own international agenda. It's a disgusting, subversive organization which exists onty because of the outrages level of PC in this country.

Posted by: citycat at December 22, 2006 9:04 AM

Eudaemon,

I forgot to mention that I actually had the great fortune to receive part of my education in the University which Thomas Jefferson founded. Choosing it had a lot to do with the following belief which I hold: The founding fathers founded as superior way of life. Thus, American culture (and I'm not talking about MTV pop culture), rooted in the constitution, is superior in every way to every other system in existence today and those that came before it. This way of life, this system, this culture must be protected

Posted by: citycat at December 22, 2006 9:12 AM

citycat,

I agree with you wholeheartedly concerning the numerous aspects of Communism that cause it to be very much like any other form of authoritarianism, religious or otherwise. Revolution is a silly thing, anyway - especially if the result is, as it has nearly always been, pejorative.

One only has to read the wonderful account of Solzhenitsyn in his books - The Gulag Archipelago. The threat that individuals who posses any form of power, be it wealth or intelligence or position, is simply too much for authoritarian rule to ignore and will almost necessarily result in an attempt to protect its, the state's, authority at all costs. There are also numerous accounts of China during the Great Leap Forward that immediately call to mind the sort of blunders that can easily occur when too much power and influence is granted to those at the very top.

Islam, due to it reinforcing religious rule, necessarily is a version of authoritarianism. One simply cannot question the basis for its authority if it is supposedly granted by Allah. Questioning the state is the same as questioning Allah in this instance. It, according to most Muslims, takes power from Allah and places it in the hands of the common man, who is too given to corruption and nefariousness to choose right according to the will of Allah. That one can simply point to their own rulers' corruption, does not discount the goal of those who are in power being in line with the will of Allah. This is why Muslims either do not believe in Democracy, or they use it to reinforce Theocratic Authoritarianism according to their religious viewpoints, most of which are formed not by individuals but by groups who are under the influence of a religious authority figure themselves.

Those who do believe in the ideals of the enlightenment, as you say, either ignore or reinterpret whole sections of their religious texts. There is no concensus that will be popularized in Islamic culture that is contrary to the original texts, because most Muslims agree that they are the words of Allah. Any attempt to augment or change his words would be heretical, according to the vast number of Muslims.

Posted by: Eudaemon at December 22, 2006 9:18 AM

Begala Bay Buchanan CNN Transcript

PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: You know, well, first, just call a spade a spade. Virgil Goode is a bigot and he’s an idiot. Let’s hope he clears that up when he has his press conference, because lots of people misspeak.

The real hate is Begala towards Virgil Goode for telling the truth. Begala was part of the Clinton administration that deliberately attacked Pat Buchanan for saying in 1992 (and in 1996) to restrict immigration as a re-election ploy. This was before and after the WTC 1993 attacks.

The Clinton team cynically chose to risk American lives in order to attack Pat to get re-elected. Begala was part of that political team with Carville in 1992 that made this choice. On 9-11, that risk taking resulted in almost 3000 people being killed.

Begala can't call the 9-11 Families bigots, he knows that. But he can call Virgil Goode a bigot. Virgil Goode is a spokesperson for the 9-11 Families who do think immigration should have been restricted after 9-11 and really WTC 1993.

Begala was in the Clinton administration during the WTC Feb 26, 1993 attack. He knew that day that Pat Buchanan had been right in his 1992 speech to call for immigration restriction and that Begala had endangered the country by calling Buchanan a bigot. Rather than apologize then and stop immigration, Begala kept silent.

Begala's real hate is for his victims, the 9-11 Families, and those who died. Begala knows he can't vent his real hate on the dead or their widows and orphans, but he can vent his hate on those who champion the cause of the 9-11 Families, Virgil Goode.

Begala deliberately did this to Pat Buchanan's sister, Bay Buchanan so that she couldn't tell the above truth, which is true on Begala.

==Now they question Bay Buchanan

BLITZER: Let me read once again for you, Bay, and for our viewers precisely what is in this letter that he wrote: “If American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.”

(You have to see the video to see how she was put on the spot throughout this question and the subsequent discussion.)

BAY BUCHANAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I can understand what he is trying to say. I think that his choice of words were outrageous. I think it’s a clear mistake that he made, to suggest that we should be worried that Keith Ellison is a — happens to be a Muslim, and is elected now to the Congress, wants to use a Koran.

I don’t see any problem with any of the above, none whatsoever. I think what he — what he is trying to say, which I think is a legitimate point, is that, as a nation, we should get control of our immigration laws, and make certain we have a national debate as to what is our best interests as to who is coming and who we are inviting into this country.

And that is a legitimate national debate, not what we’re doing today. But I think this is something not quite that. And I think this is a mistake.

== end of Bay Buchanan quote
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/21/sitroom.01.html

Begala and Blitzer both knew this history. They both were there in 1992 when the Democrats and the MSM attacked Pat Buchanan after Buchanan's key note speech at the RNC convention.

==
After Virgil Goode they go on to Sandy Berger, a Clinton administration member who took documents out of the National Archive and tried to
destroy them. He hid some under a trailer near the National Archives on a break, and then came back and retrieved them later. This was during
his testimony to the 9-11 Commission.

Begala pre-emptively attacked Bay Buchanan before the Berger segment so that she couldn't hold Begala and the Clinton team responsible for letting in the 19 hijackers as immigrants between Pat Buchanan saying stop immigration in 1996 and 9-11.

More on Begala and Bay Buchanan

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 22, 2006 9:40 AM

Eudaemon,

We are in complete agreement.

Posted by: citycat at December 22, 2006 9:59 AM

citycat - are you an apostate now? You seem to have abandoned past attempts to defend some aspects of Islam.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at December 22, 2006 11:27 AM

The Koran is a treasonous document.

If anyone in our government had the understanding, knowledge, or balls, Keith Ellison would be brought up on charges of treason.

It's that simple.

Posted by: vashine at December 22, 2006 1:11 PM

Hey there plague on both your houses!

I posted a huge long post about that to Carolyn on this thread but waaaay up there. I'll just refer you to that.

"...abandoned past attempts to defend some aspects of Islam."

I don't think that "no compulsion in religion" and stuff like that needs a defense, do you? I mean, I think that's a nice thing, in general. And that's also an "aspect" of Islam which I think needs no defense. No?

The "kill the kaffirs where you find them" and "Islam must dominate and everyone must submit. Holy war. Jihad jihad." Aspects I never defended and never will.

Posted by: citycat at December 22, 2006 1:50 PM

RE: Lawrence Auster

One has to separate Message from Messanger.
As a messanger - and this is coming from a loyal reader of his "View from the Right" website for 6 years - Larry is a bitter, quarrelsome, relentless, nit-picking nerd.

He is also brilliant and usually way ahead of his time. You would never want to have a drink or a long drive with that guy. But you could do much worse than read his thoughts. You don't have to agree with some or even most of his thoughts. But you certainly will benefit.

Personally I almost never read his religious postings, especially "intelligent design" nonsense. I never, never read his exaustive and boring "He said, I said" quarrels.

As John Derbyshire wrote at NRO site (corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmNmNjQ2MDE1ZGEyYzY0OGIwZWJlNWUwYzJlMThlMDI=):

------------------ start Derb -----------
(1) Larry falls out with everybody. You haven't engaged with paleocons at all until you've been the subject of Larry's scorn. Having Larry pronounce an anathema on you just isn't a big deal. It's going to happen to you sooner or later, like toothache, unless you rigorously shun the whole paleocon scene.

(2) Life's too short. (a) Larry is the guy you get into an argument with in a bar. After half an hour or so, the desire to get as far away from the guy as possible overrides any interest you might have had in whether he's right or not. You leave the bar; but he follows you down the street, still pecking away: "Surely you must agree that..."

....
HOWEVER, having said all that, I still admire and respect Larry for his 1990 pamphlet "The Path to National Suicide " which was far ahead of its time, which still reads well today, and which was a major inspiration to the current generation of immigration restrictionists, as I think they all acknowledge. Larry did a great service to his country there, and no-one should mention him without noting that.

----------- end Derb ---------

I will add that Larry was the first writer who having recoqnized that it is ISLAM - not terrorism, radical Islamists, Islamofachists, or any number of PC monikers - that is the enemy AND proposed a workable solution to ISLAM problem: Rollback, Isolate, and Contain policy. By doing that Larry did another great service to our country.

For that message, I'm totally willing to overlook shortcomings of the messanger.

Rollback, Isolate, and Contain policy is similar to Hugh's proposals on many points.

I will not attempt to describe it, Mr. Auster did much better job at his site, www.amnation.com/vfr.

Posted by: mik at December 22, 2006 2:18 PM

citycat:

"I don't think that "no compulsion in religion" and stuff like that needs a defense, do you? I mean, I think that's a nice thing, in general. And that's also an "aspect" of Islam which I think needs no defense."

Are you serious? Or are you a troll?

Did you read Robert Spencer site or books for longer than 5 min? Or you have reading comprehension problem?

Islam allows 3 choices for infidels in caliphate:
1. convert
2. pay tax and become dhimmi, a second class citizen
3. be killed

No compalsion, my ass.

Posted by: mik at December 22, 2006 2:31 PM

Citycat -

Okay, I read the post to Carolyn and it sounds like you practice citycatism (something you associate with Islam but would not be familiar to the downhome jihadi and muslimah of 'the old lands' ....like we had said earlier in the year. But I remember you being more firmly in the camp of Islam than it seems now. If I remember correctly, you would defend political and religious aspects both. Now you seem to be opposed the political stand of modern jihad altogether.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at December 22, 2006 3:12 PM

Plague,

I am a citycatist! I have a Christmas tree up too. It's very pretty - even though the Christians in our family are all Eastern Orthodox and for them Christmas in January 7th with no trees. But I don't care - they're pretty.

"If I remember correctly, you would defend political and religious aspects both."

Nah! You don't remember correctly. I've never ever in my whole entire life favoured a theocracy of any kind. Sharia plain scares the piss out of me.

I think you might be confused because at the time were were going surah by surah and haddith by haddith. You guys said the Wahhabi sheiks abrogated all the verses of mercy and I said I abrogated all the verses of violence (as they run contradictory to mercy). Then, you said that's not real Islam and I said "so what?". Than I brought up other Muslim sects like the Ba'hai who also completely reject jihad. We then settling on calling it "Citycatism" and were done with it. Apparantly, all the Muslims in my family are actually Citycatists - probably why they get along so well with the Jews and the Christians in the family (they have a habit of saying stuff like "we are all Christians, we are all Jews"). But it all took a long time and there was only one of me and many of you and it got confusing after a while.

Peronally, I think Mohamed probably started out okay by bringing the Judeo-Christian religion to the Pagan Arabs and then lost his cotton picking mind as he gained power.

Merry Christmas to ya'! I have to run pick up the family.

Posted by: citycat at December 22, 2006 3:46 PM

Well if the best part of Islam is the part that Muhammad basically imported (or ripped off) from Judeo-Christianity and if what's left over after that, (which distinguishes Islam from Judeo-Christianity) is the bad part where Muhammad "lost his cotton picking mind", then what the hell is good about Islam per se? What's it for? Why would anyone be Muslim then? If someone wants to retain the good parts of Islam (which are redundant to Judeo-Christianity) and reject the bad parts (which are unique to Islam), then they ought to convert to Judaism or Christianity. What are you gonna do - basically practice some form of Judeo-Christinaity while rejecting what makes islam ISLAM but then call yourself a Muslim anyway? OK. I was born in the US and I have pale skin and blue eyes but hey, I'm Chinese, because I say so.

Posted by: Caroline at December 22, 2006 5:52 PM

"What are you gonna do - basically practice some form of Judeo-Christinaity while rejecting what makes islam ISLAM but then call yourself a Muslim anyway?"

While citycat is choosing from among the comparative religions cafeteria, Muslims are beheading and exploding.

Posted by: remote_control at December 22, 2006 8:36 PM

citycat: "As far as the converters - the problem is that Ibrahim Hooper is a convert. And, you know know what they say about the zeal of a convert...."

Yes, and Keith Ellison is an American born convert also (whose family apparently goes back several hundred years). Now that I've had a chance to see a bit more TV coverage of this and to hear some talk radio comments, I realize that people are calling Goode an idiot because the fact is that Keith Ellison was born here and Goode is talking about stopping Muslim immigration and hence Goode must be an idiot because the 2 things are unrelated. They are not unrelated at all. I know little about the district that elected Ellison to office but I'd be flabbergasted to find that his entire constituency that elected him was comprised of converts like himself whose families came here generations ago. Rather, I would assume that the sheer numbers required to elect him to office came from more recent Muslim immigrants. Obviously, as the number of Muslim immigrants increases they have the numbers to elect Muslims to office, even if the Muslims they elect, like Ellison, are themselves native born converts.

Another canard I keep hearing is that our constitution permits the free practice of religion. Well yes of course it does. But people (maybe even Goode himself) appear to be totally ignorant about the fact that Islam is not a religion like any other because it has an indispensable political component to it, a component which is in direct contradiction to our constitution (Sharia law).

At the present time, we have no safeguards to be sure that through our own liberal and open system, Sharia law cannot be democratically advanced to replace our Constitution eventually, merely through the demographic growth of Muslims as a voting block. Therefore, the 2 issues most certainly ARE related and stopping Muslim immigration is the only way to insure that we don't have enough Muslims here to make that possible. Moreover, stopping Muslim immigration IS within the realm of what our Constitution actually permits. It's perfectly permissable and in fact completely consistent with several hundred years of our history prior to the 1965 Immigration bill.

The only thing preventing us from doing this is fear over charges of racism and bigotry. Well who the f**k cares? Is being called a bigot now (and how ripe that is coming from Muslims who are arguably the greatest bigots on the planet as their own religious apartheid societies demonstrate) worse than the outcome of a Sharia society in which bigotry is institutionalized into our laws?

I second the opinion of a poster above that either Spencer or Hugh needs to phone Goode himself and give him some solid talking points here that will enable him to withstand the inevitable coming pressure to cave on his perfectly reasonable position vis a vis Muslim immigration.

Posted by: Caroline at December 23, 2006 1:09 PM

Major props for Virgil Goode and his willingness to stand fast against the goons from CAIR!! His courage and willingness to take the ensuing media heat has made him a modern-day folk hero in the eyes of many!!

If and when the Republicans win back the House, he deserves (but will never get) a powerful chairmanship on one of the more relevant subcommittees dealing with the war on terror!!

Posted by: verballistic at December 23, 2006 4:00 PM

CORRECTIONS:

It was not Lawrence Auster who first identified radical Islamism as the threat: It was Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson.

Auster is not trustworthy simply because he cuts and pastes from multiple writers. He is untrustworthy because he is flailed about by his own ego. He is immature and way too caught up in Pundit Turf Wars.

And he is counterproductive because he wastes the time of serious people, and apparently takes great glee in goading them into personal responses.

Auster is a detriment to the cause, and should shut up.

TO ITERATE:

His ad hominem attacks are not excused by the War on Terror. People like him should excuse themselves from polite company and let the adults get the job done.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at December 23, 2006 7:47 PM

Get real; all of Islam are racists !

Posted by: Jeff at December 23, 2006 10:54 PM

Morgaane - I don't see why it is necessary to attack Auster like that ("People like him should excuse themselves from polite company and let the adults get the job done"), in order to defend Spencer, nor should it be necessary to attack Spencer in order to defend Auster. I can't agree with your assessment of Auster for the reason that I think that his very cogent criticisms of modern liberalism as key to understanding the west's inability to defend itself are extremely valuable, and have certainly affected my own thinking about this dilemma we find ourselves in. But then I also think that Auster's criticisms of Spencer, which largely address Spencer's reluctance to publicly state harsh and unpopular public policy opinions as to what we ought to do in the wake of all the evidence about Islam that he scholarly adduces and displays in his books and in abundance on his website everyday, are also misplaced.

To borrow an anology from football, it would be pretty silly for the receiver who scores the touchdown to publicly lambast the quarterback who throws the ball for not being the one who actually scores the touchdown, or for the quarterback to lambast the tacklers for their essential insignificance, or most of all, for the cheerleaders on the sides to suggest that any of the actual players who are playing the game ought to step aside because of their insignificant contributions(unless said cheerleader has the actual skills to step in to take their place). They're all on the same team, even if their egos do get the better of them from time to time.

It might seem dumb to resort to such a cliche' but frankly, I love cliches and aphorisms and the way I see this (in this particular example) is that this is a long haul football game which takes a team to win and in which everyone plays their respective parts and if everyone works together, in their unique roles, as a team, we can win.

OK. Admittedly that analogy was corny as hell, but frankly I don't give a damn. I think the analogy of a football team is fundamentally sound, cliche' or not!

Posted by: Caroline at December 23, 2006 11:52 PM

I (Coach Caroline, that is) forgot to mention the most important part of the cliche/ analogy I was drawing above - namely - the critical importance of keeping one's eye on the ball!

Posted by: Caroline at December 24, 2006 12:10 AM

There is moderation in Islam. There is extremism in Islam. There is moderation in Christianity. There is Christian Jihad.

By making it an ani-Islamic thing, Goode is playing divide-and-conquer strategy. Sure, you can point to certain passages in the Quran. You could also point to certain bloody passages in the Bible.

Or you could promote an atmosphere of tolerance and respect, rather than handing grievances to Muslims that extremists can capitalize on.

Posted by: Phillosophia.blogspot.com at December 24, 2006 6:32 PM

Phillosophia,

"You could point to certain bloody passages in the Bible."

Maybe so, but as we've said a million times here, no one is killing in the name of Christianity and basing it on passages in the Bible. Muslims are killing people, in the name of their religion, everyday, and they sight passages in the Koran to validate what they are doing. They kill in the name of their "god" with his blessing. No one is getting away with that in Christian circles.

As for tolerance and respect, why don't you ask the Christians in Egypt, Somalia and Nigeria to practice that, as they are being murdered, forced to pray towards Mecca five times a day and wear the Islamic veil when they are not Islamists, or be murdered, having their churches burned down, their daughters kidnapped and druggged to force them to marry Muslims against their will. This isn't being enforced by Christians, but by Muslims. Or better yet, why don't you ask the Muslims to practice tolerance and respect for Christians, Jews and people who are not of the book.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 26, 2006 2:22 AM

Can someone please tell me who it was on Fox this past week that interviewed Nihad Awad with regard to his lambasting what Virgil Goode has written about stopping Muslim's from using a Koran, etc.

Who was Nihad debating with? Another congressman, but I can't recall who. And I can't recall if it was Neil Cavuto's show with Brian Wilson sitting in, or someone else.

I have searched and googled three dozen different combinations to find these answers.

Please assist if you can. Much appreciated.

Posted by: BT in SA at December 26, 2006 12:23 PM