Who won the GOP debate at the Reagan library?

I watched about the last thirty minutes of the debate on CNN and came away with the impression that Romney did not do much to help himself on this night (I certainly wasn't impressed by him), as well as experiencing that down-in-your-gut sick feeling that Senator John McCain might actually win the GOP nomination.

My personal opinion is that Huckabee stole the show from both Romney and McCain. McCain seemed to be in ultra-attack mode, while Romney was, as the subject of McCain's attacks, equally in defense mode. All in all it was really just an unpleasant scene to watch, and from which I don't think I came away an ounce more informed about either man.

But like I said, I was pretty impressed with Mike Huckabee's performance on several counts. When was the last time you can recall, for instance, that a Presidential candidate, GOP or otherwise, spoke with such passion and clarity and lucidity on the issue of the tenth amendment and why governors of States should have the qualifications requisite to become President much superior to that possessed of national legislators? I know, I know, Huckabee is an open borders man, and that's a huge issue with me. But I have to hand it to him anyway. He impressed me as the most "together" of the candidates on this panel by far.

Anyway, I've selected a few comments on the debate from the Mike Huckabee for President blog and posted them below.

Kevin Tracy writes:

I got to watch the debate in Arlington at a debate party. We were ALL impressed with Governor Huckabee's performance, especially his last answer when he refused play the game of who would Reagan endorse and instead offered his endorsement of Reagan.

Quiverdaddy writes:

With the final debate before Stupor Tuesday behind us, it's time to begin recognizing the candidates for what they are. As I watched, I found McCain and Romney to be petty -- Was it "milestones and deadlines" or something different that means the same thing? Does it really matter?

Huckabee made sense and seemed to be mature enough to realize there are much bigger things at stake than whether Romney had a gaffe. So we have establishment "frontrunners", one of whom is testy and the other defensive. One an authentic hero and the other not authentic at all. A Ken doll vs. a GI Joe doll.

I'm all for climbing out of the Valley of the Dolls and going for a real life person fully capable of serving as our president. I know the Mediocracy has to declare frontrunners early -- to winnow the field down and reduce the damage the eventual nominee will endure during the primaries. To that end, it may be time for the commentators to recognize that principled conservatives -- especially those who take the social issues seriously will not support either of these guys.

Unless the establishment wants McCain, they need to rethink Huckabee. After tonight, I've come to the conclusion that Romney cannot be trusted and should not be considered by anyone who cares what happens to this country in the years after Bush.

Please consider giving him fair coverage and being honest about the "frontrunners".

John Michaels writes:

I know I said this previously, but Governor Huckabee. Since Anderson Cooper extended you an invitation to the Democratic Debate, I think you should take him up on his offer. It would certainly make it a more entertaining debate, and you would most likely end up taking both Obama and Hillary to the cleaners.

Ken Daugherty writes:

Bill Schneider is right that Mike Huckabee talked as the common person, my mother is a dedicated democrate and she's voting for Mike Huckabee.

Donald Fahrenkrug writes:

Gov Huckabee won the debate hands down. And he didn't sit on his hands and let the CNN staff ignore him.
He came across as intelligent, honest, very knowledgeable, and as the only one other than Ron Paul, that made any sense.

McCain was holier than thou, condescending, stupid, just plain horrible. Romney seemed like he just had the latest political computer chip implant. He was plastic and not believable, at all.

I am switching from Ron Paul, a truly great man, a gentleman and a scholar, but he let himself be ignored and just sat there.

Gov Huckabee has my vote. Good Grief America, wake up. We need a man of principle in the White House, and Gov. Huckabee is that man.

Jared Bridgeman writes:

It's amazing that Mike got shutout as far as the amount of screen time, but had a more clear message than the other two candidates due to their consistent blathering. McCain has two mouths, he speaks about homeland security, yet he has a Hernandez as his chief Hispanic vote-getter....I don't think he's even a United States citizen. From the get go, I have been extremely skeptical of Romney too...he seems too much in the pockets of big business and wishy washy on life. All of these things make it so easy to vote for Mike...the only problem is...convincing others in MO before Feb. 5th.

Sondra Ashmore writes:

Until today I had always considered you a solid candidate, but not necessarily one I would vote for. You refusing to be treated as a 3rd class candidate while also respecting the other candidates impressed me. I came to this site for more information as I rethink who I'm going to support on the 5th. I vote for character and I think you showed a lot of that tonight. Well done!

Read More

Dr. Andrew Bostom on John Quincy Adams On Islam, cont.

It suddenly occurred to me while reading over the original entry under this title that I had inadvertently ommitted a passage from Dr. Bostom's article which I had intended to include in the body of the post. Alas, no harm done, I'll just put it here:

Adams writes:

...The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force... (emphasis mine)

Bottom line? John Quincy Adams not only knew jihad, he knew Islam and what it requires of its followers, at all times, under all circumstances, everywhere. Not what it admonishes them to do, but what it requires of them, perpetual warfare on all infidels, meaning all non-Muslims. It only makes provision for appeasing the victors over it on a false and delusive promise of peace whereby the faithful follower of the prophet may submit to the necessities of defeat only while the obligatory command to propagate the Muslim creed by sword cannot be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed by two methods, fraud or force, otherwise known respectively as taqiyya and jihad. But the command of the prophet being always obligatory on Muslims, one or the other of these methods (whichever necessity or opportunity dictate) must always be employed in the unceasing struggle to conquer the world for Islam.

Let us hear the conclusion of the matter:

The only way for us to protect ourselves against the designs of the Muslims is to begin to discuss and ultimately implement a plan of action specifically designed to frustrate and overthrow their designs. Indeed, a plan designed to frustrate and overthrow not only the designs of the Muslims on us, but a plan that ultimately eliminates any avenue and means we've provided them to invent, plan, develop, and carry out their designs on us. In other words, separationism, or something comparable to it.

Read More

Is Democracy a legitimate form of Government?

Check out this post over at Vanishing American where VA, in an amazing show of self-restraint, stands aside and lets the giants speak.

My first thought in deciding to post on this topic was to follow VA's lead and let these great men speak for themselves; to let the quotes stand on their own. But ultimately I could not resist the temptation to share a few of my thoughts on the quote that stood out most prominently for me. The "standout" quote for me while reading through this list, and a quote I don't recall ever having seen before, incidentally, was the following from Aristotle, Politics:

Democracy arose from men thinking that if they are equal in any respect they are equal in all respects.

In other words, and very simply stated, democracy arose from liberalism, since liberalism is the ideology which teaches this false doctrine that if men are equal in any respect, they are equal in all respects.

Now if, in your opinion, I'm unfairly attributing to Aristotle ideas he is not actually trying to convey, or I'm putting words in his mouth, or I'm destroying, in any way, the spirit of his message, please do not hesitate to let me know. But it seems to me that one may justly paraphrase the above quote to say:

If men are not equal in all respects, they are not equal in any respect. This is the core fundamental thinking of liberalism, the establishment of which, as the governing rule of society, is the core fundamental object of democracy, liberalism's form of government; government of, by, and for liberals.

I think I may have just experienced something of an epiphany here. It seems to me that democracy is not a form of government at all, at least not in the normal sense in which we use the term "govern-ment," which implies structure and order and restraint, and so on. Indeed, democracy, as a ruling theory arising from liberalism, seems more anti-governmental than govern-mental to me.

Read More

What's your opinion of the Darwin Discussion?

I'm speaking, of course, of the Darwin discussion over at VFR. As many of you already know, this discussion, like many other VFR discussions, is an ongoing discussion which goes through intermittent phases of pulse and pause.

Generally speaking, since I'm not that "scientifically minded" and certainly not well educated or particularly adept in the various branches of science, I'm nonetheless very interested in these sorts of discussions, primarily for their educational and mental exercise values, and because I think that whatever the general consensus tends to be has profound implications for our survival as a distinct nation with a distinct culture and heritage of liberty and virtue and Christian Self-Government. As I've said countless times before, "worldview is everything."

The discussion seems to be in a state of "pause" at the moment, so let me take the opportunity to point you in the direction of the relevant entries on the most recent installment of this wonderfully enlightening, ongoing discussion, just in case you've missed it, or part of it:

The current pulse of the discussion was established here, I think, where Mr. Auster responds to his critics at the Inverted World blog. The discussion then moves here, where a reader challenges Auster's statement that Darwin provided biology with a non-teleological explanation of adaptation. Then, literally hours after the foregoing article was posted, the discussion moves to a new entry here, as VFR reader Sage McLaughlin, commenting on the other article, strikes a chord with Mr. Auster. Here the discussion continues yet is temporarily interrupted by accusations against Mr. Auster which he and Ben W. speak to.

Moving on, the discussion gets new impetus here, as Auster takes on yet further challenges to his positions at the Inverted World. And finally, the discussion culminates here with Auster maintaining his original position that Darwinian Evolutionism requires vastly too many simultaneous coordinated "chance" occurances and random mutations within species, between the sexes, within a very tightly confined geographical area, in order to be even remotely possible.

With regard to that last "culminating" article, I had a short discussion with Mr. Auster on one of his points which I had thought of while contemplating the points in one of the earlier articles in the discussion. I'll conclude this post with that short discussion between myself and Mr. Auster:

TM writes to Auster:

You write [in The Evolution of internal fertilization of vertebrates, cont.]:

"Moreover, not only must these perfectly mutually complementary mutations occur in a male and female member of the same species at the same time, but they must occur in the same place."

Yes, I thought of this the other day while reading the other article; that this would have to occur within a very small geographical area. While contemplating how the Darwinists might answer this, I concluded that they might say something along the lines that the species in question, through evolutionary processes, of course, adapted itself to a small confined geographical area where certain conditions (heat, light, food supply, etc...) favored its adaptation, its ability to "survive", and so on and so forth, so it makes sense that this all happened in the same area. Either that, or, we have internet dating now, so it seems plausible enough. ;-)

By the way, did I say earlier that this is "a bit over my head?" Let me rephrase: this is WAY over my head!

LA replies to me:

For someone whose head it's way over, you just went to the correct point: they will say that according to allopatric speciation (speciation in another, isolated place away from the main population of the species), a small group of the species is in a different niche where evolution takes place more rapidly.

Ok, but here we're talking about literally the same pond. :-)

Two points on Mr. Auster's reply to me: First, had he not defined the term for me in parenthesis, I wouldn't have known what the hell he meant by "allopatric speciation." Second, though I freely admit that I'm not nearly as knowledgable of Darwinism and its teachings as I'd like to be, I'm not completely ignorant about Darwinism and what it teaches fundamentally. I'm sure I've read about allopatric speciation before, though I don't recall the precise terminology. In other words, I highly doubt that it was just blind luck that I hit on the right point, and I know for certain that it wasn't due to an over-abundance of mental aptitude. I was just making a point that, more than likely, I've seen someone else make before. I simply don't recall having ever had an original thought. That I've ever had one, to my mind, is about as likely as the "truth" of Darwinism.

Notwithstanding all of that, let me conclude by thanking Mr. Auster for a very interesting lively discussion on the difficulties of Darwinian Evolutionism. I look forward to the next round of discussions on this important topic.

Read More

Warning:

The following blog entry posted yesterday evening contains language very favorable to the founding generation.

Whenever I've spoken, in the past, about the the Founders in the terms John has articulated in the following blog entry, almost invariably someone will come along who feels compelled to remind me that these men were just that, men; that they had flaws just like you and me, and on and on and on, as if I'm unaware of this. Allow me to say that this is not necessary.

As someone who has read and studied the founders quite a bit, and who has a fairly sizeable collection of their writings, in book form, directly available to him, I can tell you that if in their writings they did not constantly reinforce this opinion of themselves, I still could not have missed their humanity, which is to say their flaws.

But thanks for your concern.

Read More

John Savage on the Founding Fathers

This may be the first instance on record at this blog where someone has left a comment to one of my posts which precisely articulates my view of a specific subject, namely the founding fathers, their knowledge and their wisdom.

That commenter is, of course, John Savage, as the post title indicates. And here is what he wrote, which I most definately, though I share his sentiments exactly, could not have said better (or as well) myself:

I've decided that wherever they differ from us moderns, our Founding Fathers deserve the presumption of being correct. Whether it's on Islam, the role of government, interpretation of Scripture, race, or whatever else, we're the children looking up to our great teachers. Where opinions have changed, the burden of proof lies on those who came later. Our situation is parallel to that of the people who painstakingly rediscovered ancient knowledge after the Dark Ages, is it not

And I think John is right, our situation is parallel to that of the people who painstakingly rediscovered ancient knowledge after the Dark Ages.

Thanks to John for stating so well what I've been saying ... not so well ... for a long long time.

Read More

Catching up at Webster's

I'm finally getting around to posting more fresh articles in the Recommended Blogposts section, as well as adding other things here at the blog. As I mentioned in my last post, I've added Dr. Bostom's extensive list of FrontPage articles to the On Islam section. And I've also added several new articles to the Lawrence Auster On Islam page. I also re-wrote the introduction to that page to more reflect the current state of the page. Finally, I've added several new blogs to the blogroll here, and there are more to come.

Read More

Dr. Andrew Bostom on J.Q. Adams On Islam

(Update: I've added Dr. Bostom's list of FrontPage articles on Islam to the On Islam section in the left sidebar of this blog.)

Until a few days ago, admittedly, I did not know who Andrew Bostom was, and since I did not know who this man was, neither did I know of his contribution to Western scholarship on the nature of Islam.

I've spent the better part of the day trying to educate myself on this man Andrew Bostom, mainly through reading his articles at FrontPageMagazine. I also read the Wikipedia article on Mr. Bostom which states in part:

Bostom's writings are characterized by meticulous referral to primary sources and extensive documentation.

Ya think?!

I had to laugh at that when I first read it. For if you know nothing of this man Bostom, and you follow my links to his articles, you're going to learn quick, fast, and in a hurry that this description of what characterizes Dr. Bostom's witings is, well, right on the mark. Had I read the Wiki article prior to delving into his articles, which was not the case, I would have been more prepared for what I was about to receive. But I digress...

The main point of this entry is to point you to one of Dr. Bostom's FrontPage articles, John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad, in which Dr. Bostom states the following regarding J.Q. Adams's understanding of Islam.

Dr. Bostom writes:

John Quincy Adams possessed a remarkably clear, uncompromised understanding of the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad war and dhimmitude. Regarding jihad, Adams states in his essay series,

“…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.”(emphasis mine)

Let us examine that last statement in the Adams quote again. "The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God." There are two ways to read this statement: (1) The precept of the Koran is that Mahomet is the prophet of God," and, (2) The precept of the Koran is perpetual war against all who deny that Mahomet is the prophet of God.

In other words, the first pillar of Islam is non-negotiable, applying to all peoples everywhere, all the time. Either you acknowledge that Mohammed is the prophet of God, or the whole Islamic world is commanded in their holy book to wage violent and perpetual jihad against you.

Is this not what we've been saying around here for ... how long now? Is this not precisely what makes Islam, and therefore Muslims, completely and utterly incompatible with the West, which we've been saying as well.

But Quincy Adams has further insights:

Dr. Bostoms writes:

And Adams captured the essential condition imposed upon the non-Muslim dhimmi “tributaries” subjugated by jihad, with this laconic statement,

“The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute.”

But perhaps the best part of the whole article, at least for me, is Mr. Adams's comparison/contrast of Jesus Christ and his religion with Mohammed and his religion:

Adams on Jesus Christ and Christianity, Relative to Muhammad and Islam

"And he [Jesus] declared, that the enjoyment of felicity in the world hereafter, would be reward of the practice of benevolence here. His whole law was resolvable into the precept of love; peace on earth – good will toward man, was the early object of his mission; and the authoritative demonstration of the immortality of man, was that, which constituted the more than earthly tribute of glory to God in the highest… The first conquest of the religion of Jesus, was over the unsocial passions of his disciples. It elevated the standard of the human character in the scale of existence…On the Christian system of morals, man is an immortal spirit, confined for a short space of time, in an earthly tabernacle. Kindness to his fellow mortals embraces the whole compass of his duties upon earth, and the whole promise of happiness to his spirit hereafter. THE ESSENCE OF THIS DOCTRINE IS, TO EXALT THE SPIRITUAL OVER THE BRUTAL PART OF HIS NATURE." (Adam's capital letters)….[pp. 267-268]

“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adam's capital letters)….Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.” [p. 269]

So Adams sums up the contrast between Christ and Christianity, and Mohammed and Islam in this way: The essence of Christ's doctrine is to exalt the spiritual over the brutal part of man's nature. Whereas, the essence of Mohammed's doctrine is to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of man's nature. Is anyone else seeing a problem here? Adams sums up the problem this way in the conclusion to the preceding paragraph:

While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.

Now I ask you, is there any hope that in our lifetimes, or during the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren, or during the lifetimes of their children and grandchildren, that the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet Mohammed, as Quincy Adams aptly puts it, shall not furnish motives, many many motives, to human action, specifically to those of the Arab variety?

Tell ya what, if you're a liberal don't answer that.

Read More

Credit Where Credit is Due

I hate to say it, but I'm going to have to agree with Rick Darby when he says he has to hand it to the Muslims. I don't like it anymore than he does, but he's also right that Western liberal politicians buckle at the knees at the mere threat of Islamic violence. Indeed, often it doesn't even amount to an actual threat, but an implied threat or the mere thought that an action might result in a threat.

Mr. Darby writes:

I've got to hand it to European Muslims, I really do. They are running rings around the governments of countries like Britain and Holland. Muslims clever; non-Muslims stupid.

What are they doing that's so smart? Well, either by a planned strategy or just an instinct for gnawing at the infidel's soft bits, they have figured how to advance Islamization in slices. Instead of one big confrontation, a thousand small ones.

I personally don't quite know what to make of it. Either it's the strategy of a genius or it's just dumb luck, as Rick suggests, that the Muslims have happened on the right combination here to dhimmify the European contintent in small slices. Whatever it is, though, it's definately working. Muslim world conquest continues unabated.

And, of course, this ties right into Auster's formulation that Mohammed was a Successful Hitler. Mr. Auster actually refers to Allah's prophet as "one of the great geniuses of history.":

Truly, Muhammad was one of the great geniuses of history, a successful Hitler as I have said, to keep getting people, even fourteen centuries after his death, voluntarily to embrace his program of self-abnegation, the willing surrender of their mind and identity....

And he notes some of the same disturbing phenomena that Mr. Darby recognizes in his entry. Whatever you do, don't miss either of these excellent articles.

Read More

Webster's Recommended Blog Posts partially updated

I finally updated that section with some fresh posts this morning, as well as removed an equal number of the old ones. I'll continue to add more once I've had a chance to make a few more rounds. Also, see my AFB post from this morning, Fred Thompson and Balanced Government.

Read More

More Romney discussion over at VFR

The Romney discussion continues over at VFR in this thread where LA objects to James W.'s undeserved criticisms of Mr. Romney.

James W. writes:

Hopefulness is not a characteristic you display here [at VFR?] in abundance. While ordinarily hope is a risk that must be run, hope is something that also misleads us, and unraveling the threads of past error is your business here if anything is.

So I am surprised to see so much hope in you over Romney. I understand very well we are only asking for a Republican President that will not be ruinous, so it is not that we expect too much. But I am not hopeful over Romney, for what I have read and heard from his supporters in the Nevada caucus does not give me reason: He is the can-do guy, the successful manager of large corporate turnarounds, and the man who can manage the federal behemoth.

Managed is exactly what we do not want. Making it work is as bad as it not working. Or is it worse?

He will at best only make our masters more effecient in what they are doing to us, and then pass off the reins to a liberal who knows how to whip that horse until it collapses, awaiting another conservative trainer to get him ready for the next lap. Burke--The parties are the gamesters, but government keeps the tables, and is sure to be the winner in the end.

To which LA replies:

Of all the arguments I've heard against Romney, this takes the cake. There is no hope in him and we must oppose him--because he is a can-do guy and a successful corporate leader, as well as a governor of a major state. Romney just can't catch a break. I have never in my life seen so much undeserved hostility toward a politician as I've been seeing toward Romney. I don't know what the explanation for it is. Some people tell me they think it's envy of a man who has everything, intelligence, high abilities, success, looks, a great family, and a huge fortune that he earned. You could write a book about it.

In any case, I would not describe myself as hopeful about Romney. I've repeatedly expressed my doubts about him. But as I've also said, I'm impressed by his talents, and believe he's the best and only acceptable candidate for the GOP nomination. What I will do in November is an open question.

Now, I understand where LA's coming from when he says that James W.'s criticisms of Romney's success as a business man and his reputation as a can-do guy are undeserved. I certainly do not begrudge the man for these qualities. But when he denominates Romney's governorship of Massachusetts as simply "a governor of a major state," then he leaves out a very important aspect of that fact to some of us, namely that of a majorly liberal major state; a state hugely populated by liberals and leftists. Just how "conservative" can a governor of Massachusetts be, Republican or otherwise? If this is not an important consideration for conservatives to contemplate and investigate, then I must be very misinformed about what it is that conservatives should be looking for in a President of the United States.

Read More

Hoosiers don't care about marriage?

Here's a story from CitizenLink on the state of Indiana's Marriage Amendment Proposal. It looks like it's hung up in the State legislature where, if it is killed, as seems to be the promise and intention of some in that body, the proposal will not be on this year's ballot for the Indiana voters to decide.

From the article:

Supporters of same-sex "marriage" say Hoosiers don’t care about marriage and are focused on property tax reform.

I have one thing to say about this statement. If this is the case, then why are you supporters of same sex "marriage" (a contradiction in terms) expending such effort in trying to kill the proposal? It seems to me that if the Indiana voters truly do not care about marriage, traditional marriage, and the protection thereof by lawful amendment to the Indiana Constitution, then you'd certainly want it on this year's ballot so that the voters in Indiana could reject the proposal, overwhelmingly I'm sure, and get on with that business that they truly care about, namely property tax reform, as you claim.

But I'd be willing to bet that when polled on this question of protecting marriage, Indiana voters support amending their State Constitution by a margin of somewhere around 65% to 35% give or take a few percentage points, and this is precisely why you're working so hard to kill this amendment. Let's be honest, eh?

Read More

Fred bows out of race; Endorses no-one

As my fellow AFBers can tell you, there's not a whole lot of love lost between myself and former legislators with no executive experience running for president. Or for that matter, U.S. Supreme Court nominees who have no actual experience as Supreme Court justices on their State's High Court. ie, Harriet Miers. Oh, I make the occasional exception, as with Tancredo, but as I've written before, I would have preferred that Tom Tancredo had served as Governor of his State prior to running for President of the United States. And I hope he does so: runs for Governor and wins, then enters the Presidential race again at some future date.

I just see Fred's dropping out of the race more or less as another Republican legislator out who probably shouldn't have been in the race to begin with.

Read More

Let me say it again, as clearly and concisely as I possibly can:

(Update: This post has been expanded to include Rick Darby's comments and my replies to Rick's comments, as well as to include a link to the VFR article inspired by Mr. Darby's opening sentence in his original comment to this entry.)

These People and their rituals do not belong in America, period!

Back a few months ago LA and I had a private email conversation concerning the ritualistic "foot washing" that Muslims engage in, not only in their countries of origin, but wherever in the world they are allowed to migrate and take up residence. The best part of that conversation was posted on this blog where LA gave us a word picture of the great lengths these people go to honor their foot washing tradition right here in America. And we allow this to go on in our country! Not only do we allow it, in point of fact, but we go to great lengths ourselves to accomodate these people and their ability to perform their weird rituals on our soil, and all in the name of diversity.

Well, here they are again, on our soil, performing another one of their "honorable" rituals, flagellating themselves, as they do at certain times during certain of their ceremonies, during the time of one of their holy festivals, Ashura.

In the words of LA from that Webster's entry of a few months ago, what American can honestly say that this kind of thing belongs in this country? And if you think this is just in New York City and it isn't coming to a city or town near you, then I have but one thing to say to you: Get back to me in about ten to fifteen years. We've seen it with homosexuality which I've also written about numerous times at this blog, and we'll see these Muslim rituals spread across the country like wildfire unless we do something radical about it, i.e., stop all Muslim immigration to this country and begin a policy of out-migration of Muslims, as LA has said over and over again.

Anyone care to wager with me on this? You're certainly welcome to. But when in fifteen years this stuff has spread across the country, I don't want to have to say "I told you so." I'm telling you now. If you can't see it, you need to get your eyes checked.

**********

Rick Darby writes:

Once a Muslim gets a foot in the door, the next thing you know it's in the wash basin.

Under our demented "invade the world, invite the world" policy, we will soon have to learn to "respect" every bizarre, loathsome, and insanitary practice of every Stone Age culture on earth.

TM replies:

Speaking of being as clear and concise as possible, I really like the way you put that:

"our demented "invade the world, invite the world" policy"

Excellent!

Rick replies:

Terry,

Thanks, but I can't take credit for the line. I believe it was Steve Sailer who came up with it.

TM replies:

Then kudos to Mr. Sailer. Thanks for clearing that up.

Also, all, see the way Mr. Auster used Mr. Darby's opening statement as an intro into a follow-up VFR entry on the subject, Inevitable consequences of Muslim immigration.

Read More

I think I must be crazy or something

As most of you know, I have an enormous amount of respect for Mr. Auster and the way he defends Traditionalist Conservatism on a daily basis over at VFR. But look at the terms in which he speaks of Mitt Romney in response to a Romney opponent, presumably from the state of Massachusetts where Romney served as Governor:

LA writes:

On other issues, Romney is the only representative of something reasonably like conservatism in the race who has a chance to win the nomination. (emphasis mine)

I'm not sure what "other issues" LA is referring to here, but it is irrelevant to my point. Are these the kinds of terms we're confined to using when discussing the "relative" conservatism of the GOP's new favorite son, Mitt Romney? In order to identify anything resembling conservatism in the man we have to match him up against the other viable GOP candidates, Rudy Guiliani and John McCain, two individuals who would easily pass as liberals were they in the party that they belong in. Doesn't this speak to Romney's non-conservatism more than it does to his conservatism? Doesn't this speak to yet more concessions on the part of true conservatives to those in the Republican party who are not?

Am I just crazy or what? It seems to me that the marriage between conservatism and the GOP is on really shaky ground at this point. I wonder how much longer it can survive?

By the way, my intent here is not to attack Mr. Auster, so please don't go there, I will not join in. All I'm saying is that I find it to be a very sad state of affairs when one of the leading proponents of traditionalist conservatism is relegated to defending a GOP candidate's conservatism in terms like Mr. Auster uses above. What say you?

Read More

Robert E. Lee's birthday

VA has a good post up commemorating the day of the birth of General Robert E. Lee, most famously known as the commanding general of the confederate army during the war between the states.

Since VA has disabled comments to her posts apparently indefinately, and since I cannot access her forum, I'll say a couple of things here:

First, with not the slightest bit of embarrassment I join with VA in recognizing the accomplishments of this truly great and noble man. I know a few "conservatives," who despise the man because he led the southern army. Frankly I think these individuals need to re-check their political leanings, as well as brush up on their history a bit. And in the words of Forrest Gump, that's all I got to say about thaat.

Second, VA quotes an article which in part states the following:

Many are appalled the state forces them to help maintain the hundred year old statue of Robert E. Lee. The group called for schools to stop portraying Lee as a virtuous hero. They also criticized the General Assembly for sponsoring Lee's birthday celebration.

Let me respond to this by saying that I'm willing to bet that many, if not most, of those "appalled" at being "forced" to help maintain the statue of General Lee aren't, in actuality, being forced to help maintain anything, including this statue. I'm willing to bet this, and I think I'm on pretty safe ground in doing so, precisely because I don't believe that many of these protestors, or most for that matter, are net taxpayers. And if you're not a net taxpayer, you're not being forced to do anything you don't want to with your tax dollars. In other words, you ain't got no beef, particularly when your beef amounts to a false claim which cannot be substantiated.

How is it that people come to believe that if the money they spend (irregardless of where this money comes from) goes toward taxes of any kind, they are therefore net taxpayers being forced by the state to support something they disagree with? The answer is that they are liberals, and this is what liberalism teaches them. This is a very consistent fundamental doctrine of liberalism. It teaches that everyone is a contributor, no matter how much negative contribution he makes, or is it the net contribution of others that they take? rest of post here

Read More

The corruptive and destructive influence of mass immigration;

Importing Maxims not congenial with Republicanism:

Mr. Auster has a nice post up on the Huckster's latest position on immigration where he (Auster) notes the ambiguity in Huck's language which leaves wiggle room for Huckabee to grant amnesty, or to support the granting of amnesty, to multitudes of illegal immigrants while holding strictly to his promise to oppose amnesty for millions of illegals. Auster's points along with Howard Sutherland's points concerning the term amnesty and what it has come to mean as opposed to what it means fundamentally led to an exchange between Mr. Auster and myself which I've included below.

TM writes:

Good catch. BTW, what constitutes a "special path to citizenship" to Huckabee's mind, I wonder?

Also, thanks to Mr. Sutherland for correctly defining the term "amnesty" for us.

LA replies to me:

I think, though I'm not sure, that "special path" is a term that makes it sound as though the speaker is opposed to legalization, while creating an escape hatch. I have no idea what a "special path" means. If your intent is not to legalize illegals, why bring in the idea of not legalizing illegals by a "special path"? It sounds like weasel language, allowing you to legalize people so long as you don't do it by a "special path."

TM replies:

I agree, it's weasel language. And what kind of people use weasel language?:

(a) conservative Republicans

(b) Republican Statesmen

(c) demagogues/weasels/RINO presidential candidates

One thing we can know is that amnesty is one special path to citizenship according to Huckabee because of the way the sentence reads -- "...to oppose amnesty or any other special path...". So I suppose you're right when you say that we need to use the term as it is commonly understood today. That's certainly the way Huckabee is using it in his sentence, that's the only way it can be understood in context of his statement.

I think you've done it right. By publishing Mr. Sutherland's proper explanation of the term "amnesty" you've acknowledged the term's correct and original meaning. But you've also acknowledged that the term (as with many of today's terms) has undergone a change to mean, in essence, a path to legalization. This is a corruption of the true meaning of the term, of course, and I don't like it any more than anyone else does, but it is this idea that people associate with the term amnesty these days. Here again there are three minimal requirements for having intelligent conversation (debate, discussion, whatever) between minds: (1) a mind capable of transmitting a thought, (2) a mind capable of receiving a thought, and (3) a mode of communication common to them both (a language).

I've noted this many many times in the past, but generally when there's a misunderstanding or miscommunication between parties, it is usually the third element where the problem lies; the terms used between the various parties involves different meanings for different parties involved in the conversation. My point is that there are a couple of means available to us for ameliorating the crisis, either (1) we re-establish the proper meaning of the term amnesty in this case so that everyone understands it in its original meaning, a virtual impossibility particularly in the short term, or (2) we acknowledge that the term has undergone a change in meaning, and we use the term (for the sake of clarity in communication) as it is widely understood now. In the meantime, the original uncorrupted meaning of the term must remain intact for the sake of understanding its usage (particularly in legal documents) prior to 1986 or whenever this term came to mean legalization.

This is one of the huge problems with immigration to my mind. We don't speak the same language as the invaders, and I'm not just referring to the English language. We don't speak the same political language that immigrants do. So how in God's name are we ever to come to understand one-another in terms of the organization of society and government and so on and so forth, except by the corruption of our language, and therefore of our institutions? George Washington once said (and I paraphrase) that it deeply concerned him that we send young people abroad to learn the higher branches of erudition due to the danger incurred of [their] imbibing maxims not congenial with Republicanism from young Americans living among other political systems who have not yet learned well the value of their own. I have said many times since I first read that statement some twenty years ago that we've imported this very danger to America in a very extensive way. It's no longer a danger of sending youngsters abroad to be corrupted in their political understandings, but of importing the corrupting influences here to our Universities and our public schools.

What kind of a people engages in such self-destructive practices?

Read More

Cause of Islamic violence: Free Speech

Free speech only goes so far, as we've been told so many times. Apparently in Britian not only can you not yell "fire!" in a crowded auditorium when there is actually no fire, but neither can you yell "Danger!, Islam!" on the blogosphere, even when it is so thoroughly documented that Islam IS and always has been the cause of "Islamic Extremism." This, of course, is inciting Islamic violence, and the only way to stop it is to incarcerate and silence those who dare to speak plainly about the violent nature of Islam; those who dare to say that Islam is incompatible with the West.

In America what we oughta be yelling at the top of our lungs and from every roof top is this: Danger! Cowardice! otherwise known as Liberalism! Can there be any question that we in America, if we do not wish to end up like our British brethren, must relegate the destructive ideology of liberalism to the far corners, as has been said numerous times here and elsewhere?

Read More