In connection with the recent GoV discussion on what to do about Islam, Mr. Auster put up this entry in which an interesting discussion in its own right ensued.
While scanning the comments to the entry I ran across a statement from Auster as part of his reply to John L.'s perceptive comments which caught my attention, and I wrote an email to him regarding his statement and why it had got my attention. Mr. Auster posted part of our exchange under the thread.
But the entirety of our exchange got me thinking. I wonder how many of you were unaware that President Bush had actually (He really did, I'm not making this up) made such a ridiculous public statement following the events of 9/11? I can't be sure whether I picked up on the remark during his speech at the National Cathedral because, as I wrote to Mr. Auster, I'm not positive that that was the only time Bush said it (I'm inclined to believe that he made the statement on more than that single occasion, but I could be wrong). But the great likelihood is that I did pick up on it then since I was watching that speech live at home on that day. A statement like that, so blatantly idiotic, coming from the President on the heels of such an historic event, would most likely not have escaped me. But come to think of it, there isn't much good I have to say about any aspect of that whole memorial ceremony.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
In connection with the recent GoV discussion on what to do about Islam, Mr. Auster put up this entry in which an interesting discussion in its own right ensued.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Just yesterday I was over at BadEagle arguing against the "illegal is bad, legal is good" mantra which we hear so often these days whenever the subject of immigration comes up. Today (hat tip: VFR) I was turned on to Paul Nachman's lengthy review of Mark Krikorian's new book on the subject where Mr. Nachman informs us that Mr. Krikorian deals with this specific issue in the book, among several others we've discussed here before.
Mr. Nachman has sold me. I'll soon be reserving my copy.
Under my post from two days ago, an exchange was had between myself and a couple of disagreeable Hispanic commenters. Also, jdogg, an Indian who we've all come to know and love, decided to leave his mark in the thread as he bid us all a fond adios. So long jdogg, we will miss thee.
Now, don't get the wrong impression. I'm not touting the exchange as containing any intellectually stimulating value at all, because it most definately doesn't. I apologize for that. But there are some valuable aspects to it nonetheless. For instance, here is what Fernando has to say during the exchange:
The country as we know it now is super young and you brought your ilk brought your disgusting diseases and poxes as well.
Indigenous people have been here long before your kind and at least these people didn't lie and deceive and cheat and kill.
This is just prior to Fernando's attacking me for being a "racist", mocking my religion, and calling white Okies "hillbillies", I mean uneducated "racist hillbillies":
"Third World" is just another replacement word for "brown". I call a racist a racist, no need to disguise it, and you are a racist. Pray to your god to figure that one out.
Of course Fernando's statements can't be racist. You can't be brown, or more broadly non-white, and racist at the same time, irrespective of what you say about a given non-brown race.
And here's jdogg in his farewell's eve message, and in his wonderfully articulate way, mocking concerns over the alarming growth of the illegal Mexican population in this country, and, again, calling me a racist and an alarmist:
Not that it matters, but what IF the Mexican population has grown? All populations grow, and by the way this must have happened in the last four years because that's when I left.
This continues to smack of nothing to racism and fear, that's all. It's repub racism at it's finest.
Oh man the messicans are taking over! Pretty soon we will all be eating burr ee toes!
How many times do these people need to call me a racist and an alarmist, an extremist right-winger and so on before they learn that I'm immune to it? They can call me what they like as many times as they like, it doesn't change anything. And as I pointed out to Fernando, I'm simply unwilling to sit back and allow my country and my state to be overrun by third-worlders. That's just a fact that I guess I'll just have to keep teaching to them.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
First, I've added a couple of sites to my ever expanding blogroll, BadEagle.com and The Heritage American. Speaking of the first, Dr. Yeagley and I kind of got off on the wrong foot to begin with, but as with Dad and I, our differences on the Indian issue are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. You may object to my adding BadEagle to my blogroll for any number of reasons, some of which I've probably complained about myself. But as I've said, I find Yeagley's Journal interesting, so there ya go. As to the second, The Heritage American, it looks like a very promising pro-America, pro-Western site. Do read Mr. Hopewell's series of articles on Davy Crockett, in which he (of course) broaches the Indian question himself.
Second, Mr. Auster has graced us with yet another outstanding article of his originally published in 1994 in National Review. I highly recommend that you read it. It is lengthy, but well worth your time. You may find the permanent link to the article at the top of my "Select VFR Articles" section in the left sidebar of this blog.
Third, I've recently added several articles from various sites to my "Recommended Blogposts" section in the right sidebar. Check 'em out.
One last item: Do check out the ongoing discussion of the Muslim question over at Gates of Vienna. I've just been sitting back trying to learn something.
Monday, July 28, 2008
For anyone interested in attending, such as me, and who can also free themselves up to attend, unlike me, there's a group out there called "RightMarch" touting their planned anti-illegal immigration rally, scheduled for next month to coincide with, and in close proximity to, the Democrat National Convention in Denver, as a "massive" event. Of course, in order for the event to hold true to its billing, average folks like you and me will need to be, if at all possible, in attendance.
From the page promoting the event:
In one month, August 25-28, the Democratic National Convention will be held in Denver, Colorado. This will be one of the biggest meetings of pro-amnesty, pro-illegal aliens politicians in a long, long time -- all eager to push their agenda against American sovereignty in front of fifteen thousand reporters and their television cameras from across the country.
All anyone will see or hear is pandering to the open borders special interest groups, like La Raza and MALDEF, for a whole week...
Unless WE step up and make our voices heard even LOUDER!
So we've decided to do exactly that! We're teaming up with Minutemen and local activists on the ground in Denver to stage this HUGE rally, which will feature dozens of prominent speakers and leaders in the fight for border security. We've secured a GREAT location at the spacious "Congress Park," right near the Pepsi Center where 35,000 people will be attending the Democrat Convention!
Imagine -- 35,000 people, including 15,000 reporters, hearing YOUR message AGAINST illegal immigration, LOUD AND CLEAR!
Everything's coming together... but we need YOU there to make it work!
Everything you need to know about the event -- where exactly the rally is to be held and in what proximity it is to the Democrat National Convention site, exact dates and times and so on and so forth -- may be had via the link provided above. If you're interested, or you know someone who is, then that's the place you need to go to get all the information you need.
I'll be watching, with interest, to see whether the scheduled rally indeed turns out to be all its promoters are cracking it up to be. I certainly hope so.
Am I picking fights unnecessarily with those who are largely in agreement with me on the issue of Muslims in the West? I don't believe so, but maybe you do.
Under this GoV thread Auster pointed out that Dymphna had wrongly asserted that many Muslims are American citizens of several generations, showing that in point of fact few Muslims are American citizens of several generations. Like Auster, I had also picked up on the falsity of Dymphna's statements, and intended to respond, only to find that I had been railroaded by Mr. Auster who beat me to the punch. ;-)
Nah, as I've written before, one of the fundamental tenets of CAIR's mission -- openly announced in so many words in each and every of their articles -- in America is to empower American Muslims. And as I've questioned, rhetorically, before, how are Muslims in America to do this, and to what purpose do they seek empowerment? The answers to those questions are very obvious to my mind.
But the implications of Dymphna's statements to the effect that we cannot even discuss removing Muslims, and thus the Muslim threat, from America and the West because they are already well established third and fourth generation citizens here, when in truth they are not, are what compelled me to respond the way I did in the thread. As I said, when you boil it all down to its fundamentals, what Dymphna is basically saying is that she supports a permanent Muslim presence and empowerment of Muslims in the West; what her position means, if followed, is that while her statements are false at the moment, they will become truthful a couple of generations down the road, at which point our progeny will be in a much weaker position to deal with the Muslim threat than we in our generation are.
What is fundamentally different, then, about Dymphna's position as she stated it in the thread, and that of CAIR as they incessantly state it under every article they post at their site? Both positions lead to the very same results -- a permanent empowered Muslim presence in the West -- which is, from any truly conservative pro-Western perspective, unacceptable.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Recently I was graced by a visit, unannounced, by my dad and my wonderful step-mother, both of whom I love and respect beyond measure (Dad, next time you decide to drop in on us, please follow the good advice of your wife and give us fair warning.).
Dad and I, during our visit, and as is the usual for us, engaged one another in a political conversation, particularly whether or not to vote for John McCain in the upcoming election. My position is, as I said to Dad, that I can't, in good conscience, vote for the likes of the RINO John McCain. Dad responded that he would vote for McCain as opposed to voting for the alternative Obama. He also pointed out that our state, Oklahoma, would invariably go for McCain over Obama in the general election; that a wrong election on my part, with that fact in mind, simply amounted to a "waste" of my vote. I didn't, and don't, quite see it that way.
Yes; my state will go for McCain when all is said and done, to the tune of 60-40 I should imagine, but does this mean I'm wasting my vote in refusing to vote for the decidedly non-conservative John McCain? You be the judge. I'm truly interested in your take.
Vanishing American, citing the conclusions of a Jared Taylor article on the inevitability of an Obama Presidency, questions Mr. Taylor's use of the term "edifying" in describing his predicted effect of said presidency. I've not yet read Mr. Taylor's article, so I'm going on VA's assessment which I trust is accurate.
I can't fault much of what Jared Taylor says in this piece on Why Obama Will Win. I suppose my problem with the piece has to do with his conclusions. Overall, I get the impression that Mr. Taylor believes that an Obama presidency will, at worst, be ineffectual and bumbling, that it will be a failure in the sense of not being able to deliver on promises made.
If only I thought that. If the worst we had to deal with was just another ineffective presidency, it would not be so bad.
The concluding sentence of the piece is the following:It will be an edifying presidency; and whites may be a little less deluded in 2012.
Now, maybe there's some meaning of the adjective 'edifying' which eludes me; my Webster's Dictionary gives this secondary meaning of the verb to edify:2. To instruct and improve, esp. by good example; to profit morally or spiritually.
For the life of me, I cannot see how we might even be instructed, much less 'improved' by an Obama presidency, and I am really at a loss as to imagine how we might profit morally or spiritually by it.
It does seem as though Mr. Taylor is joining the 'worse is better' group, although he stops short of recommending that his readers vote for Obama as a number of people on the right have done.
I gather that he sees the election of Obama as a certainty, and most of the time, I see it the same way.
However the election is still a few months away. Things could change in that period of time. It ain't over till it's over. Unless, of course, the whole process is rigged, which is entirely possible. At no time in my life have I ever had less confidence or trust in the system.
VA goes on to say the following in the final paragraph of the entry,
If an Obama presidency would be a mostly failed endeavor, we'd have little to be concerned about, but I am not convinced of that. I don't think, as I once naively thought, that the President is really 'the most powerful man in the world.' But he does have the most powerful men in the world behind him, or he would not become President.
to which I respond, pointing out that the President of the United States is, most powerful men in the world behind him notwithstanding, rendered virtually powerless by a U.S. Congress determined to oppose him and his agenda; that given the current makeup of the U.S. Congress and the probable makeup thereof following the November elections, an Obama presidency will, in my opinion, be disastrous for this country. It will be a disaster that we'll probably not know the full effects of for two to three decades to come.
I'm in full agreement with VA on this one. I simply can't get with the "worse is better" crowd. A lot of irreversible damage can be done in four years by an Executive with a Legislative branch to support him. But if you can show me evidence that the next Legislature will oppose an Obama administration, then you might have a chance to convince me that worse is indeed better in the case of an Obama Presidency.
Nora wrote to me yesterday from Germany, under the thread "BadEagle.com on Indian Gaming" that my reply to jdogg in that thread -- in which I asked jdogg what I was supposed to take from his comments -- left a little to be desired, and that she probably shouldn't have read further than my compilation of Auster's writings on Islam, which she mentions approvingly, and by which she came to find Webster's.
Let me say first of all that this entry is in no way intended as an attack on Nora who makes a fair point if indeed her interpretation of my remarks to jdogg is the correct one. But Nora's assessement of my remarks to jdogg is inaccurate. As I explained to Nora in my reply to her under that thread, I wasn't calling jdogg an "extreme left-wing liberal democrat" or any derivative thereof. I was simply pointing out to jdogg the inadequacy of his accusations against me and my site, using his same style of argument, or hyperbole as it were.
Anyway, if you're interested in the discussion between Nora and I, you may read it via the link provided above. Nora has a lot of negative things to say about Dr. Yeagley and she's provided links to her own compilation of Dr. Yeagley's "hate-filled" rhetoric which you may be interested in.
Also, I should mention, since Nora brought it up, that the Lawrence Auster on Islam page which CTO and I created months ago, judging by the number of hits it receives per month, has been a greater success than we originally anticipated, particularly in the short term. Last we checked it was receiving an average of something like 1,500 or 1,600 hits per month. Not too shabby for a page that was created no more than six or eight months ago.
Thanks to Nora, though, for her compliments.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
As I've said many times before, I believe the best method for handling the immigration crisis as it exists now is for the individual states in this union to take the initiative, creating their own immigration legislation. My theory has always been that when one or two affected states enact their own laws denying immigrants employment and social services, and etc., other bordering states would soon find it necessary to craft similar legislation for themselves due chiefly to the fact that the former state's immigrant population must go somewhere to avoid capture and deportation. The preferred direction is South, but that's not the direction many will go so long as there are states which have yet to enact their own immigration laws, although some certainly will and have.
A case in point is Oklahoma's northeastern neighbor, Missouri. In this article from the "Carthage Press" in Carthage MO., a Missouri State Legislator, Kevin Wilson, R-Neosho, is quoted as saying the following concerning Missouri's new immigration legislation, which, incidentally, basically mirrors the provisions contained in Oklahoma's H.B. 1804:
We need to always emphasize that we are talking about illegal immigrants,” Wilson said. “Immigration is what founded this nation, but this is about illegals, people who are bypassing the system. Oklahoma passed a comprehensive bill and our concern was that if Missouri didn’t then those folks leaving Oklahoma would migrate to Missouri and stop here. (emphasis added)
There you have it. One reason, according to Mr. Wilson, that the Missouri legislature thought it necessary to craft its own legislation dealing with the problem of illegal Mexican immigration is because, as a state which borders my state of Oklahoma, the Missouri legislature wisely concluded (after many illegal immigrants which had once resided in Oklahoma fled to Missouri and took up residence there, I should think) that illegal Mexicans fleeing my state, post enactment of 1804, would go to Missouri with intentions to stay. And anyone who knows the first thing about this knows that once established in a given area, these illegals begin to smuggle more illegals (friends and relatives and acquaintences) into the U.S., and the state and cities wherein they reside. So once they're there to stay, their numbers begin to grow rapidly by leaps and bounds.
I personally do not think it will require a majority of states following suit before illegal Mexicans already here and those waiting to come will, having seen the handwriting on the wall, regain their sense of direction and begin a migration in the preferred direction aforesaid. At that point, it may only be necessary for us to offer them safe passage out.
So who will we be hearing from next, Kansas, Arkansas, Illinois, Tennessee, Kentucky, Iowa? Anyone have an idea? I'm going to take a chance and put my money on Kentucky. Don't let me down Kain-Tuck.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
The evidence to suggest collective criminal insanity on the part of the general citizenry of the state of Massachusetts is quickly mounting. Of course, many of us need no further evidence to convince us that this is indeed the case and has been the case for some time now, but one wonders how much evidence it will take to begin to convince everyone else?
I was already aware of and anticipating this Massachusetts Senate vote this week, and that's the reason I went in search of this story this morning. What the People of Massachusetts are basically saying here is this, "we do not respect, and we're under no obligation to respect, the opinions, nor the laws reflecting those opinions, of the forty nine other states in this Union."
The audacity of leftists in their collective capacities literally knows no bounds.
But what does this say about the body of the citizenry of Massachusetts as it exists now? What it says to me is that the geographical territory which we call Massachusetts is now occupied by a collection of homo sapiens so utterly devoid of any common standards of moral decency that they're collectively rendered incapable of even making an unprincipled exception, which is likely a sign of their imminent demise. Such a people the Bible refers to as "reprobate." I'm probably going too light in imputing to them the condition of "criminal insanity."
And by the way, for all of you who retain some kind of sympathy for the depraved People of Massachusetts, let us not forget that this is not some oligarchy imposing its will on an unsuspecting citizenry. This is a duly elected legislative body doing the business of the people it represents; a body of elected representatives appointed long after the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued its ruling on "gay marriage" several years ago. In other words, had the people of Massachusetts any sense of self-restraint and moral responsibility, they would have already installed a legislature which would reflect it. In my personal opinion the state of Massachusetts now represents the most odious mass collection of human scum that ever existed on this continent.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Back on December 5, 2007 I wrote about the mission of CAIR to empower Muslims in America. In a July 7, 2008 CAIR story posted at the CAIR website entitled CAIR-WA Welcomes Police Memo on Religious Ethnic Profiling, one can readily see what an organized and empowered Muslim community in America begins to do with its growing organization and empowerment.
From the July 7 article:
(SEATTLE, WA, 7/7/2008) - The Washington state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-WA) today welcomed an internal memorandum from Seattle’s police chief cautioning against the use of religious or ethnic profiling in training programs.
In his memo to department captains, Chief of Police R. Gil Kerlikowske wrote:The purpose of this message is to provide guidance to commands regarding assigning personnel to training courses. Recently there was some concerns expressed by community members regarding a training course. The Seattle Police Department has a commitment to unbiased policing and building trust with the community we serve. It is critical that training designed to detect illegal or possible illegal behavior serve a legitimate law enforcement function. Associating behavior with religious, racial, or ethnic affiliation will mislead law enforcement and cause us to spend time on what might not be a genuine threat. It is therefore, imperative that we carefully review the appropriateness of these courses prior to approving such training for our officers.
Chief Kerlikowske’s memo comes after CAIR-WA called on Port of Seattle Police to ensure that a recent two-day training course, titled “The Threat of Islamic Jihadists to the World,” offered a balanced perspective on Islam and Muslims. Local Muslims leaders had expressed concerns that the course would promote stereotypes and religious and ethnic profiling. (all emphases mine)
If you've never been to the CAIR site and read their articles, I recommend you take the time to do so. One thing I've noticed in reading their articles (and I do so fairly regularly) is that they're extremely careful to use seemingly innocuous very non-offensive, non-threatening language. But you know what they say "you can't fool a fooler." In other words, I ain't buyin' it.
In the excerpt from the CAIR article above, a typical CAIR article, we see statements like "CAIR welcomed the memorandum," "local Muslims had expressed concerns," and so forth, all carefully crafted non-threatening language to make it seem as though CAIR is not what it actually and really is. I'd lay down good money that the whole truth of the matter is that rather than local Muslims merely expressing concerns about internal Seattle police training policies, that there was rather outrage expressed to CAIR-WA representatives who then, empowered Muslims that they are, proceeded to dictate (not negotiate) terms to the Seattle PD on threats of legal action in the event the SPD refused to comply with CAIR's demands. Then of course the Seattle Police Department buckled under the pressure resulting in the situation we have now -- A police force at a major port of entry on America's West coast rendered virtually impotent in preventing terrorist activities on American soil by Muslim terrorists. What a wonderfully inclusive and tolerant country we now live in.
The article also lists several other recent cases at other major cities in the U.S. where the same results were effectively obtained on the same pretenses.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Jason A., a.k.a. jdogg, finally comes clean with me about his attitude concerning his Indianness and how it trumps his Americanness, among other things.
Jason's revelations, of course, are no surprise to me. I've been stating repeatedly in our discussion in this thread that this is the case; that anyone (not just Indians, but certainly Indians too) having dual citizenship must, by virtue of that dual citizenship, divide his loyalties between the two competing entities. And anytime this happens, one of the two is going to take precedence over the other. For Jason, he's an Indian first, and an American ... somewhere down the line.
You are American, I am Native first, then American. What you argue for makes you basically my enemy. It's against the best interests of my people.
If I had it my way a statement like that would automatically disqualify such person making the statement from being a U.S. citizen. But we ain't there yet.
Well, Jason thinks that what I'm advocating is against the best interests of his people. But as I've been pointing out all along, in that thread and elsewhere, it can never be in the best interest of his people nor in the best interest of my people for his people or my people, or any people for that matter, to have dual citizenship in two distinctive political entities with two distinctive sets of interests. This is clearly and simply an impossibility. And what more evidence of the fact do we need than Jason's own hostile admission?
Another of my positions that Jason complains about is my perfectly reasonable position that dead men should have no power to rule over the living, whether they be dead Indians or dead whites, or in this particular case both. (I brought this out with Yeagley earlier in the discussion, at which point he abandoned the conversation. But can you blame him? I mean, think about it, what would it mean either way he answered the question?)
In other words, there is no law or treaty or constitution, nor any contract negotiated between men that can ever have the oppressive force of being sacredly and inviolably binding on future generations who do not willingly give their consent to it. Indeed, as the Declaration of Independence states "...that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." There is no truth more evident to my mind (no truth more self-evident) than that "the governed" of which Mr. Jefferson speaks are in fact "the living."
Most of you are also aware (though I wonder about Jason) that the DoI also states "...that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it." Again, we're talking about the living here, which means, people alive at this particular moment in history; me and you. For how can dead men alter or abolish anything in the here and now? But let us turn our attentions to the word "alter" in the foregoing statement for just a moment.
Jason seems to believe that if we decide to alter any point in any treaty made between dead whites and dead Indians, to his peoples' perceived disadvantage, then whites have once again broken the terms of an agreement that he believes is written in stone for all eternity. Meanwhile, Jason, in what he perceives to be the interests of his people the Indians, is going to do all he can to build upon, to add to what was originally agreed to in the treaties made between Indians and whites. I don't know about you, but I'm not inclined to be a slave to anyone, living or dead. But I'm telling you folks, I know a lot of Indians of one degree or another, and this is the general attitude among those that I know. I'm not saying all Indians share this view, I'm simply saying that this is the general attitude among Indians I know personally.
But Jason's attitude makes me wonder whether the main point of contention between Indians and whites, which is now commonly understood to be the fault of whites because they/we broke the terms of the bargain, is in fact this very point of a difference in governmental philosophy? For is it not so that a Paternal attitude toward the government of men is in direct conflict with that form of government which our founding fathers established on this continent? We know that our founding fathers borrowed much from Mr. Locke who, in his treatise on Government thoroughly dispenses with the idea of Paternal authority as a ruling principle among free men.
Anyway, I don't want to delve into it in this particular post, but I think it can be shown that the fourteenth amendment, the establishment of a U.S. citizenship, and all the things we've discussed before which derive therefrom, relates very closely to this whole issue of dual citizenship. Perhaps I'll take that up in a future entry. Stay tuned.
(Incidentally, the image I've posted above is titled, of all things, Founding Fathers. Am I seeing a problem or six here?)
Saturday, July 12, 2008
I received the following email from a beloved Aunt earlier this evening. But as the title of this blog post states, I have a major objection to the contents of the email. The email was received as follows:
1. You can properly pronounce Eufaula, Gotebo, Okemah, and Chickasha.
2. You think that people who complain about the wind in their states are sissies.
3. A tornado warning siren is your signal to go out in the yard and look for a funnel.
4. Your idea of a traffic jam is ten cars waiting to pass a tractor on the highway.
5. You've ever had to switch from "heat" to "A/C" in the same day.
6. You know that the true value of a parking space is not determined by the distance to the door, but by the availability of shade.
7. Stores don't have bags, they have sacks.
8. You see people wear bib overalls at funerals.
9. You think everyone from a bigger city has an accent.
10. You measure distance in minutes.
11. You refer to the capital of Oklahoma as "The City."
12. It doesn't bother you to use an airport named for a man who died in an airplane crash. (TM: Will Rogers for anyone who doesn't get it)
13. Little smokies are something you serve only for special occasions.
14. You go to the lake because you think it is like going to the ocean.
15. You listen to the weather forecast before picking out an outfit.
16. You know cow pies are not made of beef.
17. Someone you know has used a football schedule to plan their wedding date.
18. You have known someone who has had one belt buckle bigger than your fist.
19. A bad traffic jam involves two cars staring each other down at a four-way stop, each determined to be the most polite and let the other go first.
20. You know in which state Miam-uh is and in which state Miam-ee is.
21. You aren't surprised to find movie rental, ammunition, and bait all in the same store.
22. Your "place at the lake" has wheels under it.
23. A Mercedes Benz is not a status symbol. A Ford F350 4x4 is a GT.
24. You know everything goes better with Ranch.
25. You learned how to shoot a gun before you learned how to multiply.
26. You actually get these jokes and are "fixin" to send them to your friends.
Finally, you are 100% Oklahoman if you have ever heard this conversation:
"You wanna coke?" "Yeah." "What kind?" "Dr. Pepper."
Okay, I've kept you in suspense long enough. The major objection is this, as some of you may have already guessed, anyone who calls himself an "Oklahoman", definately ain't 100% Okie! An "Oklahoman" is a newspaper that some of us subscribe to, and some of us don't, published in "the City."
I sent LA an email this morning concerning this matter in which I wrote as simply and concisely as I could possibly muster at that moment:
Let's all agree on this, the problem with Islam is Islam. There's nothing that non-Muslims can do to change Islam, and there's nothing that Muslims will do, anytime soon if ever, to change Islam. Therefore, Islam, being inherently and uniquely hostile to the West is inherently and uniquely incompatible with the West, and in order to protect ourselves from Muslims we must eventually remove them from the West. It's as simple as that. End of story.
However, in my haste I forgot to add: "...and the quicker the better." Meaning, the quicker we get on with this business, the better off we all are, including the Muslims.
LA replied to my email by saying simply "I like this!" To which I replied "Thanks. But isn't this essentially what you've been saying for ... ever?" Not literally, but you know what I mean. He's been saying it for a long time.
But I wonder, can we all agree at least to the terms I've written above, and try to build on that, for the common good of us all in the West, and, yes, even for Muslims? But when it comes down to it, I'm really concerned with my country first and foremost. You disagree?
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
If white people want to gamble away their money at Indian casinos, Indians have every right to accept.
Then in the next paragraph he states the following:
It is most unbecoming for a Christian to decry ill-gotten gain of Indian casinos on the basis of apparent business advantage. That's practically irrelevant. Let the Christian denounce the evil profits on the basis of the immorality of gambling.
Dr. Yeagley seems to want to have it both ways. While he agrees with me that gambling is morally wrong; that the money Indians make from their casinos is "ill-gotten," somehow he justifies Indian gaming on the basis that Whites are stupid enough to gamble away their money at Indian casinos. It's on the order of saying something like "I think stealing is immoral, but if the teller at the bank is stupid enough to be distracted by my antics and gives me $500. for a $400. check, that's her mistake, she should have been more attentive to her business."
Now, I realize that that's not a completely accurate analogy, but they never are. The point, however, is this, gambling casinos use all kinds of enticements to get people to literally throw their money away. What it boils down to is taking advantage of peoples' weaknesses in order to rob them of their substance. But as an advocate of the Indian people who believes that gambling is morally wrong and therefore gaming is an illegitimate business, you'd think that Dr. Yeagley would be concerned about preserving and improving upon the morality of his own people, which is to say that you'd think he'd denounce Indian involvement in the corrupt business of gaming. But all Dr. Yeagley can do is justify the immorality of Indian involvement in the gaming industry by saying that Whites have it coming because they're stupid enough to gamble, and Indians are well justified in preying on White stupidity. You know, payback.
As I've said so many times before, people can quite literally justify anything irrespective of how immoral or self-destructive it is.
The discussion continues over at Dr. Yeagley's place, but I seem to be having some difficulty getting past Dr. Yeagley's firewall again.
I'm really just seeking the answer to a couple of questions. (1) Does Dr. Yeagley support Indian involvement in the corrupt gaming industry or not? He's never answered that question directly. And (2) on what basis does he say that white Christians have no right to condemn Indian casinos politically? I assert that I have every right to oppose casinos both morally and politically, whether they're run by Indians or not.
Also, there's another issue that I think I mentioned in my comments that haven't gotten through. Dr. Yeagley seems to be giving the Indian Nations a free pass on gambling in his reply to me when he says that Indians don't see gambling as a sin. Ok, I think I can make a pretty strong case that the vast majority of whites involved in gaming, whether they be financiers or simple everyday gamblers or whatever, don't see anything morally wrong with gambling either. Does this mean that I'm to give them a free pass as well? Does this mean that I can only oppose white gambling morally, but not politically?...
Additionally, there's some confusion over the issue of Indian sovereignty. Yeagley seems to believe that Indian sovereignty and dual citizenship for Indians are like a matching set; you don't get the one without the other. I strongly disagree with this view. Indeed, I'm more apt to believe that the Indian Nations cannot truly ever be "sovereign" political entities so long as their people have dual citizenship both in the U.S. and their respective Indian Nations. Where am I going wrong?
Monday, July 7, 2008
Here's Dr. David Yeagley endorsing Republican Jason Nelson for District 87 House. Now, I don't live in Dr. Yeagley's district so I have no say in who's elected to that seat. And I haven't read anything on our candidate outside Dr. Yeagley's endorsement. What concerns me are the grounds on which Yeagley endorses our Indian-friendly candidate, Mr. Nelson:
If you're an Indian, and you live in District 87 (central Oklahoma City), you must vote for Jason Nelson for your state representative. I ran into Jason yesterday evening, while walking through my neighborhood. He was campaigning, house to house. I spoke a good while with him. I'm convinced, he's the best man for Indians.
No, he doesn't say a word about Indians in any of his campaign material or on his web site. But, I'm telling you, I spoke with him personally, at length. I know what he believes, feels, and thinks about Oklahoma Indians. He's our man! (Also told me his wife was part Chickasaw!)
Now, Dr. Yeagley, how many otherwise white-looking folks in Oklahoma have a bit of Chickasaw or Choctaw or Cherokee running through their veins? This fact Mr. Nelson reveals about his wife surprises you and delights you? I don't get it.
Well, I could go on and on and on about why Dr. Yeagley's encounter with Mr. Nelson on the streets of his neighborhood in OKC cannot possibly have been enough to convince him of all that ... unless he's an utter fool. One single (lengthy) encounter with a candidate selling his candidacy (to an Indian) in his neighborhood and Dr. Yeagley's ready to grab up his megaphone and announce to the world "I know all there is to know about him Indian-wise, he's our man!"? C'mon!
But it does get worse, believe it or not...
As I said, he's not campaigning on this. He also knows the prejudice and fears of many uninformed conservatives toward the subject of Indian casinos. But he knows this casino binge is a temporary thing. Wise Indian leaders, like Chickasaw Governor Bill Anoatubby for instance, know that the tribes must diversify. They cannot afford to put all their eggs in one basket. They must invest in other businesses besides the entertainment business.
The "prejudice and fears of many uninformed conservatives" toward the subject of Indian Casinos? Well now, that's about all this prejudiced, fearful, uninformed conservative needs to know right there.
But because this "casino binge" is a "temporary thing," Nelson understands that Indians have to diversify. In other words, this casino thing is not a temporary thing at all, it is, quite to the contrary, and if "wise" Indian leaders have anything to do with it, a long term business venture which the Indian nations have no plans to abandon, only to build upon. Mr. Nelson has secretly confided to Dr. Yeagley (but doesn't say anything about his plans on his campaign website) that he believes Oklahoma has to work with the Indian nations on diversifying in get-rich-quick money making schemes -- you know, cut backdoor deals with them (reduced taxes and whatnot). Look out Oklahoma, if this Republican is elected Pyramid schemes may, for the first time in Oklahoma's history, become legal (Indian) means for making money. And of course it's essential to our State's economic growth that Oklahoma's government work with the Indian nations to make these business schemes legal, at least for Indians.
One last word about "Indian money." I've written about this before, but when I was in Alaska in the early 1990s, there was a push for "homosexual rights" in the state, and more locally in Anchorage. One of the things that homosexuals (and their advocates) engaged in at the time was to attempt to show what a great economic contribution homosexuals were making to the local economy. One way in which they did this was to deface any money that came into their possession by whatever means with a stamp that read "gay money." Indeed, for a time it seemed that virtually all paper currency circulating in the Anchorage area was "gay money," if you were to take what was stamped on it at "face value." That in itself should be enough to illustrate the stupidity of using the term "Indian money." But perhaps Dr. Yeagley would like to start a similar campaign with his Indian brethren and their casino money?
Sorry dad. The more Indians speak, the more I dislike them, notwithstanding all that Chickasaw, Choctaw and Cherokee blood that runs through these veins. I know, I know, my Indian ancestors bought and paid for all this ... stuff. Right.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Since good historically accurate television docu-dramas, and their value as a means and instrument to enlighten a public illiterate on early American history, are on my mind today, here's one that I saw on the History Channel, Thanksgiving 2006. This particular documentary is based on the only reliable source available on the history of the founders of Plymouth Colony, Governor Bradford's own history "Of Plymouth Plantation."
I read Governor Bradford's history many years ago, so I was well prepared to identify any blatant historical inaccuracies that might be contained in the movie. It's been two years since I saw it so my recollection may be a bit skewed, but the overall impression that I formed of the movie at the time, as I recall, was very positive, and I've retained that sense to this day. Indeed, I looked for it last year at Thanksgiving on the History Channel, eager to see it again, but to no avail. I think this year, rather than count on a replay on the History Channel, I'll just purchase a DVD copy and let that be that.
Who says tv isn't a useful educational tool?
Anyway, here is one short review of the movie posted on the Amazon page linked above:
J.S. Kaminski writes:
Most Americans know the story of the Pilgrims and Mayflower...or do they? The History Channel has done a great job here, showing us that there is more to the story than we'd been taught. For example, who knew that many of the Pilgrims had actually moved to the Netherlands for an extended period (12 years or so) before deciding to try their luck in the New World? Or that there were actually two ships (the other being called The Speedwell), but the 2nd one was left behind because it was deemed un-seaworthy? Or that the Pilgrims landed first, not at Plymouth, but on Cape Cod, only to be driven off by the Native Americans there? These facts and many others are revealed in this interesting film.
Well, had you read the book, Mr. Kaminski, you would have known some of these otherwise obscure facts about the Pilgrims. LOL
Nah, Mr. Kaminski is right that these facts are not widely known today, and he's also right, if memory serves, that these facts among others spoken of in Bradford's history, such as the use of a "great iron screw" to repair a damaged main beam in the ship, are brought out in the movie. My only real beef with the docu-drama is that I personally feel that too much effort was expended in giving the ancestors of the natives an angry voice by which to demonize the Pilgrims. There are some very angry Indians out there, but that side of the story has been told for ... how long now? Hopefully the movie will lead people like Mr. Kaminski to read the book?
I don't recall the exact context so it would be hard for me to find the link, but we had a discussion a few years ago over at the AFB in which a couple of us were challenged by someone for "making the story of the Pilgrims out to be a "religious fairytale"", or something to that effect. I replied by pointing out to our opponent that the story of the Pilgrims -- Bradford's history of Plymouth Plantation -- which I had read several times sort of reads like one; that he ought to read it sometime and he would know exactly why our impression of the Pilgrims is what it is -- a religious fairytale if that's what you want to call it. The movie in question, again as I recall from seeing it two years ago, following Bradford's history closely, has the same basic effect. I highly recommend it for those who have yet to read or hear or see anything other than revisionist histories of our Pilgrim ancestors.
I thought that some of you may be unaware of this bit of historical 'trivia' related to Bradford's manuscript, and that you might be interested. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the subject which relates the basic facts of the manuscript's century-long disappearance from the American continent, how it was discovered and returned:
History of the manuscript
After Prince's death, the manuscript was left in the tower of the Old South Meeting House in Boston. During the Revolutionary War, British troops occupied the church and the manuscript was lost for another century. After quotes from the missing book appeared in Samuel Wilberforce's A History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, in the 1850s it was discovered in the Bishop of London's library at Fulham Palace, and was published in print in 1856. Formal proposals to return the manuscript were not successful until the 1897 initiative of the Hon. George Hoar, United States Senator from Massachusetts, supported by the Pilgrim Society, the American Antiquarian Society, and the New England Society of New York.
When Bishop of London Frederick Temple learned of the importance of the book, he thought it should be returned but because it was being held by the Church that approval from the Archbishop of Canterbury was needed. By the time the formal request from Hoar's group reached England, the Archbishop was Frederick Temple. The bishop's Consistorial and Episcopal Court of London observed that although how the book got there was not known, the marriage and birth registry in the back of the book should have been deposited with the Church, that this library was the proper place for it, thus the book was a church document and the Diocese of London had proper control of it. The court went on to observe that when the Colony declared independence in 1776, the Diocese of London was no longer the proper place because London's registry was no longer the proper repository for such a registry. The bishop's court ordered that a photographic copy of the document be made for the court, and the original be delivered to the Governor of Massachusetts.
A few years ago I ran across a title on the tv which intrigued me, "Longitude." This movie, or as it were, a tv series put in movie format, was to be shown on A&E. I don't recall precisely, but I probably read the description and knew immediately that I had to watch it, geography and scientific discovery being very interesting subjects for me.
Of course I had the usual suspicion that this movie might well turn out to be just another politically motivated propaganda film intended to sell its audience on ... whatever. But this is not what it turned out to be at all, at least as far as I can tell. Plainly stated, it's a fine movie chronicling the struggle of one Mr. John Harrison to solve the problem of finding longitude at sea. A problem that had long perplexed some of the greatest scientific minds of the era, including Isaac Newton and others.
The image above is of Harrison's first Marine Timepiece (H-1) which, while aboard ship on trial, was placed in a cradle and housed in a protective wooden cube of a box four feet by four feet by four feet in dimension. In other words, though it performed well enough on trial to win the prize money promised to anyone who could solve the longitude problem at sea ( a sum equal to about 6 million dollars in today's terms as I understand it), it was a beast of an instrument too large and cumbersome, and too expensive at the time to replicate, to be of any practicable widespread usage. Also, it had a problem inherent to its design; Harrison, while having painstakingly tested the instrument himself on a rocking boat on a river near his home prior to testing it at sea, had failed to account for the centrifugal motion of a ship while it is turning, and this had caused the timepiece to lose more time, over the course of a relatively short journey at sea, than Harrison was himself comfortable with. Mr. Harrison, you see, was a perfectionist, and he immediately, upon returning safely to England with his timepiece -- something that likely would never have happened had it not performed as well as it did on the return trip where Harrison's readings of the machine showed a disparity of some sixty nautical miles between the ship's actual position and the position at which the crew had put it by dead reckoning, Harrison's calculations being found correct and saving the ship from almost certain destruction (read the book or watch the movie, or both) -- began work on a new design in which he would attempt to solve the problem of centrifugal motion at sea, thus creating a much more reliable marine chronometer than his first attempt, H-1, had proved to be.
The story is very interesting indeed. If you're intrigued, as I am, by such stories of such pioneers of scientific discovery, I highly recommend that you seek out and watch the A&E movie Longitude, as well as the book on which the movie is based and of the same title. The book itself is only 175 pages, so it can be read in a matter of hours. Both the book and the movie are very complimentary of one-another. And they contain the added bonus of showing how a few of Harrison's revolutionary ideas came to be used centuries later for the good and comfort of his fellow man.
(Thanks to my eldest son for purchasing the book and allowing me to borrow it over the weekend. You may have it back now.)
Friday, July 4, 2008
I actually, believe it or not, did not realize that this blog had been up for over a year (where does the time go?) until just a few moments ago as I was searching the archives here for an entry I'd remembered posting on my favorite rendition of the Star Spangled Banner, which is recorded on the album I'm listening to as I write -- Stars and Stripes Forever, Volume II. That entry, as it turns out, was posted here exactly one year ago, July 4, 2007.
But if you want to read something funny (and typical), read my reply to Mike Tams and Call Me Mom in the comments section of the post. It seems I was complaining then about reference to Independence Day as "The Fourth of July."
Near my home is a bridge, perhaps a quarter of a mile long (I don't know for sure since I've never clocked it) and (currently) forty or fifty feet above the surface of the water of Lake Eufaula called the "Crowder-Blocker Bridge."
As I approached the bridge yesterday evening on our way home from gymnastics practice, my daughter and I noticed two teenagers standing near the edge of the bridge. One of them (a rather "chunky" fellow) climbed onto the railing of the bridge and jumped to the water as we passed. I wasn't trying to ruin their fun, but given the height of the bridge over the water and the fact that (even though the water level is high at the moment) there are large boulders beneath the surface of the water surrounding this bridge, the danger of these boys hurting themselves badly struck me immediately, so I called the Sherriff's office requesting that they send someone out to disperse the boys.
After the operator assured me that someone would soon be en route, I began to worry that they wouldn't get there in time to save the boys from their destructive behavior; that if one of the boys happened to find himself in a precarious state of incapacitation, the risk that all might be killed would greatly increase. I began to have visions of this Sunday's headline "Boy killed jumping from bridge; friend drowns trying to save him". So we turned back.
My daughter and I were a bit surprised to find, as we approached the scene, that there were not two, but three boys jumping from the bridge (these boys looked about 16 or 17 years old), all wet from having already jumped and returned to do it again. As I pulled up beside them I rolled the window down and asked: "You guys going to jump off the bridge?" The boy who we saw jump earlier replied: "Yeah, man!, it's fun; watch him (pointing to his friend) do a back flip, it's really cool!" To which I replied "No; hold on and let me tell you something." The boy answered "no, man, you got to see this!" At which point I was forced to speak more sternly, more authoritatively: "No; don't you go anywhere, I don't want to see his back flip. Now you listen to me for a second while I explain something to you -- obviously you all are not aware of the danger inherent to what you're doing, but since I am and I saw one of you jump earlier, I've called the Sherriff's office and they're sending someone out." One of them replied: "They're sending someone out?" I answered "yes, they're sending someone out; I didn't call them to end your fun, I called them to prevent your killing yourselves."
Now, I've never jumped from a bridge forty or fifty feet above the water, but I've done stupid things like that (from lesser heights) and I always had to show off my ability to do front flips and back flips and twists, and so forth and so on. Invariably, though, my friends (who weren't as brave, or is it "stupid" as I was) would always respond with something to the effect of "ah, man, that was awesome!, do something else," and the danger to myself and to them would naturally increase as I would have to live up to my reputation of "fearlessness." Believe me, I know what this is all about, and I've, on more than one occasion, misjudged the distance to the surface of the water and underrotated an otherwise perfect front flip slamming into the surface of the water flat of my back. And I can tell you from first hand experience that doing so literally does incapacitate you, at least for a moment.
But anyway, only one of the boys, it seems, took me seriously enough to walk away from the scene. I hope that a deputy made it out there in time to prevent a bad accident. But more importantly, I hope those boys will take something from what I told them, and will have learned what I had to learn the hard way -- that what they were doing ain't real smart.
Posted by Terry Morris at 9:10 AM
Today is July 4th, the day that used to be set aside for us to celebrate America's Independence, as I wrote yesterday in the post directly beneath this one. It is sad but true that this is no longer what the holiday means to many (and judging by what I see around me, most) Americans. Perhaps this is not the case in your neck of the woods, but I happen to live in one of the most (comparatively speaking) 'conservative' states and regions in America. So I think the tendency would most likely be that as we move away from the center, this irreverant attitude towards our nation's birthday would become more pronounced.
After returning home late yesterday evening I got online and went to several sites listed in my blogroll, including VFR where this entry had been posted while I was away. In the entry Richard W. complains about the "lowering of standards" in diverse America. But you know what the B.O. supporting preacher said: "our nation's diversity (uh, I meant to say pluralism, sorry) is much more to be celebrated than to be feared" even though, according to B.O., as racial and cultural diversity increases in America, America becomes an ever more dangerous place to live. But I digress...
In his concluding remarks in his email to L.A., Richard writes that he's going to view the "fourth of July" as a day of mourning, with one consolation -- beer and hotdogs are hard to ruin, and I respond:
Ah, our America. Happy Forth of July? Hmm. I think I'm viewing it as a day or mourning.
He should be, particularly since the liberalization of America is now so complete and thorough that even patriotic folks like Richard refer to the day set aside for Americans to celebrate the great epoch of our nation's independence as "the fourth of July" without a second thought, not even to whom he's speaking to.
And L.A. replies to my response to Richard's remarks:
Isn't Mr. Morris being a little tough on Richard W.? Yes, of course, the proper name for the holiday is Independence Day; I personally often use that name when others are calling it "July Fourth." But it's been commonly called "July Fourth" for an awfully long time, probably going back well into the 19th century, and to suggest that the use of that familiar, even traditional name is a symptom of the much more recent radical liberalization of America is, I think, not correct or fair.
But, you see, this is my point. I'm keenly aware of the fact that the term "fourth of July" is not a new innovation on the proper "Independence Day" in America. Hell, until fifteen years ago or so, I myself used the term, just like Richard, without a second thought as to the implications of what I was saying. Furthermore, I did not suggest that it is a new innovation, nor was I trying to be harsh with Richard W. Indeed, I was trying to give Richard as much credit for his patriotism as I could while showing that his usage was/is improper and an indication of how deep our nation has sunk into the abyss of liberal domination (seriously, what force would my argument have in the absence of granting Richard's patriotism and love of country?; if Richard were not, in my opinion, a patriotic American, then what would be the point of my using him as an example of the extent of the problem as I see it?). But because I dared point out that Richard's usage of the improper "fourth of July" is indication of a deeper problem in America than what actually shows up on the surface, I'm declared to be unfair to Richard.
My apologies to Richard if I offended him, but frankly being fair to Richard is among the least of my worries on this day.
Y'all enjoy your beer and hotdogs.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Can we agree that the holiday we celebrate annually on July 4th in this country should be referred to as "Independence Day," not "the 4th of July"? I mean, we don't refer to Christmas as "the 25th of December," nor our own birthdays, nor our wedding day as "the 23rd of March" (randomly chosen date) or whatever. December 25th and July 4th are dates on the calendar which mark two great occasions for celebration in this country, the birth of Christ and the birth of the nation respectively. Personally I think we do a disservice to our founders and the epoch when we use the calendar date July 4th as synonymous terminology with the event which we're celebrating, or which we're supposed to be celebrating.
As John Quincy Adams, on the 61st occasion for celebrating Independence Day in this country, so ably said in a speech delivered to the citizens of Newburyport:
Why is it that next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day.
Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked to the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the Progress of the Gospel dispensation?
Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth?
That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets 600 years before.
Perhaps my traditionalist friends will at least agree with me (and with Mr. Adams) on this point. Indeed, as Mr. Adams put it, our most joyous and most venerated festival, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, returns on this day, the calendar date July 4th. The festival itself is not the same as the date on which we celebrate it.
Notwithstanding that, here's a Wikipedia article on the Declaration of Independence that you might find interesting.
Here's the first paragraph from the Wiki entry:
The United States Declaration of Independence was a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, announcing that the thirteen American colonies then at war with Great Britain were no longer a part of the British Empire. Written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration was a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. The birthday of the United States of America—Independence Day—is celebrated on July 4, the day the wording of the Declaration was approved by Congress. (emphasis added)
Happy Independence Day!
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Here's an excerpt taken from a Baltimore Sun article which exemplifies what many of us have been saying for ... how long now?
Priests with the Archdiocese of Baltimore offered prayers for the families of arrested workers in both Spanish and English. Organizers decried the raids as inhumane, called the workers victims of a broken national immigration system, and accused their employer, Annapolis Painting Services Inc., of exploiting them. (emphasis added)
Listen up all you confused and/or unethical employers out there (in English only!), if they don't turn on you themselves when the goin' gets tough, their advocates damn sure will.
As for the Priests, well, whatever.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
In an essay posted at VFR Evariste explains why he ultimately rejected the teachings of the Koran, and with that rejection the Bible itself.
There are a lot of insights to be gleaned from Evariste's lengthy essay, so I recommend that you read it ... more than once. Certain Muslim beliefs are not common knowledge among Christians. I know, for instance, that I've been confused before on exactly what issue Muslims have with the Biblical account of the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Particularly whether Muslims believe that Ishmael was the actual "son of promise." Which brings me to the point of this post, something Evariste states in his essay:
It's really an Arab supremacist religion that. Both the Arabs and the Jews are Semitic peoples with many resemblances, and Arabic and Hebrew are extremely similar languages, sharing an identical basic structure and much vocabulary, so I think there's a case to be made that the Arabic rage and fury against the Jews that manifests fully in the religion called Islam is actually an echo through history of the story of Cain and Abel, writ very, very large.
Yes, I suppose one could, more or less, accurately describe it that way; Cain angrily bludgeoned his brother Abel to death because of his outrage over the fact that God respected Abel's sacrificial gift but did not respect Cain's. But I think there's a better biblical accounting which more accurately describes the genesis of the sibling rivalry between Arabs and Jews. Namely, Genesis chapters 16, 17 and 21. It seems that the descendants of Ishmael came by their hatred for Isaac and his descendants honest, and that nothing will ever serve to satisfy them that their rightful inheritance, as descendants of the first-born son of Abraham, was not stolen from them.