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.
Reasonable people would be hard-pressed to find the “hate” in that quotation, but certain liberal types and conservatives have got their knickers in a twist.
Last week, U.S. Congressman Virgil Goode wrote those words in a letter to constituents in reference to newly-elected Muslim Keith Ellison in Minnesota. What makes Goode remarkable in my book is not that he had the ba*** to say what needed to be said, but that he refuses to apologize for saying it. (Yes!)
In a world where men are afraid to say what they mean, mean what they say, and stand behind their words like men, it’s a refreshing change to see a politician with integrity. It’s a rare sighting.
Goode, like any good American, is concerned about Muslims in office. People are missing the point. It’s not about swearing on the Bible or the Koran. Even though we have so-called freedom of religion in this country, America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Islam is a religion that does not embody these principles, at least not in practice. It is one thing to permit people to worship whomever and whatever they will; it’s quite another to allow adherents of anti-western religions to start changing the way things are done in America.
It may sound hysterical, nutty, paranoid, or whatever adjective works for you, but the last thing Americans should want is a majority or even a significant number of Allah worshipers writing American laws and setting American policy. One or two Muslims here or there? Big deal. A critical mass, whatever that number may be? If you think sharia won’t creep in, you’re willfully stupid.
I, like Goode, am very concerned that a Muslim, albeit a member of the Nation of Islam (Ellison said he was never an “enrolled member” of the Nation of Islam) which is not recognized by traditional Muslims, was elected to Congress. If that makes me a bigot, so be it. I’ve been called everything under the sun anyway. 
Liberal and feminist Susan Estrich did so well in her criticism of Mike Nifong, the disgraced DA of Durham County. Her follow-up fails on so many levels. The irony of preaching diversity and tolerance for Muslims is that Muslims have little tolerance for diversity, not to mention equal rights, for all. The next time you hear some liberal woman squawking about “hate” directed toward Ellison and other Muslims, ask her to tell you what she knows about Muslims’ views on women, non-Muslims, and feminists.
Related posts:
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 63 comments }
Keith Ellison was elected from Minnesota, not Michigan.
Thanks for the correction, Mama.
– Admin
I like this guy. A politician who isn’t a mealy-mouthed weasel is unique enough, but a politician who is targeted by CAIR is automatically my kind of guy.
This is what I like about LaShawn’s blog. Hate mail doesn’t deter her from speaking out on issues and positions which are definitely not politically correct and in this case, she’s probably going to get a few more letters.
LaShawn is correct. One only needs to look across the pond to see what has happened in countries where Muslims have reached a critical mass. Sharia law is being practiced in England and the English government is unable to stop it. The violence of Muslim youth is commonplace in France and the culture of almost all European countries is drastically changing.
Ellison CHOSE to make an issue of his religion by publicizing his intent to swear his oath on the Koran even though it is not required to use a Bible or any other holy book. Don’t be fooled by all this politically correct pc in the media. He knew exactly what he was doing.
Mr. Ellison/Hakim/X Ellison/Ellison-Muhammad is a liar and it has already been exposed.
Hooray for Goode!!!
With regards to the blind support by the liberal elites and MSM, you know the old saw: :The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. That and the old USSR one: “Useful Idiots.”
Makes ya wonder, whose blood will be flowing when the angels start sounding their trumpets in Revelations 8.
These forces are arrayed against the Prince of Peace and won’t rest until Christians and Jews are made subservient. It goes without saying that once they have us in dhimmitude, they’ll turn on each other.
By that time, it’ll be too late. The muslims will have the sharpened appetite for blood and domination, and the liberals, with nary a backbone from years of outsourcing the wet-work to others, will be led like sheep to slaughter.
Historically, the betrayed gets it worse in the end than the original victims. Calling helplessly for help and mercy and none to give it.
Good post La Shawn. Some questions for Goode critics. What about B2 Bomber crews? Do we want those to be Muslim? Missile silo crews? Is that bigotry?
Where does the bigotry start in the following sequence:
Make Pakistan give up its nuclear weapons.
Don’t let Iran have them, even if it takes a ground invasion now, and it does.
Don’t let Muslims in Russia have control of Russian bombers or missile silos with nukes, or subs. (Russia will be 50 percent Muslim in less than 50 years.)
Don’t let Muslims in the UK have control of UK bombers or missile silos with nukes, or subs.
Don’t let Muslims in France have control of French bombers or missile silos with nukes, or subs.
Don’t let Muslims in the US have control of US bombers or missile silos with nukes, or subs.
Where does the obviousness stop and the bigotry begin?
How dare you break the “holier than thou” laws of political correctness?
You shall burn in the eternal flames of secular hell!!
Just joking. Merry Christmas La Shawn
Read this new speech by Ellison to his Muslim followers and just think…
http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061226/NEWS01/61226001
Ellison, like many members of the American Muslim movement are adept at being obtuse to the facts, while presenting a non-threatening facade.
Islamic culture is stuck in 7th century A.D. While people talk about the founding fathers being slave owners, little is said of efforts of Muslims from its inception by Mohammed to the present day to fuel a slave trade. Case in point, Sudan and Dafur, among others. While Turkey is the only Muslim country that is completely democratic, the same cannot be said for the others in the Middle East, whether Arab, Persian, or Asian. The Constitution was created to allow the government to overcome the frailties of man and his penchant for exploiting his weaker brethren. No Muslim country (except Turkey) has such a mechanism in place.
While many like to point to Israel for the misfortune of Muslims, all one needs to do is look at how they treat their own concerning schools for children, social services, how are the women treated (clitoridectomy anyone?), how females are treated within the law (rape victims receive anything from lashes for being alone with a man/men or death for adultery). Most Muslims countries are corrupt and run by despots, with little regard for the people.
Minnesota is quite liberal, surprisingly. The rest of the population will get a nice wake up call when Muslims commit a terrorist act in thee name of Allah, and Ellison triangulates the blame between Israel and the US.
I actually agree with him. We have every right to restrict immigration in any way we want. That being said, don’t get mad when countries like India kick Chrisitan missionaries out of their country.
Also Ellison has every right to use a Koran to swear in. Just like a jew can use the torah and a satanist can use the book of satan. Nothing in the constituion says a bible must be used.
vikram’s view represents the clearest view. For my two cents, anyone who agrees with Goode that our resources are going to be “swamped” by Muslims only has to look at any number of American corporations to realize who the real vampires and bloodsuckers of which Goode speaks. Look it up. It ain’t Muslims. Goode is just playing on your fears and you’re lapping it up.
Did Goode think about the Muslims fighting WITH Americans in Iraq before he made that statement?
I guess not.
…I should clarify, as opposed to “AGAINST” the Americans and Iraqi government.
I have a daughter and a granddaughter. If we look at the European countries with large amounts of Muslim immigrants we see a massive uptick in rape and assaults. The way I figure it, we’ve already got plenty of rapists already, without importing a bunch.
I wouldn’t mind the libs if they would simply open their eyes and see what is going on in the world.
Muslims kill gays, but George Bush is the enemy. Muslims rape women but conservatives are evil.
After the libs take down the last line of defense and the Muslims are lining them up against a wall, they will be screaming that we conservatives should have connected the dots.
I am really beginning to hate the libs, I used to think they were just wrong. It’s fine with me if someone wants to kill themselves but they have no right to kill my grandchildren.
Bush is a curious one. Not only does he grovel and lick boots for what the Israelis demand of him as a Christian Zionist, he also has a “special relationship” with the Saudi Rulers and their efforts to spread intolerant, radical Wahabbi religion far and wide. And along with powerful, influential Jews and WASPs, good ‘ol Dubya wants Open Borders and considers it “our obligation” to let in millions of Muslims.
The Jews will soon come to regret their love of cheap labor coming from terrorist-rich nations. Perhaps the rest of us will too, after the disastrous years of Bush II finally end.
In the past, America was quick to insist that no foreign nation “mess” with spreading religion within our Borders. The French Papist missionaries (funded by the Crown of France and the Vatican) trying to spread catholicism amongst American native Americans were warned off as infringing on our seperation of religion and State. Later, when we acquired Alaska, Russian Orthodox churches were severed from direct funding by the Czar as a menace and infringement on our sovereignity.
Bush has been silent about billions of Petrodollars being used by the Saudis to hire Mullahs in America, build Mosques, and fund conversion activities in prisons and the US military. Nor has Bush made a peep about his “dear Saudi friendly kinda guys who “get me” funding anti-American, pro-Jihad, infidel-hating Madrassahs in places like London, Pakistan, Indonesia, Afghanistan.
To oppose Bush, feminists who hail Dearbonistan as a manifestation of a better, more multicultural America, and Muslim-enabling secular Jewish progressives, who believe the more radical Muslims immigrate into America the better – is not hateful – it’s “What the hell are you thinking???” type of scrutiny.
Did Goode think about the Muslims fighting WITH Americans in Iraq before he made that statement?
Congressman Goode voted to put US troops lives on the line helping those Muslims and of course ourselves. So he’s done more than enough for them and they should be happy he’s in Congress. Instead of leaving a tyrant in their land and trying to bring them here, he’s worked to improve their land by helping them to do for themselves and hopefully be better than the previous leader.
I’m sure those Muslims who fight with Americans in Iraq are happy to be rid of Saddam and that people like Goode won on that call, instead of the more Liberal wing of Congress.
They’re not concerned with moving to America, they’re working to improve their own nation. And Goode helped them in that regard.
Diversity = Perversity. I don’t care what the people in a room look like but I do care about how they think critically and otherwise. There is too much PC and Group think going on it is time for Conservatives to do a gut check we are just as much to blame for the state of things as the liberals are. There is no way the border should be open like a sieve and secular humanism is being taught to our children in the name of what? The state and I have had it up to hear with weak kneed jelly spine politicians that would put a knife in my back then vote to prosecute the war with the full force and vengeance of the greatest fighting force in the world. Cong Goode is a patriot they can call him a racist all they want but it is the islamofascists that are racist, sexist bigoted homophobes. Islam is the least tolerant of all religions. I have never heard anything about forgiveness of sin in that doctrine.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Virgil Goode is GREAT!
Sure, GOP Rep. Virgil Goode of Virginia has unleashed a firestorm of controversy over his remarks about Minnesota’s Kieth Ellison’s insisting upon being sworn in using the Koran, being a harbinger of things to come “if Americans don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration.”
To his credit, Goode’s refused to back off from his comments and insists that they’re just common sense.
Sure, Ellison isn’t an immigrant, legal or illegal. His family’s been in America for hundreds of years, but Goode’s point is absolutely correct on two fronts (1) illegal immigration is doing massive harm to America and presents an enormous national security risk and (2) Sharia-based Islam is simply incompatible with the modern West at this point.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061222/pl_nm/koran_congress_dc
Indeed they ARE!
#14 shiva warns: “Goode is just playing on your fears and you’re lapping it up.”
Have we any reason to fear that in our “diversity” consumed society that we will slowly adapt our rules to complement (comply with) Sharia law?
Can we “dis” Islam with the same fervor that we demean Christianity? (Just today, I saw this Virginia vanity plate on a car: H8 GOD’.)
Our libs are content in their belief that diversity conquers all. Wait until they wake up to having to avoid the notice of the Muslim religious police.
Which lib out there is willing to exercise the artistic freedom of expression that irritates CAIR?
Some time back, a missionary family visited our church and spent a good deal of time telling of their experiences working in Burkina Faso, Africa. He said that in one large province, Christians and Muslims lived together quite peacably. He asked a Muslim whom he knew well if this was the general goal of Muslims of the world, and he recieved an answer which shocked him. The man told him, very casually, that there were 3 phases of Islam:
#1: Peaceful coexistence.
#2: Bids for positions of power and influence to effect policy-making, etc..
#3: Surprise!…JIHAD.
Keith Ellison’s stance is just one more (albeit more advanced) bully tactic being employed by Muslims in the U.S. as they move well into the second “phase” of Islam. If people in high places- and too many average Americans, as well- continue their selfish, cowardly refusal to face reality, it won’t be long until the Mullahs in U.S. Mosques start “giving the word”…
How many congress-critters and local politicos are faithful Christians or faithful Jewish people? Is there a critical mass of non-believers and/or fakers in congress now? How about 10 years ago? How about 15, 30, 60, 100 years ago?
How many devout/faithful Catholics are in congress? Are they considered worthwhile or not worthwhile given many evangelicals state that Catholic followers are misguided?
You mean to state that Christians would not challenge sharia type laws placed into affect in the U.S.?
You are placing a religious test on political office, which is against the foundation of this country.
Michael Medved would like no restrictions on immigrations.
Virgil Goode needs his zip code tattooed next to his large print name. It’s easier to email congresspeople that way. The congressional webmaster like you to go out and find the pertinent contact infor before they will direct you to the correct website.
I see no harm in telling immigrants that they “may not particpate in sharia”. If they do they will be exported home. Which is not Kansas.
I guess I just don’t get it…Are Muslims good for America or bad for America? Are’nt the “new” rulers of Iraqi government practicing Muslims? Are we to support and trust the efforts of an Iraqi Islamic government?
Are there any Muslims you would deem worthy of holding political office in the U.S.?
—”I’m sure those Muslims who fight with Americans in Iraq are happy to be rid of Saddam”—
Sure, and Goode and people like him, say there’re not welcome here. He’s a bigot, not a hero.
I guess there’s no difference between Muslims who fight for the insurgency or with the Americans in his mind? He’s a bigot.
I don’t know if any of you on the right have thought about the consitutional process lately, but I think you’re in little danger from the introduction of Islamic practice. Unless you’re afraid of your shadow, which is about where this stands in the way of policy threat.
Christians have only been marginally successful with repeated attempts to inject religion (prayer in school, anti-abortion, etc.,), so why this sudden fear of muslims in politics, when you guys have been here in great numbers trying to do just some little things. Stop with the xenophobia already!
There is nothing in the Constitution that says a Bible must be used. The oath is paramount in importance. In fact, often there are two ceremonies. In the first, there is almost never a book of any kind present. The second is the “photo-op” with family, supporters, and Bible/book of your choosing. The bottom line is it is unconstitutional to apply a religious test. If a Muslim runs for elective office, it’s clear to me that he should believe in the principles this country was founded upon like religious freedom.
The prospect of sharia finding it’s way into our government is scary, but so is the idea of rewriting science to fit in with the religious beliefs of some. I don’t know anything about Mr. Ellison’s positions on the issues of our day. I don’t live in his district. But, that is where the battle lines should be drawn: Do you agree with him politically or not? If we start disqualifying folks for their beliefs, there are quite a few people would be tossed out. Like those who believe the Earth is only 8,000 years old, for example. My questions for the folks so opposed to Mr. Ellison: Should we expel Muslims from this country, even those who were born here?
How can we extol the virtues of democracy in Iraq while denying the franchise to Muslims here?
Nope, disagree here…
We have freedom of religion. America is LOOESLY based on Judeo-Christian principles but is largely based on capitalistic principles, NOT Christianity. We have
We can’t have it both ways. Our Constitution must state specifically that we use the Bible or don’t complain when another book is used.
Goode, like any good American, is concerned about Muslims in office. People are missing the point. It’s not about swearing on the Bible or the Koran. Even though we have so-called freedom of religion in this country, America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Islam is a religion that does not embody these principles, at least not in practice. It is one thing to permit people to worship whomever and whatever they will; it’s quite another to allow adherents of anti-western religions to start changing the way things are done in America.
The beauty of this country is that we evolve with change. When we had the influx of immigrants in the 1920s and 1930s, it only strengthened us. Again I ask: Should we expel all Muslims? Or, do we allow them to settle here and become “American” as all immigrants eventually do? I think casting them out would only prove one thing. That many of us do not believe in the concepts America was founded upon. At least, not in practice. We trot the principles out like a bloody shirt to rally around kids who can’t pray in a public school and to fight the so-called “War on Christmas”. But, do we really believe in the promise of America?
If not expulsion, what about internment camps? Are we ready to do that again? Round them up and put them behind fenced compounds in Oregon, Montana and Wyoming. Who’s next after that? It’s not so ridiculous to believe it could happen. After all, we’re upset that a man of faith wants to use his holy book to
La Shawn, once again you are dead on right…I saw Mr. Ellison on TV last week, with a number of men standing behind him chanting..”allah, allah”. It sent literal chills down my spine. As with you, I do not care if this labels me a bigot…it is what I feel. Not in my mind as in thoughts, opinions, views….but in my spirit…and my spirit is filled with a dread of Biblical proportions.
You’re too quick on the draw, “bob,” as I’m sure you’ve been told before. I was going to approve your rather tame and badly misspelled comments until you insulted me because your comments weren’t posted right away. Comments by first-time commenters are always held until approved. Patience (and good spelling) is a virtue you should cultivate. – Admin
Angel, I expect them to come here and embrace/defend all of our rights. If Christians have to get dragged thru civil procedures that ’strip’ out Christ, then it’s only fair that Muslims have to strip out Allah.
Put it this way, are you ready to bring out the interment camps if you determine that the other side WILL intern you if you don’t submit? Or is that categorically off the table?
Are you aware that our founding fathers also had to contend with Muslims, to include combat? If they were aware of, and considered the muslims to be rapacious and untrustworthy back then, I’m sure that knowledge was factored into their framing the constitution without having to call them out by name. Just as they did not feel the need to call out the Pope.
Why is it that Christians have to submit to the twisted interpretation of ’separation of church & state’ while Islam gets a pass?
The word “Christ” can’t be uttered in a public school unless as part of an expletive, yet full deference is given to ‘immersing’ children in the experience of Ramadan by fasting, praying and learning the history over a period of a few days. Some may say that’s only role-playing and is positive from the multi-culti exposure.
That is BUNK!
As Jim Robertson pointed out, this is just a sneak manuever.
As for those school kids, I wonder if there isn’t some register in a mosque somewhere to be used against those kids when it’s time for Phase 3? Afterall, once a muslim, always a muslim for life and a death sentence to any that try to renounce their faith.
With dogma like that, it’s so easy to extract conversion by illogical processes.
– Paternally? Sure, a father’s household and offspring are automatically considered Muslm and bound by Sharia.
–Under the gun/pain of death? Sure, just ask Steve Centanni.
–By date rape? Sure, just ask any number of Coptic, Christian or even secular girls that have been forced into Islam.
–By play acting and reciting cool sounding Arabic words during Ramadan? Just wait and see when Sharia becomes an alternate and bonafide law of the land and imans claim the sole right to try apostates.
The reason why Catholics & Eastern Orthodox were discoraged from their missionary work was not that it was a ‘competing’ religion to the Christians, rather it was a tenet of those faith to pledge alliegence to a higher political authority than spelled out by our constitution.
The threat of Catholicism only subsided when the Church backed off its claims to political authority.
If Muslims would be content to abide a democratic law of the land, then more power to them. But NOT if they think they can come in and use critical mass to up-end our system and introduce a retro-primitive culutre & legal system.
Furthermore, can anyone think of one verse, just one verse in the Bible that would condone lying as a means to an end? This is why the formality of placing an oath on the Bible — because vows are considered sacred.
Juxtapose that with Islam where lying and decepton is not only permitted, but encouraged. When you build a culture on lies, one can see why the sense of ‘tribalism’ is so strong and the concept of justice can be so gnarled as to codify punishment of women who have been raped.
How else can one explain that the 1st part of the Koran claims Jews and Christians as fellow believers of ‘the book’, yet towards the end calls for jihad against them? It wouldn’t have anything to do with Mohammed’s personal experiences in trying to ally with the Judeo-Christian set and being spurned by them, would it? If so, isn’t Mohammed injecting his personal feelings and prejudices into what should have been the truth of God’s solemn Word?
Bottomline, when a person can’t depend on absolute truths, he is left to grapple with absolute power.
When Jesus said that there’s a way that seems righteous to man but death lies at the endpoint, he wasn’t kidding and Islam is one of those ways.
Speaking of multi-culti, why is it that light-complected Arabs almost never become slaves, but these light-complected Arabs sure have a ‘vibrant’ market in black, brown, yellow & white slaves? Now there’s a mystery of the human psyche…to join a racist group that regularily preys on their lower classes. Must be that power-sharing deal.
Now if Keith is a ‘good’ muslim, he should have no problem ruling out the introduction of Sharia and strongly condemning any anti-democratic impulses of the Islamofascist set. But then again, there’s that little matter of trust. In his case and in his heart, Keith would have no qualms in swearing on a stack of Bibles in order to advance his belief that there is no other god but Allah and that there is no other justice, but that of Sharia. That plus all the recently noted secret closed-door hob-nobbing with CAIR and other muslim organizations tied to radicalism and terroists.
In retrospect, all I can say is; “Good on Goode and don’t back down an inch”!
The burst in the growth of Islam is in the desperate populations of the world which, coincidentally, have extremely high birth rates. The average age in these Muslim countries is 15 or 16. The Imams stir up the testosterone and feed the young roosters on being lord and master over the women. Soon, there is flock of petty satraps who strut the rules of Sharia Law and take delight in “perfect order.”
Many Muslims have risen to a higher order of co-existence with the modern world and they basically pose little threat to the non-Muslim society. The women dress in Western attire without covering their heads. They drive cars. They can be highly educated and hold important posts in government.
But, the “enlightened” Muslims know better than to take on the radical youth. They will not stand up to CAIR. They mostly wish it would all go away. Why?
Why? Because the Koran is full of violence and violent interpretation. It has no…..zero….zilch…..concept of the Golden Rule. It is not a “get along” theology; it is a conquer, convert or subject message.
Any effort to paint it otherwise is a fool’s errand, so the moderate Muslim is reduced to mumbling platitudes.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
If you fear for the U.S. one might note Turkey, a secular government, with a border on Iran no less, and yet (99% Muslim according to Wikipedia).
I don’t consider it a model of a nation (I lived there for 6 months while stationed in the USAF), but they are hardly being overun by Talibanic-like law.
And it seems like nations in the vicinity would be the first to fall. This is why Goode sounds like — well like every version of “there are black people moving into the neighborhood†racist, bigot, Anti-semite, KKK,â€) and the same kind of vision such people promote.
But there are some fundamental points that LaShawn and her neo-Conservative followers are missing here.
For one thing Muslims are not an overwhelming portion of the legal (or illegal) immigrants who enter this country (although I agree that in general immigration should be tightened & reduced across the board mainly for security reasons)…. but this is really a side note. This is really not the point here. The point was that Goodes bigoted remarks were targeted at Ellison, but they have no merit whatsoever…. Goode completely missed it….and made ignorant assumptions (and I see that Goodes supporters have completely missed it as well….or their stubbornness prevents them from seeing the mistake).
And I can’t believe that people who are supposed to be educated Conservatives are agreeing with this nonsense… Even Republican Congressmembers are beginning to take Goode to task.
This is about an arrogant, stubborn Congressman who doesn’t want to admit that his comments (in this particular context) were unjustified….and he doesn’t want to apologize. He should apologize personally to Mr. Ellison (but in private if necessary). That’s just the right thing to do in this situation.
See my blog entry on this subject…..
Gratuitous personal remarks (which I deleted) and link-dropping (which I deleted). I do admire your ballsiness! As you know, you comment on this blog at my pleasure. Next time, refrain from mentioning me at all and just stick to the argument. If you can’t do that, this post will be your last. I’ve warned you before. Short memory, I guess. – Admin
Angry, do you have stats on the makeup of immigrants?
Just for the sake of argument, I would say even 1% is too many, if they are primarily young men, madrassa-trained in the wahabibi and virulent strain of Islam.
Remember, it only took 20 radicals to bring down WTC and to hit the pentagon. And, yes, disdaining to swear upon the Bible and opting for the koran instead is radical.
If it weren’t for the unexpected & unprecedented decision to ground the fleet, what?… Another twenty to attack the West Coast and take out the Golden Gate bridge, Transamerica (whatever that pyramid looking building in San Fran), a Hollywood landmark or two and maybe the M$ Redmond campus.
In a way, it’s almost a pity that it didn’t happen. That way we wouldn’t have to deal with smug Hollywood limousine liberals who think that somehow the targets of the jihadiis were just capitalist warmongers or little Eichmans.
Don’t tell me you’ve forgotten about the 6 ‘praying’ imans. I assure you that it wasn’t the praying that got them thrown off. And who’s that at the vanguard, bloviating about how these imans are god-fearing americans, guilty only of ‘flying while muslim’. Yep, our friend Keith, in full-court press with CAIR.
Oh yeah, nevermind AQ #2, cum fearless leader’s Christmas message promising to make the democrats submit to his tender mercies. Yep, pay no attention to that man in front of his cave curtain.
I don’t “debate” my policy with anyone. I understand the impulse to reply to someone challenging or chastising you, but I’ve told you exactly what I want and don’t want from you, but you can’t seem to control yourself. Echo chamber or not, it’s my house. Go link-drop on someone else’s blog. – Admin
I’ve always wanted to be a neo-conservative follower, and now, according to Angry, I’ve arrived. Ahh, the sweet smell of success.
As for the actual issue here, the frightening part of it involves those who simply don’t, or won’t, understand the threat posed to us (and the whole world) by radical Islam. OF COURSE it makes sense to watch who we admit to this country.
Despite the best efforts of the left, we are still a sovereign nation, with both rights and responsibilities, including the responsibility to control our own borders. The wailing cries of “racist” and “bigot” coming from the open-borders crowd are symptomatic of the larger problem.
#38 calls LaShawn’s followers “neo-conservatives.†Personally, I have be a dyed in the wool conservative for more than half a century. I don’t know when you pass over from neo-conservative to conservative, but I think I done did it a long time ago.
I love Angry’s flaccid attempt at erudition: “The point was that Goodes bigoted remarks were targeted at Ellison, but they have no merit whatsoever…. Goode completely missed it….and made ignorant assumptions …..â€
From this we learn that Goode’s remarks were bigoted. We have no evidence presented, just per se conclusion. And what does this prove? Why, that Goode’s remarks “have no merit whatsoever†and that “Goode completely missed ‘it’†and “made ignorant assumptions.â€
Now that is as clear as mud to me.
Virgil Goode (I live in his district) has warned that Ellison is the vanguard of problems ahead if we follow the folly of warming up to Islamists with our diversity, political correctness, separation of church and state beliefs.
We play by one set of rules and Islamists play by another. It is not rocket science. Either we look the lion in the face or we overlook what 20 determined Islamists pulled off on 9/11.
Virgil Goode’s stance is based on the UNDENIABLE fact that Sharia-based Islam is completely incompatible with the West.
I was heartened after 9/11 when we swept up some 4000+ Arab/Muslim males (most of them here illegally) and detained, questioned…and deported those here illegally.
To me, that was a “good first step.”
The necessary second step, of barring ALL Arab/Muslims from emigrating here, has not yet occurred.
Even now, Western Europe, awash in what Jean Marie LePen (France) calls “the sewage of Sharia culture,” is seeing a huge increase in anti-Muslim sentiment among a growing number of Western Europeans.
I pray that Europe soon comes to its senses and forces these invaders out of Western Europe. It is probably the only way that Western Europe can be saved and America not consigned to fight global Sharia-based Islam alone.
Those who call Virgil Goode a “bigot” are wittingly or not friends of jihad and enemies of America.
http://workingclassconservative.blogspot.com/2006/12/all-those-who-criticized-virgil-goode.html
I think the question of “bigotry” is a distraction. What good does it do to make that accusation or to defend against it? It’s just name-calling.
So here’re my questions.
It does seem like Sharia is incompatible with Liberal Democracy. Would a literalist Christian belief in the eschaton be any more compatible in the long run?
In #36, above, I quoted the Virginia State Constitution. Representative Goode has (at least once) put his hand on his Bible and sworn to uphold that Constitution. Is he honoring that oath?
Thanks, all, for an interesting read.
If you know about the Koran and the way the Muslims interpret it then you know what Keith Ellison meant when he said ( You can’t back down, you can’t chicken out, you can’t be afraid, you got to have faith in Allah, and you got to stand up and be a real Muslim,†Keith Ellison ) The Muslims believe it is their duty to lie and deceive the non believer’s This country is doomed if we don’t stop the invasion of Muslims and others, who can just walk across the boarder north or south. It is about time someone in the government said something I fear it is to little and to late. as long as this government supports countries that in reality work for our destruction. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, even Iraq in time will have a government that looks to destroy us We have become week and afraid of what the world thinks. There is only one way we can survive. WE must use all means to preserve our way of life that means we need to get tough our laws and liberals play right in the hands of our enemies When our founding fathers wrote the bill of rights and Constitution they had no idea how that would be used against us to destroy us. They must be rolling over in their graves knowing how much the laws they felt would protect us are the very laws that will destroy this country. fromano1@hotmail.com
Awww Man!!!
Re #40, I must have kindled Angry’s rage. Too bad I missed his fireworks before it got doused.
Oh well… 
The more of Goode’s media attackers I recognize, the more I like the guy. Anyone who has that many lefties in a snit has to be on the right track.
Re Alvin Failing @ # 44: “Would a literalist Christian belief in the eschaton be any more compatible in the long run”
What’s the point and how does it tie with your #36?
Before you answer that, here’s a couple of trivial questions:
1) Which came first, the Puritans and witch burnings or the Founding Fathers? Ergo literal eschaton? (Hint, if it’s what I think you imply then that’s an oxymoron — literalist Christian belief is over and beyond the end of the world and in fact does not hinge on the eschaton. Go figure)
2) With regards to the Mormon practice of polygamy, did the Virginian legistlators honor their oath vis a vis the Constituition to use the full weight & sword of the law against polygamy, and for that matter, peyote, animal sacrifices and any other religious practices deemed incompatible with Virginian values?
As for the Islamic doctrine of deception, try this on for size:
Nice bold statement of being black, muslim and proud of it albeit from a position of power. Unfortunately for Ellison, he didn’t account for the fact that the web is far from a memory hole. I refer you to Powerline and their long list of posts that clearly show Ellison step’in and fetch’in while lying thru his teeth about his faith and intentions. In fact in several MSM interviews, he seemed downright embarassed to have even dabbled, let alone associate with NOI.
Now juxtapose the saga of Ellison with Apostle Peter when he denied ever associating with ‘that man’. Matt 26:65-75.
Just don’t hold your breath waiting for Hakim to weep bitterly. In fact, according to the koran that he wants to swear on, it’s a time for sweet rejoicing, in phase 2 of jihad, that the infidels were beaten at their own game.
“I guess I just don’t get it…Are Muslims good for America or bad for America? Are’nt the “new†rulers of Iraqi government practicing Muslims? Are we to support and trust the efforts of an Iraqi Islamic government?
“Are there any Muslims you would deem worthy of holding political office in the U.S.?” (P. Anthony Allen)
For better or for worse there are two kinds of Westerners today P Anthony, those who understand that the WoT is actually a war between Medieval, Sharia-based Islam and the modern West and those who don’t.
As a matter of historical fact, it’s a war that’s been building for decades and one that has been waged by the Arab-Muslim world against the West, in earnest (full-time) since about 1991.
Those who refuse to believe that, even those who cling to some hope of a negotiated settlement are, wittingly or not, friends (or at least “useful idiots”) of the jihad.
The best thing that our government could do at this point, and it probably wouldn’t have to be done at the Executive level, would be to break any remaining relations America has with even the most moderate parts of the Arab-Muslim world, so that this confrontation would have to be settled where it should be – on the battlefield.
Here’s what in my view, is a delicious irony of our current predicament – Sharia-based Islam reviles especially the West’s “Liberal” traditions (pro-women’s rights, pro-gay rights, and the Left’s vaunted anti-religiosity, among other things) and is especially aggrieved over the West’s (especially America’s) globalizing what it views as a most vile and “decadent culture.” The rise of jihadist Sharia-based Islam has created a resurgence of ultra-nationalist Conservatives in even some of the most traditionally “Left-wingâ€/Liberal environs in Europe (LePen’s progeny in France and Jorge Hairder’s Freedom Party in Austria) – this is currently the fastest growing ideology in Western Europe. That’s a fact, even though that may not ultimately be for the better.
Still, isn’t that ironic?
If Sharia-based Islam were to ever win the day, it would be the Western Liberal/”Leftist” who’d be its first and primary target and in the West, with the rise of Islam having swollen the ranks of ultra-nationalist Conservatives, and this ideology also reviling the Western Leftist, perhaps most of all, there seems virtually no place for the Western Leftist to turn.
I mean it’s almost as though folks like Michael Moore (an advocate of a “live & let live” sort of peace between the Islamic world and the West) are whistling past the graveyard that holds their very own freshly dug graves!
It’s not bigotry to state a plain fact, that Sharia-based Islam and ALL those who adhere to it are not only “bad for America,†they are completely incompatible with Western traditions.
I’ve always felt (some) people (liberals at least) have been pretty diligent about noticing religious intrusion in government, so maybe this is why I’m not concerned with Muslims (or anyone else) coming in the U.S. with (secret agendas not withstanding), and not being noticed.
If I’m ‘not’ going to support Christianity being foisted from government positions, I’m not going to support Islam either, Hindu, Native Indian practices, whatever. (I dont know about the plans of the rest of the left-leaning, but I suspect its much the same)
As for Muslims coming in for terrorist purposes –well, I thought we are already covering that, or what the heck are all our security agencies up to?
#44 Alvin Failing asks: “would a literalist (sic) Christian belief in the eschaton (sic) be any more compatible in the long run?â€
This can not be answered as there is no such word as “eschaton†in the common lexicon. In fact, it is a bastardization of the ancient Greek study of “last things†when studying theological differences: eschatology. However, some sloppy rhetoricians have slipped it in as a noun form as a crutch in their ramblings.
Alvin Failing then purports to quote the Virginia State Constitution. But he quotes the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. This is a document written (mostly) by Jefferson and Mason. The Virginia Constitution was written in large part by A.E. Howard in the 1970’s and I worked with him on the document.
Goode made no complaint about where you place your hand when being sworn into office.
Virgil proudly chooses the Bible. However, if one wishes to grab his crotch, that would be legal.
Goode’s cautionary warning is that Sharia law is held to be the “official word of Allah†and as such is the only law. It is to be enforced, strictly, by the caliphate in obedience to Allah.
When a Muslim swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States by placing his hand on the Koran, what is he actually promising? Is he placing the Constitution above the Koran? How can that be?
If “Alvin Failing” is a pseudonym, it is a fairly good one.
If you paint with a broad enough brush, you can accuse, and try everyone without really determining who is really against you.
It may not even be fair to single out Sharia as it is practiced differently in different countries.
#54 jsm worries about “painting with a broad brush” and notes that Sharia is practiced differently in different countries.
Fair enough. Turkey, Jordan and Egypt are three Muslim majorities that have to deal with Sharia law. Mubarak of Egypt is an “elected” dictator who keeps Sharia under a strong thumb. Jordan is a Monarchy where Sharia dare not irritate the Monarch. Turkey is a different confection. In 1998 the Turkish Constitutional Court banned and dissolved Turkey’s Refah Party on the grounds that the “rules of sharia”, which Refah sought to introduce, “were incompatible with the democratic regime,” stating that “democracy is the antithesis of sharia.”
Indonesia is struggling with the suppositions of Sharia law and the guarantees of its constitution.
If the military dictatorship is Pakistan fails, that country will cleave to Sharia law in a heartbeat.
Not every Muslim is against us. But just where are the “moderate” Muslims rising up against the caliphate and the imposition of Sharia law? …….. ……… ……… (crickets chirping.)
Regarding #53, “Statute For Religious Freedom” I didn’t mean to misrepresent the Virginia State Constitution. The web page from which I quoted states, “It is still part of modern Virginia’s constitution.” If that’s incorrect, or if I’ve misunderstood, then I’m sorry. But my question was an honest one, and not meant to offend.
Regarding #53, “no such word as eschaton”
I’ll work on my writing. But I gather you worked out what I was trying to ask. Should I be afraid of (hypothetical)legislators who believe that, for example, the world will literally end in our lifetime?
Regarding #48, “What’s the point … ?”
You give me too much credit. I’m not trying to make a subtle point. I’m asking if I should (also) be worried about (hypothetical) Christian extremists in office? Assuming there is such a thing as a Christian extremist. I certainly (as far as I understand the issue) agree that Islamic extremism would make for bad legislation.
Regarding #48, ” … and how does it tie in with #36?”
It doesn’t. At least I didn’t mean for it to. I meant to ask two separate questions. One is about how to interpret the Statute of Religious Freedom. The other is about what sorts of religious beliefs might be considered “dangerous” if used to formulate legislation.
Regarding #48, “polygamy” etc ?
Is there a difference between what people are free to believe and what people are free to practice? I certainly hope so.
I’m not attacking Representative Goode, nor am I defending Representative Ellison. Thanks for giving me more to think about.
“I’ve always felt (some) people (liberals at least) have been pretty diligent about noticing religious intrusion in government, so maybe this is why I’m not concerned with Muslims (or anyone else) coming in the U.S. with (secret agendas not withstanding), and not being noticed.
“If I’m ‘not’ going to support Christianity being foisted from government positions, I’m not going to support Islam either, Hindu, Native Indian practices, whatever. (I dont know about the plans of the rest of the left-leaning, but I suspect its much the same)” (jsm)
No other religion has, among its tenets, anything like Dhimmitude – the second class citizenship assigned to all non-Muslims by Muslim orthodoxy.
It is not “radicalized Islam” that is the threat to the West, it is traditional, Sharia-based Islam that is the problem.
This is very easily evidenced by simply looking around the world at the various conflicts;
(*) In Darfur traditional Sharia-based Muslims have engaged in a prolonged campaign of genocide and rape against the Sudan’s non-Muslim populations to the south.
(*) In Somalia a Muslim government has attacked Ethiopia and other surrounding nations.
(*) In the Balkans, the Muslims of Kosovo began the first genocide, murdering 3000 Christian Serbs. Milocevic merely responded in kind, slaughtering 10,000 Muslims.
(*) In Kashmir traditional Sharia-based Muslims clash with Hindus.
(*) In the Phillipines and Indonesia, traditional Sharia-based Muslims clash with Catholics.
What Jim Robertson said above seems to have been enacted all over the world;
He asked a Muslim whom he knew well if this was the general goal of Muslims of the world, and he received an answer which shocked him.
The man told him, very casually, that there were 3 phases of Islam:
#1: Peaceful coexistence.
#2: Bids for positions of power and influence to effect policy-making, etc…
#3: Surprise!….JIHAD.
It isn’t religious intrusion in government that is the problem with Islam, it’s that Sharia-based Islam is completely and utterly incompatible with Western traditions and values.
A GREAT documentary on this is Obsession
http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/
—-But just where are the moderate Muslims rising up against the caliphate and the imposition of Sharia law? .. (crickets chirping.) —
I can only guess. One answer (in analogy) is that a family might fight bitterly among themselves, but come together from outside threats. Greater distractions such as invasions.
Two: The conservative Methodist is less alarmed by the snake handling speaking in tongues fundamentalist than the atheist. The first two, being in the same camp (more or less) at least identify a common cause.
Third: If you observe, for example, culture in Iran, where you have a clash of conservative versus westernized standards, there certainly hasn’t been complete silence.
Fourth: Political examples – It’s usually not Republicans going after Republicans and Democrats going after Democrats. You don’t eat your own as a general rule (at least not outright).
Fifth: Otherwise, I don’t know. I have only stated guesses why they may act as they do.
JMK – I’m with you, and yet, radical practices (faiths, movements) gain little foothold in the U.S. The best I can come up with is the afore mentioned Mormons claiming the state of Utah possibly. People who’ve tried more radical change simply don’t make very many inroads. At least on how it impacts everyone’s individual freedoms.
I don’t see Islam as having any more success here (peacefully or violently). That’s my take.
I also don’t see a need to make a special case for them, as opposed to any other threat, that is not already protected against by our laws, and if necessary by our armed forces.
And I still see the need to protect ALL religious freedoms, and other freedoms the Constitution guarantees. No exceptions.
The founder of CAIR, the self-described moderate Islamic civil rights group [choke-gag], stated that he looked forward to the day when the flag of Islam was flying over the White House.
Anyone who voluntarily ignores warnings like this (and countless others like it) needs to re-evaluate his or her perspective.
#59 jsm ends with an open, honest statement: “Fifth: Otherwise, I don’t know. I have only stated guesses why they may act as they do.”
If you have a real interest in the situation, I find the new book by Mark Steyn, America Alone, is as good an eye-opener as anything in print.
Americans have been seduced by the idea of separation between church and state. The seduction is so complete that the concept of a theocracy overcoming the state is relegated to the realm of fantasy. Nazism, communism, and fascism were all cancers that grew from within and Islamo-fascism has got a real momentum in much of the world. It has strong roots in the USA, as well. Ignore it at your peril.
Hollywood would have no qualms making a film about fundamentalist Christian snake handlers or a Christian politician who was warning of Armageddon around the next corner. Nor would there be any scarcity of big name actors to play the lead roles. But Hollywood will not make a totally neutral movie about the life of the Mohamed, because the Danish cartoon episode proved that only crazies snicker at fatwas.
Keep track of the daily news in Dearborn, Michigan. Islam there is far from a get-along benign alternative to being an aethiest or Unitarian.
“JMK – I’m with you, and yet, radical practices (faiths, movements) gain little foothold in the U.S. The best I can come up with is the afore mentioned Mormons claiming the state of Utah possibly. People who’ve tried more radical change simply don’t make very many inroads. At least on how it impacts everyone’s individual freedoms.” (jsm)
On that point (radical religious movements have failed in the US) you’re correct, but that’s ONLY because America has been both a European and Christian-based nation, as impolitic as that may be to say and because America has taken a strong, sometimes violent stand against those radical religions.
All native Americans (Americans by birth) have been immersed in a European-based culture, with laws, customs and a common language that have all sprung from Europe. And it’s been heavilly influenced by the Christian tradition that values things like tolerance and acceptance of differences – few other religions do that.
Sharia Law is, in and of itself, anthithetical to American values.
Everywhere that Muslims have become a majority Sharia Law has become the Civil Law of that land and anywhere Muslims have become a sizable minority (England, France and Belgium) they have instigated conflict with those “non-believers” around them.
I should acknowledge up front that I come into this sort of discussion from a different place than many people. I’ve been a HazMat Specialist for the past two years in NYC and have been sent to a slew of schools (bomb school, rad school, chemical agent ed and have attended various terror summits) and though I didn’t come into it with the view that traditional Shria-based Islam is THE problem, I’ve become convinced of that now.
Some may well argue that such a view benefits those in my line of work, by pushing the need for more anti-terror funding and greater police powers to combat this threat, and I have considered that, but I everything I’ve seen to date points to Sharia Law as the foundation of our current problem.
The question, to me, isn’t “Can one be a good Muslim and not a threat to the non-Muslim,” but “Weren’t those 19 Arabs who engineered 9/11 “good Muslims,” and weren’t those who killed Vincent van Gough’s grandson “good Muslims” too?”
According to Sharia Law, the 9/11 hijackers, those who rape in the name of Allah in Darfur and those who murdered van Gough’s grandson were all “good Muslims.”
That’s why everyone should view that film “Obsession” at least once.
Alvin, here’s my thots on your queries:
1) “Should I be afraid of (hypothetical)legislators who believe that, for example, the world will literally end in our lifetime?”
Not particularly on 2 points:
A) From a literalist POV, it matters not what any one does, we can not hasten nor prolong the end of the world, or more accurately, Christ’s 2nd coming. To wit, Matt 25 & Acts 1:6 – 11. Our instructions are to carry on productively without concern as to the timing.
B) Part of our tasking is to spread the Gospel. This witness has always intended as a mission of persuasion. not coercion. After all, a personal relationship stems from the heart, not dogma or recitation of special words, IOW take it or leave it. (Rev 22:8 -17)
Bear in mind that when it comes to mankind, we tend to subvert truth to our ends. Legislators from Constantine thru Popes and Puritans have sought to codify the faith. It simply didn’t work. And under our constitution it won’t work here now nor ever, unless of course our constitution is fundamentally altered, i.e. substitute the guarantees of religious freedom, for the guarantees proffered by a ’superior’ religion.
That said, Christian citizens have every right to expect that society reflects certain morals and standards, just as any other citizen.
2) In looking up the quote of Ben Franklin’s “A republic if you can keep it”, I found a January 2000 article by TX Congresscritter Ron Paul, that unintentionally gets to the crux of this thread.
In fact, rather than finish my own train of thot, I think this is a must read, just substitute the context of islam, jihad, sharia, Ellison etc and you can see where Mr. Goode is coming from.
Here’s just the introduction to Ron Paul’s treatise below:
PS Alvin, I look forward to any other questions you may have. Ciao
Barb Boxer joins Goode against muslims?
“Dec. 29, 2006 – In a highly unusual move, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California has rescinded an award to an Islamic activist in her home state because of the man’s connections to a major American Muslim organization that recently has been courted by leading political figures and even the FBI.
[SNIP]
Ironically, just last month, Boxer had sent CAIR a letter in connection with its 10th anniversary fundraising dinner endorsing the group as a “constant support system for the American Muslim community†and praising it for its work on civil liberties. “As an advocate for justice and greater understanding, CAIR embodies what we should all strive to achieve,” Boxer wrote in the Nov. 18 letter.
Boxer tells NEWSWEEK she never saw the letter to CAIR signed in her name or was even aware of the award to Elkarra before it was sent out. “I feel terrible about this,” she says. “We just made a mistake. I was not in the loop. That was an automatic signature [on the letter].” But Boxer stands by her decision to withdraw the award and to distance herself from CAIR, saying she was influenced by previous critical statements about CAIR made by her Democratic colleagues Sens. Richard Durbin of Illinois and Charles Schumer of New York. “To praise an organization because they haven’t been indicted is like somebody saying, ‘I’m not a crook,’†Boxer says. “I’m going to take a lot of hits for this. But I’m just doing what I think is right.””
There’s more, much more
As I stated earlier, anyone being denounced by CAIR must be doing something right.
Comments on this entry are closed.