Mike has an interesting post up concerning the latest GOP debate over at the AFB. Like Mike I didn't catch the debate. Unlike Mike I have yet to read the transcript.
I will say this re Romney "On abortion I was wrong": That's about the best answer I personally could ever wish to hear. I think it was unnecessary and uncalled for, and a little bit insulting to be honest, to scold everyone for seeking a candidate who never made a mistake, but whatever.
Is it ok to seek someone who's made fewer mistakes by comparison, or, someone whose mistakes are or have been less damaging to conservatism? That is, the only political force standing in the way of the totally unacceptable and intolerable absolute dominance of the destructive ideology of liberalism.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Mike has an interesting post up concerning the latest GOP debate over at the AFB. Like Mike I didn't catch the debate. Unlike Mike I have yet to read the transcript.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
I appreciate the contribution of Thomas Jefferson to the founding of this country probably as much as anyone does. But there's one point of disagreement between he and I that I just can't get over.
In his autobiography, Mr. Jefferson discusses the Virginia bill on Religious freedom which he authored, and particularly what the Virginia legislators at the time had intended in passing the bill in its final form.
The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority,...
in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination. (italics added)
Really? The rejection of this singular proposition by a great majority -- inserting the name Jesus Christ in the midst of Jefferson's phrase -- is proof that the Virginia assembly meant to comprehend every religion under the sun, even those religions which are strikingly incompatible with a Western worldview, within the mantle of its protection?
One would think that if Jefferson's assertion is correct, there would be a large body of compelling evidence to support and fortify his claim to which he would point us, but he makes no reference to any such evidence. Why? Also, what plan and what author and what religion is Jefferson referring to when he says "a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion?" The only thing that's clear to me in this phrase is the term "our" meaning "their" meaning the Virginia assembly that passed the bill as the voice of the freemen of that State. He is referring to some specific plan of some specific author of some specific religion, is he not? That's the impression I get.
Contact Scotland Yard for more information.
I was out and about earlier making some rounds I've neglected the last few days, and lookie here what I found!
Rick, you've done it again, sir. I have but one thing to say: What, he's not too straight too? Where's the outrage?
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Allow me to direct your attentions to Vanishing American where VA deals with the question of whether the Pilgrim Thanksgiving, which we always allude to as the first Thanksgiving, was in actuality the first Thanksgiving.
I've added a comment to her post. But I'd like to deal with the subject more fully later on. And by the way, I watched a documentary on the History Channel last Thanksgiving concerning the origins of Thanksgiving beginning with the Pilgrims. This documentary, to my great surprise, was historically very accurate as much was taken from Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation. If this airs again this year (and I imagine that it will though I've not checked it out yet), I highly recommend that you watch it. I think the series is about three hours long if memory serves. But it is well worth your time to watch it, preferably with your children if you have them. That is, if you can endure the modern Indian perspective (which is interspersed throughout).
Happy Thanksgiving to all. rest of post here
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
This used to be one of the main themes that I constantly hit on. Well, not in those exact terms. Let me explain:
The idea was, or so I thought, that the result of Darwin, once accepted as pretty much uncontested scientific fact which only needed reconciliation with some kind of a higher power which we'd identify as "God," that this Darwin god, being so much different than the biblical-Christian God would corrupt our conceptions of the almighty being to such an extent that we'd begin entertaining ideas of God, foreign ideas of God, that are simply incompatible with Western ideas of God man and government. It is, you see, our conceptions of the deity which form our conceptions of ourselves and the societal construct best suited to govern us.
And this is where I think (and have thought for a long time) Darwinianism is largely responsible for our finding ourselves in such a corrupted spiritual state collectively that we now accept, with little or no reservation, that Allah and the God of the Bible are essentially the same being; the same God. And if they are the same god, according to our Darwin based conceptions of the supreme eternal being, then why shouldn't we allow Muslims to come into our country and enjoy, automatically upon entry here, equal protections under our first amendment? Muslims are just like us, right? They believe in and worship essentially the same god that we do, right?
So Western liberalism prepared the way for Darwinism. Darwinism, in turn, prepared the way for the reception of an arbitrary chaotic unknowable self-contradicting he-can-do-anything-including-the-impossible deity we must all embrace and worship with our brethren from every corner of the earth. Sounds a whole lot like Allah to me. Is it any wonder we warmly welcome Muslims into the West preparing the way for our own dhimmitude, which, Darwinian evolutionism and sexual selection might just as well define as "freedom."
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
This has been a really interesting discussion that I hope we can pick up on at a later date. Our own Call Me Mom has some interesting thoughts that she's given me permission to post here at Webster's. I'll be posting them later in a separate entry. But to wet your appetite, she doesn't believe a woman's right to vote should be rescinded. And unlike Mary Jackson, she actually puts serious consideration to the question. Which, in and of itself, is a much stronger argument in favor of woman's suffrage, in my opinion, than I've seen coming from the likes of Mary Jackson. Good for her!
Heck, maybe my right to vote would be rescinded under Auster's proposal. Who knows.
More to come later.
Don't miss Mike's interview with Dr. Kevin Gutzman, author of the book Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, posted over at the AFB.
Here's a snippit:
MT: The contributors and readers of this blog are firm believers in the principles of balanced government. What are your thoughts on the prospects of balanced government as a political movement?
KG: By “balanced government,” I presume that you have in mind a situation in which each branch of the federal government is in the proper relationship to the others? I agree with the great Virginia senator and political theorist John Taylor of Caroline, who said that far more important than checks and balances — some form of separation of powers — within the federal government was the principle of division of powers — the assignment of responsibility in only a few areas to the center, with most reserved to the states — between the states and the federal government. Alas, this most significant of American governmental principles is now largely abandoned. However, one can hope for its resuscitation, and the first step toward that goal is to educate Americans at large about their real constitutional heritage. (emphasis added)
Respectfully to Dr. Gutzman, his presumption is a bit of a simplification as to what we mean by the term Balanced Government. I'll have to come back to this later when I have more time.
Dr. Gutzman also says that he thinks Constitutional amendments are an underutilized tool for the correction of defects in our governing systems earlier in the interview. I'm in complete agreement with this assessment. We've been so conditioned to believe, or so it seems, that the amendment process is a dangerous innovation on our liberties and the form of government structured to preserve and protect them, that out of fear that all will be lost, many times and most times, and at critical times when the process is most necessary, we flat refuse to use it.
I would also remind folks, once again, that Article V provides for two methods of amendment, the second of which, as both Mike and I (and others) have pointed out elsewhere, is, particularly in the situation we find ourselves now, the preferable one.
Thanks to Mike for taking the time to do the interview and sharing it with us. And thanks to Dr. Gutzman as well. Y'all go get his book.
Monday, November 19, 2007
(Did I add enough exclamation points?)
Vanishing American has now weighed into the discussion on limiting the franchise with another thought provoking insightful entry at her blog.
So often we hear, when someone proposes to reverse a liberal policy which has been enacted, that 'we can't turn the clock back.' Usually this line is delivered with a tone of triumph, as if it settled the discussion once and for all. We can't turn the clock back? Really?
Can't we? Or do we mean to say that we dare not, because it might elicit tantrums from certain quarters, or a flurry of name-calling and foot-stamping?
That's a good question. And I think that's exactly what is meant by "we can't turn the clock back," or, its cousin, "how far do you propose to turn the clock back?" When people say things like this it's usually attended by a lot of high-browed holier than thou attitude which they use to shield themselves from having to come up with a good and reasonable argument to defend their view. I'd like to ask, what usefulness is this sort of thing to conservatism in general, and, why can't we all just be adults and have an adult conversation on the matter without all this do-gooder foot stamping at the mere mention that we ought to consider placing tighter restrictions on the elective franchise?
If it turns out that some of Auster's proposals are without merit, then so be it. But saying that we can't turn the clock back is not a very compelling argument. As I said to Mr. Auster, people like Mary Jackson and their positions would probably be better served if they'd just plead the fifth rather than attacking the proposals of conservatives with no substantive arguments in favor of their positions. According to Mary, the right of women to vote is such a self-evident truth that it requires no reasonable defense. Very good, Miss Jackson. What other self-evident truths have you independently discovered which conservatives need to be aware of? Wait! Don't tell me. "We can't turn the clock back" is one of 'em, right?
Attention Mr. Auster: You should consider a rewrite of your recent rewrite of the Declaration of Independence. Obviously there are a few self-evident truths newly discovered by Mary Jackson that you neglected to put in there. Fershame!
Also, how dare you post something so obviously offensive, alienating, and antagonizing as your limiting the franchise piece (see Ed L.'s comments). You definately know how to cull 'em.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Here's an important discussion you need to make a contribution to. And VFR, I think, is the place to do it. Though you may feel free to add a comment here if you like.
Here are my initial thoughts:
If you subscribe to the principles of the 26th Amendment, U.S. Constitution, and you think it is a legitimate alteration to the original document, AND, you fancy yourself a "conservative," then I would respectfully suggest that you need to re-examine your conservatism.
If you're a libertarian, I get it, everything's arbitrary, blah blah blah.
(Update: See also Michael K.'s response to Auster and Laura W.'s reply to Michael K. She makes a better argument than I did in refutation of Michael K.'s assertions, my rebuttal being that Michael's argument sounded a lot like the liberal way of governing -- by the exception, not the rule. I.e., if any exception to the rule can be identified (and exceptions can always be found), then the only way to account for it is to formulate laws and policies based on the exception to the rule.)
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Whenever anyone brings up the topic of the fourteenth amendment, my ears, eyes, and my whole being perks up, as some of you may have already noticed.
Well, my fellow AFBer, Mike Tams has put up an interesting post concerning the fourteenth amendment over at the AFB which I've added a comment to. I'll say nothing else at this point except, y'all go check it out.
(Update: The link I provided earlier to this VFR article was wrong. This is now corrected. Additionally, LA replies to my comments offering us a neocon re-write of the principles of the DoI which I've added to the end of this entry.)
A great discussion has ensued over at VFR on Jefferson's expression in the DoI, "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ... that to secure these rights governments are intstituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," and the way this has been understood historically by Americans.
I've often noted that the Declaration states plainly that "We (heavy on the We!) hold these truths to be self-evident." In other words, We does not mean everyone. Not everyone holds these truths to be self-evident, nor do they form governments for the protection of their unalienable rights around these concepts. In fact, in many cultures these are completely alien concepts. And that's just the way it is, not the way we might want it to be. Again, I stress the WE here. And who do you suppose Jefferson is referring to when he states it this way?
But Auster certainly nails down this American's understanding of these concepts when he states the following:
These ideas have never been understood by Americans to mean that all human beings desire political liberty. In fact, it's always been understood by Americans that lots of peoples and cultures do not desire liberty but prefer despotism. Which means that they have the right to liberty in the abstract, but they don't desire to possess it or they don't desire it sufficiently to do the work that is needed to secure it, i.e., to institute consensual government. Yes, when Americans saw people aspiring to liberty, they sympathized with them and wished them well, and sometimes actively helped them...
I don't know whether Auster's assertion about this being a new phenomenon dating back only to 2002 is correct, but I can tell you this, I was having to contend against these perversions of these concepts in various forums on the internet at about that time. And that's about as far back as I can recall that these assertions were being made. At least that I took any notice of.
LA adds in his reply to my comments:
The Bush-bots could almost re-write the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all women and men are bound together by certain common desires, that among these are the desire for freedom, the desire to see one's children grow to adulthood, and the desire not to hear a knock on the door in the middle of the night. That in order to satisfy these desires, all people require and are deserving of democracy, to be delivered to them by the United States of America."
This is precipitated by these statements from Condoleeza Rice. Says she:
Today we hear these same doubts about the possibility of freedom in the Middle East. President Bush rejects this view--I reject this view--and so should you. There are no cultures or peoples on this earth who do not deserve the freedoms we take for granted. To think otherwise is a condescension unworthy of an educated mind.
I don't know about you, but that really gets under my skin. There are no cultures or peoples on this earth who do not deserve the freedoms we take for granted? Upon what basis does she found this idea, one might ask. Upon the basis that Condoleeza Rice believes it and therefore it is? I've said it before over at VFR, but it bears repeating, people like this seem to have the attitude that they can actually speak something which does not exist into existence. I for one put a lot more stock in the words of someone like Daniel Webster who said that God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it. If God is a just God, he cannot set people free who do not desire to be free any more than he can grant them entry into heaven when they have no desire to be in heaven.
I would say that Miss Rice is guilty of that which she charges others with. Namely "condescension unworthy an educated mind." It's just that she's condescending toward people like those of us who understand the reality of the situation -- that not everyone desires to be free, and certainly that not everyone deserves to be free. And I would kindly ask Miss Rice to refrain from using the expression "the freedoms we take for granted" as a universally applicable expression applying to all Americans. She may take her freedoms for granted (which might explain why she thinks all cultures and all peoples desire and deserve the same freedoms), but that doesn't mean every American takes them for granted.
But I imagine she received applause and ovations on these statements from her impressionable audience. Such is the nature of liberalism. It discolors everything it touches. And by the way, I ain't real sure that we ourselves desire or deserve freedom, even the relative freedoms we enjoy now. If this is the commonly held view which Miss Rice has stated here, and there's no recovery in sight for it, then I would advise everyone that you might as well cheerfully strap your chains upon yourselves. At least your children and grandchildren, if this view is widespread, will have no problems adjusting to their slavish condition.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Here's a sample of the entertainment provided us at halftime this past Saturday at Owen Field, courtesy of the Pride of Oklahoma. (wait for the members to lay down their instruments.)
Something I neglected to add earlier is that an announcement was made at Saturday's game that the Sooner Band will be marching in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade in New York this year. My impression was that they'll be performing their rendition of Thriller at this event.
In my blog post from yesterday, William J. Federer On Islam, I mentioned that in a future entry I'd be dealing more specifically with the assertion that Governor Henry's council on ethnic relations is wrongly named. Also, I asked a rhetorical question in this vein once before in another blog post on the same topic.
In the blog post from yesterday, I mentioned that one of our State Representatives (who shall remain unnamed for the time being) was one of two guests on Dick Bott's radio show. I'll explain that the representative in question has a website which I failed to write down while listening to the radio program. My intent was to search his name and find the website that way. When this yielded nothing, I sent an email to the individual requesting the url to his site. He graciously replied to me in relatively short order, honoring my request to provide me with the url. However, I can't get it to work for me, and I'm not sure why.
Whenever I get a working url for this site, I'll make it available to you. My understanding is that it answers the question as to why Governor Henry's council is inappropriately named, and what this State Congressman, as well as others, has said about it, among other things.
VA has a nice post up today concerning Veteran's Day and why some folks are virulently against our heaping adoration on our military veterans. Being a veteran myself, and coming from a long line of patriotic veterans, I'm naturally biased in favor of honoring our military veterans, particularly those who've served in foreign theatres. That said, I didn't find it necessary to mention Veteran's Day here at Webster's for a couple of reasons which I'll keep to myself for the time being.
However, in the comments to VA's post, someone calling himself Mark offers a defense of his unfavorable position on our honoring military veterans with a day set aside to that purpose.
So, were the founding fathers against standing armies or not? Why? I'll give you one reason. Because saying something bad about serving in the military has become the equivalent of Holocaust denial. It's part of our national religion, and it disgusts me beyond belief because it sends people off to die for the wrong reason.
Okay, so I'm led to believe that in the first sentence Mark is asking a specific question which he intends to answer for us know nothing, blind followers of the blind. Then he answers his own question, which he himself framed for our edification, presumably, with some tripe about saying something bad about military service being the equivalent of holocaust denial. Then he goes off on a tirade about how much this disgusts him, beyond belief even (nice reinforcement there), since it sends people off to die for all the wrong reasons.
Is it fair for me to say that I think Mark is just a little scatter-brained, at least in this instance; that his passion in this case has impeded his ability to think and speak clearly on this particular topic? Or am I just way out of line here?
Also, note Mark's wretched performance equating the dangers inherent in the honorable profession of cab driving with those inherent to military service in his preface to his scatter-brained comments. Military service is honorable, according to Mark, in the same way that being a cabbie is honorable. I wonder what the opinion of most cab drivers who also happen to be former military service members (that is, people who've experienced the dangers of both professions) would be on Mark's point here?
So, Mark, were the founders against standing armies or not? And why? Call me crazy, but your answer to the question seems to me to be, ummm ... less than adequate? And that's being generous.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
I just watched a Fox News story on this topic, where, again, it was stated that Oklahoma's H.B. 1804 is considered the "toughest immigration legislation in the country."
In the story, one Mexican illegal (with a profound Mexican accent) attendee of a pro-immigrant demonstration against the measure interviewed at the Oklahoma Capitol stated the following:
This law targets the most vulnerable people in this state; the hardest working people in the State of Oklahoma. (emphasis mine)
My friends, if this does not incense you, or at very least concern you that illegal Mexican immigrants not only believe this -- that they are harder working people than you are, and that laws such as H.B. 1804 meant to protect you, your children, your jobs and governmental institutions, and etc.; your very lives, liberties, and properties, put Mexican illegals in a greater state of vulnerability than their presence among you and its incident drain on all of the above puts you in -- but also state it freely to the national news media, I have to wonder about your sanity. And that includes you "religious leaders" across the state who are currently acting in defiance of this law.
As Rep. Randy Terrill stated in this story, the defiance of these religious organizations could very well threaten their tax exempt status. I would go further and say that the law makes no provision for religious exemption, or, "conscientious objection," and that therefore, in addition to threatening their tax exempt status, their own choice of actions has put their very liberty in jeopardy.
But I guess these so-called "religious leaders" count themselves more moral and more deserving, as do their illegal Mexican friends, than 70% of the legal citizens and residents of the State of Oklahoma. I have one word of advice for these people, don't push it!
Not all the billboards going up in the Tulsa area on the heels of H.B. 1804's taking effect in this State are pro-illegal immigrant heart wrenching shameless liberal child exploiting advertisements, as you can clearly see.
In addition to the phone number clearly visible in this image of the billboard, this group also has a website (less visible) that I've linked here for your convenience. And be sure to check out this related story linked up at the site.
While on our way to Norman yesterday afternoon to watch the Sooners take on the Bears from Baylor (poor defensive performance from the Sooners, by the way), we happened across a Bott radio interview of Mr. Federer, who was one of two guests on Dick Bott's show. The other guest was one of Oklahoma's State Representatives who was part of the "infamous" contingent which recently refused a copy of the Quran from Governor Henry's improperly named "Ethnic American Advisory Council." More on that last point in an upcoming blog post.
I was unaware of Federer's book on Islam until it was brought up in the interview. But one thing is sure, Federer has committed to memory many passages (Suras) from the Quran which make the religion of Mohammed irreconcilable with the religion of Christ.
To this point I've been unable to find a transcript of the interview with Federer and the Oklahoma House member, but I'll keep searching. Of the two guests, Federer was by far the more articulate and knowledgable on the issue of Islam. This is not to say that the Oklahoma House member was inarticulate or unknowledgable on the subject, but by comparison, to borrow from J.Q. Adams, one was as the sun, the other a farthing candle. To give you a better mental picture of my assessment of the two guests, it would be like comparing me (my knowledge on Islam and my ability to articulate it) to Lawrence Auster or Robert Spencer. That should suffice.
The representative's principled efforts are appreciated nonetheless.
Friday, November 9, 2007
That is what this blog is all about when you boil it all down. Everything I post on, whether it be the dangers we face from Islam and its incompatibility with the West, or mass immigration into the United States from third-worlders, or the irrationality of liberalism and its dominating and destructive effects on our nation; even the anecdotes I share from time to time, or whatever, the most traditional and conservative and, yes, American thing I can think of is this concept of Balanced Constitutional Government.
Without the restoration of balance to our governmental systems, it is all a lost cause. Why? Because (1) restoration of principled conservatism cannot be effected without it, and (2) even if it could, it could not be long sustained outside of Balanced Constitutional Government.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
We've got a long day ahead of us so there won't be any additional posts put up today. However, for anyone who hasn't been following the discussion on Moderate Muslims Found, you might want to check it out.
MAS, in a (hopefully departing) comment to the thread has answered Anonymous with this tripe:
I have absolutely no problem with TM being a bigot as long as his bigotry does not manifest itself in actions.
Now, I would simply ask you, which one of us is the more likely to manifest his views in actions, as MAS puts it, a "bigot" like myself, or a "non-bigot" like MAS? The one who's exercised self-restraint, or the one who hasn't? I suggest to you that if MAS (in a message forum where ample opportunity is given to either post a comment or to not post a comment; to think about what he's written before posting -- that's all up to the individual doing the commenting) is incapable of exercising self-restraint in an online forum such as this, particularly when the non-exercise of such restraint can do nothing but harm his position and indict his character, that such a non-self-governing individual is the more likely candidate for the exercise of violent extremism.
The simple fact of the matter is this, when posting a comment to a thread online, it is you and only you who is responsible for the content of the message, irregardless of how much you think your opponent is provoking you. It takes very little self-restraint to avoid posting a comment containing foul language. And that's the bottom line here. It gives us an insight into the low character of someone like MAS. Indeed, MAS has not even as much as offered an apology for what he said. He just continues to be belligerent and condescending and insulting, which is yet another indication of his low character.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
There seems to be some confusion in Oklahoma about who landlords in the State may and may not rent their properties to. Now, besides the fact that it is and always has been unethical to knowingly provide shelter for illegal immigrants, the illegality of it is now reinforced in the State of Oklahoma. I suggest Oklahoma landlords read the following provision in the law:
B. IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL for any person to conceal, harbor, or shelter from detection any alien in any place within the State of Oklahoma, including any building or means of transportation, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the alien has come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law. (emphasis mine)
D. Any person violating the provisions of subsections A or B of this section shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for not less than one (1) year, or by a fine of not less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.
You've heard the phrase "let your conscience be your guide," right? And if that is not enough, then let the law be your guide. And if that is still insufficient to correctly inform you, then let the penalty for knowingly violating the provisions of the law be your guide. So, you see, we have provided a backup for the backup for the backup. If your conscience misinforms you (or you're in the habit of simply ignoring your conscience as many are), you may turn to the law. If the law coupled with your conscience still misinforms you (or you're in the habit of ignoring both), then you may consider the penalties for violating the law. This should be enough, and ignorance is no excuse.
Undoubtedly it will be argued against my interpretation of this provision in the law that the phrase "shelter from detection" absolves landlords who have no intentions of sheltering illegals for the purpose of aiding them in avoiding detection. But I'm telling you that this is an excuse and only an excuse. Rare is going to be the occurance indeed that a landlord does not either know, or strongly suspect that he is renting his property to (or sheltering) an illegal alien. And so long as that alien is holed up in that house, apartment, whatever, he is avoiding detection, most probably with the knowledge of his landlord, who is at least tacitly involved in sheltering him from detection.
Additionally, it just makes good business sense to avoid, under the new law, renting to illegal aliens. Since they are, by way of other provisions in the law, no longer eligible for public assistance and State welfare programs, and since, by way of additional provisions in the law, businesses are now prohibited from hiring illegals, how are they going to pay their rent?
Here's a story courtesy of The News on 6, Tulsa, Hispanics Fear Persecution By Law Enforcement. From the story we're told of several dilemmas Hispanics are facing in Oklahoma now that H.B 1804 has taken effect:
Dilemma no. 1:
"Many Hispanics across Oklahoma are living in fear."
Webster's answer to the dilemma: Leave.
Dilemma no. 2, according to Rev. Miguel Rivera (this is the individual, as you'll recall, who threatened that he and his organization were going to "make an example out of Oklahoma."):
"We cannot trust the Tulsa Police Department or the sheriff department."
Answer to the dilemma: Leave.
Dilemma no. 3, according to Hispanic Tulsa law enforcement officer, Jesse Guardiola:
"He says a rush of unreported crimes could be extremely harmful to the Hispanic community."
Answer to dilemma:
Honor the law by convincing Hispanic illegals that they must LEAVE. This will also greatly reduce crime within the Hispanic (and the less important, or, unimportant non-Hispanic native) community, I guarantee.
Dilemma no. 4, as created by the Tulsa County Sherriff's Office in misleading Hispanic illegals:
"The Tulsa County Sheriff's Office says the only Hispanic people who need to worry about being deported are the ones who are here illegally and are caught committing a crime."
Answer to dilemma:
Change the language of your policy (at least the way you explain it), it is misleading, and therefore unfair to Hispanics by giving them a false sense of security. Being here illegally IS a crime. So, if they're here illegally and you know this, you've already "caught them committing a crime." And if this policy, or this explanation of this policy, causes fear in the Hispanic community, the answer is to LEAVE.
The full story is entered below.
Many Hispanics across Oklahoma are living in fear. They say they fear persecution at the hands of local law enforcement. News On 6 Anchor Jennifer Loren reports some Hispanic members of the Tulsa Police Department are trying to address those fears.
Tulsa Police officer Jesse Guardiola recruits and trains police force hopefuls. He's also a link to the Hispanic community.
"They ask, whether in English or Spanish, 'What's the police department's stance on it?’” said Jesse Guardiola.
He says the Tulsa Police Department has been put in the middle of the immigration issue, especially since certain Hispanic leaders have publicly stated police can't be trusted.
“You have a problem at your home, you have a robbery, you have a crime against you, call the FBI. We cannot trust the Tulsa Police Department or the sheriff department,” said Rev. Miguel Rivera.
Tulsa Police officer Jesse Guardiola says that's not right. Speaking for the Tulsa Police Department, he encourages Hispanics, legal or not, to continue reporting crimes.
He says a rush of unreported crimes could be extremely harmful to the Hispanic community.
"You become more of a target when the criminal element realize that you're not doing anything about it. And again, once they realize that I can hide amongst you or target you, well then you're an easy target,” said Tulsa Police officer Jesse Guardiola.
The bottom line, he says, is that Tulsa police are here to serve and protect, no matter who you are or where you're from.
"We want to stand on that line and help those that can't help themselves," said Tulsa Police officer Jesse Guardiola.
The Tulsa County Sheriff's Office says the only Hispanic people who need to worry about being deported are the ones who are here illegally and are caught committing a crime.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
We're sorry, sweetie, but your mommy is a criminal if she's here illegally. You see, sweetie, a criminal is someone who knowingly and persistently violates the law of the land. A violent criminal can be, like your mommy, a criminal and a hard working person as well. A non-violent criminal such as a thief can be, like your mommy, a criminal and a hard working person at the same time. We have a lot of people in this country who are gainfully employed AND commit crimes, violent and non-violent. The best we could do for your mommy and your daddy was to give them fair warning that they are here illegally (as if they didn't already know this), and that this constitutes criminality on their parts. If they've not already left this state in the interim between the passage of this law and the day that it went into effect, sweetie, then they've done you a very big disservice. And the people who've used your picture in this way have done you a huge disservice too. We're sorry for that. But your mommy and daddy have to leave this state now. If they wish to come back they'll have to do so through legal channels this time.
So you see, sweetie, criminality is determined by the law. A person like your mommy, when there is an established law in force, has to make the conscious decision whether to abide by the the established law, or to violate it. When someone consciously chooses to violate the law, as your mommy has done, then they must be punished or the law becomes ineffective and useless, lawlessness and anarchy would ensue, and you would be in more danger than you think you're in now.
We're sorry, sweetie, that the all-encompassing ideology of liberalism let your mommy and daddy in this state and this nation to begin with. We're now working to correct that so that sweet little girls like you no longer have to suffer for the miscalculations of your parents, and through no fault of ours. Many of us have sweet little girls just like you, but we refuse to exploit them to our ends.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
In a Bartlesville, Ok., newspaper story, a group of Catholic Priests is reported to have pledged to defy Oklahoma'a new Immigration Law. Below is an example of the depth of thinking these Priests exhibit.
Catholic Priest Don Wolf of Duncan states:
We will defy this terrible law. How can you penalize people for helping other people?
That may well be the most asinine statement I've ever heard. It certainly ranks right up there at the top. Look, Donnie, if you're engaging in the practice of helping other people -- illegal foreigners at that -- to violate, not only our national laws, but our State laws as well, giving them aid and comfort in defying our laws, and defiantly violating our laws yourself in the very process, then you're liable to find out quick, fast, and in a hurry how we can and intend to penalize people for "helping other people." In this case, sir, how can we not penalize people for "helping" other people?, which would be tantamount to encouraging disorder and chaos and suicide. This is not the federal government you're dealing with here, which is in the habit of engaging in all of the above.
You liberals of all religious persuasions are hereby served notice. We in Oklahoma are no longer willing to tolerate the destruction of our values, our society; our very way of life, and we're certainly finished with assisting you in doing so. So if you're part of that effort, your best bet is to cease and desist immediately. Or move thyself to a more tolerant state. Those are my recommendations.
On a much more sane and reflective note, Representative Randy Terrill, the author of H.B. 1804, has said the following in reply to the charge that the law has caused "fear among the Hispanic population, leading thousands to flee the state.":
That was the intent of the bill.
By contrast with the above statement made by the priest, Representative Terrill states it about as clearly and concisely as it can be stated. Indeed, that was the intent of the Bill, which represents the intent of the People of Oklahoma. And I would add that the bill was intended also to put the fear of God into multicultist anarchist citizens of the State such as these Catholic Priests named above.
I stand behind the Oklahoma Congress on this issue 100%. The State of Oklahoma has done what it can do to give these immigrants incentive to leave this state immediately of their own volition, and to penalize their defiant enablers. Now it's up to the states to which they flee to do their parts in ending this liberal multicultist suicidal madness.
Friday, November 2, 2007
There's a group out there calling itself Muslims Against Sharia, claiming it has the prescription for what constitutes a moderate Muslim.
Now, as you might expect, I'm seeing all kinds of problems with this group and its claims. The basic question that comes to mind is whether this group subscribes to the Five Pillars of Islam. If it does, we have a problem. If it doesn't, we have a problem. In any event, we have a problem.
On the other hand, one might look on this group and/or its leader as the new 'prophet' through which Allah has chosen to abrogate his former revelations which came by way of what was supposed to be his final prophet and messenger, Mohammed, according to Islamic tradition. In other words, the group, in order to fulfill its vision of Islam (which I'm calling Non-Islam Islam) it would have to be successful in carrying out a major Islam-wide plot of deception, basically claiming that Allah never endorsed the violent nature of Islam, and certainly never meant to transmit this false endorsement through his final prophet, Mohammed. Many, many revisions to the Quran would have to be made, and so on and so forth. More problems than I can detail here.
We've been discussing this over at Brave New World Watch. So if anyone has anything to add to the discussion, that might be the place to go. But you're certainly welcome to post a comment here if you like.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
(Update: See John Savage's analysis of the phrase "there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam," over at Brave New World Watch. Also, I've added the link to the AFB discussion on the topic where an additional comment has been added very pertinent to this discussion.)
What is a moderate Muslim? This question has been on my mind a lot lately, and in fact some time back I argued over at the AFB along the lines that the Christian equivalent of a moderate Muslim would be someone the Bible describes as lukewarm. In other words, what the two individuals of different faiths hold in common is that neither of them is that serious about his faith, and most likely not that knowledgable about it. This is what makes them, with regard to their particular faith and practice, moderate or lukewarm.
There's something else here too. It has been said over and over that "there are moderate "Muslims", but there is no moderate Islam." I think it could be said of Christianity, by contrast, that "there are radical "Christians", but no radical Christianity." The whole point being, of course, that there's something peculiar about the religion of Islam. It is inherently radical and extreme. That there are "moderate" Muslims does not in any way detract from that basic truth about the religion of Mohammed any more than the fact that certain violent individuals that exist claim to be Christians yet violate Christianity's first precepts.
But back to my original question. What to you constitutes a "moderate" Muslim? I've told you what a moderate Muslim is to me. Now I'd like to know what a moderate Muslim is to you. And I hope that Lawrence Auster will tackle this question of what constitutes a moderate Muslim either here or over at VFR in the near future.
Today is of course the day that our new immigration law, H.B. 1804, officially goes into effect. Having had a look at my counter, it appears as though it was a few hours off all along. But I ain't real sure about that. It could be that the new law is not official until noon today. But irregardless, today is the day. And I'm sure it's going to get pretty interesting around here over the next several weeks. We'll see.
It's gettin' real close to playoff time here in Oklahoma. I've been to several H.S. football games this season, most of which were losses for the team I was supporting.
Tomorrow night is the final game of the regular season, and the final game for many teams in the state, including the local team I've been going to watch. However, on a more positive note, my hometown boys just beat the no. 1 ranked team in the State last Friday night in a defensive battle I wish I'da been there to watch, 13-7. My hometown squad is now ranked no. 2 in the State (up from the previous several weeks' ranking of no. 6) in their class. And they also enjoy an undefeated record to this point. Some of us has-beens take a lot of pride in the fact that our senior year at said H.S. was the first year our squad ever held a no. 1 ranking in the State, though by no means was it the last. Indeed, since that wonderful time, the team has won several State championships as well as several State runners-up distinctions. And it looks like the tradition lives on.
One never knows what's going to happen in the playoffs. I mean, my senior year we were district champions enjoying home field advantage in the first round of playoffs where we were handed our hats by a team which on paper certainly looked to be our inferior. But I'll certainly be paying close attention to progress of the hometown boys this post season. And I'll keep you updated. Go Blue!
Islamophobia is it
But Muslims are quick to throw the term out there anytime they deem any statement by any Westerner to be "offensive," or "stereotypical," or that in any way puts the prophet Mohammed and his religion in a bad light.
Case in point? I mentioned in a blog post a few days ago that Okla. State Congressman Rex Duncan, along with several of his colleagues, rejected a gift of the Muslim holy book from the Governor's council on ethnic relations, saying that most Oklahomans do not support an ideology that condones the killing of innocent women and children, which, as far as I'm concerned was something of an understatement, both with regard to most Oklahomans and as concerns the violent murderous nature inherent to the religion of Islam, but nonetheless. In this CAIR follow-up article on the story, the I-phobia word is used to describe the wretched, insensitive, and downright disrespectful conduct of Rep. Duncan and his colleagues (Note to Rep. Duncan and all, in an Islamic country you'd get your head cut off for making such statements).
From the CAIR story:
In rejecting the Qurans, Islam's revealed text, some lawmakers made stereotypical and offensive remarks that falsely linked the faith of Islam to violence. (emphasis mine)
Seriously y'all, when I read a statement like this: "...that falsely linked the faith of Islam to violence," I have to wonder what planet these people are on, or what planet they think you and I are on. Or, perhaps most importantly, what planet the people who believe this tripe are on.
I just got through watching Robert Spencer's excellent presentation in Brussels (hat tip John Savage), and one of the things he points out in his speech, quoting an expert on Islam (in an appearance on the Fox News show, Hannity and Colmes), is that you know, do you not, that there are Islamic groups out there who call themselves such things as "Islamic Jihad?" Duh!
So, look, all you criticism-of-Islam-ophobes, this whole mess is either your doing or the doing of those who share your faith. And as long as you continue to defend your prophet in all of his bloody excesses, and the word of Allah transmitted through him (which a devoted Muslim cannot not do, by the way), well, then, I'm afraid that your religion is going to have to be subject to this kind of scrutiny. Because you see, to an American like myself who intends to do all in his power to pass down to his children and grandchildren the founding principles of this country, allowing you to invade us and to progressively work toward subverting our form of government and imposing sharia law here in America unimpeded is, well, simply unacceptable, the alleged prophethood of Mohammed notwithstanding. End of story. And by the way, the term "Islamophobia", in the sense that you mean and incessantly apply it, I wear as a badge of honor!
Let us hope that Mr. Duncan and all of his colleagues who joined him in rejecting the Qurans will stand their ground and not cower under the pressure of CAIR and the (utterly illegitimate) "interfaith" community in this State and across the nation.