| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In FrontPage this morning I discuss the controversy over the letter written by Congressman Virgil Goode (news links in the original):
Congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA) is being censured by almost everyone for his remarks about incoming Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Muslim immigration. “I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States,” Goode wrote in a letter to a constituent, “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.” He also noted Ellison’s intention to be sworn in on the Qur’an, declaring that “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.”In an unsigned editorial entitled “A Bigot in Congress,” the Washington Post huffed that besides being a bigot, Goode was “colossally stupid” and suffering from “xenophobic delirium.” Goode, opined the Post, was “evidently napping in class the day they taught the traditional American values of tolerance, diversity and religious freedom. This country's history is rife with instances of uncivil, hateful and violent behavior toward newcomers, be they Jewish, Irish, Italian or plenty of others whose ethnicities did not jibe with some pinched view of what it means to be American. Mr. Goode’s dimwitted outburst of nativism is nothing new.” The “real worry” was that “the rest of the world might take Mr. Goode seriously, interpreting his biased remarks about Muslims as proof that America really has embarked on a civilizational war against Islam.”
The Post was not alone. The Baltimore Sun scored Goode for his “ignorance” and “mindless prejudice,” and editorialized that “Americans sincerely trying to put aside their biases are not well-served by elected officials who proudly espouse wrongheaded views fostering distrust and hatred.” And the New York Times, also in an unsigned editorial, “Fear and Bigotry in Congress,” scolded both Goode and radio host Dennis Prager (who also voiced objections to Ellison’s using the Qur’an in his swearing-in): “As for Mr. Prager and Mr. Goode, we appreciate their help in demonstrating how very fast things can get both nutty and unpleasant once the founding fathers’ wise decision to avoid institutionalizing any religious faith gets breached.”Fox talking head Susan Estrich said that “the Virgil Goode position on immigration is, basically, to stop it, especially immigration by Muslims. God forbid the world, especially the Muslim world, should see us as a country where diversity is valued and respected, and freedom of religion guaranteed….Where in the Bible does Mr. Goode find his basis for such hatred? And how in the world does Mr. Goode think we will ever fight terrorism, especially terrorism by Muslims, if we do not have the support, cooperation and trust of leaders in the Muslim community? If we are viewed, at the highest levels, as damning all those who believe in the Koran, who will take our side? Don’t we want to encourage Muslims to believe in the political process and participate in it?”
All these criticisms share a common core assumption: that Goode has no reason to be concerned about Ellison, the Qur’an, or Muslims, and that any suspicion he does have is simply evidence of his bigotry and ignorance. In raising the specter of nativism, the Post was suggesting that America has been down this road before, and has nothing to show for it but shame. Suspicions about previous waves of immigrants amounted to nothing more than xenophobia, there was no Jewish conspiracy or Popish plot to subvert the United States Constitution, and concerns about Muslims and the Qur’an are just as hysterical and unfounded. Ellison, for his part, sounded a defiant note in an address in Dearborn, Michigan. To cries of “Allahu akbar” from a Muslim crowd, he declared: “On January 4, I will go swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I’ll place my hand on the Quran.”
Ellison said these words at a convention hosted by the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Circle of North America. According to a 2004 Chicago Tribune article, “A rare look at secretive Brotherhood in America,” the Muslim American Society was founded in 1993 as the United States arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian based terror group that has spawned both Hamas and Al-Qaeda. MAS members now maintain that the group has no ties to the Brotherhood, but there are indications that many in the group want to see the U.S. Constitution replaced by Islamic law. “We may all feel emotionally attached to the goal of an Islamic state” in America, said a speaker at a 2002 MAS conference, but “we mustn’t cross hurdles we can’t jump yet.” The Muslim American Society’s chapter for Ellison’s home state of Minnesota hosts a website that offers in an “Online Library” texts by the jihad theorists Syed Abul Ala Maududi and Sayyid Qutb. Qutb in his jihad manifesto Milestones asserts that “Islam is the way of life ordained by God for all mankind, and this way establishes the Lordship of God alone -- that is, the sovereignty of God – and orders practical life in all its daily details. Jihaad in Islam is simply a name for striving to make this system of life dominant in the world.” Likewise, according to terror expert Steven Emerson, the Islamic Circle of North America “is a Jamad Islamia group, which is on record as calling for jihad in the United States, to promote the notion of an Islamic world. ICNA also published something very recently saying that they are against suicide bombings, except when it comes to killing Israelis.”
Is it reasonable to ask Ellison if he shares such views? When he speaks at a conference sponsored by such organizations, is it simply bigotry to ask him if he holds views they are on record as having? When Muslim leaders around the globe have spoken about the necessity to impose Islamic law upon the world, is it sheer nativism to ask Ellison and American Muslims if they hold the same views? On June 29, 2005, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that “the wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.” As late as November 2003, the website of the Islamic Affairs Department (IAD) of the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington, D.C. stated that “the Muslims are required to raise the banner of Jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world, to remove all forms of injustice and oppression, and to defend the Muslims.” This is a venerable idea within Islam: even the noted Islamic historian Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), whose name adorns the pro-democracy Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies in Cairo, taught that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”[1]
On the basis of what evidence do Goode’s many detractors assume that neither Ellison nor any other Muslim in the United States subscribes to these views? Bigotry is an obstinate and irrational hatred of a particular group. Is it obstinate or irrational, or any kind of act of hatred at all, to ask Ellison to clarify where he stands on the MAS’s desire for the eventual imposition of Islamic law in the United States? He has chosen to be associated with MAS and ICNA. He ought to be willing to clarify matters accordingly. And the mainstream media ought to be willing to take time out from vilifying Virgil Goode long enough to entertain the possibility that this case doesn’t quite fit their preconceived notions.
[1] Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History, translated by Franz Rosenthal; edited and abridged by N. J. Dawood, Princeton University Press, 1967, p. 183.
Posted by Robert at December 28, 2006 3:52 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Also, 'cherry'-pick verses of the Quran that are in direct odds with the Constitution, and ask Ellison which of them does he belive in. It can't be both.
Posted by: Infidel Pride![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 28, 2006 4:23 AM
A gem from Mike Dukakis' former campaign manager:
And how in the world does Mr. Goode think we will ever fight terrorism, especially terrorism by Muslims, if we do not have the support, cooperation and trust of leaders in the Muslim community? If we are viewed, at the highest levels, as damning all those who believe in the Koran, who will take our side?How could we have ever passed on the chance to persuade Germans, Italians, Japanese, Finns, Bulgars, Romanians, Hungarians, Croats et al to come to our side, with our blanket condemnations of Mein Kamph? And how could we have brought Russians over to our side with our obdurate refusal to endorse Das Kapital? Posted by: Infidel Pride
at December 28, 2006 4:28 AM
Speaking as an Englishman the US needs Muslim immigrants like a hole in the head.
M15 (our CIA) says that there are 1600 second generation immigrants plotting terror. Each one needs 30 people to watch them round the clock so could easily cost (30 people at 35,000 GBP approx £1million per year - £1.6 billion per year).
In the US with 5 times as many people this would be - if you ever have the same level of immigration as us - £8billion per year 16 billion USD.
Do you really want to pay this much ?
at December 28, 2006 4:35 AM
Fox talking head Susan Estrich said that “the Virgil Goode position on immigration is, basically, to stop it, especially immigration by Muslims. God forbid the world, especially the Muslim world, should see us as a country where diversity is valued and respected, and freedom of religion guaranteed
Again, where did this preordained right of immigration come from? God forbid we should put any limits on immigration, or that we should even be allowed to ask "Would you uphold the principles of this country?" of potential immigrants. No, that would prove us to be "full of hatred" in Ms. Estrich's mind. And ironically, she is using freedom of religion to justify this open-border policy?! Does she have ANY idea of how much freedom of religion Islam allows? The very belief system that she is demanding that we allow unfettered entry into our borders and our society is precisely the one that will end the "diversity" and "freedom" that she claims to hold so dear. Sorry Ms. Estrich, that is D-U-M dumb.
Posted by: special_guest at December 28, 2006 4:51 AM
I suppose that there are other Congressmen in Minnesota besides Mr Ellison who are not Christian (or who are Christian only in the sense that they are baptized).
The mainstream media who are now on Mr Ellison's side, would they applaud it if every Congressman brings a book of his or her own choice to swear own?
Dixi
at December 28, 2006 5:10 AM
“On January 4, I will go swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I’ll place my hand on the Quran.”
So to "uphold the Constitution of the United States" he will place his hand on a book that goes completely against everything the Constitution stands for?
Posted by: Alexander at December 28, 2006 5:23 AM
Would it be bigotry if Mr Goode had raised his fears of KKK sympathisers being elected to the Congress?
Would it have been “xenophobic delirium” if he had casted doubts in case of any Nazis applying for the Green card?
Without doubt, America is the country it is today because of its diverse ethinicity and liberal immigration policy. But the distiction here is that all the successive streams of immigrant communities: the Jews, the Italians, the Irish and latterly the Indians, have nothing but admiration for the country that they wish to adopt as their own. These groups want to live the American dream and in the process contribute towrads the wellbeing of all her people. None of these groups would even dream of harming the people who have opened their arms in welcoming them.
This is in direct contridiction to the phenomenon of Muslim migration. Muslims do not hold any allegience to any country or land. They dismiss and reject laws created by men for the benefit of men. To them, their quaran is the supreme and the ONLY law by which ALL men should live. That includes non-muslims.
Isn't it a supreme irony that the very concepts of freedom, justice and fairness, which allows Muslims to be admitted to a country, are the very ones they wish to destroy!
The concept of American dream comes with the implied responsibility upon ALL her citizens to defend it. By allowing an enemy into her territory, who wants to deliver harm that dream, is a dereliction of duty.
Islam is the enemy of humanity. By bestowing upon it the same virtues as those of the freeworld is profoundly foolish.
Posted by: Hermit at December 28, 2006 5:27 AM
OT~ it appears Mogadishu has bit the dust. Ethiopia 1, islamists BIG FAT ZERO!
Let's Hope.
Posted by: Gary at December 28, 2006 5:51 AM
Instead of writing a letter to a constituent bemoaning an issue over which the congressman has had a hand in creating, why doesn't Goode tender legislation to address the issue? After all, he is not some media pundit - he is a law maker.
This is a perfect illustration of why illegal immigration is out of control. The people who CAN make a difference - refuse to. They sit back and watch the situation get out of control then tell us it is out of control and they can't do anything about it.
Ever wonder how this never happens with important issues like congressional pay raises or entitlement spending?
Posted by: infidel! at December 28, 2006 6:04 AM
Assalamau aLaikum all,
Virgil probably thinks he is speaking for the good of the Amerikie...and in some ways he may be right...in others wrong.
That there will be more muslims in congress ....I have NO doubts. Infact I am waiting for the 1st burka + veil clad muslima becoming a member of congress. The president will hail this as a victory for freedom and a giant leap for "muslima-kind". He expects that she will bring about a paradigm shift...she will...but not of the type that the president expects.
Let's give this ficticious muslima a name for now...Fatima.
Fatima ofcourse will not want to employ men on her staff ...only other muslima..everyone wearing a burka and the freedom of a veil. As usual you peoples may have a laugh for a bit...but the Kafur just cannot imagine the changes...so let me enlighten you:
1) New security procedures will be required...men security officers will not be allowed to see their faces...only other kafur womens.
Wouldn't that be surprising....muslimas coming and going to congress for months...and the men security offices not even knowing what they look like.
2) Rooms for prayer.
3) All meat served in the canteen must be halal, cannot afford to make mistakes here...hell to pay otherwise.
4) New rules for female accompaniment...the husbands must be involved, they will leave their taxi jobs and chauffeur their womens around instead...ofcourse at 3 times thier old salary.
5) Most of all and far more importantly, I think it will the nature of new laws that Fatima and her supporters will try to pass that will fundamentally change America ....forever.
They will be thrown out to start with ...but as more and more Wuslims come on board...the pressure will start to tell....and smaller changes will become bigger ones.....you can see examples of this in other parts of the world.
The richer must pay more tax to fund the poorer muslim...who has 8 childrens...he cannot afford to feed, clothe and school them...so the state must help to stop them starving.
6) Another law that maybe tried is INCREASE immigration from muslim countries (rather than limit it)as a way to "makeup" for all the wrongs that the Amerike has done in the middle east.
7) Creeping Sharia will perhaps lead to allowing muslims to marry more than one woman.
8) Any shootings of innocent muslims will prompt Fatima and her congress supporters to pass new gun laws...to take away guns from the common folks....I can certainly see this happening....innocents muslims cannot be shot ....not in America, it's as simple as that.
9) Help shape foreign policy away from the Israel in order to secure peace in the ME...with all the implications that this carries.
In short Fatima will start an American revolution as no other....she will cut down the kufur at his knees where he stands with the power of the pen.
On the home front the kafur will lose further power over his wild slutty womens as more start to don the burka for fear of being branded a loser.
It is my opinion that the Mahdi will be wuslim in the Amerike congress ...and he will do his best to take the world from Kafur to Wuslim and possibly through to Muslim.
2007 will see this scenario a step closer, the old America is surely doomed.
Oh and before I forget Happy new year.
Posted by: Naseem at December 28, 2006 6:24 AM
Sorry to use bad words, but to swear by placing a hand on the Quran to uphold a liberal Constitution of the world's most forward looking country, is like fucking for virginity.
Posted by: proud_hindu at December 28, 2006 6:33 AM
Why do I get the feeling that Naseem's prophecies will indeed come true one day.
Posted by: Hermit at December 28, 2006 6:37 AM
Intellectual bigotry is perhaps the worst of all corruptions and the editorials mentioned in this article typify it.
The real ignorance here is once more, as inherent to most of the detractors I run into on my own site, on the part of the fools that cast stones from soapboxes without having any evidence to put forth that their own case is the valid one. The Leftist mongrels that continue to endanger the West because they are so pacifistic and deluded and self-righteous, should be put in their place. This kind of tomfoolery can not go on much longer. If it does we will see what Virgil Goode has warned us of and far worse.
Islam is the, in my educated opinion, single most dangerous enemy that the United States of America will confront in its entire history. If we do not come up with a solution, it will spell the end of our Republic as we know and love it, once and for all.
Posted by: Foehammer at December 28, 2006 6:58 AM
nAseem,
"All meat served in the canteen must be halal, cannot afford to make mistakes here...hell to pay otherwise".
You're in for a rude awakening, your numbers are next to nothing so as the 'hate' and 'Race' crimes increase so will your numbers dwindle and the whining will fall on deaf ears. Tell your brothers and sisters to get the hell out of 'our way' because your intolerance will not be tolerated.
There are ample grounds to outlaw iSlam when the futility of reforming it is realised...
at December 28, 2006 7:01 AM
The AP (Allah's Press) is carrying a story about how confused the officals are about the sharp increase in murders and other serious crimes in American cities.
Whats so confusing? Muslims + death go hand in hand.
I may not have been an exemplar Christian in my life, but one thing was never hard to believe in. That Satan was real! Islam is Satan's religion. More people are worshiping him every day. More worship = more power. Even over the non-muslims who are just open to evil influence.
The State Dept. is preparing to defend against a onslaught of Cuban refugees should Castro die. At least Cubans have built businesses here and are predominantly Christian. But it would be bigoted to stop Muslim refugees.???
Posted by: auntbea at December 28, 2006 7:02 AM
don the burka for fear of being branded a loser.
naseems he/she is dislusional, all the above point were taken from his/hers own twilight imagination, l mean what else can one do in the land of a cesspoolstan.
naseems if you want to become human leave islam, otherwise your will do to hell with your mohuammad.
at December 28, 2006 7:16 AM
And how in the world does Mr. Goode think we will ever fight terrorism, especially terrorism by Muslims, if we do not have the support, cooperation and trust of leaders in the Muslim community?
--- Susan Estrich, opinion celebrity
We're not fighting terrorism; we're fighting Moslem takeover.
And, as for partners in this fight, how about ourselves?
Susan Estrich, the breathless law professor, made for better TV when she limited herself to commentating on the OJ trial.
* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *
For all their lecturing about divisiveness, it our ruling elite that has divorced itself from America, even declared war on it.
We'll see what these pomps have to say when the bomb goes off. They'll say something, and as always they'll believe their own bullcrap, but the greasy skin of the Unreality Bubble in which they live and preach will be stretched that much closer to popping.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 28, 2006 7:26 AM
Why do I get the feeling that Naseem's prophecies will indeed come true one day.
Posted by: Hermit at December 28, 2006 06:37 AM
.. because Naseem's Da'wa is quite effective. Think about Jihadi defeat in Somalia and you will soon realize that Islam is a paper tiger, a house of wax that will ment in the light of truth. Truth is all we need.
Posted by: Alert at December 28, 2006 7:30 AM
Folks should write to Estrich and the rest. It is depressing... someone in the ruling body finally says the God's honest truth -- that Islamic immigration is a long-term danger to the United States in a way that other immigrations were not -- and instead of showing solidarity with the man, others undermine him, strutting out the fantasy that Islam is a religion like any other.
Congressman Goode has refused to apologize. We are witnessness an act of political and physical courage. God bless him.
It seems unlikely that America will wake up to the truth of what he's said; but perhaps the unease with immigration in general will reduce the danger for a time. At least right-wing radio is more-and-more attuned to what's up. Why not the left?
Fear of Islam is correct, righteous, wise.
Posted by: StillBreathing at December 28, 2006 7:31 AM
We all know that these editorials, with their half-baked "analysis" of Goode's comments are intellectually bankrupt, yet people still believe they "understand" Goode's motivations after reading them. The question is why anyone would be convinced by such empty rhetoric? Is anyone convinced?
Naseem, once again, you extrapolate the current trend into the future indefinitely, which is always historically dubious without sound grounding in fact. At some point, when Islam becomes predominant enough to start to ruin our Western economies (remember, we are materialists and only care about our shiny toys, right?), perhaps with a hyperinflation due to high oil prices or recession/depression caused by a major terrorist attack, the kid gloves we have been using against Islam will come off. I wish we'd taken them off already because I can easily see that Islam is the death of free thought and empirical science, which are the two things that make Western intellectual life possible. Read "The Tipping Point" for a framework that explains how changes in individual psychology or action add up to mass movements. Then apply that to what the West could do militarily to every man, woman and child in the Muslim world if we wanted.
Posted by: venividivici at December 28, 2006 7:38 AM
Excellent editorial from Mr. Spencer. I predict that Congressmen Ellison will be in office only a short time before he makes remarks that makes Mr. Goode's remarks seem pale in comparison. What will the Washington Post say then? Let me guess...we are in for a series of long, tugging-at-your-heartstrings profiles and backgrounders about Mr. Eliison's childhood struggles, his trials and tragedies as a young man, his life-changing conversion to Islam....sob, sob, sob. In the meantime, I heard in the news that one of the government agencies is moving their records to a depository in Winchester, VA, 70 miles safely away from Washington DC, just in case those terrorists from San Marino make good on their promises to nuke DC off the map. Evidently anything beyond 50 miles is considered "safe." PS/ Naseem, are you the same Naseem mentioned in the DhimmiWatch article that was victimized by the peanut-throwing Scottish teenagers? If so, my apologies. You are such a tolerant, gracious person; I can tell by your comments. I advise a permanent, return trip to warm, friendly Pakistan ASAP and away from those horrible, mean Scots.
Posted by: maryrose at December 28, 2006 7:46 AM
I did not continue reading "Spencer: A Bigot in Congress" because I have probably read similar attacks on people who have the courage to state the truth. The Washington Compost is parroting the usual tripe about the crap that will destroy the US. They do not inderstand Islam, Jihad, and dhimmitude. They never will because they do not want to. They are deluded by their attitude that they are better than us and are also a hell of a lot smarter; those journalism diplomas on their walls say that they are. Remember folks, there are no state boards of journalism examiners; journalism is an unregulated profession. Manicurists and pet groomers have to pass a test and be licensed. Any body can claim to be a journalist; that includes me or my dog.
Posted by: Pelayo at December 28, 2006 8:10 AM
I'm not concerned about Ellison's swearing in. What I am concerned about is will the F.B.I. be allowed to search his house offices for bombs and nukes.......?
Posted by: n.a. palm at December 28, 2006 8:32 AM
What is repulsive about Islam is that it is the only major belief-system that gives any permission to hypocrisy-deception. Christ (e.g.) condemned all deception and warned that it comes from the "evil one". CAIR are like Pharisees who plan deceit, who are never direct, and whose shit fertilizes the fields of violence. They are far more monstrous than the Muslims who openly practice violence. Muslims who openly practice violence are expressing honestly a nature that is part of our common nature.
However, deception is the emptiness of evil, that which takes what is corrupt in nature and metastasises it into a ferocious corruption. We must isolate these deceivers and keep them and their shit away from direct fields. Deceitful Muslims stink. No amount of cologne can cover up the stench of CAIR and their deceptive shit.
Posted by: Frank at December 28, 2006 8:39 AM
It is my opinion that the Mahdi will be wuslim in the Amerike congress.
Submissive as ever, eh Nasseem?
You could be right on this, though. But my guess is no, the Mahdi is more likely to be a Boslem, cuz they are more prone to convert to Mohammedism. Just look at Representative Keith. Or Ahmad Rashad. Or Kareem. Or Mohammed Ali. Or...
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 28, 2006 8:41 AM
So much hot-air.
Facts don't matter. Pretending America is still an independent Constitutional Republic is a joke. What is it?, Pragmatism?, something is true, ONLY if it is "useful"? Useful to whom, and for what? The American people? Haha, you pacified, brainwashed, communized, Judaized, trivial-pursuit-addicted willing slaves don't have a clue.
The clue? The undeniable fact that we and our petty politicians do not control our destiny. America has already been destroyed from within, what exactly is it you want to save? This supposed defense of "diversity/multiculturalism" by supposed "left-wing" personalities and institutions is just a case of keeping up appearances or dumb-fcks who just don't get it-- diversity/multiculturalism is only acceptable if it benefits "Jewish interests"-- We are not supposed to notice(or to logically conclude that 2+2+1-2=3) who is controlling what-- that is "Political-Correctness" and the true purpose of "diversity/multiculturalism". Hahaha, whowouldathunk.
International banking/credit control/"creation" of our currency/economy voids the Constitution. Period. From that point on America is just a plantation-state and a proxy for globalist interests. Human-"progress" towards the pseudo-"scientifically managed society" world-wide, hahaha, so much for "freedom", representation, or independent thought. Guess who (re)defines "progress", or "freedom"? Heeheehee.
By the way, there is no reason to assume "Naseem" is genuine, he/she/it could just as easily be an agent-provocateur,demagogically pushing your stupid-buttons.
Posted by: Novy Mir at December 28, 2006 8:46 AM
Special guest:
You are right. As Newt has said, 'the constitution is not a suicide pact!'
at December 28, 2006 8:48 AM
Novy Mir,
The same thing could be said about you and your rants!
Posted by: lonewolf at December 28, 2006 8:50 AM
I'm glad to see that the Washington Post and the
The Baltimore Sun support the Morman, Warren S. Jeffs, in the politicaly motivated trial against the Morman leader. He is not guilty of anything more than what the Muslims leaders preach and practice in this country.
If Muslims can marry more than one wife why cant the Mormans? Why is the Morman religion considered a cult but not Islam? Why the lopsided support from these rag sheets? And why does'nt anyone take them to task for THEIR “ignorance” and “mindless prejudice,”
bigottry “colossal stupidity” and suffering from “xenophobic delirium.”
At least Warren Jeffs doesnt assign girls less than 13 years old to get married. Lets see, how old does a girl have to be if she is Muslim?
Well at least the Mormans have a friend in the
Washington Post and the The Baltimore Sun.
at December 28, 2006 8:53 AM
The Muslims who directly preach violence are less to be feared than these CAIR Pharisees. Their deception-hypocrisy is what sustains violence. CAIR is deception-hypocrisy stench. There is nothing direct in them.
Posted by: Frank at December 28, 2006 8:54 AM
HA, HA, HA!!!
A Muslima in Congress? Take a reality pill. When Sharia becomes the law of the land in some poor, unfortunate country, the women stay home in their Hefty bags. No becoming a Congresswoman for you!
Isn't it wonderful about Somalia kicking out the pathetic jihadists? Little old Somalia...how impressive. Islam is most certainly the paper tiger that Alert describes in his 7:30am post.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 28, 2006 9:03 AM
Even the Psychotic-In-Iran is less stenchy than the CAIR deceivers. The Psychotic is direct in his Jew-hate, but the CAIR people are cowardly in their deceit and Jew-hatred. (I'm sure Ibrahim Hopper is quite the secret Jew-hater. Fess-up Ibrahim.) CAIR crawls between toes when it comes to directly expressing their real opinions and intentions.
We should say to the Psychotic: "Though we do not condone nor agree with your openly expressed will to kill, we commend you for your honesty. The more honest-direct you are the less Muslim you are Mr. Psychotic-In-Iran. Islam is a "religion" that condones deceit. What you are saying is out of character for Islam, Mr. Psychotic-In-Iran.
We commend you for your directness".
at December 28, 2006 9:21 AM
Also, 'cherry'-pick verses of the Quran that are in direct odds with the Constitution, and ask Ellison which of them does he belive in. It can't be both.
Posted by: Infidel Pride
Infidel Pride - I'm doing something like this and will send Rep. Ellison a copy. I'll send it to the Minneapolis paper as well.
No one can serve two masters.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at December 28, 2006 9:59 AM
Virgil Goode, along with Tom Tancredo, seem to be the only ones who get it. What sickens me most is not so much the juvenile name-calling and traitorous behavior of the Demoncrats (I expect that from them) as it is the quivering, cowardly silence of the Republicans in not coming to his defense. They were always strong in standing up to the communist threat. Why now when they are needed most, will they not show the strength they did in the cold war? Are they honestly that cowardly and emasculated that they can't stand up to the PC name callers? As I am more often these days, I am very disappointed with them. If they won't stand up for America in our government, who will?
Posted by: A.I. Steamroller at December 28, 2006 10:14 AM
This letter appeared in today's issue of the Star Tribune
http://www.startribune.com/563/story/901082-p2.html
ELLISON'S HAND ON QUR'AN
Critics are ignorant
I am certain that most of those who are opposed to U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison taking his oath on the Qur'an are not aware of what it teaches.
If Rep. Virgil Goode and Dennis Prager, among others, had bothered to read the Qur'an, they would have found that it calls Mary, mother of Jesus (peace be upon him), the most exalted woman of humanity.
They would have found that the Qur'an, according to the Muslims, the last revelation of the One and True God, affirms the 10 Commandments. They would have found that the Qur'an reveres Abraham, Moses and Jesus as the mighty prophets of God, Almighty. It acknowledges the Torah and the Gospel as the previous revelations from God and calls Jews and Christians the "People of the Book."
They would have also found that the Qur'an emphasizes that superiority is not by race, gender or ethnicity, but by piety and righteousness. It encourages Muslims to be kind, generous and gentle.
Also they would have been surprised to read that the Qur'an says, "If someone kills one innocent person, it is [as grave] as killing the entire humanity, and if one saves one life, it is like saving the entire humanity."
These critics may be ignorant not only of the Qur'an, but also of U.S. doctrine separating church from state. They could save time and embarrassment by first reading the Constitution of the United States and then the constitution for Muslims, the Qur'an.
TAM SAIDI, MINNEAPOLIS
The koran says all of that? Then, how dare that Virgil Goode bigot say "no" to more muslims in America and congress!
Oh wait, you mean there's more?
Sura (2:191) - And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]
Sura (5:33) - The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement
Sura (8:12) - I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them
Sura (9:5) - So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them
Sura (9:29) - Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Sura (9:30) - And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
Sura (48:29) - Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves
Hmmm, Maybe Rep. Goode of NC-5th is on to something.
Interesting how the muslim letter writer only chose to quote the scant few g-rated portions of the koran which have been abrogated by the ones I mentioned.
Hmm, could this be Taqiyya?
Goode is a hero for saying what needs to be said and it is no surprise that our dhimmi, anti-Western media, that seeks the destruction of the US as much as the jihadists do, condemn him for it.
But God bless, you, Mr. Goode!
Posted by: senatortombstone at December 28, 2006 10:14 AM
The greatest enemy of Islam is the truth.
And it's coming in full-unrelenting-color in January. Photographs, sounds, articles, maps, links, history, forums and all forged on an Anvil that's so customizable, I'll be able to adapt to the fight every hour if need be.
So, have faith -- the mudslingers for Islam that make their appearances here, or with CAIR or in the NY Times or elsewhere, are going to see what happens in America and the West when good people get the truth spoon-fed to them every single day in ways that can't be diminished by a counter-editorial or more spin.
And my message will be the same as it always has been -- clear, concise, and brutally honest. The efforts of sites like Jihad Watch, Daniel Pipes, FrontPage, 910 Group and so many others attempting to get the "message" read are tremendous, but there's an edge missing. I intend to sharpen that edge.
(I'll probably need to buy body armor, but when dealing with the 'Religion of Peace', sacrifices have to be assumed.)
I'll officially unveil the changes to
Foehammer's Anvil in a few days. Stay tuned.
at December 28, 2006 10:19 AM
Great post Robert. The MSM doesn't have a clue. I think Ellison will self-destruct before too long. Arrogance and ignorance do not make a winning combination. The more they push, the more dangerous they will appear.
Ellison is merely a shill. If he ever chooses to acknowledge the current Arab-Muslim oppression of black-Muslims in Africa, he would know where he sits on their totem pole, being an African-American himself.
As Robert has stated on numerous occasions of late, we must find a way to get people like Ellison to clarify his beliefs, as well as getting people like Goode to introduce immigration reform officially in Congress, as other alert posters have stated.
"That there will be more muslims in congress ....I have NO doubts. Infact I am waiting for the 1st burka + veil clad muslima becoming a member of congress."
Posted by: Naseem at December 28, 2006 06:24 AM
Memo to Naseem,
Your intentional griefing is futile. Your ignorance knows no bounds. A Muslima in Congress? That would last about a week until Mr. Muslima got tired and beat her to death for leaving the house without permission.
at December 28, 2006 10:19 AM
I too think that Ellison will slip up eventually and say the wrong thing to other muslims accidentally in earshot of a recording device. It will be interesting to see what hoops the mhedia jump through to defend him then.
The article below was written by Ellison under pseudonym Keith E. Hakim.
http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/keithehakim221990mndaily.pdf
It's no small wonder that the Star Tribune newspaper, which defended Ellison throughout his run, made no mention of this article and never called on him to repudiate it.
Just wait, our time will come.
Posted by: senatortombstone at December 28, 2006 10:56 AM
There is a legal maxim which states: "The burden of proof is upon him who affirms, not him who denies." I believe the case opposed to unrestricted Muslim immigration can and should be made. Under the current circumstances, with Islamist terrorism and radicalism rampant throughout the world, it's only prudent that the United States (and other western nations) adopt measures which limit unfettered Muslim immigration, primarily on the basis of protection (national security). In my opinion, this is a "no-brainer."
On the other hand, those in the media (and elsewhere) who allege that such fears (as expressed by Goode and others) are evidence of "racism" or "xenophobia," need to prove their case. The burden of proof rests upon them -- those media commentators (such as Estrich) -- to demonstrate why an unfettered Muslim immigration policy is evidence of "tolerance" or a healthy development for the United States. Is an open-door policy evidence of "tolerance" or is it evidence of suicidal naivete?
It does not require a vivid imagination to picture terrorists entering the United States with the express intention to blow up the Pentagon or the White House -- and the consequent fear of such an occurrence is hardly evidence of "xenophobia" or "irrationality." Further, commentators such as Estrich need to address the very real issue with respect to allowing so significant a number of Muslims into the country that they then comprise a voting block. Many Muslims(not all, but many) appear to be antisemitic, xenophobic, anti-western, and unwilling to assimilate. Many seem to believe that the rules of Islam should reign supreme (Muslims should not be governed by a constitution or by laws framed by men); that the religion of Islam must dominate and not be dominated; that separation of mosque from state is abhorrent; and that pluralism or (activities contrary to the teachings of Islam) are to be repulsed.
Finally, one need then consider what happens to nations which *have* allowed unfettered Muslim immigration. Both France and the UK serve as examples of what not to do.
Posted by: J.S. at December 28, 2006 11:10 AM
I hereby announce my support of Ahmedinejad. He may be the only man who can save us from ourselves.
at December 28, 2006 11:38 AM
i just called Virgil Goodes offices and told them of my support for Rep. Goodes comments and views.
I think he is going to need alot of support in the coming shit storm he wil have to face for being honest and truthful
at December 28, 2006 12:18 PM
Here we go again, accuse somebody of being a bigot and all conversation ends. No, make that all listening ends.
"I just saw a 'whatever' set fire to your house!"
"A 'whatever?' what a bigot."
"But, your house is on fire, and a 'whatever," he repeated by way of description, "set the fire!"
"That's not important. What is important is that you are a bigot!" And, they all stood there staring at the "bigot" while the house burned down.
Posted by: RIslander at December 28, 2006 12:55 PM
senatortombstone said
This letter appeared in today's issue of the Star Tribune
But you took the time to write a response, why post it here to people who are aware of the violent Qur'an quotes and the concept of taqiyyah? Why not send it to the Star and Tribune, on the offchance that they might be fairminded and balanced (it could happen) and print it? It would be an eye-opener for many Minnesotans. You could give them no better belated Christmas present. I'll write my response today, I hope others will too.
Posted by: special_guest at December 28, 2006 1:15 PM
RIslander,
Very astute. I've been trying to come up with an analogy myself to get the people in my orbit to listen about this threat that's coming at us now. I was thinking of asking if I knew a Hispanic gang was going to be trawling your neighborhood around midnight tonight, would you want me to tell you about it or would you just want me to keep my mouth shut, for fear of being called a bigot, and let them steal everything you've worked for your whole life and maybe harm or destroy your family? It doesn't matter what other people think of us. I have an obligation to help my fellow man, and warning people about what Islam can do to their lives and well being is part of that obligation.
But I am fully aware that there will be many people out there who will indeed, let the house burn down.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 28, 2006 1:18 PM
Yo Naseem. Found work yet? I guess you can't because your man will beat you. Or being a Muslim man.....won't work.
Americans kill and murder americans every day with their guns. This is a fact. They kill each other over sometimes very minor disagreememts.
Americans will give no excuses to hunt down Muslim's that want us dead. They will be shot like dogs.
Posted by: credit man at December 28, 2006 1:57 PM
Truly, we all do need to write foxnews about Susan Estrich's comments. The letters do make a difference.
Also, write a note to Goode. He could use the support.
Posted by: Kay at December 28, 2006 2:00 PM
Oh boy ... there is so much going on its difficult to know where to start. I think pretty soon, the Cowran will get in Ellison's way. One of the most interesting thing about the Muslims is that they are all corrupt to the limit. Elli-pally will end up wrapped in some scandle. The probability is very high that someone will spook him out.
I beginning to think, Naseem guy is 'Hugh' pretending to be Muslim gal.
Hugh has the ability to pretend to be Paki woman.
I aint worried about Elli-pally. He aint a big shot by any standard. He is a little guy. He is a criminal, for instance amongst other things Ellison also failed to pay all or part of his income taxes five separate years between 1992 and 2000, forcing the state and Internal Revenue Service to put liens on his home. He later paid in excess of $18,000.
As I've stated he is a crook. He will be dealt with when the time is right..
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at December 28, 2006 2:07 PM
I tried to write Congressman Goode's office to thank him. The website appears to only take input from constituents only.
Congressman Goode, if you ever make it over to Mr.Spencer's website. I just want to thank you for sticking up for us. God Bless :-).
at December 28, 2006 2:16 PM
while it was kind of the Wash Post to point out the obvious, "be they Jewish, Irish, Italian or plenty of others whose ethnicities" why didnt they also state that none of those other ethnicities came to the US with the specific goal to replace the constitution with another governing body of laws? to date, just what are the accomplishments of muslims for this country?...even ignoring the 3,000+ dead citizens; what about the less than stellar efforts muslims have perpetrated in our military...how many muslim AWOLS now?...how many dead soldiers gratis muslims?...shouldnt it be expected that ANY ethnic group moving to the US become an asset????has even that now become a politically incorrect edict??? and on another point, the swearing in tradition using the koran is diametrically AGAINST the constitution ..christians and jews are not favorably disposed in the koran..so who is ellison swearing to? other muslims?...seems rather bigoted if you ask me....
at December 28, 2006 2:48 PM
Squire,
Just put in the following zip code and you should be able to e-mail Congressman Goode.
24151
Yes, his e-mail is set up for his constituents but aren't we part of that group? He needs help, support, protection and deflection. And all of us rascals who post here are up to the task. So e-mail him. I sent him a letter and talked to one of his aids last week, but I'm going to e-mail him right now.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 28, 2006 2:50 PM
Re: Congressman Goode's e-mail, apparently it is down for the Christmas break and will resume on 1/4/07, but if you'd like to call or write his office, here is the link:
http://www.house.gov/goode/contact.shtml
His aid told me last week to send everything to the Rocky Mount, VA address because things get screwed up when they are sent to Washington, D.C.
Ain't THAT the truth.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 28, 2006 2:55 PM
The Post, Times and others, of course, use arguments from analogy to vilify Goode: such fears about Jews and Catholics in American politics proved bigoted in the past, so Goode is a bigot. But, arguments from analogy are not the most reliable kind of arguments, as even the most boring and simple-minded critical thinking primer will tell you. There are obvious differences between Muslims, Jews and Catholics that should be shored up to strengthen the analogies. To make these analogies unassailable we should also assume the following: 1) that Jews and Catholics had organized into paramilitary groups worldwide and declared religious sanctioned war against the United States 2) that the threat of Jewish and Catholic terrorism in the United States was so severe that hundreds of billions had to be spent on security and finally 3) that Jewish and Catholic scriptural traditions are more or less analogous to Muslim traditions ideologically.
All three of these assumptions are absolutely ludicrious, of course, and so goes the analogies supporting the views of these papers and many, many 'educated' people.
With regard to 3), religious, agnostic or irreligious, Americans should not forget historical connections and relationships between Judeo-Christian scripture and ideology and basic tenents of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, connections that are utterly negated in Islam.
The pursuit of happiness conceived as an entitlement, for instance: does this idea at least in part have its roots in the ancient Hebrew idea that God looked down on his creation and thought it was good? Human life is conceived as something good, to be enjoyed; that idea has its roots in Judaism, although later Christians nibbled away at the notion a bit, it stands as a pillar of Western thinking about human life. And does Islam hold a similar view? As the Ayatollah Khomeini said, there is no fun in Islam. And what fun is there to be witnessed anywhere in the Muslim world that is truly 'Islamic', unless, of course, one is a man with domination issues. The purpose of life in the Qur'an is submission to the will of Allah, even if it costs you your life in defense of Allah, which, the hadith proclaim, is the only life worth returning from heaven to live again.
Freedom of conscience as an entitlement: interpretation, argument, dialogue, self criticism, and debate are essential principles in Jewish and Christian traditions. Although 'anti-religious' Enlightenment thinkers championed freedom of conscience against rigid religious dogma, this right as well has at least some of its roots in our religious traditions (not to mention, of course, the intellectual tradition of Greece). And do analogous traditions exist in Islam? No. Itjihad died and there are no signs of rebirth. Divine command theory and mentality, literalism, and paranoia dominate Islamic traditions and thinking to this very day.
Separation of Church and State: there has always been a tension between religion and politics in Judaism. God's 'rule' over the world is a mysterious one, and the proclamation of a 'king' by itself causes tensions, paradoxes, temptations, and inevitable shortcomings and problems. Likewise in Christian thought the moral example of Jesus, who wanted nothing to do with politics and taught a radical pacifism, never comported well with a Church that attempted to govern, organize armies, police, and wage wars. 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's' is certainly one of the cornerstones of the Western idea that religion and politics belong in distinct domains. And what of Islam? Mohammad left the irrefutable, perfect example of a warrior and cheiftain who rules directly by the authority of Allah. Hence, political traditions in Islam stress authoritarianism and theocracy.
The analogies between Islam, Christianity and Judaism vis-a-vis American political life and traditions are bogus and must be carefully reconsidered. Mr. Goode may state his views in clumsy, sometimes wrongheaded ways, but he has a point that Congress must attend to.
Posted by: JTF at December 28, 2006 3:09 PM
Suppose for a minute that Mr. Goode is an avid reader of Jihad Watch (as every U.S. politician aught to be). Would it not be reasonable for Mr. Goode to hold the beliefs and concerns he has expressed?
Unlike all previous immigrants to the U.S., none that I am aware of ever held fast to a religious doctrine that teaches (or demands) that its adherents subvert the constitution. That should be a legitimate concern not merely for Mr. Goode but also for Ms. Estrich and every other citizen.
Like Israel, the U.S. has the right, no, the obligation to protect itself and their people from subversive groups.
at December 28, 2006 3:25 PM
The most damage is done by our MSM such as - the Star Tribune
http://www.startribune.com/563/story/901082-p2.html posted by : senatortombstone at December 28, 2006 10:14 AM
The regular Joe will read that crap and keep this simple view about Muslims in mind and go for a jar of beer. I don't understand why MSM don't dig deeper into this s.h.i.t. and make it know that Islam means 'surrender' everything that we have. Obviously the first thing they will take away would be OUR CONSTITUTION, replace it by Cowran.
Currently it looks highly unlikely they will succeed, however, they will make an attempt that is for sure.
Betsy Ross at December 28, 2006 02:48 PM summed-up a lot in her small window about the stuff that MSM appears to be deliberately and foolishly failing to observe and broadcast.
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at December 28, 2006 3:43 PM
To AI Steamroller and everyone else: A really under-appreciated Congressman that belongs in the company of Goode and Tancredo is Peter King from New York (Long Island, IIRC). He has made numerous appearances on FOX TV and elesewhere, and I have yet to hear him utter anything that smacks of dhimmitude.
Also, I wouldn't expect too much from Fox. Remember that Prince Alwaleen Bin Talal bought a huge amount of stock in the parent comapny. He was responsible for Fox's sudden shift last summer from reporting on rioting "Muslim" youth in Paris to reporting on rioting "poor" youth in Paris. He is also Citigroup's largest shareholder and a generous supporter of Islamic terrorism and Jihad. I am afraid that, at least where Jihad is concerned, we are back to square one with MSM.
Posted by: bondmanp at December 28, 2006 4:48 PM
JTF, excellent post. Aristotle said that the ability to render an apposite analogy was the hallmark of a sharp mind. I suppose that the contrary, the continual rendering of inappropriate analogies on the part of the Muslim apologists in the media, is the hallmark of a dullard. Seems to fit the situation.
Posted by: venividivici at December 28, 2006 5:02 PM
JTF said
such fears about Jews and Catholics in American politics proved bigoted in the past
Are we a bigot just for asking the question? When JFK ran for President, many people questioned whether he would be required, as a Catholic, to follow the instructions of the Pope. Is it bigoted just to ask Catholic experts if this were actually true? Does the process of educating ourselves render us a racist? Of course, that is not part of Catholic teaching, and there are many examples, in the U.S. and abroad, of Catholics and Jews acting as excellent politicians, but wasn't it okay to ask the question, just to be sure? The President of the U.S. is a fairly powerful position, wouldn't it be irresponsible to not even be a little curious?
So, is it verboten to learn what the teachings of Islam are, vis a vis loyalty to the government of man vs. the government of Allah? Are we forbidden from looking around the world for examples of how Muslims behave as leaders and politicians? If someone claims to be a faithful follower of the Qur'an, are we allowed to peek inside that Qur'an to see what it says about various topics, and draw appropriate inferences?
Posted by: special_guest at December 28, 2006 8:19 PM
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006998.html
"While Spencer’s argument is perfectly reasonable in itself, it is noticeably odd in the present context, since the position for which Goode is being attacked as a bigot and nativist is not that Muslims should be asked for their opinions about sharia. Indeed, Goode has not proposed asking Muslims for their opinions about anything. Goode has called for ending the immigration of Muslims to the U.S—because their religion, including sharia, is antithetical to our beliefs and values and the very form of our society.
"What it comes down is that Spencer has said that it is morally ok to ask Muslims if they are sharia supporters. But, most pointedly, he has not said that it is morally ok to call for an end to Muslim immigration. Spencer has thus defended himself from the charge of bigotry; he has not defended Goode, who is, after all, the ostensible subject of the article."
I'm afraid I have to agree with Auster's conclusion on this one.
Posted by: Caroline at December 29, 2006 12:37 AM
Caroline:
Let us be clear on a few points.
First, it was Susan Estrich who opined that Goode's postion is to stop Muslim immigration. I do not believe that this is, in fact, Goode's position.
Re-read Goode's letter. Goode states: "We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration.." Goode speaks of adopting a "strict" immigration policy; in other words, it would apply criteria and, presumably, enforce the criteria, as opposed to having an open-ended system.
Lastly, Robert Spencer also discusses immigration policies. See the Hot Air Vent (Dec.12,2006), "An interview with Robert Spencer" (interviewer, Michelle Malkin).
Posted by: J.S. at December 29, 2006 1:03 PM
The link to the interview:
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/12/12/an-interview-with-robert-spencer/
Posted by: J.S. at December 29, 2006 1:17 PM
J.S. "Goode speaks of adopting a "strict" immigration policy; in other words, it would apply criteria and, presumably, enforce the criteria, as opposed to having an open-ended system."
J.S. Fair enough. In other words, Goode is not being specific enough in his statements to rule out that what he means by "strict" couldn't amount merely to the sort of qustionairre that Spencer proposes, in which case Auster's criticism of Spencer in the link above (namely, that he fails to defend Goode adequately by merely defending the morality of questioning Muslims on where they stand re Sharia law) would be incorrect and unfair. That's a reasonable conclusion to draw as well. And frankly, it's not all that clear that Goode has a very sound grasp of Islam anyway and WHY precisely his own statements are thoroughly justified. If he did have such a grasp, then I would think he would have made a better case for his statements in the press. His views seem to be more inchoate in nature, in which case, Spencer may have actually made a far more vigorous defense of his position than even Goode himself realizes! Nevertheless, he certainly grasps (as Diana West points out today) the obvious connection between sheer numbers of Muslim immigrants and the eventual likelihood of the Islamization of America, as we are observing in Europe.
If one can set aside the personal quality of this follow-up post by Auster as to whether Spencer is serious blah blah blah - (Look Auster! OBVIOUSLY Spencer is serious!! Okay?? Jesus H. Christ!), I think it places the 2 sides of the issue in proper perspective - on the one hand the halt of Muslim immigration (for virtually all Muslim newcomers) COMBINED with the use of Spencer's questionnaire for legal resident alien Muslims. That seems to me to be a useful way to advance the argument about how to actually proceed here:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007005.html
(PS - J.S. My husband has got this computer locked down tighter than Fort Knox. Every time I try to watch a video at Hot Air or LGF the whole computer locks up and I have to shut it down. I've tried enabling scripts etc. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't and I don't know why. But this is one video I've tried to see several times and have finally given up after having to restart my computer several times. So in commenting about this I do not have the full information I would have if I could see your video link.)
Posted by: Caroline at December 29, 2006 10:14 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)