Interesting exchange with Lawrence Auster

(Note: See Auster's follow-up entry on Muslim foot-washing here)

What does it mean that "by definition Muslims can't assimilate?"

In an email conversation between Lawrence Auster and I (which started out on a whole 'nother topic), I mentioned Auster's blog entry from today wherein he asserts emphatically (and rightly so in my opinion) that Muslims cannot assimilate in America.

In my mention of the entry, I ask Mr. Auster the following question...

TM writes:

Great article, by the way, on Muslim assimilation. Your friend is absolutely right. And please excuse the apparent contradiction in terms, but I've thought a lot on the subject of the "contrasting similarities" between Islam and Christianity, wherein lies the incompatability of the two belief systems and the reason for which there ain't enough room for the both of 'em in America. Have you ever thought of it in terms like that? Or in your opinion am I just totally off base here?

LA replies:

Sure, that's true in many ways, from theological beliefs on down. And those arguments need to be made. But I think more basic to the question of assimilability is things like this foot washing business. No one has thought about this before. No one on our side, including me, had thought about what Muslims actually do as part of their daily routine. Maybe we figured they prayed or whatever in private. But now we suddenly realize that in institutions throughout America they are doing their Islamic thing in shared public spaces, and expecting everyone else to adjust. These issues never came up when we began letting Muslims immigrate; we never asked ourselves what their customs are and do we want these customs in America. The other day I stepped through the actual steps of both the washing and the prayer, as described at a Muslim website. It's quite a complex procedure, for example, each foot must be washed three times, whatever that means. The person must "clean" his ears with his index finger and "clean" behind the ears with his thumb. The person must sniff water into his nostils and blow it out. To think of people doing this in workplace restrooms or college dorm restrooms several times a day is simply appalling. Yet, as I've said, we've never heard about this before.

This is where the rubber meets the road in the assimilation question. No honest person can say that such customs are conformable with America and with any Western society. The Dennis Pragers and Norman Podhoretzes of the world, who want us to wage war on "Islamofascists" abroad while we continue welcoming Muslims into America, cannot honestly maintain that Muslim footbaths belong in the shared public spaces of America.

So, this kind of issue may be simpler for people to understand and have a more direct impact on the debate than theological and moral questions.

But more information is needed. Basic journalistic legwork is needed, to find out how widespread these practices are. Are Muslims in public schools, universities, businesses, doing all this washing every day? Do they do all the prescribed steps (which are very complicated), or just a shortened version of them? How do they dry their feet? How much water is left on the floor? It seems any bathroom where this is happening is going to be mess. And how do their non-Muslim fellow students and fellow employees respond to all this? How come we haven't heard anything about it before the last month when the news came out about the new foot baths at the University of Michigan in Dearborn?

End of initial post.

**********

(I'll have some thoughts to add to this later. Thanks to Mr. Auster for answering my question, and for honoring my request to post the exchange here.)

Read More

Webster's

My apologies to everyone for not having any new posts up today. I have been working on some stuff that I'll be posting later tonight, or in the morning.

End of entry.

Read More

Christian leaders discuss viability of a third party, among other things.

Here's another story brought to us by CitizenLink. Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family indicates that a consensus was reached between himself and other Christian leaders in a meeting at Salt Lake City recently. The consensus reached, almost unanimously according to Dobson, concerns what would be a deal-breaker for these leaders when it comes to determining a choice for President among the respective candidates.

Other items on the agenda concerned the viability of creating a new third party. The full story is entered below...

The Values Test

by James C. Dobson, Ph.D., founder and chairman

Dr. Dobson says winning an election is important, but not at the expense of our core beliefs.

Reports have surfaced in the press about a meeting that occurred last Saturday in Salt Lake City involving more than 50 pro-family leaders. The purpose of the gathering was to discuss our response if both the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate standard-bearers who are supportive of abortion. Although I was neither the convener nor the moderator of the meeting, I’d like to offer several brief clarifications about its outcome and implications.

After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.

The other issue discussed at length concerned the advisability of creating a third party if Democrats and Republicans do indeed abandon the sanctity of human life and other traditional family values. Though there was some support for the proposal, no consensus emerged.

Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent or the other leaders gathered in Salt Lake City, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.

The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.

One other clarification is germane, even though unrelated to the meeting in Salt Lake City. The secular news media has been reporting in recent months that the conservative Christian movement is hopelessly fractured and internally antagonistic. The Los Angeles Times reported on Monday, for example, that supporters of traditional family values are rapidly “splintering.” That is not true. The near unanimity in Salt Lake City is evidence of much greater harmony than supposed. Admittedly, differences of opinion exist among us about our choices for president.

That divergence is entirely reasonable, now just over a year before the national election. It is hardly indicative of a “splintering” of old alliances. If the major political parties decide to abandon conservative principles, the cohesion of pro-family advocates will be all too apparent in 2008.

(This piece originally appeared as an op-ed in today's New York Times.)

Read More

Speaking of exceptional blog posts...

Go over to Katie's Dad's and read this entry where KD takes Linda Chavez severly to task over herspanic self's skewed analysis on the skewed findings of a study done by some group calling itself America's Majority Foundation, or AMF for short.

I would only add that it seems pretty telling to me that these people like Chavez so easily believe such findings without considering other relevant and somewhat obvious factors. In other words, they believe them because the want to believe them, not because they have any truthful basis. And that they want to believe them above all is telling in itself.

End of initial post.

rest of post here

Read More

Update on the excellent VFR post from yesterday

(Note: This post has been expanded to include my comments to a related VFR entry.)

If you haven't read this outstanding discussion yet, do go over and read it as the nature of the discussion has taken on a bit of a different complexion. Namely, what is the purpose of Traditionalism?

I'm reminded here of another recent VFR entry and discussion concerning this same topic; the entry in question having spawned from Hermes's excellent entry on the difficulty of being a traditionalist.

Below is posted Hannon's latest comments, with Auster's important reply. Following are my comments to the related VFR entry, The difficulty of being a traditionalist...

Hannon writes:

Another great thread. You are fortunate to have attracted so many brilliant minds who freely give of their thoughts and time. I appreciate their efforts and yours.
Having adopted your view that thought and clever analysis are not enough, that we must improvise modes of action, I found this excerpt from Alan Roebuck to be especially cogent:

"But as social deterioration worsens, non-leftist liberals (and an occasional leftist with integrity) will begin to doubt liberalism only if they hear people articulate a persuasive non-leftist worldview. Otherwise they will blame society's troubles on those who do not share their liberal worldview, or, in the best case, they will simply see a mysterious catastrophe about which nothing can be done." [emphasis mine.]

There can be no doubt that having a conservative foundation, something more unified than what we have now, in place to counter social decline is of paramount importance. It is likewise essential to have a known, traditional philosophy established during any period of history. For me this brings a new and heartening dimension to conservatism--working to establish its ready usefulness and giving it a greater purpose, beyond seeing it only as the defining ingredients of a particular worldview.


LA replies:

Hannon, following up on Alan Roebuck's point, has articulated something very important here. What is the purpose of traditionalism? It is not just to provide a critique of liberalism, though it is that. It is not just to provide us with a basis for personal and spiritual resistance to the prevailing liberal order, though it is that. It is to provide the governing philosophy for a post-liberal Western social order. Therefore the long-term task of traditionalists is to build up such a philosophy and make it an active and living part of society.

Quite a tall order, for a bunch of bloggers and essayists with no institutions, influence, political skills, or anything. But we have no choice but to start from where we are. There are certain things that we know to be true. We know that the reign of liberalism is destroying the West, and we know that the reign of liberalism cannot survive. Something must ultimately replace it. What will that something be? Multicultural distintegration? Leftist tyranny? Muslim tyanny? Neocon global democratism? Some combination of the above? Don't like any of those choices? How about a renewed Western/Christian social order? That's something worth striving for--both for us and for those who come after us.

My comments to the difficulty of being a traditionalist:

Terry M. writes:

I agree with both you and Mark J. And, yes, I tend to be more positive than negative about the future prospects of traditionalism in this country.
As I said recently to one of my friends, I believe firmly that the majority of Americans will eventually realize, by necessity, that liberalism is an untenable political doctrine because it is founded on untruth. If I am correct about this, then the job of traditionalists is not to complain about how difficult it is to be one in today's liberal climate, nor is it to recount the innumerable reasons for the impossibility of a return to traditionalism at this very moment in time. The job of traditionalists is to put forth the reasons for which traditionalism is superior to liberalism now, so that when liberalism begins to fail people, individually and collectively, they will have an alternative to which they can turn, and in which they can put their faith because of the work of traditionalists in long-since exposing the insanity of liberalism which they (liberals) will have finally coming to realize themselves.

It all takes time, and time, or long-term recovery requires patience. And not to thump the Bible at anyone, but we have biblical examples of this kind of thing recounted therein. It was the children of Israel, recently released from Egyptian bondage, who complained that self-government was too hard and that they were better off as slaves than as freedmen. And while we may not be allowed entry into the promised land, it is nonetheless the destiny of our progeny. I have to believe that.

Read More

Oklahoma Senator takes principled Constitutional stand

Do not miss this post over at Bad Eagle.com Journal. Oklahoma State Senator, Randy Brogdon, of Owasso (near Tulsa) says "the NAFTA Superhighway stops here, at the border with Oklahoma."

Hat tip to John Savage for making me aware of this article.

rest of post here

Read More

Recent Encounter with a Mexican Illegal

I've been wanting to do a blog post on this for a couple of weeks now, though I'm just now getting around to it.

I know several illegal immigrants in my area. Some of them I like, others I don't care much for. I've seen them come and I've seen them go. Several of those that I know personally, who work in my profession, I've loaned my tools, taken time out of my schedule to instruct them on how to do a job properly, and so on and so forth...

But there's one Mexican illegal I know who lives in my area, and has lived here for at least four or five years, if memory serves, and who also works in my profession, which is how I came to know him. He is a young guy, in his mid to late twenties, married with two children last I knew.

Though I knew he was still around, I had not seen this individual in probably six months or more until just a couple of weeks ago. I was in the local Lowes store picking up supplies for a job we were on when this individual tapped me on the shoulder. When I turned around to see who it was, we shook hands and began a nice five to ten minute conversation wherein we discussed the well-being of our families, our work, and this and that. We parted company expressing to one-another how genuinely happy we were to know that the other was getting along well.

This is an individual that I genuinely like, and it seems that the feeling is mutual. And once I got back to the job site I shared with my employees (who also know and like this individual) that we'd run into one-another at Lowes. Then we got into the inevitable conversation about Oklahoma's new immigration laws and how this would affect our friend. But the conclusion that we came to was that we seem to be faced with an all-or-none proposition here. And if that's the choice, then I have to go with the latter. The former is simply unthinkable because it is suicidal.

In short, I think my Mexican friend is the exception, not the rule. Indeed, given the number of Mexican illegals I've encountered in my area over the last several years, I'd say he is the extreme exception to the rule. And as much as I'd like to keep him, or to trade him for ten, twenty, or even a hundred native scumbags, my exceptional friend cannot be the determinant as to Oklahoma's internal immigration policy, nor to my view of that policy. He's not a citizen of my State, nor of the United States. And until he becomes one legally, he has no rights under our constitution and laws.

At times I may come across as being a heartless individual as concerns immigrants, which is not the case at all. I have a heart for these people and their plight, and I certainly wish them no ill will. It is also very fresh to my memory where I came from, which cannot be said to be "priveleged" in any sense of the term. On the other hand, I cannot allow my emotions to run wild with me, and to control my thinking on this or any other subject as the liberals do.

I wish my friend the best of luck once Oklahoma's immigration law takes effect in November. I hope he'll apply for citizenship through the proper channels. And hopefully Providence will smile upon him for it.

Read More

On My Counter in the left sidebar

Sebosmile asks the pertinent question as to what the counter in my left sidebar means. For those of you new to Webster's Blogspot, the counter in the left sidebar is counting down the number of days left until illegal immigrants in this state are forced to decide whether they wish to take their chances, or to "migrate" to another state in this union, or back to their country of origin. At present it is at 28 days and counting. In other words, Oklahoma's new immigration law goes into effect November 1st of this year.

End of initial entry. rest of post here

Read More

Another Great VFR Entry!

If you've not had the pleasure as yet, I want to strongly recommend that you read today's VFR entry Do liberals think they won't be harmed by national suicide? This entry ranks up there with some of the best VFR discussions I've personally had the pleasure to read. The reader's comments, though most are rather long, are well worth the read. I've got to go back through them again and pick out the ones I like the best. What a quality readership Auster has!

Kudos to Alex M. for raising the interesting question, and to Lawrence Auster for recognizing the importance of the question and for inviting his readers to "jump into the breach."

End of initial post.rest of post here

Read More

Disturbing Trend from the Judicial Branch

And in other news from the folks at CitizenLink, we're reminded yet again that the federal judiciary considers itself the ultimate and the final arbiter as to how, and by what method the U.S. Constitution is to be interpreted...

A dangerous precedent has been set here, and in my opinion we simply cannot reiterate the point often enough. Many of us recognized it and spoke out loudly against it following the Supreme Court's revisit and overturning of its previous decision in the Lawrence v. Texas case most notably. CitizenLink names the Goodridge v. Massachusetts case specifically as one example of the dangerous tendency of the Court to cite foreign and international law as its basis for its decisions in these cases.

Let us here pause to revisit the plain language of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution...

For the United States of America.

In fact, we may cite numerous passages from the Constitution which would show this tendency of the courts to be a clear violation of the spirit and letter of the U.S. Constitution. Articles VI and VII come to mind offhand.

Article VI:

"The Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land..."

Article VII:

"Done in convention...the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth..."

End of initial entry.

Read More

Reasons not to give to NRO, courtesy of WMH

In another excellent entry, Hermes over at Wise Man's Heart, offers us several good reasons not to support NRO. The same reasons that Kathryn Jean Lopez offers us for why we should donate to NRO...

(Plucked at random) From Hermes's entry:

Jay Nordlinger: Wrote that George W. Bush is a "Rushmore-level President" and that if history doesn't bear that out, "history will be wrong." Also that "I have a deep fondness — love, really — for the man, though I don't know him."

"George W. Bush is a "Rushmore-level" President?" ROTFL!!! Sorry y'all, if it weren't so funny, I'd be crying. I may well go through the range of emotions on this'n.

But y'all check out Hermes's post.

Read More

How to accomodate a 30% Arab-American/Muslim population

This story first came to me via Don Wildmon's AFA Action Alert. After doing a rather hasty internet search to verify the story, I ran across this from Free Republic, and this story from CBS 2 Chicago, the latter of which tells of the 30% figure.

Thoughts?

rest of post here

Read More

What's wrong with labeling a phobia a phobia?

John Savage has another interesting post up concerning why he finds the "phobia" label to be undesirable. John lists three specific reasons for which he believes use of the label to be mis-applied whether coming from liberals or from conservatives...

I agree with John's premises in general, and particularly where he denominates phobias (specifically 'albophobia') to be "irrational" fears. If phobias are irrational fears by definition, then fears or apprehensions that have no rational basis are properly described as "phobias." Whereas, fears and apprehensions which do have a rational basis are not properly defined as phobias, as the term fear or apprehension would suffice.

I don't have a problem per se with the phobia label as long as it is properly applied to folks who exhibit the characteristics of the term's genuine meaning. I do, however, have a problem with people irrational enough to believe Islam and homosexuality, as a couple of fine examples, present us with no dangers to our way of life. Who then turn around and apply the "phobia" label to our "condition." This is an irrational belief in the supposed non-threatening nature of Islam and homosexuality respectively; it is an irrational belief that rational conservative apprehensions about Islam and homosexuality are completely unfounded. It is, to my way of thinking, a phobia unto itself. Namely, "truthophobia," defined: an irrational fear of truth and truth sources; an extreme consuming form of fear which prefers falsehood to truth in order to maintain its dominance over the mind of man.

Read More

Toward Amending the Constitution with pinpoint accuracy, cont.

Recently we had a short discussion here concerning Lawrence Auster's amendment outline aimed at returning to some semblance of Constitutional Government...

John Savage raised a concern, in our original conversation on the matter, with the wisdom of clarifying the intent of the fourteenth amendment, specifically the incorportation doctrine which supposedly, though it's an illegitimate doctrine, establishes federal oversight regarding the protections of the first amendment, as well as those of the whole of the bill of rights.

John's concern carries over to a BNWW entry he put up while I was away. In this case he cites a New York Times story wherein the internet provider, Verizon, attempted to limit the free speech of a certain faction of its subscribers, namely, pro-abortionists. Apparently John's fear is that without federal oversight of private companies such as Verizon regarding free speech issues, then there is no ultimate and final arbiter empowered to guard and protect against arbitrary infringements on those rights.

I would simply ask John, under incorporation, who is to protect against arbitrary infringements of our first amendment priveleges from the central government?

Read More

Back to the old Grindstone

We finally made it back home "a day late and a dollar short," as they say. I don't have a whole lot to say about our trip, except that it did not go fully as planned despite my best efforts...

Specifically, since it was a work related trip, and since the building we were working on had to be ready to open Monday morning, we were forced to work through the night Sunday, finishing around 5:30 am, Monday morning. Only to find out a few hours later that we were not actually finished with our work, but that we had another room to work on which I'd understood as not originally being on the agenda. What it all boiled down to in the end was poor communication between myself and the agency overseeing the work.

But the worst part of all was that due to this lack of communication, I was unable to attend the event at the State Capitol. In fact, I don't even know whether the event ever even happened as it was scheduled to. I did a quick search on the internet, but didn't find a story.

Other than that, I did manage to make it to the local H.S. football game Friday night where I watched probably the most unimpressive rout of a lesser visiting team in the memorable history of my hometown squad, which has quite the impressive resume and tradition in Class A Oklahoma football. I saw, among other unpleasantries, passes completed for touchdowns that more resembled severly wounded ducks (which hung in the air forever it seemed) than tight spirals. As well as sixty and seventy yard running plays that should have been stopped for little if any gain, so poorly executed were the blocking schemes of the much larger home team. And I'm not being overly critical here, believe me. This team is in for a big surprise as soon as it meets up with a decent football team, which it has yet to do though it boasts a perfect record, and a top ten ranking.

But anyway...

Read More

Bush, Pentagon, FBI, all drop the ball

As I've mentioned at least a couple of times recently, I've been reading Paul Sperry's explosive book, Infiltration, How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.

I highlight the subtitle here because I want to emphasize it; I want you to take a moment and think about the implications, if Sperry is right, of what this means for the United States, our internal security, or the lack thereof. And I'm not talking about what it appears to mean just on the surface. I'm talking about what it means at the depths; what this means for loyal Americans who understand the dangers inherent to granting Muslims equal protection under the first amendment, of which, Islam, by its very nature and its teachings, cannot abide either religious provision established therein...

The obvious question is, if Islam is subversive and hostile to the religious provisions of the first amendment - both the establishment, and the free exercise provisions - not to mention the rest of the first amendment, the whole of the bill or righs, and of the whole of the U.S. Constitution, then what in the name of all that is good and holy are we doing allowing liberals and Muslims to determine how these provisions are to be applied in the case of Muslims?

But before I get too far off topic here, let me get back to Sperry's book and the reason for which I mention it here again...

In addition to corroborating what Raymond Ibrahim says, recently discussed at VFR, concerning the non-translated messages Muslim operatives direct to one-another, as opposed to those they direct to the United States and Western nations, Sperry also reveals that many of these documents go untranslated because of Muslim subversives we have working within the FBI and the Pentagon.

It seems as though shortly following the events of 911, the FBI and the U.S. government were in such a rush to hire Arabic speaking translators, that they abandoned standard hiring and security protocols, opting rather to take their chances -putting national security at risk- by quickly filling these positions with Muslims recommended by such questionable groups as CAIR. In fact, not only did the government, according to Sperry, seek the assistance of questionable Muslim groups to fill these positions, they actually hired them in preference to Arabic speaking Jews who had also applied for the positions. According to Sperry, not one of the dozens of Arabic speaking Jewish applicants was ever hired. Instead, all positions were filled by Muslims.

But here again, it is the implications of these revelations that I'm most interested in. With the Patriot Act in mind, and going beyond the obvious implications as to how these internal spies and operatives are in positions which allow them to conduct espionage operations right under the government's nose, consider the fact that they're also in a position and empowered to conduct their own undercover sting operations against the loyal citizens of this country, particularly those who, as I said before, understand the incompatible nature of Islam and seek to expose it. In other words, those who these Islamists find to be threatening to their purposes.

Mull that over for awhile. And yes, I'm taking Sperry's book with me on my trip, during which time I hope to finish it. But there's sure to be another upcoming post on this, so y'all stay tuned.

Read More

Leave of Absence

You should be informed that I'll be away from the computer for the next several days, beginning later this morning. I probably will not be back home before Tuesday of next week.

In the meantime, and if you've not already begun to think about it, do make your recommendations concerning your favorite, or what you consider to be the best traditionalist conservative immigration blog posts. I've already chosen several that I consider to be very good, and put them in the right sidebar. If any of them are unfamiliar to you, do click on the links and read them. Perhaps those that are unfamiliar to you, once read, will help to remind you of others you've read in the past.

I'll be checking in sporadically while away, so it's important that you keep these recommendations coming in. As I've said before, I'm still very new to the blogosphere, and you can see by my blogroll that I'm a little slow to expand my horizons. Speaking of which, please don't be annoyed if I haven't added your blog to my blogroll yet. It does not necessarily mean that I'm not going to add you at a future date. I'm still barely getting to know a lot of you out there. And I simply do not want to add your blog to my blogroll until I've had a chance to get to know you better. Whether Webster's is listed on your blogroll is really immaterial to me. If I think your blog should be listed here at Webster's, it'll be added eventually, count on it.

Read More

Case in Point

I mentioned several days ago that I get Don Wildmon's AFA newsletter via email. Also, I mentioned that any concern or objection that I raise with Wildmon's positions, among others, is generally ignored...

Here is a case in point, not of my raising a concern (which I long since gave up on with these Christian organizations), but of my disagreeing with a a position taken by these groups.

Specifically? I have no desire to save social security for my children and grandchildren, I want to save my children and grandchildren from social security. I don't have a problem with social security per se. What I do have a problem with is entrusting it to the federal government, as well as the involuntary nature of the social security system.

And what the h*ll is Newt doing among this group anyway???

Read More

President Bush set to break out rusty veto pen

From a story brought to us by the folks at CitizenLink, both the House and the Senate have failed to acquire enough votes to override President Bush's promised veto of a Defense spending bill containing a hate crimes amendment passed by both houses:

"The president is not going to agree to this social legislation on the Defense Authorization Bill," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told The Associated Press. "This bill will get vetoed."

The full story is entered below...

Senate Passes Dangerous Hate-Crimes Amendment

by Jennifer Mesko, associate editor

Democrats don't have enough votes to override a promised veto.

Democrats passed a hate-crimes measure today, but failed to collect enough votes to override a pledged presidential veto. The amendment, which would create a new federal class of crime based on "actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity," is attached to a Defense spending bill.

Five Republican senators who voted in favor of hate-crimes legislation in 2004 switched their votes today and opposed the measure. They are: Sens. Lamar Alexander, Tenn.; Robert Bennett, Utah; John Ensign, Nev.; and Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens, both of Alaska.

"The president is not going to agree to this social legislation on the Defense Authorization Bill," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told The Associated Press. "This bill will get vetoed."

The Democrat-controlled House passed similar legislation as a stand-alone bill earlier this year, and also fell short of the needed votes to override a veto.

In debate on the Senate floor, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., again tried to tie hate crimes to terrorism: "This is about the morality of our country, our values of our country, and that is directly tied in to what our men and women are doing overseas in resisting terrorism and fighting for the values here at home."

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., fought back: "What are we trying to accomplish here?" he asked. "Do we want to protect the Defense policy matters in this bill that actually matter to our forces in the field, or do we want to debate political and social issues on this measure?"

An alternative amendment by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, also passed. It calls for study of hate crimes.

Read More

Tancredo says N.H. bill violates federal law

(Note: This post has been slightly expanded.)

In an article in the Nashua Telegraph, the utter irrationality of some liberal New Hampshire lawmakers comes through loud and clear. Their proposal, H.B. 404, according to the story, would:

"prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from enforcing federal immigration laws." "This bill would prevent law enforcement personnel from going after suspected terrorists who are also illegal immigrants."

So, are we to take it that state and local law enforcement personnel in New Hampshire would not be prevented by this bill from going after suspected terrorists who are also "legal" immigrants; that it would only prevent them from going after terrorist immigrants of the "illegal" variety? *rolls eyes*

The article further goes on to say that:

"Congressman Tancredo's assertion that bills like HB 404 would be "aiding and abetting" people to break the law. HB 404 would be "a pretty clear violation of the federal law," as Congressman Tancredo stated, and is unmistakably counter to the spirit, if not the letter, of the law."

Contrast New Hampshire's H.B. 404 with Oklahoma's H.B. 1804, and you can see with perfect clarity the absolute opposite nature of the spirit, as well as the letter of the two bills...

With regard to the latter, it would merely empower state and local law enforcement agencies to do what the federal government has proved itself incapable and/or unwilling to do, to enforce federal immigration provisions, and only with regard to illegal immigrants. As to the former, this bill would further encourage and empower illegal aliens to continue to violate federal law, as well as to encourage, empower, and provide safe haven for illegal terrorist subversives to operate unmolested in this country. We all know the difference between crimes of omission and crimes of commission. I leave it to you to decide which category of crime this faction of the N.H. legislature would have its state engaging in.

It is, therefore, the grandest of ironies that Oklahoma's immigration law will be challenged as unconstitutional in the federal courts. And by the way, you want to talk about a term that gets kicked around way too much by both sides, the constant appeal to this term, unconstitutional, literally wears me out sometimes.

Read More

Is it immoral not to talk about race?

Since this is the first official full day of Webster's Immigration Awareness Period, let me start it out by pointing you in the direction of a discussion (perhaps still ongoing) over at VFR where Lawrence Auster asks, Is it wrong for me to talk about race?...

I should say at the outset that my purpose during this open-ended period is not to fixate on the immigration question, but to take special notice of it in the days leading up to and immediately following the events scheduled for October 1st on the steps of my State Capitol, and which I intend to be in attendance.

Second, you have undoubtedly noted that I already have this VFR entry referenced under Webster's Recommended (Immigration Related) Blogposts. But I wanted to put together a few thoughts on the discussion as I see it in a separate entry of my own. I have indeed been paying close attention to the discussion as it has progressed.

From my view, and as I said in my comments to the entry, I think the correspondent who raised the initial question about Auster's supposed "fixation" on race, is reasoning from effect to cause, or, a better way of putting it might be that he reasons bassackwards, which is pretty common these days. Also, it should be noted that whenever people engage in this kind of bassackwards, effect to cause, reasoning, they generally tend to adhere to an equally bassackwards - external to internal - approach which has people being more shaped by their environment, than their environment being shaped by people. And once more, consistent with the general reasoning process of such folks, it also involves a part to whole, rather than a whole to part methodology.

In other words, a person's, or a group's internal character doesn't matter any more than race matters to this correspondent, though I'm sure he'd argue otherwise. What he seems to be arguing, in a roundabout sort of way, is that a people such as the Mexicans only display uniquely Mexican characteristics because of their Mexican environment; they do not shape their environment, their environment shapes them. Put them in a more favorable environment and they will automatically throw off their former tendencies, shaped as they were by the poor environment they found themselves in formerly, and will adopt in their place the superior qualities of Western culture, shaped as they are by their environment. Our environment will not be reshaped by their large presence among us because, as this correspondent reasons, people don't shape their environment, their environment shapes people.

But no matter how he tries to defend himself against this view, his words have already revealed his true attitude, which is internal. His attitude is basically spelled out this way, that ten million Mexicans can come to the United States all in one shot, and in the absence of multiculturalism, they are already well equipped to adopt the American way of life, our culture, and so on, and to become, in the place of whites, and as we pass the torch to them, the new traditionalist conservatives who will carry on Western culture as we become displaced by them.

Once again, this is bassackwards thinking. If these Mexican migrants were already equipped to do this, they would have already done so in their own country. There would be no reason for them, existence of multiculturalism or not, to bring their culture with them if they held no attachment to it. Yes, there are always going to be a few; a relatively insignificant percentage of foreigners, Mexicans or whomever, who possess the internal characteristics needed to adopt Western culture. But as Auster rightly notes, large numbers of them are going to carry with them their own cultural identity in preference to Western culture, by the aid of multiculturalism, not because of it.

Now, we should not fail to recognize, no matter how uncomfortable it is for us, that things have deteriorated progressively and steadily as we've allowed more and more immigrants into this country. In other words, as the white majority in America has been steadily eroding, so too has the moral and cultural underpinnings of this nation been eroding. Like I said, it may not be comfortable to speak of it in those terms, but it is what it is. These occurances have not happened in isolation of one-another.

Furthermore, whenever someone engages in the process of part to whole methodology, as this correspondent does, the whole picture is distorted to the point that it is very unclear to the mind's eye. And as bad as I hate to be the bearer of bad news to this individual, it is Westerners, predominately whites, who have discovered, realized and developed whole to part methodology.

Whole to Part methodology, simply stated, teaches this: That you start with a whole view (not to be confused with a complete view) before you begin breaking it down to its individual parts; that the individual parts only have meaning and are understandable as they fit into the whole picture, not the other way around. For instance, one cannot fully appreciate the design of the continent of Africa, one of the continents of nature, unless he understands the design of the whole earth and what its purpose is. Likewise, one cannot fully appreciate the design of the continent of Europe, one of the continents of history, and its peculiar structure, extensive coastline, and so on and so forth, unless he first has a good idea of the whole picture of the earth and its purpose. But I digress.

The point I'm trying to make here is that whole groups of people have specific and identifiable racial and cultural qualities unique to themselves. If they did not we would not have ways of discerning these peculiarities and identifying them as qualities unique to Mexicans, or to the Chinese, or to whomever. Individuals are to be, and can only be understood properly as they form a part of the overall racial and cultural makeup of the race and people to which they belong. To take an individual of a given race and to define the race by that individual is, as I said, bassackwards. Though there are exceptions, the general rule is this, an individual is to be defined by his race and his culture. And if his race and culture are found to be incompatible with our own, then what service are we doing him or his culture in inviting him here where the conflicting worldviews must at some point clash?

The question seems to be this, does multiculturalism have the power to resolve the conflicts that naturally arise between different racial and cultural groups? Or is multiculturalism, aiding and abetting the invasion of Western nations as it is, simply going to, at length, intensify them to the point of a global and racial conflict of epic proportions? The question, moreover, is is it wrong for Auster not to talk about race?

Read More

Webster's Immigration Awareness Period

I am hereby declaring ... the next several days, maybe even weeks, to be "Webster's (open-ended) Immigration Awareness Period." With the upcoming events in this State I've already discussed thoroughly here and here, it should be obvious why I'm doing this. You will note that I've made some changes to the recommended blogposts section, adding three immigration related posts from VFR, Katie's Dad, and one from Webster's. I'll add some more later, probably one or two from VA's, and etc., the purpose being, during this period, to offer in that section a majority of immigration related blogposts from traditionalist conservative blogs.

If any of you know of some others out there that I should put up during the aforementioned Immigration Awareness Period, even if it is one of your own that I've missed or I've forgotten about, please let me know.

End of initial post.

Read More

A Formal (Webster's) Invite to the Honorable Tom Tancredo

(Update: Lawrence Auster has done me a big favor in posting my invitation letter to Tancredo's staff (which I managed to get through the proverbial back door at Tancredo's website), slightly edited, in a full VFR entry to itself. Thanks go out to Mr. Auster.)

Back on August 8th, I put up this important blog post concerning the battle about to ensue over Oklahoma's "toughest immigration legislation in the nation." For more information on what's scheduled to happen on October 1st, one month prior to the actual enactment of Oklahoma's new immigration legislation, as well as what the new law actually entails, please read the post linked above...

I was over at Tancredo's website earlier, and I wondered whether Mr. Tancredo would be available, and/or, interested in attending an event such as the one scheduled October 1st on the steps of the Capitol in Oklahoma City. On the home page of Tom's Presidential Campaign Website, I noticed two links one can click on to invite Tom to an event. So I wrote up a letter of invitation and tried to send it. But after several unsuccessful attempts, I decided to put this blog post up concerning the matter.

Now, I'll continue to try to use the official method for making Congressman Tancredo aware of, and to invite him to this event. But as for now while there seems to be some trouble with the remote server not responding to my message,...

I hereby post Webster's formal Invitation to Tom Tancredo to be in attendance and speak at the scheduled demonstration to be held at the date and place mentioned above. Traditionalist Conservative Oklahomans would be honored to have you, Sir. And as the event scheduled is obviously intended to make a public showing of the beginnings of the downfall of Oklahoma's new law, and thereby to discourage other States from defending themselves against unlawful incursions of illegal invaders, following my state's lead, your presence at this event is of national, not just state and local import.

There you have it.

Read More

Knowing Your Enemies

VA has another nice post up today that she's calling "Those outlawed emotions, again." VA makes some good points that need to be made, and that I'd like to discuss here in a more lengthy entry. But for now I'd like to focus on one statement VA makes in her post...

VA writes:

"I have to return again to Yeats's line, 'The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.' Our enemies, whether they are Latinos with revanchist intentions, or Moslems with jihad, fast or slow, in mind, ARE full of passionate intensity, while too many Americans are still in a state of denial or else they have emotionally and spiritually been disarmed. That must change, otherwise we are outclassed and overwhelmed."

This brings to mind something I recently read in Paul Sperry's book, "Infiltration, How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington." Mr. Sperry bemoans the fact, and rightly so in my opinion, that we Americans do not know our enemy well. In this case, of course, Sperry is concentrating on our enemy, Islamism.

Mr. Sperry writes:

"We are fighting a spiritual seduction we have yet to fully grasp and comprehend, hung up as we are on measuring the dreams and happiness of others against our own dreams and happiness...A virtual taboo exists in official circles about Islam's role in terrorism. It is treated as if it comes out of the blue, as if there is no religious pattern. According to the president, we are fighting "evil-doers" and "a bunch of cold-blooded killers." To hear him and the FBI director, terrorism is generic, not Islamic." (emphasis mine)

Sperry continues:

"The first rule of war is know your enemy. You cannot defeat it if you do not know what motivates it.

Yet shockingly few FBI supervisors running counterterrorism cases have ever picked up a copy of the Quran to read it, let alone study it. "Supervisors don't study the Quran. They don't do any independent analysis," says former FBI special agent, John Vincent..."When you're fighting terrorism, you have to know how they think," adds Vincent...

Unfortunately, the enemy knows us better than we know it. The al-Qaida training manual quotes an old Muslim general: "The nation that wants to achieve victory over its enemy must know that enemy very well." The Islamic terrorists have studied our system inside and out, and they know its weaknesses and how to exploit them. They know about our open society, our civil liberties, our heavy ethnic mix, and our lax immigration enforcement all too well."

(I'll be adding more to this post later.)

Read More

Quality is Superior to Quantity, and the principle applies across the board

(Update: In connection with Hermes's entry, be sure to read the VFR entry on the subject, and particularly Mark J's comments.)

Over at Wise Man's Heart, Hermes has [finally! ;)] put up another great post. I recommend that you go read it, as well as the lengthy comments he's gotten to the post. All of it is good. Some of it is a little more negative than my personal attitude generally will abide, but it's all good, as I said, and well worth the read.

But I'd like to focus my attention on one aspect Hermes brings out in the post, and to ask Hermes (or anyone else who has the answer) one of those politically incorrect questions that many of us seem to shy away from asking...

First of all, let me say that I do admit a little disappointment at going to Hermes's blog and finding that no new entry has been added in awhile. But why? Because of the quality of his posts. In other words, Hermes, I'm learning quickly that the quality of your posts makes it well worth my while to check your blog for new entries on a regular basis.

Now, I have to ask the politically incorrect question. Hermes mentions that he and his fellow medical students were required to take an IQ exam prior to being admitted to medical school. The question is this: Do you know whether the standards with regard to the IQ exam are different concerning "minorities?" For instance, when I was in the Air Force years ago, I learned from two female co-workers (an African American, and a Cuban American) that the grade requirements for acceptance into officer's training school were lower for them than they were for me, based, of course, on their minority status.

This knowledge precipitated a heated exchange between myself and the ladies mentioned wherein the bottom of their argument was that this policy was acceptable because they didn't have the same educational opportunities that I had growing up. My response to this nonsense was simply this: If you think I had more "educational" opportunities than you had growing up, you are sadly mistaken and deluded. Indeed, and as I further argued, what they were saying in actuality was that it was they, not I, who had more educational advantages given them (not earned), and those perceived advantages for them would follow them around for the rest of their lives. But the higher point was that by lowering the standards for entry into officer's training school, this could do nothing but lower the overall quality of the leadership of the U.S. Military, which, of course, results in a sub-par military; at very least a sub-par officer corps.

Now, I don't recall whether the conversation ever got around to discovering whether this disparity in standards (one reason for this is because the conversation got cut short when accusations of bigotry and racism were carelessly cast about concerning another co-worker who was arguing the same points I was, just a little more forcefully, and who was called before the commander who ultimately determined that there would be no more talk of different standards applying to different groups) applied to different groups carried over into the actual grading of achievement once a minority applicant was actually admitted by a lower standard, but it seems to me that to be consistent in the lowering of such standards, that this would have to be the case, or the final outcome.

So once again, the question is this: Do any of you know whether different IQ requirements, and/or, different grading standards are applied within the medical field to applicants and students enjoying "minority" status? Quality in the medical field is superior to quantity of minority applicants accepted. And you can quote me on that.

As I recently explained to my gymnast daughter (who has shown a capacity for making most of the requirements of the next level, albeit somewhat inconsistently at this point), who wants to advance to the next level so badly she can taste it, and has expressed that she hopes her instructors will move her up: "Your instructors don't determine when you advance; you determine when you advance, and don't you ever forget it." The point being this, that irregardless of what she achieves or doesn't achieve in gymnastics or anything else, I don't want her ever thinking her achievements based in anything other than a combination of God-given talents and hard work on her part in developing those talents. I certainly will never encourage such an attitude in any of my children. And those of you that do, or will, should be ashamed of yourselves! And you can quote me on that as well.

Read More

Savage on Legislating Morality

Over at Brave New World Watch, John Savage has put up another interesting entry concerning legislating morality. One thing I've argued ... forever it seems, is that everyone, irregardless of how often or how vehemently they deny it, has an inseparable personal bond to legislating morality...

I've argued this position in any number of ways, stating it in a variety of terms. In fact, if I recall correctly, one of the first things my brothers and I over at the AFB (the orginal three of us) discussed was this idea of legislating morality, or, that all laws are founded on a moral perspective, someone's moral perspective. My argument today is essentially the same as it was then: that all legislation can be reduced to a moral foundation whether it's coming from liberals, conservative, libertarians, or any of their offshoots. Why? Because we're all human beings, which is to say "moral" beings.

But I think there's an underlying principle that needs to be brought out here. And it is basically this:

Someone who denies that they wish to legislate on a moral basis, and there are many of them across party lines, is almost irrelevant to any cause seeking to set things aright. Until one embraces this fundamental truth, they are simply living a lie, and there is no basis for a truth-seeker to give any credence to what they say.

From my view, I have a lot more respect for someone who admits a fondness and attachment to legislating morality, even someone whose morality I disagree with. At least that person is honest about his intentions. I appreciate honesty in anyone, particularly concerning one's motives, even those I have differences with.

Dishonesty about one's attachment to legislating morality betrays a person's ill-intentions, whatever party he aligns himself with. On the other hand, we have to recognize that some folks are not necessarily dishonest about legislating morality as much as they are misguided about it. But in either case, dishonesty or misguidedness, someone who denies an attachment to legislating morality while at the same moment appealing to a moral perspective as the foundation of his position, warrants little attention.

If people are incapable of separating their morality from their politics (and I firmly believe this is the case) then what good is it to any cause to claim an "amoral" position? And by the way, I think the term "amoral" is an altogether illegitimate term insofar as it defines a person's actual position on a given subject. All the term is good for, in my view, is to show where a person claims to be on a given subject, not where he actually is. In other words, you can bet your bottom dollar every time that an individual holds a moral position, in spite of the fact that he claims a position of moral neutrality. In fact, many times this claim of moral neutrality betrays a sense in the individual claiming it, of holding the moral high ground. Which sort of defeats the purpose, don't ya know.

Read More

The Islamist Trojan Horse

In case some of you missed reading the VFR entry, The Islamist Penetration of America that We are doing nothing to Prevent, posted early yesterday and now buried beneath several other posts, do click on the link provided and read the important entry.

End of initial entry.

Read More

2005 FrontPage Interview with Paul Sperry

Paul Sperry is the author of the book "Infiltration, How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington". I mentioned a while back that I had purchased a copy of Mr. Sperry's 2005 book at a local Christian bookstore.

Though I've not yet read the book in its entirety (I've been reading it in conjunction with several other volumes), I ran across Sperry's website, SperryFiles.com, while reading through the afterword of the book. Posted below is a sample Q & A from the Front Page interview conducted with Mr. Sperry, posted on Sperry's website linked above...

Sample Q & A:

FP: Islamism extinguishes women's rights, gay rights, minority rights and all democratic rights one could imagine. These are supposed to be at the core of leftist values. Why is the Left having a love affair with an entity that extinguishes everything that it supposedly holds dear?

Sperry: Because they want to continue worshiping at the altar of cultural diversity. The Left has never met a culture or religion it didn't like, no matter how extreme, violent or anathema to our way of life, even one that uses the civil liberties the Left holds dear against us to gain a bigger foothold in our culture with the hopes of one day denying us those same liberties. Islamists secretly want to Islamize America, which as you say would extinguish women's rights, gay rights, minority rights and the rights of all minority religions to flourish like we're letting Islam flourish right now. And even faced with the threat of another mass-scale attack, the lefties would rather protect their claim to the mantle of tolerance for tolerance sake than their own country. But it's not just the left that won't wake up to the threat. Republican Paul Findley wrote a book about Islam that reads like an endless love letter. Two of the Muslim leaders he lionizes on the cover—Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian—are now behind bars on terror charges! (Findley told me he only regrets putting Alamoudi, a confessed terror conspirator, on the cover.) Then there's GOP operative Grover Norquist, an agent of influence for Islamists in Washington, as I detail in Infiltration and support through several alarming documents posted on sperryfiles.com. Because he's best pals with Karl Rove, he's getting to place bad people in the White House, DHS, the Transportation Department, and other key sensitive agencies in the war on terror. And he and his partner—Palestinian activist and former Alamoudi deputy Khaled Saffuri—are getting the president to legitimize Islam by placing pro-Islam political messages in his speeches. Bush is the first president to mention "mosques" and the "Quran" in inaugural addresses. The stated goal of their Islamic Institute, which got seed money from Alamoudi, is to promote Muslim activists to positions of power.

The entire interview is posted on Sperry's website which is linked above.

Read More

Nothing So Absurd...

And I have to point you in the direction of Vanishing American where she puts up a nice entry on whether 'good people,' because of their 'goodness' are resigned to doing nothing.

In my comment to the entry I quote the familiar refrain (probably more familiar to traditionalists than most) which basically states that "There is nothing so absurd than when something it repeated often enough, people begin to believe it." It applies to VA's post in a way that I bring out in my comments.

Also, VA points out in the post that "evil" can sometimes mean an absence of real good. I believe this is precisely what evil is; that the only thing real between the two, good and evil, is good.

Read More

Neoconned Christian Coalitions; What is Their Value?

(By the way, I have an answer for the question raised in this post title. But I'm hoping some of you will offer your own opinion. I'll share my answer later.)

John Savage has a very correct post up this morning concerning the nature of Christian leadership coalitions to take neoconservative postions on the different and various issues facing the nation.

You need to read John's entry because mine is going to view the subject from something of a different angle...

Particularly, John speaks of the "Forgotten Americans Coalition," consisting of various big-name leaders within the Christian political movement, Pat Robertson of CBN, Don Wildmon of AFA, et al.

With regard to Wildmon, I get his AFA newsletter, and as I said in my comments to John's post, I tend to disagree with Wildmon's approach more than I agree with it. But Wildmon is a good example of another problem I have with these groups in that they pay no mind, in my experience, to concerns with their policies offered them of their readers.

Indeed, I personally have had much more success, by a long shot even, raising concerns with elected officials at the State and national levels of government than with these organizations and their policies. I could give you numerous examples of what I'm talking about, but suffice it to say that if I express a concern, or numerous concerns, with one of my U.S. Senators for example, most of the time I can count on the fact that their office, someone in their office, is going to respond to my concerns, and in a very detailed fashion. In other words, they're going to respond most of the time, by my experience, in a fashion something like this: "here's the concern you raise with this issue; and this is how I would answer you..."

In contrast, I've raised numerous concerns with numbers of these organizations before, and generally speaking I can expect to get no response from them. If I do happen to get an occasional response, it's one of those kinds of replies you'd expect to get from your elected officials, i.e., "Thank you for your interest in this issue. Your opinion is very important to me ... Would you consider supporting my campaign for re-election with a generous love offering. The Lord will bless you." lol

But seriously, I would like to know whether any of you have had the same kinds of experiences. Or is it just me that these Christian organizations are ignoring? I finally just gave up on expressing concerns with these groups. What's the point?

Read More